Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 163532 March 10, 2010
YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
This is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition challenges the 16 January 2004 Decision2 and 12 May 2004 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65460. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 12 March4 and 3 May5 2001 Resolutions of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) in BLR-A-C-7-2-05-01, reversing the 18 December 2000 Decision6 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga (Regional Office), in Case No. RO300-0001-CP-002.
Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (YTPI). YEU was registered as a legitimate labor labor union on 10 September 1999.
YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification election. YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition7 dated 24 January 2000 for the revocation of YEU’s registration. YTPI alleged that YEU violated Article 239(a)8 of the Labor Code: (1) YEU fraudulently included the signature of a certain Ronald O. Pineda (Pineda) in the organizational documents; (2) Pineda was not aware of any election of union officers; (3) YEU fraudulently obtained the employees’ signatures by making them believe that they were signing a petition for a 125% increase in the minimum wage, not a petition for registration; (4) the employees did not belong to a single bargaining unit; and (5) YEU fraudulently stated in its organizational meeting minutes that its second vice president was Bernard David, not Bernardo David.
In its 18 December 2000 Decision, the Regional Office granted the 24 January 2000 petition. The Regional Office held that YEU committed misrepresentation: (1) YEU failed to remove Pineda’s signature from the organizational documents despite instructions to do so; and (2) YEU declared that it conducted an election of union officers when, in truth, it did not.
YEU appealed the 18 December 2000 Decision to the BLR. In its 12 March 2001 Resolution, the BLR reversed the 18 December 2000 Decision. The BLR found that (1) Pineda did not approach any officer of YEU to have his signature removed from the organizational documents; (2) Pineda’s affidavit that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier written statement; (3) the affidavit of a certain Rachelle Gonzales (Gonzales) that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with her earlier resignation letter; (4) the affidavit of a certain Arthur Calma (Calma) did not state that no election of officers took place; (5) at least 82 other members of YEU did not question the legality of YEU’s organization; and (6) 50 YEU members executed a Sama-Samang Pahayag9 stating that:
3. Noong ika-25 ng Hulyo 1999, kami ay dumalo sa isang pulong para sa pag-oorganisa ng aming Unyon at pagraratipika ng Saligang Batas at Alituntunin nito. x x x
x x x x
5. Walang katotohanan ang alegasyon ng Yokohama na walang naganap na pagpupulong kaugnay ng pag-oorganisa o pagtatayo namin ng Unyon. Nakakatuwa ring isipin ang alegasyon ng kompanya na hindi namin lubos na naiintindihan ang aming kapasyahang magtayo at sumapi sa aming Unyon.
6. Malinaw na ginagawa ng kompanya ang lahat ng paraan upang hadlangan ang aming karapatan sa pag-oorganisa at kilalanin bilang kinatawan ng lahat ng mga regular na manggagawa para sa sama-samang pakikipagtawaran.
7. Sa kabila ng lahat ng ito, kami ay lubos pa ring naninindigan sa aming Unyon at patuloy na ipaglalaban ang aming karapatan sa pag-oorganisa at sa sama-samang pakikipagtawaran;10
The BLR also held that (1) YTPI was estopped from questioning the fact that the Sama-Samang Pahayag was an unsworn document since it filed the 24 January 2000 petition for the revocation of YEU’s registration based on unsworn documents; (2) the fact that there was no express mention of an election of union officers in the Sama-Samang Pahayag did not necessarily mean that no election occurred; (3) there was an organizational meeting and an organizational meeting may include an election of union officers; (4) any infirmity in the election of union officers may be remedied under the last paragraph11 of Article 241 of the Labor Code and under Rule XIV of DOLE Department Order No. 9; and (5) cancellation of union registration must be done with great caution.
YTPI filed before the BLR a motion12 for reconsideration. In its 3 May 2001 Resolution, the BLR denied the motion for lack of merit.
YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a petition13 for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In its 16 January 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals denied the petition and held that the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion: (1) Pineda’s affidavit that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier written statement; (2) Gonzales’ affidavit that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with her earlier resignation letter; (3) Calma’s affidavit was unreliable because he admitted that he stayed at the organizational meeting for only 20 minutes; (4) the affidavit of a certain Bernardino David (David) that no election of officers took place was unreliable and inconsistent with his earlier sinumpaang salaysay; (5) David’s affidavit was only filed before the BLR when YTPI filed its motion for reconsideration of the BLR’s 12 March 2001 Resolution; (6) Pineda did not approach any officer of YEU to have his signature removed from the organizational documents; (7) the Sama-Samang Pahayag was entitled to credit even if it was an unsworn document; (8) the allegation that the signatures of a certain Denry Villanueva (Villanueva) and a certain Apolinar Bognot (Bognot) in the Sama-Samang Pahayag were forged was only raised for the first time before the BLR when YTPI filed its motion for reconsideration of the BLR’s 12 March 2001 Resolution; (9) Villanueva and Bognot were not signatories to YEU’s organizational documents; (10) cancellation of union registration must be done with great caution; (11) YTPI, in filing the petition for revocation of YEU’s registration, had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation; and (12) YTPI failed to prove that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.1avvphi1
YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a motion14 for reconsideration. In its 12 May 2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit.
Hence, the present petition. YTPI raises as issues that (1) the Court of Appeals erred in finding that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation, and (2) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation.
The petition is unmeritorious.
The Court of Appeals found that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation:
Anent whether an election of officers was conducted or not, the petitioner relied largely on the affidavit of Pineda to substantiate its claim that no election of officers was held by the union. However, respondent BLR Director accorded greater credence to Pineda’s handwritten statement, wherein he made references to at least 2 meetings he had attended during which he had signed the organizational documents, than to Pineda’s later affidavit, whereby he denied any knowledge of the holding of an election. A perusal of the affirmative handwritten statement easily explains why the public respondent preferred it to the negating affidavit, to wit:
Noong unang araw na pumirma ako galing ako sa graveyard. Pagkatapos yung pangalawang meeting graveyard din ako, pinapirma ako doon sa siyam (9) na pirasong papel noong umagang pag-uwi namin. x x x
July 25, 99 - Unang Pirmahan
July 26, 99 - Pinirmahan ko ang siyam na piraso
July 27, 99 - Pinatatanggal ko ang aking pangalan sa listahan
The petitioner also relied on the affidavit of Ma. Rachelle Gonzales attesting that there was no election of officers, but respondent BLR Director dismissed the affidavit as nothing but the petitioner’s belated attempt to establish its claim about the election being held considering that Gonzales did not even intimate such matter in her handwritten resignation letter to YEU.
Another affidavit, that of Arthur Calma, stated that no election was held, but, again, respondent BLR Director gave Calma’s affidavit scant consideration because the affiant admittedly remained in the YEU office for only 20 minutes. In contrast, the public respondent accorded more weight to the sama-samang pahayag executed by 50 YEU members who averred about the holding of an organizational meeting. The public respondent justifiably favored the latter, deeming the meeting to include the holding of an election of officers, for, after all, Art. 234, (b), Labor Code, does not itself distinguish between the two.
Respondent BLR Director is further assailed for not taking into consideration the affidavit asserting that no election of officers was ever conducted, which Bernardino David, YEU’s second vice president, executed. The omission is not serious enough, however, because the affidavit was submitted only when the petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the questioned decision, and because the affidavit was even inconsistent with David’s earlier sinumpaang salaysay, whereby he attested to his attendance at the organizational meeting and to his election thereat as vice president.
As to the inclusion of Pineda’s signature in the organizational documents, the BLR Director correctly ruled that evidence to prove the participation of YEU in the failure to delete Pineda’s signature from the organizational documents was wanting. It is not deniable that Pineda never approached any officer of YEU; and that Pineda approached a certain Tonton whom he knew to be a union organizer but who was not an officer of the union nor an employee of the company.
