Heritage Hotel v.

PIGLAS-Heritage Labor 2; Labor Organizations; Registration of Unions

07
G.R. No. 177024 30 October 2009 J. Abad J. Cuevas

Pet.: The Heritage Hotel Manila (Grand Res.: Pinag-Isang Galing At Lakas Ng Mga Manggagawa
Plaza Hotel Corporation) Sa Heritage Manila (PIGLAS- Heritage)

Recit Ready Summary

Rank and file employees of the Heritage Hotel Manila formed a union called Heritage Hotel
Employees Union [HHE]. The union was registered and it later filed a petition for certification
election. The Hotel opposed this, claiming that the union concealed its affiliation with a national union,
with which the Hotel’s supervisors were already affiliated. The Hotel later filed a petition for
cancellation of HHE’s registration on this ground. Both the Med-arbiter and the Labor Secretary
granted HHE’s petition for certification election, but the CA enjoined this until the Hotel’s petition for
cancellation was resolved.

In the meantime, certain rank and file employees formed and registered another union called PIGLAS.
Thereafter, HHE (the first union) dissolved itself and had its registration cancelled. PIGLAS then filed
for a petition for certification election, which the Hotel again opposed. The Hotel filed a petition for
cancellation of registration, claiming that PIGLAS’s members are also the those who comprised
HHE, thus “violating the policy on dual unionism.” The Hotel also claimed that PIGLAS was guilty of
material misrepresentation in its application for registration: the minutes of its organizational meeting
showed that 90 members attended the meeting, yet 128 signatures appeared on the signature sheet,
and 127 members to ratified the union’s constitution. Both the DOLE and the CA dismissed the Hotel’s
claims.

Was PIGLAS guilty of fraud and material representation? NO.

Is “dual unionism” a ground for cancellation of union registration? NO.

1. Fraud and material misrepresentation in securing union registration is a serious charge that
must be clearly established by evidence. Here, apart from the discrepancies in the attendance
and signature sheets, the Hotel provided no other proof of misrepresentation. These
discrepancies could be easily explained: the meeting lasted for 12 hours (11AM-11PM), so it
was possible that more members came in after the roll call at the beginning. Moreover, the fact
that only 127 of the 128 attending members ratified the union’s constitution is immaterial, as
any member can choose not to ratify the same.

2. Dual unionism is not a ground for cancellation of registration. The right of any person to
join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. In

ALS B2021 1
 any case, the first union is dead; it had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had
already been cancelled. Thus, this issue is moot and academic.

Facts [This is a 6 page case on CDAsia if you want to read read the original]

Heritage Hotel Employees Union [the first union]

1. In 2000, rank and file employees of Heritage Hotel Manila [Hotel] formed the Heritage Hotel
Employees Union [HHE]. The DOLE subsequently issued HHE its certificate of registration.

2. HHE later filed a petition for certification election1 with the DOLE, which the Hotel opposed.
The Hotel alleged that HHE misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when it was in truth
a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries
[NUWHRAIN]. The Hotel claimed that HHE intentionally concealed its affiliation with NUWHRAIN
because the Hotel's supervisors union was already affiliated with it. On this ground, the Hotel also
filed a petition for cancellation of HHE’s registration certificate.

3. The Med-arbiter2 granted the petition for certification election despite the Hotel’s opposition. This
was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor so the Hotel appealed to the CA.

4. The CA enjoined the holding of the certification election until the petition for cancellation of the
union’s registration shall have been resolved.

Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Heritage Hotel (the second union)

5. Meanwhile, rank and file employees held a meeting and formed another union called the Pinag-
Isang Galing at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Heritage Hotel [PIGLAS]. It was also later issued a
registration certificate from the DOLE.

6. Two months later, the HHE adopted a resolution for its own dissolution and thereafter filed a
petition for cancellation of its registration with the DOLE.

7. PIGLAS then filed a petition for certification election with the DOLE, which the Hotel again
opposed. The Hotel alleged:
- PIGLAS’s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union, HHE.
- PIGLAS was formed to circumvent the CA’s injunction against the holding of the certification
election

1
DOLE website says: “A certification election is a process of determining through secret ballot the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining.”

2
DOLE website says: “Med-arbiter refers to an officer of the Regional Office […] authorized to hear and decide
representation cases […] except cancellation of registration cases.”

ALS B2021 2
 8. Despite the Hotel’s opposition, the Med-arbiter granted the petition for certification election.

9. The Hotel then filed a petition for cancellation of PIGLAS’s registration. It alleged that there
were false information contained in the union’s application for registration, particularly the following
discrepancies between the attendance and signature sheets:

- The List of Members showed that PIGLAS had 100 members;

- The Organizational Minutes stated that 90 employees attended the meeting on 10 Dec. 2003;
- The Attendance Sheet for the 10 Dec. 2003 meeting had signatures of 127 members who
ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws;
- The Signature Sheet had 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting.
10. The Hotel claimed that PIGLAS was required to submit the names of all its members, comprising
at least 20 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. Yet the List of Members showed only
100 members, when the signature and attendance sheets showed membership of 127 or 128
employees. This amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the
union's registration.
11. The Hotel also claimed that 33 members of PIGLAS were members of the defunct HHE union,
thus violating the policy against dual unionism and showing that PIGLAS was merely an alter ego
of HHE.

