Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club vs. Court of Appeals

A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel without a board resolution authorizing such signature is defective, and subsequent authorization issued beyond the reglementary period for filing the petition does not constitute substantial compliance. Furthermore, withdrawal from union membership after the filing of a petition for certification election is presumed involuntary and does not affect the union's registration or the petition for certification election.

Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club employed approximately 112 rank-and-file employees. On December 6, 2005, 26 of these employees organized the Eagle Ridge Employees Union (EREU), elected officers, and ratified their constitution and by-laws. Four additional employees joined the union on December 8, 2005. EREU applied for registration on December 19, 2005, declaring 30 members, and was granted a certificate of registration. Subsequently, EREU filed a petition for certification election, which the employer opposed. Six union members later executed affidavits of retraction, claiming they did not know they were signing union documents, prompting the employer to file a petition for cancellation of the union's registration on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation.

• Organization and Registration: On December 6, 2005, 26 rank-and-file employees of Eagle Ridge organized EREU, elected officers, and ratified the constitution and by-laws. On December 8, 2005, four additional employees accomplished union membership forms. On December 19, 2005, EREU applied for registration, declaring 30 members, and was issued Registration Certificate No. RO400-200512-UR-003.
• Petition for Certification Election: On January 10, 2006, EREU filed a petition for certification election. Eagle Ridge opposed this on February 13, 2006.
• Affidavits of Retraction: On February 15, 2006, five union members executed affidavits of retraction, claiming they arrived late to what they thought was a drinking spree, did not know the documents pertained to union organization, and wished to withdraw. On March 15, 2006, a sixth member executed a similar affidavit.
• Petition for Cancellation: On February 24, 2006, Eagle Ridge filed a petition to cancel EREU's registration, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. Eagle Ridge pointed to the discrepancy between the 26 attendees of the organizational meeting and the 30 declared members in the application. It also highlighted that the union secretary certified 25 members ratified the constitution and by-laws, while 26 signatures appeared. Finally, Eagle Ridge argued that the six retractions reduced the membership below the mandatory 20% threshold (22 or 23 members required out of 112).
• Union's Rebuttal: EREU explained that the four additional members joined on December 8, 2005, before the application for registration. The discrepancy of 25 versus 26 ratifiers was a typographical error. EREU also presented joint affidavits from 12 members and their counsel attesting to the orderly conduct of the organizational meeting.

• Authority of Counsel: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the certiorari petition because its counsel was authorized to represent the company, and the subsequent board resolution should be considered substantial compliance or ratification.
• Fraud and Misrepresentation: Petitioner maintained that EREU committed fraud by declaring 30 members when only 26 attended the organizational meeting, and by certifying 25 ratifiers when 26 signatures appeared.
• Invalid Admission of Members: Petitioner argued that the four additional members were fraudulently admitted because they did not comply with the internal requirements of the union's constitution and by-laws.
• Below Mandatory Membership: Petitioner maintained that the affidavits of retraction of six members reduced the union's membership below the 20% threshold required by the Labor Code, warranting the cancellation of its registration.

• Procedural Deficiency of Petition: Respondent countered that Eagle Ridge's petition for cancellation before the DOLE lacked a certification against forum shopping and was verified by an unauthorized person.
• No Misrepresentation: Respondent argued that the four additional members joined before the application for registration, explaining the numerical difference.
• Typographical Error: Respondent countered that the certification stating 25 ratifiers instead of 26 was a mere typographical error, not a malicious misrepresentation.
• Involuntary Withdrawal: Respondent argued that, citing jurisprudence, the withdrawal of members after the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed involuntary and does not affect the petition or the union's registration.
• Inadmissible Retractions: Respondent countered that the affidavits of retraction were not reaffirmed before the Hearing Officer as required by Department Order No. 40-03, rendering them inadmissible and of no probative value.

• Authority to Sign Certification: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that counsel signed the certification against forum shopping without proper authorization.
• Cancellation of Union Registration: Whether there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the union's application for registration warranting the cancellation of its certificate of registration.

• Authority to Sign Certification: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner or principal party, not by counsel, unless specifically authorized by a board resolution. The subsequent board resolution authorizing counsel was issued beyond the 60-day reglementary period for filing the certiorari petition; thus, it cannot be considered substantial compliance.
• Cancellation of Union Registration: No fraud or misrepresentation was established. The discrepancy in membership numbers was due to the valid admission of four additional members prior to the application for registration, which is not prohibited by law. The discrepancy in the number of ratifiers was a mere typographical error without malice. The affidavits of retraction were inadmissible for lack of reaffirmation before the Hearing Officer as required by Section 11, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03. Furthermore, the withdrawal of six members after the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed involuntary and does not affect the union's registration or the petition for certification election; the remaining 24 members still satisfy the 20% requirement. Filing a cancellation petition to bar a certification election is a circumvention of the law.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping — The certification against forum shopping is a peculiar personal representation that must be signed by the principal party, not counsel, unless the latter is specifically authorized by a board resolution. Subsequent authorization issued beyond the reglementary period for filing the petition does not constitute substantial compliance. The Court applied this to uphold the dismissal of the employer's petition before the CA.
• Reaffirmation of Affidavits — Under Section 11, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, affidavits submitted by a party must be reaffirmed by the presentation of the affiant before the Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer; otherwise, they are inadmissible. The Court applied this to exclude the affidavits of retraction executed by the six union members.
• Effect of Withdrawal After Filing of Certification Election — Withdrawal from union membership after the filing of a petition for certification election is presumed involuntary and does not affect the petition for certification election or the union's registration. The Court applied this to hold that the six retractions did not vitiate EREU's registration or its pending petition for certification election.

• "The Rules requires the petitioner, not his counsel, to sign under oath the requisite certification against non-forum shopping. Such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance to the court that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues, and cause of action."
• "We have in precedent cases said that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union?"

• S.S. Ventures International, Inc. v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union (SSVLU), G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008 — Followed. Held that withdrawal from union membership after the filing of a petition for certification election is involuntary and does not vitiate the petition or nullify the union's registration.
• Belyca Corporation v. Ferrer-Calleja, No. L-77395, November 29, 1988 — Followed. Cited for the presumption that duress, coercion, or valuable consideration was brought to bear on retracting members.
• Sapitan v. JB Line Bicol Express, Inc., G.R. No. 163775, October 19, 2007 — Followed. Cited for the rule that a certification of non-forum shopping signed by counsel without proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires a sworn certification of non-forum shopping in petitions filed with the Court of Appeals. Applied to dismiss the petition because counsel signed without authority.
• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath against forum shopping. Applied to emphasize that counsel is not the proper person to sign the certification without authorization.
• Article 234, Labor Code — Enumerates the requirements for the registration of a labor organization, including the 20% membership requirement. Applied to determine that EREU complied with the 20% requirement at the time of application.
• Article 239, Labor Code — Enumerates the grounds for the cancellation of union registration, including misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud. Applied to find that no such grounds existed to cancel EREU's registration.
• Section 11, Rule XI, Department Order No. 40-03 — Requires the reaffirmation of affidavits before the Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer. Applied to render the affidavits of retraction inadmissible.

Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta, Jose Catral Mendoza.