G.R. No. 211145 On April 20, 2010, DOLE Regional Director Ernesto Bihis ruled in favor of Hanjin.

He
found that the preamble, as stated in the Constitution and By-Laws of Samahan, was
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD rep. by its President, ALFIE an admission on its part that all of its members were employees of Hanjin, to wit:
ALIPIO, Petitioner
vs. KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa HANJIN Shipyard (SAMAHAN) ay naglalayong na
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND isulong ang pagpapabuti ng kondisyon sa paggawa at katiyakan sa hanapbuhay sa
CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. (HHIC-PIDL.),, \ pamamagitan ng patuloy na pagpapaunlad ng kasanayan ng para sa mga kasapi
The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join nito. Naniniwala na sa pamamagitan ng aming mga angking lakas, kaalaman at
an association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes. kasanayan ay aming maitataguyod at makapag-aambag sa kaunlaran ng isang
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the July 4, lipunan. Na mararating at makakamit ang antas ng pagkilala, pagdakila at
2013 Decision1 and the January 28, 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in pagpapahalaga sa mga tulad naming mga manggagawa.
CA-G.R. SP No. 123397, which reversed the November 28, 2011 Resolution3 of the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and reinstated the April 20, 2010 Decision 4 of the XXX10
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Director, cancelling the
registration of Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard (Samahan) as a The same claim was made by Samahan in its motion to dismiss, but it failed to
worker's association under Article 243 (now Article 249) of the Labor Code. adduce evidence that the remaining 63 members were also employees of Hanjin. Its
The Facts admission bolstered Hanjin's claim that Samahan committed misrepresentation in its
On February 16, 2010, Samahan, through its authorized representative, Alfie F. application for registration as it made an express representation that all of its
Alipio, filed an application for registration 5 of its name "Samahan ng Mga members were employees of the former. Having a definite employer, these 57
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE. Attached to the application were members should have formed a labor union for collective bargaining.11 The
the list of names of the association's officers and members, signatures of the dispositive portion of the decision of the Dole Regional Director, reads:
attendees of the February 7, 2010 meeting, copies of their Constitution and By-laws. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
The application stated that the association had a total of 120 members. Consequently, the Certificate of Registration as Legitimate Workers Association
On February 26, 2010, the DOLE Regional Office No. 3, City of San Fernando, (LWA) issued to the SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD
Pampanga (DOLE-Pampanga), issued the corresponding certificate of registration6 in (SAMAHAN) with Registration Numbers R0300-1002-WA-009 dated February 26,
favor of Samahan. 2010 is hereby CANCELLED, and said association is dropped from the roster of labor
On March 15, 2010, respondent Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. organizations of this Office.
Philippines (Hanjin), with offices at Greenbeach 1, Renondo Peninsula, Sitio Agustin, SO DECIDED.12
Barangay Cawag, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, filed a petition7 with DOLE-Pampanga The Ruling of the Bureau of Labor Relations
praying for the cancellation of registration of Samahan' s association on the ground Aggrieved, Samahan filed an appeal13 before the BLR, arguing that Hanjin had no
that its members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the right to petition for the cancellation of its registration. Samahan pointed out that the
second sentence of Article 243 (now 249). words "Hanjin Shipyard," as used in its application for registration, referred to a
Hanjin opined that only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-employed, workplace and not as employer or company. It explained that when a shipyard was
and those without definite employers may form a workers' association. It further put up in Subic, Zambales, it became known as Hanjin Shipyard. Further, the
posited that one third (1/3) of the members of the association had definite employers remaining 63 members signed the Sama-Samang Pagpapatunay which stated that
and the continued existence and registration of the association would prejudice the they were either working or had worked at Hanjin. Thus, the alleged
company's goodwill. misrepresentation committed by Samahan had no leg to stand on.14

On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a supplemental petition,8 adding the alternative In its Comment to the Appeal,15 Hanjin averred that it was a party-ininterest. It
ground that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection with the list of reiterated that Samahan committed misrepresentation in its application for registration
members and/or voters who took part in the ratification of their constitution and by- before DOLE Pampanga. While Samahan insisted that the remaining 63 members
laws in its application for registration. Hanjin claimed that Samahan made it appear were either working, or had at least worked in Hanjin, only 10 attested to such fact,
that its members were all qualified to become members of the workers' association. thus, leaving its 53 members without any workplace to claim.

