SAMMA-LIKHA vs. Samma Corporation

A certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a petition for certification election because such a proceeding is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character, and the rules governing certification elections provide for automatic consolidation of multiple petitions involving the same bargaining unit. The legal personality of a registered labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked in certification election proceedings but may only be questioned in an independent petition for cancellation of registration.

Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) was a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation, a legitimate labor organization registered with the DOLE. Respondent Samma Corporation was the employer of the rank-and-file employees that petitioner sought to represent. The case arose under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, specifically D.O. No. 9, series of 1997, which governed the filing of petitions for certification election and the acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations and their local chapters.

Petitioner Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA), a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation, filed a petition for certification election on July 24, 2001 with the DOLE Regional Office IV. Petitioner claimed that it sought to represent all rank-and-file employees of respondent Samma Corporation, that no other legitimate labor organization represented these employees, that respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement, and that no certification or consent election had been conducted within the employer unit in the preceding 12 months.

Respondent moved for dismissal of the petition, arguing that LIKHA Federation failed to establish its legal personality, that petitioner failed to prove its existence as a local chapter, that petitioner failed to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping, and that petitioner had a prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees. On November 12, 2002, med-arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of legal personality for failure to attach the certificate of registration, prohibited mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees, and failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration on November 29, 2001, and the Regional Director forwarded the case to the Secretary of Labor. Meanwhile, on December 14, 2002, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner's union registration with the DOLE Regional Office IV. On January 17, 2003, Acting Secretary Manuel G. Imson, treating the motion for reconsideration as an appeal, reversed the med-arbiter's order, ruling that the legal personality of a union cannot be collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an independent petition for cancellation of registration. He directed the holding of a certification election among respondent's rank-and-file employees, subject to the usual pre-election conference and inclusion-exclusion proceedings.

On April 14, 2003, Crispin D. Dannug, Jr., Officer-in-Charge/Regional Director of DOLE Regional Office IV, issued a resolution revoking petitioner's charter certificate as local chapter of LIKHA Federation on the ground of prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and non-compliance with the attestation clause under paragraph 2 of Article 235 of the Labor Code. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of this resolution on May 6, 2003. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals assailing the January 17, 2003 decision and April 3, 2003 resolution of the Secretary of Labor. The CA reversed the same, holding that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 required a certificate of non-forum shopping in petitions for certification election, that the Secretary of Labor erred in granting the appeal despite lack of proof of service on respondent, and that petitioner had no legal standing because its members were a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

• Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: Petitioner argued that a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a petition for certification election, as such proceedings are non-adversarial and fact-finding in character rather than litigation.
• Treatment of Motion for Reconsideration as Appeal: Petitioner maintained that its motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal by the Secretary of Labor, should have been given due course despite the lack of formal proof of service, as respondent had actually received a copy of the motion.
• Legal Personality: Petitioner argued that the erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file employees was not a ground to impugn its legitimacy as a legitimate labor organization which had the right to file a petition for certification election.

• Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: Respondent argued that under Administrative Circular No. 04-94, a certificate of non-forum shopping was required in a petition for certification election because such a petition asserts a claim, i.e., the conduct of a certification election.
• Proof of Service: Respondent contended that petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal by the Secretary of Labor, should not have been given due course for failure to attach proof of service in accordance with the implementing rules as amended by D.O. No. 9.
• Legal Personality: Respondent argued that petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for certification election because its members were a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.

• Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: Whether a certificate of non-forum shopping is required in a petition for certification election.
• Treatment of Motion for Reconsideration as Appeal: Whether petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal by the Secretary of Labor, should not have been given due course for failure to attach proof of service on respondent.
• Legal Personality: Whether petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election.

• Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: No. A certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a petition for certification election because such a proceeding is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character, and the rules provide for automatic consolidation of multiple petitions involving the same bargaining unit.
• Treatment of Motion for Reconsideration as Appeal: No. The motion for reconsideration was properly treated as an appeal because it substantially complied with the formal requisites of the latter, and the lack of proof of service was not fatal as respondent had actually received a copy of the motion.
• Legal Personality: Yes. Petitioner had legal personality to file the petition for certification election, as its legal personality could not be collaterally attacked but may only be questioned in an independent petition for cancellation of registration.

• Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: The Court disagreed with the CA's application of Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The circular requires a certificate of non-forum shopping for complaints, counter-claims, cross-claims, petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding the claim for relief. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a "petition," is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of misconduct requiring relief but are merely of an inquisitorial nature. The object of the proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs but merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees. The Court cited Pena vs. Aparicio, which ruled against the necessity of attaching a certification against forum shopping to a disbarment complaint, reasoning that the evil sought to be avoided is not present in such proceedings. The same situation holds true for a petition for certification election: under the omnibus rules implementing the Labor Code, it is filed in the Regional Office with jurisdiction, and where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, they shall be automatically consolidated. Thus, the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely happen. Notably, neither D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 nor D.O. No. 40-03, series of 2003 requires a certificate of non-forum shopping in the form and contents of a petition for certification election.

• Treatment of Motion for Reconsideration as Appeal: The Court found that the Secretary of Labor properly treated the motion for reconsideration as an appeal. The motion was verified under oath by petitioner's president before a notary public, contained the grounds and arguments relied upon for reversal of the assailed order, and the signature of Rosita Simon appearing on the last page could be considered as compliance with the required proof of service upon respondent. The Court stressed that rules of procedure are interpreted liberally to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action, and technical rules and objections should not hamper the holding of a certification election wherein employees are to select their bargaining representative. A contrary rule would defeat the declared policy of the State to promote the free and responsible exercise of the right to self-organization through the establishment of a simplified mechanism for the speedy registration of labor organizations, determination of representation status, and resolution of intra and inter-union disputes.

• Legal Personality: The Court agreed with petitioner that the erroneous inclusion of one supervisory employee in the union of rank-and-file employees was not a ground to impugn its legitimacy. LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under certificate of registration no. 92-1015-032-11638-FED-LC, and petitioner as its local chapter was issued charter certificate no. 2-01. Under Section 5 of the Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, a labor organization is deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration, and such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation. The grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on lack of legal personality are: (a) petitioner is not listed by the Regional Office or the Bureau of Labor Relations in its registry of legitimate labor organizations, or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality. Although respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner's registration and the DOLE revoked petitioner's charter certificate on April 14, 2003, petitioner moved for reconsideration, and neither party alleged that the resolution had attained finality. The Court could not grant petitioner's prayer to reinstate its charter certificate in this case, as the proceedings on a petition for cancellation of registration are independent of those of a petition for certification election.

• Non-adversarial nature of certification election proceedings — A petition for certification election, even though initiated by a "petition," is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of misconduct requiring relief but are merely of an inquisitorial nature. The object of the proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs but merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a petition for certification election.

• Collateral attack on legal personality of labor organizations — The legal personality of a registered labor organization cannot be collaterally attacked but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of registration. Under Section 5 of the Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule V, as amended by D.O. No. 9, a labor organization is deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that petitioner's legal personality could not be questioned in the certification election proceedings, as its registration had not been cancelled with finality.

• Employer as bystander in certification elections — In certification elections, the employer is a bystander; it has no right or material interest to assail the certification election. The choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. The only exception is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. The Court applied this doctrine in its final note, observing that respondent, as employer, had been the one opposing the holding of a certification election among its rank-and-file employees.

• "A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a 'petition,' is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character." — This passage articulates the core rationale for holding that a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a petition for certification election, distinguishing such proceedings from ordinary litigation.

• "Considering the nature of a petition for certification election and the rules governing it, we therefore hold that the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is inapplicable to such a petition." — This is the ratio decidendi on the first issue, directly resolving the applicability of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to certification election petitions.

