6. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v.

The Secretary of the Department of Labor and is that the employees were not totally free from the employer's pressure, and so the
Employment voluntariness of the employees' execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.
GR # 183317, December 21, 2009.
By: Bea M. Respondent asserts that it had a total of 173 union members at the time it applied for
Topic: Registration; requirements registration. Two names were repeated in respondent's list and had to be deducted, but the
Petitioners: MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC total would still be 171 union members. Further, out of the four names alleged to be no longer
Respondent: THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CHIEF OF connected with petitioner, only two names should be deleted from the list since Diana Motilla
THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL and T.W. Amutan resigned from petitioner only on May 10, 2005 and May 17, 2005,
DIRECTOR OF DOLE REGIONAL OFFICE NUMBER IV-A & SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA respectively, or after respondent's registration had already been granted. Thus, the total union
SA MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC. (SMMSC-INDEPENDENT) membership at the time of registration was 169. Since the total number of rank-and-􀁂le
Ponente: NACHURA, J employees at that time was 528, 169 employees would be equivalent to 32% of the total rank-
FACTS: and-􀁂le workers complement, still very much above the minimum required by law.
 Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-
Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration as a legitimate labor The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the
organization by the DOLE, Region IV-A. organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondent's
 Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration certificate of registration. The cancellation of a union's registration doubtless has an impairing
against respondent, claiming that the latter violated Article 234 of the Labor Code dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be
for not complying with the 20% requirement, and that it committed massive fraud grounds for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud
and misrepresentation in violation of Article 239 of the same code. and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a
 Regional Director of DOLE IV-A issued an Order granting the petition, revoking the majority of union members.
registration of respondent, and delisting it from the roster of active labor unions.
 Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). In a Decision In this case, we agree with the BLR and the CA that respondent could not have possibly
the BLR granted respondent's appeal committed misrepresentation, fraud, or false statements. The alleged failure of respondent to
indicate with mathematical precision the total number of employees in the bargaining unit is
 Petitioner sought recourse with the CA through a Petition for Certiorari; but the CA
of no moment, especially as it was able to comply with the 20% minimum membership
denied the petition for lack of merit.
requirement. Even if the total number of rank-and-file employees of petitioner is 528, while
 The petitioner insists that respondent failed to comply with the 20% union
respondent declared that it should only be 455, it still cannot be denied that the latter would
membership requirement for its registration as a legitimate labor organization
have more than complied with the registration requirement.
because of the disaffiliation from the total number of union members of 102
employees who executed affidavits recanting their union membership.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed December 20, 2007
Decision and the June 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against
ISSUE: Should the Certificate of Union Registration be cancelled on the ground of fraud and
petitioner.
misrepresentation (NO)

RULING:
Evidently, these affidavits were written and prepared in advance, and the pro forma affidavits
were ready to be filled out with the employees' names and signatures. The first common
allegation in the affidavits is a declaration that, in spite of his hesitation, the affiant was forced
and deceived into joining the respondent union. It is worthy to note, however, that the
affidavit does not mention the identity of the people who allegedly forced and deceived the
affiant into joining the union, much less the circumstances that constituted such force and
deceit. Indeed, not only was this allegation couched in very general terms and sweeping in
nature, but more importantly, it was not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

In the instant case, the affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities of the union
members became public, i.e., after the union filed a petition for certification election on May
23, 2005, since the names of the members were attached to the petition. The purported
withdrawal of support for the registration of the union was made after the documents were
submitted to the DOLE, Region IV-A. The logical conclusion, therefore, following jurisprudence,