Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc v.

Secretary of Labor(2009)

Nachura, ​J.

I. FACTS:

May 4, 2005 - ​Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc (SMMSC-Independent), the
respondent, was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by the DOLE Region 4A.

June 14, 2005 - ​Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, the petitioner, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration
against respondent, claiming that RESP violated Art. 234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20%
requirement, and that it committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Art. 239.

August 26, 2005 - ​Regional Director of DOLE 4A issued an order revoking the registration of RESP and delisting
it from the roster of labor unions.

Bureau of Labor Relations: ​RESP appealed and the BLR granted this appeals disposing that the decision of
DOLE Regional Director is reversed and set aside. SMMSC-Independent remains in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations. PET filed a MR but was denied.

CA: ​PET filed a Petition for Certiorari but this court denied for lack of merit. MR was also denied.

II. ISSUE:

W/N SMMSC-Independent complied with the 20% membership requirement. ​Yes.

W/N SMMSC-Independent committed misrepresentation, fraud or false statement. ​No.

W/N the affidavits of recantation can be given credence. ​No.

III. RATIONALE:

PET: ​RESP failed to comply with the 20% union membership requirement for its registration because of the
disaffiliation of 102 employees who executed affidavits recanting their union memberships.

Affidavits state:

Ako, _____________, Pilipino, may sapat na gulang, regular na empleyado bilang Rank & File sa Mariwasa Siam
Ceramics, Inc., Bo. San Antonio, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, matapos na makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya at
kusang loob na nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:

1. Ako ay napilitan at nilinlang sa pagsapi sa Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. o
SMMSC-Independent sa kabila ng aking pag-aalinlangan[;]

2. Aking lubos na pinagsisihan ang aking pagpirma sa sipi ng samahan, at handa ako[ng] tumalikod sa anumang kasulatan
na aking nalagdaan sa kadahilanan na hindi angkop sa aking pananaw ang mga mungkahi o adhikain ng samahan. aIcSED

SA KATUNAYAN NANG LAHAT, ako ay lumagda ng aking pangalan ngayong ika-____ ng ______, 2005 dito sa Lalawigan
ng Batangas, Bayan ng Sto. Tomas.

____________________

Nagsasalaysay

Evidently, these affidavits are written and prepared in advance, ready to be filled out with employees’ names and
signatures.

The first allegation in the affidavit is a declaration that in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was forced and deceived
into joining the union. However, it could be noted that the affidavit did not mention the people who allegedly forced
the workers into joining the union and the circumstances constituting said force and deceit. The allegation was
generally stated and was not supported by evidence.

Second, the allegation ostensibly bares the affiant’s regret for joining the union and expresses the desire to abandon
or renege from the agreement he may have signed regarding his union membership.

Simply put, through these affidavits, it is made to appear that the affiants recanted their support of the respondent
union’s application for registration.

La Suerte v. Director of BLR: W ​ ithdrawals or retraction of membership made before filing of the petition for
certification election are more convincing since it shows more voluntariness because the names of those supporting
the petition are held in secret to the opposite party. Withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed
involuntary. It would not be unexpected that the opposite party would use foul means for the subject employees to
withdraw their support.

ITCAB, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities of the union members became public. The
purported withdrawal of support for the registration of the union was made after the documents were submitted to
the DOLE. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that employees were not totally free from the employer’s pressure.
Also, all the affidavits, even though executed on different dates, were all sworn before a notary public on June 8,
2005.

Accordingly, the SC deemed that the affidavits of recantation cannot be given credence because these were executed
under suspicious circumstances and contain allegations unsupported by evidence.

Nevertheless, assuming that the affidavits are valid, the legitimacy of the labor organization must be affirmed
because at the time of the union’s application for registration, the affiants in the affidavits were still considered
members of the respondent union and they comprised more than 20% membership requirement for registration.
Art. 234 merely requires 20% membership during the application for union registration. It does not mandate that a
union must maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughout its existence.

For the purpose of decertifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto; the minutes of rati fication; or, in connection with the election of officers, the minutes of the
election of o fficers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly
elected-appointed o fficers and their postal addresses to the BLR.

In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have possibly committed
misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged failure of respondent to indicate with mathematical
precision the total number of employees in the bargaining unit is of no moment, especially as it was able to comply
with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Even if the total number of rank-and- le employees of
petitioner is 528, while respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be denied that the latter would
have more than complied with the registration requirement.

IV. DISPOSITIVE: ​WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.