• "We stress that rules of procedure are interpreted liberally to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action. They should not be applied if their application serves no useful purpose or hinders the just and speedy disposition of cases. Specifically, technical rules and objections should not hamper the holding of a certification election wherein employees are to select their bargaining representative." — This passage states the liberal construction principle applied to procedural rules in certification election cases, emphasizing the policy favoring the expeditious resolution of representation disputes.

• "Unless petitioner's union registration is cancelled in independent proceedings, it shall continue to have all the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to petition for certification election." — This passage encapsulates the doctrine that a labor organization's legal personality cannot be collaterally attacked in certification election proceedings but may only be questioned in an independent petition for cancellation of registration.

• Pena vs. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298, 25 June 2007, 525 SCRA 444 — Followed as controlling precedent for the proposition that the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is not necessary where the evil sought to be avoided is not present, as in disbarment proceedings; the Court analogized this to certification election proceedings.
• Association of the Court of Appeals Employees vs. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 94716, 15 November 1991, 203 SCRA 597 — Cited for the doctrine that a certification proceeding is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character.
• Bulakeña Restaurant & Caterer vs. CIR, 150-A Phil. 445 (1972) — Cited for the proposition that the object of certification election proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrongs but merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and choice of the employees.
• Tagaytay Highlands Int'l Golf Club Inc. vs. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO, 443 Phil. 841 (2003) — Cited for the rule that the legal personality of a labor organization cannot be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of registration.
• San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) vs. MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW, G.R. No. 152356, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 107 — Cited for the same rule regarding collateral attack on a labor organization's legal personality.
• SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six Movement (FSM) Local Chapter No. 1564 vs. Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 150761, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 524 — Cited for the doctrine that in certification elections, the employer is a bystander with no right or material interest to assail the certification election.
• Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) vs. Trajano — Cited for the description of the employer's role in a certification election as that of a mere bystander with no legal standing to oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto.
• San Miguel Foods, Inc.-Cebu B-Meg Feed Plant vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 116172, 10 October 1996, 263 SCRA 68 — Cited for the proposition that the employer has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto.

• Article 235, paragraph 2, Labor Code — Cited in the DOLE Regional Director's resolution revoking petitioner's charter certificate for non-compliance with the attestation clause; the Court noted this ground in the procedural history but did not base its ruling on it.
• Article 258, Labor Code — Cited as the exception to the rule that the employer is a bystander in certification elections, where the employer has to file the petition for certification election because it was requested to bargain collectively.
• Section 5, Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule V, as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Applied to hold that a labor organization is deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration, and such legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation.
• Section 3, Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule VI, as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Applied to hold that a local chapter acquires legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents enumerated therein, and upon compliance, the Regional Office or Bureau of Labor Relations shall issue a certificate indicating inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations.
• Section 12, Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule XI, as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Applied to the appeal requirement that the appeal shall be deemed not filed unless accompanied by proof of service thereof to appellee; the Court held that substantial compliance sufficed where respondent had actually received a copy of the motion.
• Section 11, paragraph II, Implementing Rules of Book V, Rule XI, as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Cited for the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election based on lack of legal personality: (a) petitioner is not listed in the registry of legitimate labor organizations, or (b) its legal personality has been revoked or cancelled with finality.
• Section 2, Rule XI, Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Cited for the rule that a petition for certification election is filed in the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer or where the bargaining unit is principally situated, and that multiple petitions involving the same bargaining unit shall be automatically consolidated.
• Section 4, Rule XI, Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 9 — Cited to show that the form and contents of a petition for certification election do not include a requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping.
• Section 4, Rule VIII, Implementing Rules as amended by D.O. No. 40-03 — Cited to show that the replacement rules also do not require a certificate of non-forum shopping in the form and contents of a petition for certification election.
• Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Interpreted by the Court to apply only to complaints, counter-claims, cross-claims, petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding the claim for relief; held inapplicable to petitions for certification election.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio (Acting Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.