View full case

HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case is a hotel that opposed a petition for certification election filed by the respondent labor organization. The petitioner argued that the labor organization's registration should be cancelled because it had a mixture of managerial and supervisory employees with the rank-and-file employees. The petitioner's opposition to the certification election was denied by the Med-Arbiter, and the conduct of the certification election was ordered. The petitioner appealed but was also denied. A pre-election conference was scheduled but was suspended due to the non-appearance of the labor organization. The labor organization later moved for the conduct of the pre-election conference, and the petitioner filed its comment opposing the inclusion of certain employees. The petitioner also filed a motion to dismiss the certification election based on the labor organization's lack of interest. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) scheduled the certification election despite the pending petition for cancellation of registration filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), but it was dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The certification election proceeded, and the labor organization won. The petitioner filed a protest, but the Med-Arbiter ruled that the petition for cancellation of registration was not a bar to the certification election and declared the labor organization as the sole bargaining agent for the supervisory employees. The petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who denied the appeal and affirmed the Med-Arbiter's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the ruling in Tagaytay Highlands applies to the present case involving the mixture of membership between rank-and-file, supervisory, managerial, and confidential employees in one labor organization.

  2. Whether the suspension of the certification election proceedings is appropriate until the issue of the legality of the union registration is finally resolved.

  3. Whether the passing of time and changes in the composition of the union warrant a new certification election.

  4. Whether the mixed membership of a registered labor union renders it illegitimate.

  5. Whether the requirement of misrepresentation, false statement or fraud should be met in order to de-certify a labor union.

RULING:

  1. The petition for review on certiorari is denied.

  2. The mixed membership of a registered labor union does not render it illegitimate unless it is shown that the co-mingling was due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud according to Article 239 of the Labor Code.

  3. In order to de-certify a labor union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-and-file union includes ineligible employees in its membership. 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, 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.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder in the process. The employer lacks the legal personality to oppose the petition or the conduct of the certification election proceedings.

  • Filing a petition for cancellation of union registration should not bar the conduct of the certification election. Only a final order for cancellation would prevent the union from enjoying its rights as a legitimate labor organization.

  • The failure to submit periodic financial reports and an updated list of members does not automatically warrant the suspension of the certification election proceedings or denial of the petition for certification election.

  • Regional directors have discretion in dealing with petitions for cancellation of union registration and can consider late filing of required documents as complying with the requirements of the law. (Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code)

  • Registration confers legitimacy and the corresponding rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization. (The Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)

  • Labor authorities should exercise caution in treating petitions for cancellation to protect the fundamental rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities. (The Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)

  • Failure to comply with reportorial requirements does not warrant cancellation of union registration but may subject erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion, or appropriate penalties. (RA No. 9481, Article 242-A of the Labor Code)

  • Mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of a registered labor union unless it is shown that the co-mingling was due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud. (Article 239 of the Labor Code)

  • The actual functions of an employee, not his job designation, determine whether the employee occupies a managerial, supervisory or rank-and-file position.

  • The choice between the rigid application of the rules and the right of workers to self-organization should favor the latter, as long as there is an unmistakeable intent of the union members to exercise their right to organize.