Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.
21. HERITAGE HOTEL, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, respondents.
G.R. No. 172132, July 23, 2014 Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any
NATURE Appeal from decision of CA petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
Plaintiff Heritge Hotel investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the
Defendant Secretry of Labor employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their
Ponente J., Bersamin representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any
partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
EMPLOYER: (FIELD OF INDUSTRY OR NATURE OF BUSINESS) motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees
participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will
lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only
EMPLOYEE (NATURE OF WORK/ SERVICES RENDERED/ ALLEGED right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
RELATIONSHIP)
FACTS.
DOCTRINE.
Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole concern of
the workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the certification election is
concerned. Thus, the petitioner Employer lacked the legal personality to assail the
proceedings for the certification election, and should stand aside as a mere bystander who
could not oppose the petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders relative to the
conduct of the certification election. As the Court has explained in Republic v. Kawashima
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
On October 11, 1995, National Union of Workers (NUWHRAIN) filed a petition for NO. Basic is the realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole concern
certification election seeking to represent all the supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel of the workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as certification election is
Manila. concern.
On February 14, 1996, Heritage Hotel Manila filed an opposition on the conduct of the Thus, Heritage Hotel Manila lacked the legal personality to assail the proceeding for the
certification election on the ground that the membership of NUWHRAIN consisted of certification election, and should stand aside as a mere bystander who could not oppose the
managerial, confidential and rank-in-file employees. It contended that a labor union of mixed petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiter’s order to the conduct of the certification election.
membership of supervisory and rank-and-file employees had no legal right to petition for the
certification election pursuant to the pronouncements in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any
v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union16(Toyota Motor) and Dunlop petition to any petition for certification election, such proceeding is non-adversarial and
Slazenger (Phils.) v. Secretary of Labor and Employment merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent
the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer.
On May 12, 2000, Heritage Hotel filed a petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN’s
registration as a labor union for failure to submit its annual financial reports and an updated The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer
list of members as required by articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code. cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the
process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it, not even a mere allegation that some
The opposition by the Heritage Hotel was denied by the Labor Med-arbiter Tomas F. employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial
Falconitin and finally DOLE directed the certification elections. employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election.
The certification election proceeded as scheduled and NUWHRAIN obtained the majority The employer’s only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
votes of the bargaining unit.
The employer’s meddling in the conduct of the certification election among its employees
unduly gave rise to the suspicion that it intended to establish a company union.
ISSUE/S and RULING:
With regard to mixed group of employees in a union
(1) Whether the employer has the legal right to oppose the certification election on the
ground that the membership of the union consisted of managerial, confidential and rank- A.)
and-file employees.
Worth reiterating is that the actual functions of an employee, not his job designation,
determined whether the employee occupied a managerial, supervisory or rank-and-file
position.42 As to confidential employees who were excluded from the right to self-
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
organization, they must (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal
formulated, determined, and effectuated management policies in the field of labor relations. In addresses to the BLR.
that regard, mere allegations sans substance would not be enough, most especially because the
constitutional right of workers to self-organization would be compromised.
We note that NUWHRAIN-HHMSC filed its petition for the certification election on October
B.) 11, 1995. Conformably with Kawashima, the applicable law was the 1989 Amended Omnibus
Rules, and the prevailing rule was the pronouncement in Toyota Motor and Dunlop Slazenger
Mixed membership is not a ground for canceling the union registration, except when such was to the effect that a labor union of mixed membership was not possessed with the requisite
done through misrepresentation, false representation or fraud under the circumstances personality to file a petition for the certification election.
enumerated in Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor Code
(2) Whether the filing of the petition for the cancellation of union’s registration bar the
The 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was amended on June 21, 1997 by Department Order No. conduct of the certification election.
9, Series of 1997. Among the amendments was the removal of the requirement of indicating in NO. Under the long established rule, the filing of the petition for the cancellation of
the petition for the certification election that there was no co-mingling of rank-and-file and NUWHRAIN’s registration should not bar the conduct of the certification election.
supervisory employees in the membership of the labor union. This was the prevailing rule
when the Court promulgated Tagaytay Highlands, declaring therein that mixed membership In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the registration would have prevented
should have no bearing on the legitimacy of a registered labor organization, unless the co- NUWHRAIN from continuing to enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor
mingling was due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud as provided in Article 239 of union, including the right to the petition for the certification election.
the Labor Code.40cralawlawlibrary
The employer’s petition for cancellation of union registration can be accused of interfering
Presently, then, the mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of the registered union activities.
labor union unless the same was done through misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
according to Article 239 of the Labor Code. In Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution enumerates the fundamental rights of the employees
Relations,41 we categorically explained that— such as (1) the right of all workers to self-organization, (2) collective bargaining and
negotiations and (3) peaceful concerted activities.
Clearly, then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the
rank-and-file union includes ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article 239 Thus, the cancellation of a certificate or registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of
(a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses as a rule - its right under the Labor
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by- Code.
laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
Under RA 9481, it amended and inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-A on reportorial
requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the
erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership or any appropriate
DECISION.
Petition DENIED.
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
