Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 178296 January 12, 2011
THE HERITAGE HOTE MANIA, a!"#n$ "%rou$% #"& o'n(r, GRAN) PA*A HOTE CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONA UNION O+ ,OR-ERS IN THE HOTE, RESTAURANT AN) AIE) IN)USTRIES.
HERITAGE HOTE MANIA SUPER/ISORS CHAPTER 0NU,HRAIN.HHMSC1, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
efore the Court is a petition for revie! on certiorari of the Decision
"
of the Court of #ppeals $C#% dated Ma&
'(, )((* and Resolution dated +une ,, )((-. .he assailed Decision a/ir0ed the dis0issal of a petition for
cancellation of union re1istration 2led b& petitioner, 3rand Pla4a 5otel Corporation, o!ner of 5erita1e 5otel
Manila, a1ainst respondent, National 6nion of 7or8ers in the 5otel, Restaurant and #llied Industries95erita1e
5otel Manila Supervisors Chapter $N675R#IN955MSC%, a labor or1ani4ation of the supervisor& e0plo&ees
of 5erita1e 5otel Manila.
.he case ste00ed fro0 the follo!in1 antecedents:
On October "", ";;*, respondent 2led !ith the Depart0ent of <abor and E0plo&0ent9National Capital
Re1ion $DO<E9NCR% a petition for certi2cation election.
)
.he Med9#rbiter 1ranted the petition on =ebruar&
",, ";;> and ordered the holdin1 of a certi2cation election.
'
On appeal, the DO<E Secretar&, in a Resolution
dated #u1ust "*, ";;>, a/ir0ed the Med9#rbiter?s order and re0anded the case to the Med9#rbiter for the
holdin1 of a preelection conference on =ebruar& )>, ";;-. Petitioner 2led a 0otion for reconsideration, but it
!as denied on Septe0ber )', ";;>.
.he preelection conference !as not held as initiall& scheduled@ it !as held a &ear later, or on =ebruar& )(,
";;A. Petitioner 0oved to archive or to dis0iss the petition due to alle1ed repeated non9appearance of
respondent. .he latter a1reed to suspend proceedin1s until further notice. .he preelection conference
resu0ed on +anuar& );, )(((.
SubseBuentl&, petitioner discovered that respondent had failed to sub0it to the ureau of <abor Relations
$<R% its annual 2nancial report for several &ears and the list of its 0e0bers since it 2led its re1istration
papers in ";;*. ConseBuentl&, on Ma& ";, )(((, petitioner 2led a Petition for Cancellation of Re1istration of
respondent, on the 1round of the non9sub0ission of the said docu0ents. Petitioner pra&ed that respondent?s
Certi2cate of Creation of <ocalCChapter be cancelled and its na0e be deleted fro0 the list of le1iti0ate labor
or1ani4ations. It further reBuested the suspension of the certi2cation election proceedin1s.
,
On +une ", )(((, petitioner reiterated its reBuest b& 2lin1 a Motion to Dis0iss or Suspend the DCerti2cation
ElectionE Proceedin1s,
*
ar1uin1 that the dis0issal or suspension of the proceedin1s is !arranted, considerin1
that the le1iti0ac& of respondent is seriousl& bein1 challen1ed in the petition for cancellation of re1istration.
Petitioner 0aintained that the resolution of the issue of !hether respondent is a le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation
is crucial to the issue of !hether it 0a& eFercise ri1hts of a le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation, !hich include the
ri1ht to be certi2ed as the bar1ainin1 a1ent of the covered e0plo&ees.
Nevertheless, the certi2cation election pushed throu1h on +une )', )(((. Respondent e0er1ed as the !inner.
>
Page 1 of 8
On +une )A, )(((, petitioner 2led a Protest !ith Motion to Defer Certi2cation of Election Results and 7inner,
-

statin1 that the certi2cation election held on +une )', )((( !as an eFercise in futilit& because, once
respondent?s re1istration is cancelled, it !ould no lon1er be entitled to be certi2ed as the eFclusive
bar1ainin1 a1ent of the supervisor& e0plo&ees. Petitioner also clai0ed that so0e of respondent?s 0e0bers
!ere not Buali2ed to Goin the union because the& !ere either con2dential e0plo&ees or 0ana1erial e0plo&ees.
