VOL.

244, MAY 16, 1995 173

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

*
G.R. No. 112141. May 16, 1995.

PHOENIX IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION,

petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT and PISCOR WORKERS UNION—
ALLIANCE OF NATIONALIST AND GENUINE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS (PISCOR-ANGLO), respondents.

Labor Relations; Legitimate Labor Organizations;

Requirements.—A local or chapter x x x becomes a legitimate
labor organization only upon submission of the following to the
BLR: 1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by
the labor federation or national union, and 2) The constitution
and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of
accounts all of which are certified under oath by the secretary or
treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and
attested to by its president. Absent compliance with these
mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become a
legitimate labor organization.
Same; Same; Same; Mandatory Nature of Requirement;
Submission of required documents and payment of P50.00
registration fee becomes the Bureau’s basis for approval of
application for registration.—In the case of union registration, the
rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and papers
be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case
may be, and attested to by the president is apparent. The
submission of the required documents (and payment of P50.00
registration fee) becomes the Bureau’s basis for approval of the
application for registration. Upon approval, the labor union
acquires legal personality and is entitled to all the rights and
privileges granted by the law to a legitimate labor organization.
The employer naturally needs assurance that the union it is
dealing with is a bonafide organization, one which has not
submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the Bureau.
The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements
will in a marked degree allay these apprehensions of
management. Not only is the issuance of any false statement and
misrepresentation a ground for cancellation of registration (see
Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal
charge of perjury.
________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and

Employment

Same; Same; Same; Certification and attestation

requirements are preventive measures against the commission of
fraud.—The certification and attestation requirements are
preventive measures against the commission of fraud. They
likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees
who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions
whose sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the union
for dubious ends.
Same; Same; Same.—Compared with what happened in the
Progressive case, this situation before us now is even worse. There
are no books of account filed before the BLR, the constitution, by-
laws and the list of members who supposedly ratified the same
were not attested to by the union president, and the constitution
and by-laws were not verified under oath.

PETITION for review of a resolution of the Secretary of

Labor and Employment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Florencio N. Ongkiko and Manuel G. Natividad, Jr.
for petitioner.
          Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raneses and Associates
for private respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Disputed here is the applicability of our ruling in

Progressive Development Corporation 1
v. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment.
Private respondent PISCOR Workers Union—Alliance of
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (PISCOR-
ANGLO) asserting to be a legitimate labor organization
filed on 13 October 1992 a petition for certification election
with the Med-Arbiter. On 3 December 1992 petitioner
Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation (PHOENIX) sought
clarification of the legal personality of PISCOR-ANGLO
(UNION). On 19 January 1993, finding that the UNION
had not complied with the requisites of law, Med-Arbiter
Napoleon V. Fernando dismissed the petition holding
________________

1 G.R. No. 96425, 4 February 1992, 205 SCRA 802.

175

VOL. 244, MAY 16, 1995 175

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

that—

A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the principal party

petitioner herein, the Piscor Workers Union, is not a duly
registered labor organization x x x x (The) record undisputably
shows that for purposes of registering Piscor Workers Union as an
affiliate of ANGLO no books of account was filed before the BLR.
And that the constitution and by-laws as well as the list of
members who ratified the same were not attested to by the union
president. The constitution and by-laws was not likewise verified
under oath. In view thereof and in the light of the above-quoted
Supreme Court ruling (Progressive Development Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96425, February 4, 1992), petitioner
Piscor Workers Union failed to attain the status of legitimate
labor organization x x x x (The) authority to file petition (for
certification election) which is dated September 6, 1992, is
without force and effect x x x considering that it was only on
September 27, 1992, that Piscor Workers Union was established.
Thus, in (the) absence of legal personality Piscor Workers Union
may not validly authorize ANGLO to file the present petition.
It is further observed that there is much to be desired in the
matter of notarization of the supporting documents submitted for
the petitioner’s union registration and on the matter of the
notarization of this very petition. In the first place it should be
noted that the requirement of due notarization of supporting
documents for union registration and that of the petition for
certification election is mandatory.
In Progressive case, the Supreme Court declares that: ‘In the
case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-KILUSAN to
certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its
acquisition of a legitimate status.’
While Section 1, Rule V, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the New Labor Code provides that: ‘Section 1—
Where to file—A petition for certification election x x x x The
petition shall be in writing and under oath’ (italics supplied).
When the rule requires a document to be under oath, it goes
with it the requirement that the said document must properly be
under oath. Improper notarization is no compliance at all x x x x
In the case at bar, the inconsistence in the dates of execution of
the petition as contained in the body of the petition which shows
that it was executed on October 13, 1992, and the date of alleged
notarization which is October 8, 1992, really impart some serious
2
cloud as to whether or not this petition was properly notarized.

