De Ocampo Memorial Schools v. Bigkis Manggagawa Sa De Ocampo Memorial School
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. v. Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc., G.R. No. 192648, March 15, 2017
- Labor Law
- labor relations
- cancellation of union registration
- Article 247 Labor Code
- misrepresentation
- fraud
- commonality of interest
- inappropriate bargaining unit
- mixed membership
- Bureau of Labor Relations
- legitimate labor organization
I. Facts of the Case
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc., which runs a hospital (DOMMC) and a school (DOMC), sought to cancel the union registration of Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. (BMDOMSI). It claimed the union committed fraud and misrepresentation because it shared officers and members with the hospital union (BMDOMMC), whose registration had already been cancelled, and that its members lacked commonality of interest. The BLR and the Court of Appeals found no ground for cancellation, and the school elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
September 26, 2003
Union Registration No. NCR-UR-9-3858-2002 was issued to Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center - LAKAS (BMDOMMC), the union of the hospital entity.
December 5, 2003
BMDOMSI was issued Union Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter No. NCR-12-CC-002-2003 and declared a legitimate labor organization.
March 3, 2004
In Case No. NCR-OD-0307-009-LRD, DOLE-NCR cancelled BMDOMMC's registration for being an inappropriate bargaining unit.
March 4, 2004
De Ocampo filed with DOLE-NCR a Petition for Cancellation of BMDOMSI's Certificate of Registration. It alleged (1) misrepresentation, false statement and fraud because BMDOMSI shared the same officers and members as BMDOMMC; (2) mixed membership of rank-and-file and managerial/supervisory employees; and (3) an inappropriate bargaining unit.
April 13, 2004
De Ocampo filed a Supplemental Petition informing DOLE-NCR of the cancellation of BMDOMMC's registration and attaching the March 3, 2004 Decision.
May 18, 2004
BMDOMSI filed a Comment-Opposition denying the allegations and claiming De Ocampo only wanted to impede the formation of the union.
July 26, 2004
DOLE-NCR Acting Regional Director Lagunzad granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of BMDOMSI's registration. He ruled that BMDOMSI misrepresented that its bargaining unit was composed of faculty and technical employees when all officers and most members came from the General Services Division. He also found no commonality of interest among academic and non-academic personnel, since General Services employees also served the hospital.
BMDOMSI appealed to the BLR, alleging that all union members are employees of De Ocampo and that the bargaining unit it seeks to represent is appropriate.
December 29, 2004
The BLR reversed the Regional Director. It found no misrepresentation, false statement or fraud, and that De Ocampo failed to prove mixed membership. BMDOMSI's application stated that its members were rank-and-file in faculty or technical classifications. An inappropriate bargaining unit or the inclusion of a disqualified employee is not a ground for cancellation, and BMDOMMC's delisting did not bar organizing another union.
January 24, 2005
The BLR denied De Ocampo's motion for reconsideration, and De Ocampo filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 89162).
July 15, 2009
The CA affirmed the BLR. It found no misrepresentation, false statement or fraud and no proof of intent to defraud beyond bare allegations. It also held that lack of mutuality and commonality of interest is not a ground for cancellation under Article 239 (now 247) of the Labor Code.
June 21, 2010
The CA denied De Ocampo's motion for reconsideration. De Ocampo then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
II. Issues
Whether or not BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in its application for registration by not disclosing the existence of BMDOMMC, which allegedly shared the same officers and members.
Whether or not the alleged lack of mutuality or commonality of interest among BMDOMSI's members is a ground for cancellation of its union registration under Article 247 (formerly Article 239) of the Labor Code.
III. Ruling
Whether or not BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in its application for registration by not disclosing the existence of BMDOMMC, which allegedly shared the same officers and members.
BMDOMSI did not commit fraud or misrepresentation in its application. Its report described its members as rank and file with technical and faculty classifications, and nothing in the registration form required it to disclose another union.
How the Court reasoned
- Under Article 247 of the Labor Code, misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws, the election of officers, or the list of members is a ground for cancelling a union's registration.
- The fraud or misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members. Mere allegations are not enough.
- BMDOMSI's application and report described its bargaining unit as rank and file employees with technical and faculty classifications. De Ocampo offered no proof that this was false.
- Nothing in the registration form required BMDOMSI to disclose the existence of another union such as BMDOMMC, so the non-disclosure was not a misrepresentation.
- The cancellation of BMDOMMC's registration on March 3, 2004 did not bar employees from organizing another union.
- The Court gave great respect and finality to the BLR's factual findings, which the CA affirmed, and noted that it is not a trier of facts.
“We agree with the BLR and the CA that BMDOMSI did not commit fraud or misrepresentation in its application for registration.”
Rule applied
Article 247 (previously Article 239) of the Labor Code, on grounds for cancellation of union registration (misrepresentation, false statement or fraud)
Whether or not the alleged lack of mutuality or commonality of interest among BMDOMSI's members is a ground for cancellation of its union registration under Article 247 (formerly Article 239) of the Labor Code.
Lack of mutuality or commonality of interest among union members is not a ground for cancelling a union's registration. Only the grounds listed in Article 247 of the Labor Code may be used.
How the Court reasoned
- Article 247 lists the exclusive grounds on which a union's registration may be cancelled.
- Lack of mutuality or commonality of interest, or an inappropriate bargaining unit, is not among those grounds.
- Inclusion of disqualified employees, such as supervisors or employees outside the unit, is not a ground for cancellation unless it resulted from misrepresentation, false statement or fraud of the kind enumerated.
- De Ocampo failed to prove such fraud, so the alleged mixed membership or differing interests of academic and non-academic staff could not justify cancellation.
- The Regional Director's reliance on lack of commonality of interest was therefore misplaced, and the BLR and CA correctly reversed it.
“The only grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code.”
Rule applied
Article 247 (previously Article 239) of the Labor Code; Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO; Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of DOLE
Doctrines
The only grounds for cancellation of a union's registration are those found in Article 247 (formerly Article 239) of the Labor Code. Lack of mutuality or commonality of interest among members, or an inappropriate bargaining unit, is not one of them.
For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancelling union registration, they must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
Inclusion of disqualified employees in a union is not a ground for cancelling its registration unless it results from misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 247.
Factual findings of the Bureau of Labor Relations, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great respect and finality, since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Notes
The Labor Code was renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015, so Article 239 became Article 247. The decision was penned by Justice Jardeleza (Third Division).