It then pra&ed that the certi2cation of the election results and !inner be deferred until the petition for
cancellation shall have been resolved, and that respondent?s 0e0bers !ho held con2dential or 0ana1erial
positions be eFcluded fro0 the supervisors? bar1ainin1 unit.
Mean!hile, respondent 2led its #ns!er
A
to the petition for the cancellation of its re1istration. It averred that
the petition !as 2led pri0aril& to dela& the conduct of the certi2cation election, the respondent?s certi2cation
as the eFclusive bar1ainin1 representative of the supervisor& e0plo&ees, and the co00ence0ent of
bar1ainin1 ne1otiations. Respondent pra&ed for the dis0issal of the petition for the follo!in1 reasons: $a%
petitioner is estopped fro0 Buestionin1 respondent?s status as a le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation as it had
alread& reco1ni4ed respondent as such durin1 the preelection conferences@ $b% petitioner is not the part&9in9
interest, as the union 0e0bers are the ones !ho !ould be disadvanta1ed b& the non9sub0ission of 2nancial
reports@ $c% it has alread& co0plied !ith the reportorial reBuire0ents, havin1 sub0itted its 2nancial
state0ents for ";;>, ";;-, ";;A, and ";;;, its updated list of o/icers, and its list of 0e0bers for the &ears
";;*, ";;>, ";;-, ";;A, and ";;;@ $d% the petition is alread& 0oot and acade0ic, considerin1 that the
certi2cation election had alread& been held, and the 0e0bers had 0anifested their !ill to be represented b&
respondent.
Citin1 National 6nion of an8 E0plo&ees v. Minister of <abor, et al.
;
and Sa0ahan n1 Man11a1a!a sa Paci2c
Plastic v. 5on. <a1ues0a,
"(
the Med9#rbiter held that the pendenc& of a petition for cancellation of
re1istration is not a bar to the holdin1 of a certi2cation election. .hus, in an Order
""
dated +anuar& )>, )((",
the Med9#rbiter dis0issed petitioner?s protest, and certi2ed respondent as the sole and eFclusive bar1ainin1
a1ent of all supervisor& e0plo&ees.
Petitioner subseBuentl& appealed the said Order to the DO<E Secretar&.
")
.he appeal !as later dis0issed b&
DO<E Secretar& Patricia #. Sto. .o0as $DO<E Secretar& Sto. .o0as% in the Resolution of #u1ust )", )(().
"'

Petitioner 0oved for reconsideration, but the 0otion !as also denied.
",
In the 0eanti0e, Re1ional Director #leF E. Maraan $Re1ional Director Maraan% of DO<E9NCR 2nall& resolved
the petition for cancellation of re1istration. 7hile 2ndin1 that respondent had indeed failed to 2le 2nancial
reports and the list of its 0e0bers for several &ears, he, nonetheless, denied the petition, ratiocinatin1 that
freedo0 of association and the e0plo&ees? ri1ht to self9or1ani4ation are 0ore substantive considerations. 5e
too8 into account the fact that respondent !on the certi2cation election and that it had alread& been certi2ed
as the eFclusive bar1ainin1 a1ent of the supervisor& e0plo&ees. In vie! of the fore1oin1, Re1ional Director
MaraanH!hile e0phasi4in1 that the non9co0pliance !ith the la! is not vie!ed !ith favorHconsidered the
belated sub0ission of the annual 2nancial reports and the list of 0e0bers as su/icient co0pliance thereof
and considered the0 as havin1 been sub0itted on ti0e. .he dispositive portion of the decision
"*
dated
Dece0ber );, )((" reads:
75ERE=ORE, pre0ises considered, the instant petition to delist the National 6nion of 7or8ers in the 5otel,
Restaurant and #llied Industries95erita1e 5otel Manila Supervisors Chapter fro0 the roll of le1iti0ate labor
or1ani4ations is hereb& DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
">
#11rieved, petitioner appealed the decision to the <R.