On March 26, 2010, DOLE-Pampanga called for a conference, wherein Samahan On September 6, 2010, the BLR granted Samahan's appeal and reversed the ruling
requested for a 10-day period to file a responsive pleading. No pleading, however, of the Regional Director. It stated that the law clearly afforded the right to self-
was submitted. Instead, Samahan filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2010.9 organization to all workers including those without definite employers.16 As an
expression of the right to self-organization, industrial, commercial and self-employed
The Ruling of the DOLE Regional Director workers could form a workers' association if they so desired but subject to the
limitation that it was only for mutual aid and protection.17 Nowhere could it be found
that to form a workers' association was prohibited or that the exercise of a workers'
right to self-organization was limited to collective bargaining.18
 On January 17, 2013, Samahan filed its reply.33
The BLR was of the opinion that there was no misrepresentation on the part of
Samahan. The phrase, "KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard," if On March 22, 2013, Hanjin filed its memorandum.34
translated, would be: "We, the workers at Hanjin Shipyard." The use of the preposition
"at" instead of "of' would indicate that "Hanjin Shipyard" was intended to describe a The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
place.19 Should Hanjin feel that the use of its name had affected the goodwill of the
company, the remedy was not to seek the cancellation of the association's On July 4, 2013, the CA rendered its decision, holding that the registration of
registration. At most, the use by Samahan of the name "Hanjin Shipyard" would only Samahan as a legitimate workers' association was contrary to the provisions of Article
warrant a change in the name of the association.20 Thus, the dispositive portion of 243 of the Labor Code.35 It stressed that only 57 out of the 120 members were
the BLR decision reads: actually working in Hanjin while the phrase in the preamble of Samahan's Constitution
and By-laws, "KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard," created an
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Order of DOLE Region III impression that all its members were employees of HHIC. Such unqualified
Director Ernesto C. Bihis dated 20 April 2010 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. manifestation which was used in its application for registration, was a clear proof of
misrepresentation which warranted the cancellation of Samahan' s registration.
Accordingly, Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard shall remain in the
roster of legitimate workers' association.21 It also stated that the members of Samahan could not register it as a legitimate
worker's association because the place where Hanjin's industry was located was not
On October 14, 2010, Hanjin filed its motion for reconsideration.22 a rural area. Neither was there any evidence to show that the members of the
association were ambulant, intermittent or itinerant workers.36
In its Resolution,23 dated November 28, 2011, the BLR affirmed its September 6,
2010 Decision, but directed Samahan to remove the words "Hanjin Shipyard" from its At any rate, the CA was of the view that dropping the words "Hanjin Shipyard" from
name. The BLR explained that the Labor Code had no provision on the use of trade the association name would not prejudice or impair its rightto self-organization
or business name in the naming of a worker's association, such matters being because it could adopt other appropriate names. The dispositive portion reads:
governed by the Corporation Code. According to the BLR, the most equitable relief
that would strike a balance between the contending interests of Samahan and Hanjin WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the BLR's directive, ordering that the
was to direct Samahan to drop the name "Hanjin Shipyard" without delisting it from words "Hanjin Shipyard" be removed from petitioner association's name, is
the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The fallo reads: AFFIRMED. The Decision dated April 20, 2010 of the DOLE Regional Director in
Case No. Ro300-1003-CP-001, which ordered the cancellation of petitioner
WHEREFORE, premises considered, our Decision dated 6 September 2010 is hereby association's registration is REINSTATED.
AFFIRMED with a DIRECTIVE for SAMAHAN to remove "HANJIN SHIPYARD" from
its name. SO ORDERED.37

SO RESOLVED.24 Hence, this petition, raising the following

Unsatisfied, Samahan filed a petition for certiorari25 under Rule 65 before the CA, ISSUES
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123397.
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SEfilOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT SAMAHAN
In its March 21, 2012 Resolution,26 the CA dismissed the petition because of CANNOT FORM A WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES IN HANJIN AND
Samahan's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed November 28, INSTEAD SHOULD HA VE FORMED A UNION, HENCE THEIR REGISTRATION AS
2011 Resolution. A WORKERS' ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE CANCELLED.

