Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26059)
Petitioner
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard, a workers’ association registered with DOLE Region III for purposes of mutual aid and protection.
Respondent
- Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment
- Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines
Key Dates
- February 16, 2010: Samahan filed application for registration with DOLE Region III.
- February 26, 2010: DOLE Region III issued Certificate of Registration.
- March 15 & 18, 2010: Hanjin petitioned DOLE to cancel registration, alleging ineligible membership and misrepresentation.
- April 20, 2010: DOLE Regional Director granted cancellation.
- September 6, 2010: BLR reversed DOLE decision, upheld registration but directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name.
- November 28, 2011: BLR affirmed its reversal and the naming directive.
- July 4, 2013 & January 28, 2014: Court of Appeals reinstated DOLE cancellation and affirmed name‐removal directive.
- October 14, 2015: Supreme Court rendered the final decision on certiorari.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3; Article III, Section 8
- Labor Code of the Philippines (especially Articles 243 [now 249], 246 [now 252], 255 [now 261])
- Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 (Omnibus Rules on labor‐organization registration)
Facts
Samahan, representing 120 workers at Hanjin Shipyard, applied for registration as a legitimate workers’ association. Hanjin challenged the registration on two grounds: (1) one‐third of Samahan’s members were employees with definite employers and thus ineligible for a workers’ association; and (2) Samahan misrepresented its membership by using the phrase “Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard,” implying all members were Hanjin employees.
Procedural History
- DOLE Region III granted Hanjin’s petition and cancelled Samahan’s registration (April 2010).
- BLR reversed the cancellation, ruled no prohibition on definite‐employer employees forming a workers’ association, and held the naming issue did not justify delisting (September 2010). It later directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from its name (November 2011).
- Samahan filed certiorari with the Court of Appeals; CA dismissed for procedural defect but reinstated on reconsideration. On the merits, CA reinstated DOLE’s cancellation order and affirmed name removal (July 2013, January 2014).
- Samahan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues
I. Whether employees with definite employers may form a workers’ association instead of a labor union, and whether the CA erred in cancelling Samahan’s registration on that basis.
II. Whether the CA erred in ordering the removal of “Hanjin” from the association’s name, invoking the company’s property rights over its trade name.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Right to Self-Organization: The Constitution and Labor Code guarantee all workers the right to self-organization, encompassing unions, workers’ associations, and labor-management councils. Article 249 permits workers—including those with definite employers—to form associations for mutual aid and protection. Department Order No. 40-03 likewise confirms that definite-employer employees may join or form workers’ associations for purposes other than collective bargaining.
- Choice of Organizational Form: Workers may freely choose to form either a union (for collective bargaining) or an association (for mutual aid). The CA’s insistence that Samahan should have formed a union infringed this liberty.
- Misrepresentation Claim: To warrant cancellation of registration, misrepresentation must be deliberate, malicious, and materially significant. Hanjin failed to prove that the use of “Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” in Samahan’s constitution and by-laws amounted to such fraud. No evidence showed that the phrase affected adoption of the constitution, election of officers, o ...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26059)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ July 4, 2013 Decision and January 28, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 123397.
- The CA had reinstated DOLE Regional Director’s April 20, 2010 Decision canceling the registration of Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard (“Samahan”) as a workers’ association.
- Originally, DOLE Region III granted certification of registration on February 26, 2010; Hanjin then petitioned for cancellation before DOLE-Pampanga.
- DOLE Regional Director Ernesto Bihis granted the cancellation on April 20, 2010; Samahan appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
- BLR reversed the cancellation on September 6, 2010, but directed the removal of “Hanjin Shipyard” from the association’s name in its November 28, 2011 Resolution.
- CA initially dismissed Samahan’s petition for certiorari for failure to move for reconsideration, reinstated it by resolution of October 22, 2012, and on July 4, 2013 dismissed the petition and reinstated the DOLE cancellation.
Facts of the Case
- On February 16, 2010, Samahan, through Alfie F. Alipio, applied for registration as a workers’ association under Article 243 (now 249) of the Labor Code.
- Application included a list of 120 members, officers, February 7, 2010 meeting attendees’ signatures, and copies of its Constitution and By-laws.
- DOLE-Pampanga issued a Certificate of Registration on February 26, 2010.
- Hanjin filed a petition on March 15, 2010, to cancel the registration, arguing that one-third of Samahan’s members had definite employers and thus could not form a workers’ association under the second sentence of Article 243.
- On March 18, 2010, Hanjin added an alternative ground of misrepresentation, claiming Samahan misrepresented members’ qualifications in its application.
- Samahan moved to dismiss instead of filing a substantive pleading at the DOLE conference.
Rulings Below
- DOLE Regional Director (April 20, 2010)
- Found Samahan’s preamble (“Kami, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard…”) admitted that all its members were Hanjin employees.
- Held that 57 members with definite employer status should have formed a union, not an association.
- Ruled Samahan committed misrepresentation; cancelled its registra