"-
<R Director 5ans <eo Cacdac inhibited hi0self
fro0 the case because he had been a for0er counsel of respondent.
In vie! of Director Cacdac?s inhibition, DO<E Secretar& Sto. .o0as too8 co1ni4ance of the appeal. In a
resolution
"A
dated =ebruar& )", )((', she dis0issed the appeal, holdin1 that the constitutionall& 1uaranteed
freedo0 of association and ri1ht of !or8ers to self9or1ani4ation out!ei1hed respondent?s nonco0pliance !ith
Page 2 of 8
the statutor& reBuire0ents to 0aintain its status as a le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation.
Petitioner 2led a 0otion for reconsideration,
";
but the 0otion !as li8e!ise denied in a resolution
)(
dated Ma&
'(, )(('. DO<E Secretar& Sto. .o0as ad0itted that it !as the <R !hich had Gurisdiction over the appeal, but
she pointed out that the <R Director had voluntaril& inhibited hi0self fro0 the case because he used to
appear as counsel for respondent. In order to 0aintain the inte1rit& of the decision and of the <R, she
therefore accepted the 0otion to inhibit and too8 co1ni4ance of the appeal.
Petitioner 2led a petition for certiorari !ith the C#, raisin1 the issue of !hether the DO<E Secretar& acted
!ith 1rave abuse of discretion in ta8in1 co1ni4ance of the appeal and a/ir0in1 the dis0issal of its petition for
cancellation of respondent?s re1istration.
In a Decision dated Ma& '(, )((*, the C# denied the petition. .he C# opined that the DO<E Secretar& 0a&
le1all& assu0e Gurisdiction over an appeal fro0 the decision of the Re1ional Director in the event that the
Director of the <R inhibits hi0self fro0 the case. #ccordin1 to the C#, in the absence of the <R Director,
there is no person 0ore co0petent to resolve the appeal than the DO<E Secretar&. .he C# brushed aside the
alle1ation of bias and partialit& on the part of the DO<E Secretar&, considerin1 that such alle1ation !as not
supported b& an& evidence.
.he C# also found that the DO<E Secretar& did not co00it 1rave abuse of discretion !hen she a/ir0ed the
dis0issal of the petition for cancellation of respondent?s re1istration as a labor or1ani4ation. Echoin1 the
DO<E Secretar&, the C# held that the reBuire0ents of re1istration of labor or1ani4ations are an eFercise of
the overridin1 police po!er of the State, desi1ned for the protection of !or8ers a1ainst potential abuse b& the
union that recruits the0. .hese reBuire0ents, the C# opined, should not be eFploited to !or8 a1ainst the
!or8ers? constitutionall& protected ri1ht to self9or1ani4ation.
Petitioner 2led a 0otion for reconsideration, invo8in1 this Court?s rulin1 in #bbott <abs. Phils., Inc. v. #bbott
<abs. E0plo&ees 6nion,
)"
!hich cate1oricall& declared that the DO<E Secretar& has no authorit& to revie! the
decision of the Re1ional Director in a petition for cancellation of union re1istration, and Section ,,
))
Rule VIII,
oo8 V of the O0nibus Rules I0ple0entin1 the <abor Code.
In its Resolution
)'
dated +une ,, )((-, the C# denied petitioner?s 0otion, statin1 that the <R Director?s
inhibition fro0 the case !as a peculiarit& not present in the #bbott case, and that such inhibition Gusti2ed the
assu0ption of Gurisdiction b& the DO<E Secretar&.
In this petition, petitioner ar1ues that:
I.
.he Court of #ppeals seriousl& erred in rulin1 that the <abor Secretar& properl& assu0ed Gurisdiction over
Petitioner?s appeal of the Re1ional Director?s Decision in the Cancellation Petition F F F.
#. +urisdiction is conferred onl& b& la!. .he <abor Secretar& had no Gurisdiction to revie! the
decision of the Re1ional Director in a petition for cancellation. Such Gurisdiction is conferred b&
la! to the <R.
. .he unilateral inhibition b& the <R Director cannot Gustif& the <abor Secretar&?s eFercise of
Gurisdiction over the #ppeal.