On April 17, 2012, Samahan filed its motion for reconsideration27 and on July 18, II. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ORDERING THE
2012, Hanjin filed its comment28 to oppose the same. On October 22, 2012, the CA REMOVAL/DELETION OF THE WORD "HANJIN" IN THE NAME OF THE UNION BY
issued a resolution granting Samahan's motion for reconsideration and reinstating the REASON OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY RIGHT OVER THE COMP ANY NAME
petition. Hanjin was directed to file a comment five (5) days from receipt of notice.29 "HANJIN."38

On December 12, 2012, Hanjin filed its comment on the petition,30 arguing that to Samahan argues that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to
require Samahan to change its name was not tantamount to interfering with the intermittent, ambulant and itinerant workers. While the Labor Code allows the workers
workers' right to self-organization.31 Thus, it prayed, among others, for the "to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing" for the purpose of
dismissalof the petition for Samahan's failure to file the required motion for collective bargaining, it does not prohibit them from forming a labor organization
reconsideration.32 simply for purposes of mutual aid and protection. All members of Samahan have one
common place of work, Hanjin Shipyard. Thus, there is no reason why they cannot collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
use "Hanjin Shipyard" in their name.39 lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection.
This is in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and voluntary organization
Hanjin counters that Samahan failed to adduce sufficient basis that all its members of a strong and united labor movement as well as to make sure that workers
were employees of Hanjin or its legitimate contractors, and that the use of the name participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights, duties and
"Hanjin Shipyard" would create an impression that all its members were employess of welfare.42
HHIC.40
The right to form a union or association or to self-organization comprehends two
Samahan reiterates its stand that workers with a definite employer can organize any notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, that is, the absence of restraint which
association for purposes of mutual aid and protection. Inherent in the workers' right to guarantees that the employee may act for himself without being prevented by law;
self-organization is its right to name its own organization. Samahan referred "Hanjin and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain
Shipyard" as their common place of work. Therefore, they may adopt the same in from joining an association.43
their association's name.41
In view of the revered right of every worker to self-organization, the law expressly
The Court's Ruling allows and even encourages the formation of labor organizations. A labor
organization is defined as "any union or association o[ employees which exists in
The petition is partly meritorious. whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of employment."44 A labor organization has two
Right to self-organization includes broad rights: (1) to bargain collectively and (2) to deal with the employer concerning
right to form a union, workers ' terms and conditions of employment. To bargain collectively is a right given to a union
association and labor management once it registers itself with the DOLE. Dealing with the employer, on the other hand, is
councils a generic description of interaction between employer and employees concerning
grievances, wages, work hours and other terms and conditions of employment, even
More often than not, the right to self-organization connotes unionism. Workers, if the employees' group is not registered with the DOLE.45
however, can also form and join a workers' association as well as labor-management
councils (LMC). Expressed in the highest law of the land is the right of all workers to A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective
self-organization. Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution states: bargaining and for other legitimate purpose,46 while a workers' association is an
organization of workers formed for the mutual aid and protection of its members or for
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized any legitimate purpose other than
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining.47
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. xxx [Emphasis Supplied] Many associations or groups of employees, or even combinations of only several
persons, may qualify as a labor organization yet fall short of constituting a labor
And Section 8, Article III of the 1987 Constitution also states: union. While every labor union is a labor organization, not every labor organization is
a labor union. The difference is one of organization, composition and operation.48
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law Collective bargaining is just one of the forms of employee participation. Despite so
shall not be abridged. much interest in and the promotion of collective bargaining, it is incorrect to say that it
is the device and no other, which secures industrial democracy. It is equally
In relation thereto, Article 3 of the Labor Code provides: misleading to say that collective bargaining is the end-goal of employee
representation. Rather, the real aim is employee participation in whatever form it may
Article 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State shall afford protection to labor, appear, bargaining or no bargaining, union or no union.49 Any labor organization
promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or which may or may not be a union may deal with the employer. This explains why a
creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall workers' association or organization does not always have to be a labor union and
assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of why employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective
tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. bargaining.50

