THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 196276. June 4, 2014.]

TAKATA (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and SAMAHANG LAKAS
MANGGAGAWA NG TAKATA (SALAMAT), respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner TAKATA

Philippines Corporation assailing the Decision 1(1) dated December 22, 2010 and the
Resolution 2(2) dated March 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
112406.

On July 7, 2009, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and

Employment (DOLE) Regional Office a Petition 3(3) for Cancellation of the
Certificate of Union Registration of Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng
Takata (SALAMAT) on the ground that the latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false
statement and fraud with respect to the number of those who participated in the
organizational meeting, the adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws,
and in the election of its officers. It contended that in the May 1, 2009 organizational
meeting of respondent, only 68 attendees signed the attendance sheet, and which
number comprised only 17% of the total number of the 396 regular rank-and-file
employees which respondent sought to represent, and hence, respondent failed to
comply with the 20% minimum membership requirement. Petitioner insisted that the
document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no signatures on the alleged 119
union members; and that employees were not given sufficient information on the
documents they signed; that the document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was
not submitted at the time of the filing of respondent's application for union
registration; that the 119 union members were actually only 117; and, that the total
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 1
 number of petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not 396 as
respondent claimed. 4(4) aCSTDc

Respondent denied the charge and claimed that the 119 union members were
more than the 20% requirement for union registration. The document "Sama-Samang
Pahayag ng Pagsapi sa Unyon" which it presented in its petition for certification
election 5(5) supported their claim of 119 members. Respondent also contended that
petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal personality as it agreed to a
certification election and actively participated in the pre-election conference of the
certification election proceedings. 6(6) Respondent argued that the union members
were informed of the contents of the documents they signed and that the 68 attendees
to the organizational meeting constituted more than 50% of the total union
membership, hence, a quorum existed for the conduct of the said meeting. 7(7)

On August 27, 2009, DOLE Regional Director, Atty. Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr.,
issued a Decision 8(8) granting the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate
of registration, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. Accordingly, the respondent Union Certificate of Registration No.
RO400A-2009-05-01-UR-LAG, dated May 19, 2009 is hereby REVOCKED
(sic) and/or CANCELLED pursuant to paragraph (a) & (b), Section 3, Rule XIV
of Department Order No. 40-03 and the Samahang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng
TAKATA (SALAMAT) is hereby delisted from the roll of legitimate labor
organization of this office. 9(9) HcaATE

In revoking respondent's certificate of registration, the Regional Director found

that the 68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was obviously less
than 20% of the total number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which
respondent sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration requirement;
that the attendance sheet which contained the signatures and names of the union
members totalling to 68 contradicted the list of names stated in the document
denominated as "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon." The document "Sama-Samang
Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not attached to the application for registration as it was only
submitted in the petition for certification election filed by respondent at a later date.
The Regional Director also found that the proceedings in the cancellation of
registration and certification elections are two different and entirely separate and
independent proceedings which were not dependent on each other.

Dissatisfied, respondent, through Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)

Paralegal Officer, Domingo P. Mole, filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 2
 10(10) with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). However, on September 28, 2009,
respondent, through its counsels, Attys. Napoleon. C. Banzuela, Jr. and Jehn Louie
W. Velandrez, filed an Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance
11(11) to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which the latter eventually referred to the
BLR. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Appeals 12(12) praying for their dismissal
on the ground of forum shopping as respondent filed two separate appeals in two
separate venues; and for failing to avail of the correct remedy within the period; and
that the certificate of registration was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and
falsification.

In its Answer, 13(13) respondent claimed that there was no forum shopping as
BMP's Paralegal Officer was no longer authorized to file an appeal on behalf of
respondent as the latter's link with BMP was already terminated and only the Union
President was authorized to file the appeal; and that it complied with Department
Order No. 40-03. EaICAD

On December 9, 2009, after considering respondent's Appeal Memorandum

with Formal Entry of Appearance and petitioner's Answer, the BLR rendered its
Decision 14(14) reversing the Order of the Regional Director, the decretal portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of

Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., dated 27 August 2009, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng TAKATA

(SALAMAT) shall remain in the roster of labor organizations. 15(15)