C. .he <abor Secretar&?s assu0ption of Gurisdiction over the #ppeal !ithout notice violated
Petitioner?s ri1ht to due process.
II.
Page 3 of 8
.he Court of #ppeals 1ravel& erred in a/ir0in1 the dis0issal of the Cancellation Petition despite the
0andator& and uneBuivocal provisions of the <abor Code and its I0ple0entin1 Rules.
),
.he petition has no 0erit.
+urisdiction to revie! the decision of the Re1ional Director lies !ith the <R. .his is clearl& provided in the
I0ple0entin1 Rules of the <abor Code and enunciated b& the Court in #bbott. ut as pointed out b& the C#,
the present case involves a peculiar circu0stance that !as not present or covered b& the rulin1 in #bbott. In
this case, the <R Director inhibited hi0self fro0 the case because he !as a for0er counsel of respondent.
7ho, then, shall resolve the case in his placeI
In #bbott, the appeal fro0 the Re1ional Director?s decision !as directl& 2led !ith the O/ice of the DO<E
Secretar&, and !e ruled that the latter has no appellate Gurisdiction. In the instant case, the appeal !as 2led
b& petitioner !ith the <R, !hich, undisputedl&, acBuired Gurisdiction over the case. Once Gurisdiction is
acBuired b& the court, it re0ains !ith it until the full ter0ination of the case.
)*
.hus, Gurisdiction re0ained !ith the <R despite the <R Director?s inhibition. 7hen the DO<E Secretar&
resolved the appeal, she 0erel& stepped into the shoes of the <R Director and perfor0ed a function that the
latter could not hi0self perfor0. She did so pursuant to her po!er of supervision and control over the <R.
)>
EFpoundin1 on the eFtent of the po!er of control, the Court, in #raneta, et al. v. 5on. M. 3at0aitan, et al.,
)-

pronounced that, if a certain po!er or authorit& is vested b& la! upon the Depart0ent Secretar&, then such
po!er or authorit& 0a& be eFercised directl& b& the President, !ho eFercises supervision and control over the
depart0ents. .his principle !as incorporated in the #d0inistrative Code of ";A-, !hich de2nes Jsupervision
and controlJ as includin1 the authorit& to act directl& !henever a speci2c function is entrusted b& la! or
re1ulation to a subordinate.
)A
#ppl&in1 the fore1oin1 to the present case, it is clear that the DO<E Secretar&,
as the person eFercisin1 the po!er of supervision and control over the <R, has the authorit& to directl&
eFercise the Buasi9Gudicial function entrusted b& la! to the <R Director.
It is true that the po!er of control and supervision does not 1ive the Depart0ent Secretar& unbridled
authorit& to ta8e over the functions of his or her subordinate.

Such authorit& is subGect to certain 1uidelines
!hich are stated in oo8 IV, Chapter A, Section ';$"%$a% of the #d0inistrative Code of ";A-.
);
5o!ever, in the
present case, the DO<E Secretar&?s act of ta8in1 over the function of the <R Director !as !arranted and
necessitated b& the latter?s inhibition fro0 the case and the obGective to J0aintain the inte1rit& of the
decision, as !ell as the ureau itself.J
'(
Petitioner insists that the <R Director?s subordinates should have resolved the appeal, citin1 the provision
under the #d0inistrative Code of ";A- !hich states, Jin case of the absence or disabilit& of the head of a
bureau or o/ice, his duties shall be perfor0ed b& the assistant head.J
'"
.he provision clearl& does not appl&
considerin1 that the <R Director !as neither absent nor su/erin1 fro0 an& disabilit&@ he re0ained as head
of the <R. .hus, to dispel an& suspicion of bias, the DO<E Secretar& opted to resolve the appeal herself.
Petitioner !as not denied the ri1ht to due process !hen it !as not noti2ed in advance of the <R Director?s
inhibition and the DO<E Secretar&?s assu0ption of the case. 7ell9settled is the rule that the essence of due
process is si0pl& an opportunit& to be heard, or, as applied to ad0inistrative proceedin1s, an opportunit& to
eFplain one?s side or an opportunit& to see8 a reconsideration of the action or rulin1 co0plained of.