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 76-79.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

On appeal to the Office of Secretary of Labor,

Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting by
authority of the Secretary of Labor, issued on 8 June 1993
a resolution “calling for the immediate conduct of a
certification election x x x x with PISCOR
3
Workers Union-
Anglo and No Union as the choices.” He ruled that—

Petitioner-appellant has complied with the requirements of the

law on organization of a local after it was shown that it has
submitted duly certified copies of its constitution and by-laws, list
of officers and charter certificate x x x x
Anent the minutes of organizational meeting, it is obvious that
the same is not required to be submitted by the union to establish
its legitimacy. Questions are, however, being raised on the
veracity of its contents and doubts on its due execution are
expressed for the purpose of putting across the message that in
truth and in fact there was no organizational meeting that took
place.
Suffice it to say that said doubts should be resolved in favor of
its regularity and not as adversely affecting the legal standing of
petitioner. For as earlier stated, having complied with all the
requirements aforementioned, technicalities may not be allowed
to stand in the way of certification election. After all, respondent’s
reservations will definitely be resolved thru the certification
election where the workers could freely express their will.
As to the alleged inconsistency in the date of the execution of
the petition as contained in the body thereof, in relation to the
notarization of the said pleading, we are convinced that the same
was the result of oversight which likewise could not be used to
defeat the petition for certification election and petitioner’s right
4
to choose its representative for collective bargaining purposes.

In this recourse the Solicitor General

5
filed a Manifestation
and Motion in Lieu of Comment supporting petitioner’s
stand that private respondent PISCOR-ANGLO has no
personality to file a petition for certification election it not
being a legitimate labor organization; that said Union
failed to comply with the
________________

3 Id., p. 85.
4 Rollo, pp. 83-85.
5 Id., pp. 129-141.

177

VOL. 244, MAY 16, 1995 177

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

attestation and certification requirements for the

attainment of a legitimate status with respect to certain
documents submitted with the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR); and, that the dismissal of such requirements as
mere technicalities by Undersecretary of Labor Bienvenido
E. Laguesma, acting in behalf of the Secretary of Labor,
directly contradicts the categorical pronouncement in6
Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary of Labor
that the failure of a labor union to certify under oath the
required documents submitted with the BLR is fatal to the
attainment of a legitimate status. Hence, the Solicitor
General recommends that the assailed Resolution dated 8
June 1993 of respondent Secretary of Labor, acting through
Undersecretary Laguesma, be reversed and set aside.
Thereafter, public respondent Secretary of Labor
through the Legal Service of the Department of Labor and
Employment, Legal Representation Division, filed his
comment on 16 March 1994, while private respondent
PISCOR-ANGLO filed its own on 23 November 1994.
On 10 August 1994 we gave due course to the petition
and required the parties to file their memoranda. On 24
August 1994 we issued a temporary restraining order to
enjoin the enforcement of the assailed resolution.
We agree with petitioner Phoenix Iron and Steel
Corporation and the Solicitor General that our ruling in
Progressive applies in this case, to wit:

A local or chapter x x x becomes a legitimate labor organization

only upon submission of the following to the BLR:

1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by

the labor federation or national union, and
2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of
officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified
under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may
be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its
president.

Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the

local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization.
________________

6 See Note 1.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment

In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to

certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its
acquisition of a legitimate status.

The mandatory nature of the requirement is also

exhaustively explained in the same case—

In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that

the submitted documents and papers be certified under oath by
the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, and attested to by
the president is apparent. The submission of the required
documents (and payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the
Bureau’s basis for approval of the application for registration.
Upon approval, the labor union acquires legal personality and is
entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the law to a
legitimate labor organization. The employer naturally needs
assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona-fide
organization, one which has not submitted false statements or
misrepresentations to the Bureau. The inclusion of the
certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree
allay these apprehensions of management. Not only is the
issuance of any false statement and misrepresentation a ground
for cancellation of registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it
is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury.
The certification and attestation requirements are preventive
measures against the commission of fraud. They likewise afford a
measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be
lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole
purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious
ends.
In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the
documentary requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3(e),
Book V of the Implementing Rules, which we again quote as
follows: ‘(c) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national
union shall have and maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of
officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered
unions, federations or national unions shall be ob-served’ (italics
supplied).
Since the ‘procedure governing the reporting of independently
registered unions’ refers to the certification and attestation
requirements contained in Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows
that the constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of
accounts submitted by the local and chapter must likewise comply
with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring the
submission of duly subscribed documents upon union registration
exists in the case of union affilia-

179

VOL. 244, MAY 16, 1995 179

Phoenix Iron and Steel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment

tion. Moreover, there is greater reason to exact compliance with

the certification and attestation requirements because, as
previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to
independent union registration are no longer required in the case
of the formation of a local or chapter. The policy of the law in
conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be
balanced with the policy 7of providing preventive measures against
the commission of fraud.

Compared with what happened in the Progressive case, this

situation before us now is even worse. There are no books
of account filed before the BLR, the constitution, by-laws
and the list of members who supposedly ratified the same
were not attested to by the union president, and the
constitution and by-laws were not verified under oath.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and
the assailed resolution dated 8 June 1993 of public
respondent Secretary of Labor acting through
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma is SET ASIDE.
The decision of the Med-Arbiter dated 19 January 1993
dismissing the petition for certification election is
REINSTATED and the restraining order we issued on 24
August 1994 is made permanent.
SO ORDERED.

     Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr. and Quiason, JJ.,

concur.
     Kapunan, J., On official leave.

Petition granted, assailed resolution set aside.

Notes.—A local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor

organization only upon submission of all the requirements
to the Bureau of Labor Relations. (Progressive Development
Corporation vs. Secretary, Department of Labor and
Employment, 205 SCRA 802 [1992])
The intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in
the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or
national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local
union with a
 ________________

7 See Note 1, pp. 811-812.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Castelo vs. Court of Appeals

federation, or national union in order to increase the local

union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions
of employment. (Progressive Development Corporation vs.
Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, 205
SCRA 802 [1992])

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.