PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – PIZZA HUT VS LAGUESMAFACTS: Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katipunan (union) filed a petition for certification election, representing rank-and-file employees of Progressive Development Corporation (company).

Company filed Petition seeking the cancellation of the Union's registration on the grounds of fraud and falsification [false, forged, double or multiple signatures in constitution in by-laws and in election of officers; and charter certificate issued was dated June 26, 1993 despite that application for registration was only approved June 27, 1993], and requested suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the union's legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration.

Med Arbiter issued order which directed the holding of the certificate election and explaining that union was an LLO.

Both company’s appeal and motion for reconsideration to SOLE were denied.

ISSUE: W/N after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor organization, recognition by the BLR merely becomes a ministerial function.

HELD: No, it is not ministerial. A more than cursory reading of the aforecited provisions clearly indicates that the requirements embodied therein are intended as preventive measures against the commission of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the necessary papers and documents for registration, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art 234 have been sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of recognition has been issued, the propriety of the labor organization's registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with Art 238 & 239 LCP, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for certification election.Registration requirements specifically 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 use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and unions of workers are engaged directly affect the public interest and should be protected.

Petition granted.

SMC MANDAUE PACKING PRODUCTS PLANT VS MANDAUE PACKING PRODUCTS PLANTSFACTS: Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-And-File Union FFW (union), identifying itself as an affiliate of Federation of Free Workers (FFW), filed a petition for certification election with DOLE Reg VII, seeking to represent permanent rank-and-file monthly paid employees of San Miguel Corporation Mandaue Packaging Products Plant (company).Attached to the petition were a) Charter Certificate issued by FFW; b) their constitution; c) list of officers and addresses; d) certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet been collected from its members; e) list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of company.Company filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the ground that union was not listed or included in the roster of LLO’s based on the certification issued by DOLE.Union submitted to the BLR the same documents earlier attached to its petition for certification, with an accompanying letter stating that the documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the LCP and hoping that the submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster of legitimate labor organizations.DOLE issued Certificate of Creation in favor of union, giving it legal personality as a labor organization/workers association, it having submitted all the required documents.Company filed petition to cancel the union’s registration – but it was denied. Such denial was also affirmed by CA.In the meantime, Med Arbiter dismissed union’s petition for certification election on the ground that at the date of the filing union did not have legal personality yet.Union appealed the order to DOLE; DOLE made decision to reverse it, concluding that acquired legal personality as early as 15 June 1998 (date of filing), citing Sec 3, Rule VI of IR which deems that a local/chapter acquires legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documentary requirements as mandated in the IR.

ISSUE: W/N union has legal personality.

HELD: YES. It could be properly said that at the exact moment respondent was filing the petition for certification, it did not yet possess any legal personality, since the requisites for acquisition of legal personality under Section 3, Rule VI of DO no. 9 had not yet been complied with. It could also be discerned that the intention of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules that only those labor organizations that have acquired legal personality are capacitated to file petitions for certification elections. Such is the general rule. Yet there are peculiar circumstances in this case that allow the Court to rule that respondent acquired the requisite legal personality at the same

time it filed the petition for certification election. In doing so, the Court acknowledges that the strict letter of the procedural rule was not complied with. However, labor laws are generally construed liberally in favor of labor, especially if doing so affirms the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.

Under Section 3, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9, it is the submission of these same documents to the Regional Office or Bureau that operates to vest legal personality on the local/chapter. There is no doubt that on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its petition for certification election, attached thereto were respondent’s constitution, the names and addresses of its officers, and the charter certificate issued by the national union FFW.

However, respondent never submitted separate by-laws, nor does it appear that respondent ever intended to prepare a set thereof. Section 1(c), Rule VI, Book V of Department Order No. 9 provides that the submission of both a constitution and a set of by-laws is required, or at least an indication that the local/chapter is adopting the constitution and by-laws of the federation or national union. A literal reading of the provision might indicate that the failure to submit a specific set of by-laws is fatal to the recognition of the local/chapter. However, a critical examination of respondent’s constitution reveals that it is sufficiently comprehensive in establishing the necessary rules for its operation. These premises considered, there is clearly no need for a separate set of by-laws to be submitted by respondent.