FIRST DIVISION

G.R. NO. 246091; AUGUST 20, 2019

CITRA MINA SEAFOOD CORP. [NOW CITRA MINA CANNING
CORP.], REPRESENTED BY JANNAH KRYSTIA H. LU VS. ATTY.
BENJO SANTOS M. BENAVIDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY, AS DIRECTOR IV
OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, SAMAHANG UNITED WORKERS OF CITRA MINA
GROUP OF COMPANIES UNION [UWCMGCU], REPRESENTED BY
JUMARY P. AREVALO

This instant Petition for Review on Certiorari' under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court arose from the suit filed by Citra Mina Seafoods Corp. (Citra
Mina) to cancel the certificate of registration of Samahang United Workers
of Citra Mina Group of Companies Union (Union) with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Facts of the Case

On August 4, 2013, Citra Mina received a Letted from the Union

requesting for its recognition as the sole bargaining agent of the rank and
file employees. Said letter, however, failed to attach several documentary
requirements such as the minutes of organizational meeting, articles of
incorporation, constitution and by-laws, and list of members constituting at
least 20% of the rank and file employees that the organization wishes to
represent. In response, Citra Mina requested the Union for the foregoing
documents.’

Meanwhile, the Union filed a complaint for labor dispute against

Citra Mina before the National Conciliation Mediation Board

- over — six (6) pages ...

8-A
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 246091
August 20, 2019

(NCMB). Pending proceedings, the Union conducted a strike vote and

commenced picketing and strike on November 13, 2013. As a result, Citra
Mina filed a petition with DOLE seeking the cancellation of registration of
the Union on the grounds of misrepresentation, false statements and fraud
under Article 239(a)4 of the Labor Code,5 and failure to provide
documentary requirements for its registration as a labor organization.6

Citra Mina argued that the Union misrepresented in its registration

that it shall act as the bargaining agent of the employees from the company
“Citra Mina Group of Companies. 7 However, there is no such company. To
claim representation of rank and file employees of a non-existent company
is to commit fraud. Citra Mina and its sister companies, who were
petitioner-intervenors a quo, are separate and independent legal entities.
The Union, therefore, cannot represent workers from different companies
due to lack of commonality of interest. Further, inclusion of employees of
different employers in a single union is illegal and improper.

In an Order' dated February 19, 2014, Regional Director Ofelia

Domingo Ceso, III ruled in favor of Citra Mina and ordered the delisting of
the Union from the roster of legitimate labor unions. The Regional Director
held that two or more corporations cannot be considered as one bargaining
unit. Citra Mina Group of Companies is not an employer unit but a group of
employer units with several bargaining units. The corporations composing
of Citra Mina Group of Companies are distinct and have separate legal
personalities. The Regional Director held that the Union is fully aware of
the composition of Citra Mina Groups of Companies, thus, the Union
misrepresented in its application for registration, among other documents,
that Citra Mina Group of Companies is its employer. The Union defrauded
its members by registering a union in a non- appropriate bargaining unit.
Further, the employees do not share a
- over -
mutual interest within a given employer unit. The Regional Director held
that “even assuming that the corporations’ businesses are related and the
employees of petitioner were transferred to [a sister company), it is not a
basis for ignoring their separate personalities. 9

The Union appealed said decision with the Bureau of Labor

l0
Relations (BLR). In a Decision dated May 30, 2014, the BLR reversed
and set aside the decision of the Regional Director. The BLR held that
using the name “Citra Mina Group of Companies” by the Union in its
registration documents does not constitute misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud to warrant de-registration. The name of the employer
need not be couched with exact precision so long as the mistake is
unintentional or in good faith. The BLR finds that there was no malice in
using “Citra Mina Group of Companies.” There is no requirement that the
name of the union should specifically
reflect the company’s name or the workplace. The BLR held that a
“confluence of events” made the employees think that the sister companies
are officially the Citra Mina Group of Companies. For starters, the sister
companies would hold themselves out as “Citra Mina Groups of
Companies”, through signboards, letter head of the Quality and Food Safety
Management System Organizational Structure, letter head of notice of
personnel action, company profile of one of the sister companies, and
employee identification cards (ID). There were also incidents of transfer of
regular employees of petitioner Citra Mina in the same compound with other
sister companies, and assignment of more or less 50 production regular
workers to another sister company. Thus, the Union simply made a mistake
in the use of “Citra Mina Groups of Companies” in its registration
documents. The BLR held that for a petition for de- registration under the
ground of misrepresentation to prosper, the nature of fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of the majority of union members and to deceive the issuing
authority, such that without the misrepresentation, the certificate of
registration would not have been issued. 11 The BLR further held in its
Resolution l2 dated July 28, 2015 that, should the use of “Citra Mina Groups
of Companies” affect the good will or misinform the workers joining the
organization, the remedy is not to cancel the union’s registration but to
amend the name. The BLR also held that comingling of union members
who belong to another bargaining unit is also not a ground to cancel union
registration.