')

Petitioner had the opportunit& to Buestion the <R Director?s inhibition and the DO<E Secretar&?s ta8in1
co1ni4ance of the case !hen it 2led a 0otion for reconsideration of the latter?s decision. It !ould be !ell to
state that a critical co0ponent of due process is a hearin1 before an i0partial and disinterested tribunal, for
all the ele0ents of due process, li8e notice and hearin1, !ould be 0eanin1less if the ulti0ate decision !ould
co0e fro0 a partial and biased Gud1e.
''
It !as precisel& to ensure a fair trial that 0oved the <R Director to
inhibit hi0self fro0 the case and the DO<E Secretar& to ta8e over his function.
Petitioner also insists that respondent?s re1istration as a le1iti0ate labor union should be cancelled. Petitioner
posits that once it is deter0ined that a 1round enu0erated in #rticle )'; of the <abor Code is present,
Page 4 of 8
cancellation of re1istration should follo!@ it beco0es the 0inisterial dut& of the Re1ional Director to cancel
the re1istration of the labor or1ani4ation, hence, the use of the !ord Jshall.J Petitioner points out that the
Re1ional Director has ad0itted in its decision that respondent failed to sub0it the reBuired docu0ents for a
nu0ber of &ears@ therefore, cancellation of its re1istration should have follo!ed as a 0atter of course.
7e are not persuaded.
#rticles )'A and )'; of the <abor Code read:
#R.. )'A. C#NCE<<#.ION O= RE3IS.R#.ION@ #PPE#<
.he certi2cate of re1istration of an& le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation, !hether national or local, shall be canceled
b& the ureau if it has reason to believe, after due hearin1, that the said labor or1ani4ation no lon1er 0eets
one or 0ore of the reBuire0ents herein prescribed.
',
#R.. )';. 3RO6NDS =OR C#NCE<<#.ION O= 6NION RE3IS.R#.ION.
.he follo!in1 shall constitute 1rounds for cancellation of union re1istration:
F F F F
$d% =ailure to sub0it the annual 2nancial report to the ureau !ithin thirt& $'(% da&s after the closin1 of ever&
2scal &ear and 0isrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the 2nancial report itself@
F F F F
$i% =ailure to sub0it list of individual 0e0bers to the ureau once a &ear or !henever reBuired b& the
ureau.
'*
.hese provisions 1ive the Re1ional Director a0ple discretion in dealin1 !ith a petition for cancellation of a
union?s re1istration, particularl&, deter0inin1 !hether the union still 0eets the reBuire0ents prescribed b&
la!. It is su/icient to 1ive the Re1ional Director license to treat the late 2lin1 of reBuired docu0ents as
su/icient co0pliance !ith the reBuire0ents of the la!. #fter all, the la! reBuires the labor or1ani4ation to
sub0it the annual 2nancial report and list of 0e0bers in order to verif& if it is still viable and 2nanciall&
sustainable as an or1ani4ation so as to protect the e0plo&er and e0plo&ees fro0 fraudulent or K&9b&9ni1ht
unions. 7ith the sub0ission of the reBuired docu0ents b& respondent, the purpose of the la! has been
achieved, thou1h belatedl&.
7e cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Re1ional Director and the DO<E Secretar& in den&in1 the
petition for cancellation of respondent?s re1istration. .he union 0e0bers and, in fact, all the e0plo&ees
belon1in1 to the appropriate bar1ainin1 unit should not be deprived of a bar1ainin1 a1ent, 0erel& because of
the ne1li1ence of the union o/icers !ho !ere responsible for the sub0ission of the docu0ents to the <R.
<abor authorities should, indeed, act !ith circu0spection in treatin1 petitions for cancellation of union
re1istration, lest the& be accused of interferin1 !ith union activities. In resolvin1 the petition, consideration
0ust be ta8en of the funda0ental ri1hts 1uaranteed b& #rticle LIII, Section ' of the Constitution, i.e., the
ri1hts of all !or8ers to self9or1ani4ation, collective bar1ainin1 and ne1otiations, and peaceful concerted
activities. <abor authorities should bear in 0ind that re1istration confers upon a union the status of le1iti0ac&
and the conco0itant ri1ht and privile1es 1ranted b& la! to a le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation, particularl& the
ri1ht to participate in or as8 for certi2cation election in a bar1ainin1 unit.