In reversing, the BLR found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent
deliberately and maliciously misrepresented the number of rank-and-file employees.
It pointed out petitioner's basis for the alleged non-compliance with the minimum
membership requirement for registration was the attendance of 68 members to the
May 1, 2009 organizational meeting supposedly comprising only 17% of the total 396
regular rank-and-file employees. However, the BLR found that the list of employees
who participated in the organizational meeting was a separate and distinct
requirement from the list of the names of members comprising at least 20% of the
employees in the bargaining unit; and that there was no requirement for signatures
opposite the names of the union members; and there was no evidence showing that
the employees assailed their inclusion in the list of union members.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the BLR in
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 3
 a Resolution 16(16) dated January 8, 2010. ASHECD

Undaunted, petitioner went to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule
65.

After the submission of the parties' respective pleadings, the case was
submitted for decision.

On December 22, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed decision which denied the
petition and affirmed the decision of the BLR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration
was denied in a Resolution dated March 29, 2011.

Hence this petition for review filed by petitioner raising the following issues,
to wit: CaDSHE

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND

SERIOUS ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF PUBLIC
RESPONDENT BLR AND NOT FINDING ANY VIOLATION BY
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) OF
THE RULE ON FORUM SHOPPING IN THE FILING OF TWO VERIFIED
APPEALS FOR AND ITS BEHALF. BOTH OF THE APPEALS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT BLR,
ON GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN

FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
SAMAHANG LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA TAKATA (SALAMAT) WAS
COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW. CONSIDERING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THE REGISTRATION OF
SALAMAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS TAINTED WITH
FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSIFICATION. SALAMAT
DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF MEMBERS AT THE
TIME OF FILING OF ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, HENCE,
IT SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY OF MISREPRESENTATION, AND
FALSE STATEMENTS AND FRAUD IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
17(17)

Anent the first issue, petitioner contends that respondent had filed two separate
appeals with two different representations at two different venues, in violation of the
rule on multiplicity of suits and forum shopping, and instead of dismissing both
appeals, the appeal erroneously filed before the Labor Secretary was the one head
validly filed, entertained and even granted; that it is not within the discretion of BLR
to choose which between the two appeals should be entertained, as it is the fact of the
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 4
 filing of the two appeals that is being prohibited and not who among the
representatives therein possessed the authority.

We are not persuaded. TaSEHD

We find no error committed by the CA in finding that respondent committed

no forum shopping. As the CA correctly concluded, to wit:

It is undisputed that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no

longer authorized to file an appeal on behalf of union SALAMAT and that BMP
was duly informed that its services was already terminated. SALAMAT even
submitted before the BLR its "Resolusyon Blg. 01-2009" terminating the
services of BMP and revoking the representation of Mr. Domingo Mole in any
of the pending cases being handled by him on behalf of the union. So,
considering that BMP Paralegal Officer Domingo P. Mole was no longer
authorized to file an appeal when it filed the Notice and Memorandum of
Appeal to DOLE Regional Office No. IV-A, the same can no longer be treated
as an appeal filed by union SALAMAT. Hence, there is no forum shopping to
speak of in this case as only the Appeal Memorandum with Formal Entry of
Appearance filed by Atty. Napoleon C. Banzuela, Jr. and Atty. Jehn Louie W.
Velandrez is sanctioned by SALAMAT. 18(18)

Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically authorized by
respondent, such appeal is considered to have not been filed at all. It has been held
that "if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to
do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce
any legal effect." 19(19) EDaHAT

Respondent through its authorized representative filed its Appeal

Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance before the Labor Secretary, and not
with the BLR. As the appeal emanated from the petition for cancellation of certificate
of registration filed with the Regional Office, the decision canceling the registration is
appealable to the BLR, and not with the Labor Secretary. However, since the Labor
Secretary motu proprio referred the appeal with the BLR, the latter can now act on it.
Considering that Mole's appeal with the BLR was not deemed filed, respondent's
appeal, through Banzuela and Associates, which the Labor Secretary referred to the
BLR was the only existing appeal with the BLR for resolution. There is, therefore, no
merit to petitioner's claim that BLR chose the appeal of Banzuela and Associates over
Mole's appeal.

