Mariwasa vs Sec. of DOLE AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C.

[G.R. No. 183317, Dec. 21, 2009] NOTES:

TOPIC: Cancellation of registration
PONENTE: Nachura, J.
FACTS:

Respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issue
a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor organization by the DOLE
Petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against responden
claiming that the respondent violated Art. 234 (now 240) of the Labor code for not complying with the 20%
requirement and that they committed massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Art. 239 (now 247)
Regional Director of DOLE issued an order granting the petition, revoking the registration of respondent unio
and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions
Respondent appealed to the BLR, it then granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the DOLE decision an
ruled that the certification of SMMSC-Independent remains
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the BLR denied this, petitioner then went to the Court of Appea
through a Petition for Certiorari but the CA denied the petition for lack of merit
Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was likewise denied, hence this petition
ISSUE(S):
Did the respondent SMMSC-Independent fail to comply with the 20% requirement?
HELD:

No.
RATIO:
The petitioners insist that the respondent failed to comply with the 20% requirement because of the disaffiliation o
102 employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership (after the union filed a petition fo
certification election)
Art. 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the application for unio
registration, it does not mandate that a union maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all throughou
its existence
The total number of members at the time of registration was 169 of 528 rank-and-file employees which was 32%
of the total number, still very much above the minimum required by law
For the purpose of de-certifying a union, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, o
fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws
The Court held that the respondent union met the required 20% minimum membership requirement, and did no
commit misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements

AS TO ALLEGATIONS ON DISAFFILIATION:
The Court held that the first allegation; the affiant being forced and deceived into joining the labor union, wa
couched in very general terms and was sweeping in nature and it was not supported with any evidence whatsoever
The second allegation; the affidavits where the affiants recanted their support for the labor union, cannot be give
full credence as they were executed under very suspicious circumstances and contains allegations unsupported b
evidence.
The Court held that these affidavits are at best self-serving and possesses no probative value
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):