12. The DOLE denied the Hotel’s petition to cancel PIGLAS’s registration. It held that:

- The discrepancies in the documents were not material and did not constitute
misrepresentation.
- Dual unionism is not a ground for cancelling registration. It merely exposed a union member to
a possible charge of disloyalty, which is an internal matter.
- The members of HHE simply exercised their right to self-organization and to the freedom of
association when they joined PIGLAS.
13. On the Hotel’s appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relation [BLR], the DOLE’s decision was affirmed.
The BLR held:

- PIGLAS’s meeting lasted for 12 hours. Thus, it was possible for the number of attendees to
have increased from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed.
- Besides, the bargaining unit had 250 employees, so the union needed only 50 members to
comply with the 20 percent membership requirement. Thus, the union cannot be accused of
misrepresentation “since it did not pad its membership to secure registration.”
- The issue on dual unionism is moot and academic, since HHE has been dissolved.
14. The Hotel appealed to the CA, but the CA dismissed the same due to the Hotel’s failure to attach
material portions of the record. The Hotel filed and MR with the missing records but the CA still
dismissed the same.

Points of Contention

Heritage Hotel maintains that:

- PIGLAS made a fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration [Fact 9-10]
- Some members of HHE are also members of PIGLAS, thus violating the policy on dual
unionism [Fact 11]
Issues Ruling

ALS B2021 3
 1. Was it proper for the CA to dismiss the petition outright due to failure to attach 1. No
material portions of the record? [Procedural]
2. Was PIGLAS guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in its application for registration?
3. Is “dual unionism” a ground for cancellation of registration? 2. No
3. No
Rationale

1. [Procedural; Skip to 2] The CA should not have dismissed the petition and should have
allowed the Hotel to supply the missing materials.

- The CA has three courses of action when the annexes to the petition are insufficient:
o Dismiss the petition,
o Require the submission of the relevant documents, or
o Order the filing of an amended petition with the required pleadings or documents.
- A petition lacking in essential pleadings or portions of the record may still be given due course,
or reinstated if earlier dismissed, upon subsequent submission of the necessary documents or
to serve the higher interest of justice.

2. PIGLAS did not commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union
registration.

- Fraud and misrepresentation in securing a union’s registration is a serious charge. Once

proven, the union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations.
- These charges should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

- Here, apart from the discrepancies between the attendance and signature sheets, the Hotel
provided no other evidence of misrepresentation. The discrepancies alone cannot be taken as
an indication that PIGLAS misrepresented the information contained in those documents.
- The discrepancies can also be explained:
o While 90 members responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed
that such number could not grow to 128, as reflected on the signature sheet.
o The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There is no evidence that
the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late attendees.
o There is nothing irregular about the fact that only 127 ratified the union's constitution
and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet. It cannot be assumed that all
those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. Any member had the
right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the
process.
- Also, the discrepancy between the List of Members (indicating 100) and the signature and
attendance sheets (showing 127 and 128) is immaterial.
o Except for six members, the names found in the List of Members are also in the
attendance and signature sheets.
o The bargaining unit that PIGLAS sought to represent had 250 employees. Only 20%
of this number (or 50 employees) were required to unionize. Here, PIGLAS more than
complied with such requirement.

ALS B2021 4
 3. “Dual unionism” is not a ground for cancellation of a union’s registration.

- The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union's members were also members of HHE is not
a ground for canceling the PIGLAS’s registration.
- The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization
and join another one.
- In any case, HHE is dead; it had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already
been cancelled. Thus, this issue is moot and academic.

Final Word:

“Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so would affirm its
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. Here, the PIGLAS union's supporting
documents reveal the unmistakable yearning of petitioner company's rank and file employees to
organize. This yearning should not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.”

Disposition: Petition denied. PIGLAS is not guilty of misrepresentation and “dual unionism” is not a
ground for cancellation of union registration.

The Heritage Hotel v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas

FACTS

HHE filed a petition for certification election which Heritage Hotel opposed on the ground that
HHE misrepresented itself to be an independent union when it was actually a local chapter of
NUWHRAIN. Another union, PIGLAS, was formed by rank and file employees and filed a petition
for certification election, while HHE filed a petition for cancellation of its own union registration.
Heritage Hotel opposed PIGLAS’ petition on the ground that the new union members were also
those that comprised the old union so its establishment was a circumvention of the earlier
injunction issued by CA. DOLE denied Heritage Hotel’s petition to cancel registration because the
discrepancies in the number of members in the application’s supporting documents were not material
and did not constitute misrepresentation, and that dual unionism is not a ground for cancelling
registration.

ISSUE

W/N there was mispresentation in the case? NO

RULING

ALS B2021 5
The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its
registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge
is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations.
Charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding
circumstances.

While the hotel claims that PIGLAS union is required to submit the names of all its members, yet
PIGLAS only submitted 100 members even though the signature and attendance sheet reflects 127
or 128 employees. However, such discrepancy is not material. The bargaining unit that PIGLAS union
sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees
were required to unionize. Thus, the union more than complied with such requirement. At any rate,
for as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the
constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with
registration requirement. Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing so
would affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization

ALS B2021 6