'>
.hus, the cancellation of a
certi2cate of re1istration is the eBuivalent of snu/in1 out the life of a labor or1ani4ation. =or !ithout such
re1istration, it loses 9 as a rule 9 its ri1hts under the <abor Code.
'-
It is !orth 0entionin1 that the <abor Code?s provisions on cancellation of union re1istration and on
Page 5 of 8
reportorial reBuire0ents have been recentl& a0ended b& Republic #ct $R.#.% No. ;,A", #n #ct Stren1thenin1
the 7or8ers? Constitutional Ri1ht to Self9Or1ani4ation, #0endin1 for the Purpose Presidential Decree No.
,,), #s #0ended, Other!ise Mno!n as the <abor Code of the Philippines, !hich lapsed into la! on Ma& )*,
)((- and beca0e e/ective on +une ",, )((-. .he a0end0ent sou1ht to stren1then the !or8ers? ri1ht to self9
or1ani4ation and enhance the Philippines? co0pliance !ith its international obli1ations as e0bodied in the
International <abour Or1ani4ation $I<O% Convention No. A-,
'A
pertainin1 to the non9dissolution of !or8ers?
or1ani4ations b& ad0inistrative authorit&.
';
.hus, R.#. No. ;,A" a0ended #rticle )'; to read:
#R.. )';. 3rounds for Cancellation of 6nion Re1istration.H.he follo!in1 0a& constitute 1rounds for
cancellation of union re1istration:
$a% Misrepresentation, false state0ent or fraud in connection !ith the adoption or rati2cation of
the constitution and b&9la!s or a0end0ents thereto, the 0inutes of rati2cation, and the list of
0e0bers !ho too8 part in the rati2cation@
$b% Misrepresentation, false state0ents or fraud in connection !ith the election of o/icers,
0inutes of the election of o/icers, and the list of voters@
$c% Voluntar& dissolution b& the 0e0bers.
R.#. No. ;,A" also inserted in the <abor Code #rticle ),)9#, !hich provides:
#R.. ),)9#. Reportorial ReBuire0ents.H.he follo!in1 are docu0ents reBuired to be sub0itted to the ureau
b& the le1iti0ate labor or1ani4ation concerned:
$a% Its constitution and b&9la!s, or a0end0ents thereto, the 0inutes of rati2cation, and the list
of 0e0bers !ho too8 part in the rati2cation of the constitution and b&9la!s !ithin thirt& $'(%
da&s fro0 adoption or rati2cation of the constitution and b&9la!s or a0end0ents thereto@
$b% Its list of o/icers, 0inutes of the election of o/icers, and list of voters !ithin thirt& $'(% da&s
fro0 election@
$c% Its annual 2nancial report !ithin thirt& $'(% da&s after the close of ever& 2scal &ear@ and
$d% Its list of 0e0bers at least once a &ear or !henever reBuired b& the ureau.
=ailure to co0pl& !ith the above reBuire0ents shall not be a 1round for cancellation of union re1istration but
shall subGect the errin1 o/icers or 0e0bers to suspension, eFpulsion fro0 0e0bership, or an& appropriate
penalt&.
I<O Convention No. A-, !hich !e have rati2ed in ";*', provides that J!or8ers? and e0plo&ers? or1ani4ations
shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended b& ad0inistrative authorit&.J .he I<O has eFpressed the
opinion that the cancellation of union re1istration b& the re1istrar of labor unions, !hich in our case is the
<R, is tanta0ount to dissolution of the or1ani4ation b& ad0inistrative authorit& !hen such 0easure !ould
1ive rise to the loss of le1al personalit& of the union or loss of advanta1es necessar& for it to carr& out its
activities, !hich is true in our Gurisdiction. #lthou1h the I<O has allo!ed such 0easure to be ta8en, provided
that Gudicial safe1uards are in place, i.e., the ri1ht to appeal to a Gudicial bod&, it has nonetheless re0inded its
0e0bers that dissolution of a union, and cancellation of re1istration for that 0atter, involve serious
conseBuences for occupational representation. It has, therefore, dee0ed it preferable if such actions !ere to
be ta8en onl& as a last resort and after eFhaustin1 other possibilities !ith less serious e/ects on the
or1ani4ation.