If the petitioner was [sic] sincere and intent on this imputed error, its effort to show so does not [sic] appear in the record. What appears is its abject failure to establish Tonton’s actual identity. The petitioner seemed content in making the insinuation in the petition for certiorari that Tonton was widely recognized as the organizer behind the creation of YEU. That was not enough.
In sum, the BLR Director was neither capricious nor whimsical in his exercise of judgment, and, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For certiorari to lie, more than mere abuse of discretion is required to be established by the petitioner. Herein, no degree of abuse of discretion was attendant.15
YTPI claims that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that YEU did not commit fraud or misrepresentation. YTPI stated that:
There was evidence that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation in its failure to omit the name of Ronald Pineda prior to the filing of the respondents organizational documents with the Department of Labor and Employment. On the other hand, the Regional Director held that there was no election of officers that had taken place during respondent’s alleged organizational meeting as there was no proof of such election.16 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court is not convinced. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should include only questions of law — questions of fact are not reviewable. A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts, while a question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question is one of fact.17
Whether YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to remove Pineda’s signature from the list of employees who supported YEU’s application for registration and whether YEU conducted an election of its officers are questions of fact. They are not reviewable.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the Court of Appeals’ factual findings.18 In Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals,19 the Court held that, "unless there is a clearly grave or whimsical abuse on its part, findings of fact of the appellate court will not be disturbed. The Supreme Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence." YTPI failed to show that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion.
The Court of Appeals held that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation:
The cancellation of union registration at the employer’s instance, while permitted, must be approached with caution and strict scrutiny in order that the right to belong to a legitimate labor organization and to enjoy the privileges appurtenant to such membership will not be denied to the employees. As the applicant for cancellation, the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation. The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers, or with the minutes of the election of officers, or in the list of votes, as expressly required in Art. 239, (c), Labor Code. But, as the respondent BLR Director has found and determined, and We fully agree with him, the petitioner simply failed to discharge its burden.20
YTPI claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI stated that:
5.5 In the Decision dated 16 January 2004, the Honorable Court of Appeals upheld the BLR Director’s ruling that the petitioner had the burden of proving that subject election of officers never took place.
5.6 However, the petitioner does not have the burden of proof vis-à-vis whether or not the said elections took place. The respondent has the burden of proof in showing that an election of officers took place.21 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court is not convinced. YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEU’s registration, had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI had the burden of proving the truthfulness of its accusations — that YEU fraudulently failed to remove Pineda’s signature from the organizational documents and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.
In Heritage Hotel Manila v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila,22 the employer filed a petition to revoke the registration of its rank-and-file employees’ union, accusing it of committing fraud and misrepresentation. The Court held that the petition was rightfully denied because the employer failed to prove that the labor union committed fraud and misrepresentation. The Court held that:
Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that it did not. Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union members involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the union’s application for registration, petitioner company has no other evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained in these documents.
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. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.23 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 16 January 2004 Decision and 12 May 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65460.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 9-31.
2 Id. at 38-46. Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Elvi John S. Asuncion concurring.
3 Id. at 48.
4 Id. at 139-149. Penned by Director IV Hans Leo J. Cacdac.
5 Id. at 150-153.
6 Id. at 131-138. Penned by Regional Director Ana C. Dione.
7 Id. at 92-98.
8 Article 239(a) of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. — The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification.
9 Rollo, pp. 120-130.
10 Id. at 120.
11 The last paragraph of Article 241 of the Labor Code provides that:
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officer from office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
12 Rollo, pp. 154-174.
13 Id. at 49-85.
14 Id. at 180-195.
15 Id. at 42-44.
16 Id. at 17-18.
17 Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, 4 June 2009, 588 SCRA 249, 256.
18 Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101292, 8 June 1993, 223 SCRA 279, 282.
19 Id. at 284.
20 Rollo, p. 45.
21 Id. at 19.
22 G.R. No. 177024, 30 October 2009.
23 Id.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
