Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 198 views

    Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sole

    Uploaded by

    Gerald Suarez
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. to cancel the registration of the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.-Independent labor union. While some union members withdrew their support, at the time of registration the union met the 20% minimum membership requirement. Additionally, the withdrawals made after the petition filing were not clearly voluntary given the potential for employer pressure. Fraud and misrepresentation were not sufficiently proven to cancel the union's legitimate registration.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sole

    Uploaded by

    Gerald Suarez
    198 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. to cancel the registration of the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.-Independent labor union. While some union members withdrew their support, at the time of registration the union met the 20% minimum membership requirement. Additionally, the withdrawals made after the petition filing were not clearly voluntary given the potential for employer pressure. Fraud and misrepresentation were not sufficiently proven to cancel the union's legitimate registration.

    Original Description:

    Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sole

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition of Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. to cancel the registration of the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.-Independent labor union. While some union members withdrew their support, at the time of registration the union met the 20% minimum membership requirement. Additionally, the withdrawals made after the petition filing were not clearly voluntary given the potential for employer pressure. Fraud and misrepresentation were not sufficiently proven to cancel the union's legitimate registration.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    198 views2 pages

    Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sole

    Uploaded by

    Gerald Suarez
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. to cancel the registration of the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc.-Independent labor union. While some union members withdrew their support, at the time of registration the union met the 20% minimum membership requirement. Additionally, the withdrawals made after the petition filing were not clearly voluntary given the potential for employer pressure. Fraud and misrepresentation were not sufficiently proven to cancel the union's legitimate registration.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC., vs.

    THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF


    LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, et al
    G.R. No. 183317 December 21, 2009
    Facts:

    On May 2005, private respondent Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam


    Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a
    legitimate labor organization by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
    Region IV-A.
    On June 2005, petitioner Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation
    of Union Registration against private respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article
    234 of the Labor Code for not complying with the 20% requirement and that it committed
    massive fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code.

    The Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the
    registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.

    SMMSC-Independent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. BLR ruled in favor of


    the respondent, thus, they remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.

    The petitioner appealed and insisted that private respondent failed to comply with the
    20% union membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization
    because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102 employees
    who executed affidavits recanting their union membership

    Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

    Issue:
    1) If there was failure to comply with the 20% union membership requirement
    2) if the withdrawal of 31 union members affected the petition for certification election insofar as
    the 30% requirement is concerned
    Held:
    The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.

    On the first issue, while it is true that the withdrawal of support may be considered as a
    resignation from the union, the fact remains that at the time of the unions application for
    registration, the affiants were members of respondent and they comprised more than the
    required 20% membership for purposes of registration as a labor union.
    Article 234 of the Labor Code merely requires a 20% minimum membership during the
    application for union registration.
    It does not mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership
    requirement all throughout its existence.

    On the second issue, it appears undisputedly that the 31 union members had withdrawn
    their support to the petition before the filing of said petition.

    The distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are
    presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals
    made after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary. Therefore, following
    jurisprudence, the employees were not totally free from the employers pressure and so
    the voluntariness of the employees execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.

    The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the


    right of labor to self-organization.

    For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under
    the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and
    compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.

    You might also like