[Emphasis Supplied] To further strengthen employee participation, Article 255 (now 261)51 of the Labor
Code mandates that workers shall have the right to participate in policy and decision-
As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides, the right to self-organization making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said
includes the right to form, join or assist labor organizations fer the purpose of
processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers, selfemployed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers
workers and employers may form LMCs. may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980)
A cursory reading of the law demonstrates that a common element between unionism
and the formation of LMCs is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. [Emphasis Supplied]
Where neither party is an employer nor an employee of the other, no duty to bargain
collectively would exist.52 In the same manner, expressed in Article 255 (now 261) is Further, Article 243 should be read together with Rule 2 of Department Order (D. 0.)
the requirement that such workers be employed in the establishment before they can No. 40-03, Series of 2003, which provides:
participate in policy and decision making processes.
RULE II
In contrast, the existence of employer-employee relationship is not mandatory in the
formation of workers' association. What the law simply requires is that the members COVERAGE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
of the workers' association, at the very least, share the same interest. The very
definition of a workers' association speaks of "mutual aid and protection." Section 1. Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote the free and responsible
exercise of the right to self-organization through the establishment of a simplified
Right to choose whether to form or mechanism for the speedy registration of labor unions and workers associations,
join a union or workers' association determination of representation status and resolution of inter/intra-union and other
belongs to workers themselves related labor relations disputes. Only legitimate or registered labor unions shall have
the right to represent their members for collective bargaining and other purposes.
In the case at bench, the Court cannot sanction the opinion of the CA that Samahan Workers' associations shall have the right to represent their members for purposes
should have formed a union for purposes of collective bargaining instead of a other than collective bargaining.
workers' association because the choice belonged to it. The right to form or join a
labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising Section 2. Who may join labor unions and workers' associations. - All persons
the said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises, including employees
right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a of government owned or controlled corporations without original charters established
conferred right.53 Also inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to choose under the Corporation Code, as well as employees of religious, charitable, medical or
whether to form a union for purposes of collective bargaining or a workers' educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-
association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection. organization and to form, join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective
bargaining: provided, however, that supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by membership in a labor union of the rank-and-file employees but may form, join or
law. For instance, the Labor Code specifically disallows managerial employees from assist separate labor unions of their own. Managerial employees shall not be eligible
joining, assisting or forming any labor union. Meanwhile, supervisory employees, to form, join or assist any labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining. Alien
while eligible for membership in labor organizations, are proscribed from joining the employees with valid working permits issued by the Department may exercise the
collective bargaining unit of the rank and file employees.54 Even government right to self-organization and join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective
employees have the right to self-organization. It is not, however, regarded as existing bargaining if they are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to
or available for purposes of collective bargaining, but simply for the furtherance and Filipino workers, as certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
protection of their interests.55
For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a definite period or
Hanjin posits that the members of Samahan have definite employers, hence, they not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in
should have formed a union instead of a workers' association. The Court disagrees. any labor organization.
There is no provision in the Labor Code that states that employees with definite
employers may form, join or assist unions only. All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-
employed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
The Court cannot subscribe either to Hanjin's position that Samahan's members organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes except
cannot form the association because they are not covered by the second sentence of collective bargaining.
Article 243 (now 249), to wit:
[Emphases Supplied]
Article 243. Coverage and employees' right to selforganization. All persons employed
in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, Clearly, there is nothing in the foregoing implementing rules which provides that
medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the workers, with definite employers, cannot form or join a workers' association for mutual
right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own aid and protection. Section 2 thereof even broadens the coverage of workers who can
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant form or join a workers' association. Thus, the Court agrees with Samahan's argument
that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant, intermittent Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that misrepresentation, to be a ground
and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies for the cancellation of the certificate of registration, must be done maliciously and
with the workers themselves, and whether they have definite employers or not. deliberately. Further, the mistakes appearing in the application or attachments must
be grave or refer to significant matters. The details as to how the alleged fraud was
No misrepresentation on the part committed must also be indubitably shown.
of Samahan to warrant cancellation
of registration The records of this case reveal no deliberate or malicious intent to commit
misrepresentation on the part of Samahan.1âwphi1 The use of such words "KAMI,
In this case, Samahan's registration was cancelled not because its members were ang mga Manggagawa sa HANJIN Shipyard" in the preamble of the constitution and
prohibited from forming a workers' association but because they allegedly committed by-laws did not constitute misrepresentation so as to warrant the cancellation of
misrepresentation for using the phrase, "KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa HANJIN Samahan's certificate of registration. Hanjin failed to indicate how this phrase
Shipyard." constitutes a malicious and deliberate misrepresentation. Neither was there any
showing that the alleged misrepresentation was serious in character.
Misrepresentation, as a ground for the cancellation of registration of a labor Misrepresentation is a devious charge that cannot simply be entertained by mere
organization, is committed "in connection with the adoption, or ratification of the surmises and conjectures.
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, the list of
members who took part in the ratification of the constitution and by-laws or Even granting arguendo that Samahan' s members misrepresented themselves as
amendments thereto, and those in connection with the election of officers, minutes of employees or workers of Hanjin, said misrepresentation does not relate to the
the election of officers, and the list of voters, xxx."56 adoption or ratification of its constitution and by-laws or to the election of its officers.

