ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 163532 : March 10, 2010 YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent. R E S O L U T I O N CARPIO, J.: This is a petition 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification election. YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition 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 Pinedas 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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) Pinedas 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 YEUs organization; and (6) 50 YEU members executed a Sama-Samang Pahayag
cralawThe 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 YEUs 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 paragraph YTPI filed before the BLR a motion YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a petition YTPI filed before the Court of Appeals a motion 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The petition is unmeritorious.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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 Pinedas handwritten statement, wherein he made references to at least 2 meetings he had attended during which he had signed the organizational documents, than to Pinedas 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:
cralawThe 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 petitioners 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Another affidavit, that of Arthur Calma, stated that no election was held, but, again, respondent BLR Director gave Calmas 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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, YEUs 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 Davids earlier sinumpaang salaysay, whereby he attested to his attendance at the organizational meeting and to his election thereat as vice president.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As to the inclusion of Pinedas signature in the organizational documents, the BLR Director correctly ruled that evidence to prove the participation of YEU in the failure to delete Pinedas 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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 Tontons 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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. 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 respondents alleged organizational meeting as there was no proof of such election. 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. Whether YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to remove Pinedas signature from the list of employees who supported YEUs application for registration and whether YEU conducted an election of its officers are questions of fact. They are not reviewable.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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. 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 employers 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. 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 Directors ruling that the petitioner had the burden of proving that subject election of officers never took place.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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. The Court is not convinced. YTPI, being the one which filed the petition for the revocation of YEUs 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 Pinedas signature from the organizational documents and that YEU fraudulently misrepresented that it conducted an election of officers.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In Heritage Hotel Manila v. Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila, 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 unions 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 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. 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 WE CONCUR: ARTURO D. BRION
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ 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 Courts Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO 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 Chairpersons 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 Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|