Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SHIPYARD v BLR and HANJIN However, it failed to adduce evidence that the
Facts: remaining 63 members were also employees. It
Petitioner Samahan, through its authorized bolstered Hanjin’s claim of misrepresentation.
representative, Alfie F. Alipio, filed an application
for registration of its name "Samahan ng Mga BLR: Samahan pointed out that the words "Hanjin
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" with the DOLE. Shipyard," as used in its application for
Attached to the application were the list of names registration, referred to a workplace and not as
of the association's officers and members, employer or company. It explained that when a
signatures of the attendees of the February 7, shipyard was put up in Subic, Zambales, it became
2010 meeting, copies of their Constitution and By- known as Hanjin Shipyard. Further, the remaining
laws. The application stated that the association 63 members signed the Sama-Samang
had a total of 120 members. Pagpapatunay which stated that they were either
working or had worked at Hanjin. Thus, the alleged
On February 26, 2010, the DOLE Regional Office misrepresentation committed by Samahan had no
No. 3, City of San Fernando, Pampanga (DOLE- leg to stand on.
Pampanga), issued the corresponding certificate of
registration in favor of Samahan. Reversed the ruling of the DOLE RD. The BLR was of
the opinion that there was no misrepresentation on
On March 15, 2010, respondent Hanjin Heavy the part of Samahan. The phrase, "KAMI, ang mga
Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. Philippines Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard" if translated,
(Hanjin), with offices at Greenbeach 1, Renondo would be: "We, the workers at Hanjin Shipyard."
Peninsula, Sitio Agustin, Barangay Cawag, Subic The use of the preposition "at" instead of "of "
Bay Freeport Zone, filed a petition7 with DOLE- would indicate that "Hanjin Shipyard" was intended
Pampanga praying for the cancellation of to describe a place.
registration of Samahan's association on the
ground that its members did not fall under any of
the types of workers enumerated in the second
sentence of Article 243 (now 249).