In Takata Corporation v. Bureau of Relations,57 the DOLE Regional Director granted Removal of the word "Hanjin Shipyard"
the petition for the cancellation of certificate of registration of Samahang Lakas from the association 's name, however,
Manggagawa sa Takata (Salamat) after finding that the employees who attended the does not infringe on Samahan 's right to
organizational meeting fell short of the 20% union registration requirement. The BLR, self-organization
however, reversed the ruling of the DOLE Regional Director, stating that petitioner
Takata Corporation (Takata) failed to prove deliberate and malicious Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the BLR that "Hanjin Shipyard" must be removed
misrepresentation on the part of respondent Salamat. Although Takata claimed that in in the name of the association. A legitimate workers' association refers to an
the list of members, there was an employee whose name appeared twice and another association of workers organized for mutual aid and protection of its members or for
was merely a project employee, such facts were not considered misrepresentations in any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining registered with the DOLE.59
the absence of showing that the respondent deliberately did so for the purpose of Having been granted a certificate of registration, Samahan's association is now
increasing their union membership. The Court ruled in favor of Salamat. recognized by law as a legitimate workers' association.

In S.S. Ventures International v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union,58 the petition for According to Samahan, inherent in the workers' right to selforganization is its right to
cancellation of certificate of registration was denied. The Court wrote: name its own organization. It seems to equate the dropping of words "Hanjin
Shipyard" from its name as a restraint in its exercise of the right to self-organization.
If the union's application is infected by falsification and like serious irregularities, Hanjin, on the other hand, invokes that "Hanjin Shipyard" is a registered trade name
especially those appearing on the face of the application and its attachments, a union and, thus, it is within their right to prohibit its use.
should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. Prescinding from
these considerations, the issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration No. As there is no provision under our labor laws which speak of the use of name by a
R0300-oo-02-UR-0003 necessarily implies that its application for registration and the workers' association, the Court refers to the Corporation Code, which governs the
supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities. names of juridical persons. Section 18 thereof provides:
Another factor which militates against the veracity of the allegations in the
Sinumpaang Petisyon is the lack of particularities on how, when and where No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities and Exchange Commission if
respondent union perpetrated the alleged fraud on each member. Such details are the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any
crucial for in the proceedings for cancellation of union registration on the ground of existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently
fraud or misrepresentation, what needs to be established is that the specific act or deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate
omission of the union deprived the complaining employees-members of their right to name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of
choose. incorporation under the amended name.

[Emphases Supplied] [Emphases Supplied]

For the same reason, it would be misleading for the members of Samahan to use
"Hanjin Shipyard" in its name as it could give the wrong impression that all of its
members are employed by Hanjin.

Further, Section 9, Rule IV of D.O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 explicitly states:

The change of name of a labor organization shall not affect its legal personality. All
the rights and obligations of a labor organization under its old name shall continue to
be exercised by the labor organization under its new name.

Thus, in the directive of the BLR removing the words "Hanjin Shipyard," no
abridgement of Samahan's right to self-organization was committed.