,(
.he aforesaid a0end0ents and the I<O?s opinion on this 0atter serve to fortif& our rulin1 in this case. 7e
Page 6 of 8
therefore Buote !ith approval the DO<E Secretar&?s rationale for den&in1 the petition, thus:
It is undisputed that appellee failed to sub0it its annual 2nancial reports and list of individual 0e0bers in
accordance !ith #rticle )'; of the <abor Code. 5o!ever, the eFistence of this 1round should not necessaril&
lead to the cancellation of union re1istration. #rticle )'; reco1ni4es the re1ulator& authorit& of the State to
eFact co0pliance !ith reportin1 reBuire0ents. Net there is 0ore at sta8e in this case than 0erel& 0onitorin1
union activities and reBuirin1 periodic docu0entation thereof.
.he 0ore substantive considerations involve the constitutionall& 1uaranteed freedo0 of association and ri1ht
of !or8ers to self9or1ani4ation. #lso involved is the public polic& to pro0ote free trade unionis0 and collective
bar1ainin1 as instru0ents of industrial peace and de0ocrac&.1avvphi1 #n overl& strin1ent interpretation of
the statute 1overnin1 cancellation of union re1istration !ithout re1ard to surroundin1 circu0stances cannot
be allo!ed. Other!ise, it !ould lead to an unconstitutional application of the statute and e0asculation of
public polic& obGectives. 7orse, it can render nu1ator& the protection to labor and social Gustice clauses that
pervades the Constitution and the <abor Code.
Moreover, sub0ission of the reBuired docu0ents is the dut& of the o/icers of the union. It !ould be
unreasonable for this O/ice to order the cancellation of the union and penali4e the entire union 0e0bership
on the basis of the ne1li1ence of its o/icers. In National 6nion of an8 E0plo&ees vs. Minister of <abor, <9
*',(>, ", Dece0ber ";A", ""( SCR# );>, the Supre0e Court ruled:
#s aptl& ruled b& respondent ureau of <abor Relations Director Noriel: J.he ri1hts of !or8ers to self9
or1ani4ation 2nds 1eneral and speci2c constitutional 1uarantees. F F F Such constitutional 1uarantees should
not be li1htl& ta8en 0uch less nulli2ed. # health& respect for the freedo0 of association de0ands that acts
i0putable to o/icers or 0e0bers be not easil& visited !ith capital punish0ents a1ainst the association itself.J
#t an& rate, !e note that on "; Ma& )(((, appellee had sub0itted its 2nancial state0ent for the &ears ";;>9
";;;. 7ith this sub0ission, appellee has substantiall& co0plied !ith its dut& to sub0it its 2nancial report for
the said period. .o rule di/erentl& !ould be to preclude the union, after havin1 failed to 0eet its periodic
obli1ations pro0ptl&, fro0 ta8in1 appropriate 0easures to correct its o0issions. =or the record, !e do not
vie! !ith favor appellee?s late sub0ission. Punctualit& on the part of the union and its o/icers could have
prevented this petition.
,"
75ERE=ORE, pre0ises considered, the Court of #ppeals Decision dated Ma& '(, )((* and Resolution dated
+une ,, )((- are #==IRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO E)UAR)O 2. NACHURA
#ssociate +ustice
7E CONC6R:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
#ssociate +ustice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. EONAR)O.)E CASTRO
#ssociate +ustice
RO2ERTO A. A2A)
#ssociate +ustice
JOSE CATRA MEN)O*A
#ssociate +ustice
Page 7 of 8
# . . E S . # . I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case !as
assi1ned to the !riter of the opinion of the Court?s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
#ssociate +ustice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R . I = I C # . I O N
Pursuant to Section "', #rticle VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonOs #ttestation, I certif&
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case !as assi1ned to
the !riter of the opinion of the Court?s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief +ustice
Page 8 of 8