The case of Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories

Employees Union 20(20) cited by petitioner is not at all applicable in this case as the
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 5
 issue therein is the authority of the Labor Secretary to review the decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over
decision of the Regional Director in cases involving cancellations of certificate of
registration of labor unions. We found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the
Secretary of Labor in not acting on therein petitioner's appeal. The decision of the
Bureau of Labor Relations on cases brought before it on appeal from the Regional
Director are final and executory. Hence, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to
seasonably avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and the Rules
of Court. In this case, after the Labor Secretary motu proprio referred respondent's
appeal filed with it to the BLR which rendered its decision reversing the Regional
Director, petitioner went directly to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

As to the second issue, petitioner seeks the cancellation of respondent's

registration on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation bearing on the minimum
requirement of the law as to its membership, considering the big disparity in numbers,
between the organizational meeting and the list of members, and so misleading the
BLR that it obtained the minimum required number of employees for purposes of
organization and registration.

We find no merit in the arguments.

Art. 234 of the Labor Code provides:

ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. — A federation, national

union or industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire
legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law
to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration
based on the following requirements: aScIAC

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal

address of the labor organization, the minutes of the
organizational meetings and the list of the workers who
participated in such meetings;

(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names

of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of
all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or

more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 6
 (e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the
applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the
list of the members who participated in it."

And after the issuance of the certificate of registration, the labor organization's
registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings
in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code. And the cancellation of
union certificate of registration and the grounds thereof are as follows:

ART. 238. Cancellation of Registration. — The certificate of

registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, may
be cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in
Article 239 hereof.

ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. — The

following may 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;

(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection

with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers,
and the list of voters;

(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

Petitioner's charge that respondent committed misrepresentation and fraud in

securing its certificate of registration is a serious charge and must be carefully
evaluated. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances
and evidence. 21(21) We find no evidence on record to support petitioner's
accusation. ATCaDE

Petitioner's allegation of misrepresentation and fraud is based on its claim that

during the organizational meeting on May 1, 2009, only 68 employees attended, while
respondent claimed that it has 119 members as shown in the document denominated
as "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon;" hence, respondent misrepresented on the
20% requirement of the law as to its membership.

We do not agree.

It does not appear in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 7
 organizational meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
In fact, even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so
provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its members
comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit
where it seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the
employees' membership in the union and not to the list of workers who participated in
the organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b) and (c) provide for separate
requirements, which must be submitted for the union's registration, and which
respondent did submit. Here, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit
was 396, and 20% of which was about 79. Respondent submitted a document entitled
"Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon" showing the names of 119 employees as union
members, thus respondent sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum
membership requirement. Respondent also submitted the attendance sheet of the
organizational meeting which contained the names and signatures of the 68 union
members who attended the meeting. Considering that there are 119 union members
which are more than 20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit, and since the
law does not provide for the required number of members to attend the organizational
meeting, the 68 attendees which comprised at least the majority of the 119 union
members would already constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and to validly
ratify the Constitution and By-laws of the union. There is, therefore, no basis for
petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the cancellation of respondent's union
registration. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union
registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
majority of union members. 22(22) ACcHIa

Petitioner's claim that the alleged union members signed documents without
adequate information is not persuasive. The one who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. 23(23) In fact, we note that not one
of those listed in the document denominated as "Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon"
had come forward to deny their membership with respondent. Notably, it had not
been rebutted that the same union members had signed the document entitled
"Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi," thus, strengthening their desire to be members
of the respondent union.

Petitioner claims that in the list of members, there was an employee whose
name appeared twice and another employee who was merely a project employee.
Such could not be considered a misrepresentation in the absence of showing that
respondent deliberately did so for the purpose of increasing their union membership.
In fact, even if those two names were not included in the list of union members, there
would still be 117 members which was still more than 20% of the 396 rank-and-file
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 8
 employees.

As to petitioner's argument that the total number of its employees as of May 1,

2009 was 470, and not 396 as respondent claimed, still the 117 union members
comprised more than the 20% membership requirement for respondent's registration.

In Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and

Employment, 24(24) we said:

For the purpose of de-certifying 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 ratification; or, in connection with the election of
officers, the minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to
submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed
officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.

The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who
participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a
valid reason to cancel respondent's certificate of registration. The cancellation of
a union's registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor
to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for
cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union members.

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-file 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. 25(25)
EAaHTI

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED. The

Decision dated December 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 28, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 112406, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Villarama, Jr., *(26) Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 9