- over -

8-A
“Union registration is one thing, bargaining is another. The issue of
appropriateness of bargaining unit is not an issue in union registration but
in representation and collective bargaining.” 1' The BLR emphasized that
fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration are serious charges
and deserve close scrutiny. Charges of such nature must be clearly
established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

Aggrieved by the decision, Citra Mina filed a Petition for Certiorari

with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the BLR Decision in its
Decision l4 dated May 10, 2018. The CA held that fraud or
misrepresentation is neither grave or compelling. The Union used the
name “Citra Mina Group of Companies” to identify its employer because
that is what is stated in the company employees’ ID. Reliance of the Union
with regard to the propriety of the usage of the name is understandable
and in good faith. Citra Mina as the issuer of the company ID’s and other
documents which the Union relied on, essentially estops Citra Mina from
claiming that the corporate name “Citra Mina Group of Companies” is a
false one. The CA held that the findings of the BLR is adequately
supported by substantial evidence and that the BLR did not commit grave
abuse of discretion.15

Thus, Citra Mina files the instant petition with this Court. Petitioner

Citra Mina reiterates that the Union is aware that

Citra Mina Group of Companies is composed of several, independent
companies. Contrary to the discussion of the BLR as affirmed by the CA,
misrepresentation is immediately apparent in the name used by the Union
and goes “deeply into [the] creation of the labor organization. ' 6 The “Union
represented to their members that they can represent all of the employees
of [Citra Mina and its sister companies.] [S]uch representation is already
fraudulent as [the Union] made it appear to its members that it can
represent all of the employees of four different corporate legal entities by
making it appear that all four [companies] are allegedly just one company.
17
Citra Mina argues that since the Union fraudulently misrepresented their
membership, “it can be said that there was already misrepresentation and
fraud in the adoption of their Constitution.”” That the Union purposely
withheld to present the documents

- over -

8-A
RESOLUTION G.R. No. 246091

August 20, 2019

surrounding its registration in order to conceal its defects, particularly, the

comingling of employees from different groups, i.e. rank and file
employees, security personnel and supervisory employees. Treating it as
a single bargaining unit is arbitrary and untenable considering that there
are four corporate personalities. Judicial precedents have explained that
there is grave abuse of discretion to treat two companies as a single
bargaining unit when the companies indubitably are distinct entities. Finally,
Citra Mina reiterates that Citra Mina Group of Companies does not have
legal personality.' 9

The Union claims that its registration to represent employees of

the “Citra Mina Group of Companies” is proper considering that the
sister companies have held themselves out to the public as such group
of companies through the issued employees’ IDs, signboards,
letterhead in the notices, letterhead of the Quality and Food Safety
Management System Organizational Structure and company profile,
assignment of more or less 50 Citra Mina employees, and geographical
location of the sister companies in one compound.

The foregoing incidents cited by the Union should not be the sole
basis to uphold the Union’s registration as representative of the
employees from multiple-employers. What is also important is to pass
“[t]he basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit[, which]
is the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if
it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial mutual,
interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of
collective bargaining. 20 From Citra Mina’s allegations, the Union has
disqualified members coming from different sectors or classifications of
employees, particularly, the commingling of security personnel, rank
and file and supervisory employees. This runs contrary to the definition
of an appropriate bargaining unit. Thus, the Union must prove that it
represents a communal interest among its members who belong in the
same classification or grouping of employees. Albeit that the Union’s
members may come from different employers which compose Citra
Mina Group of Companies, what is more important is that there is a
communal or mutual representation of interests of the employees from
the same group or class. “The more solid the employees are, the
stronger is their bargaining capacity. 2'

In line with protecting the constitutional right of workers to self-

organization,22 this Court considers it more prudent that instead of
- over -
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 246091
August 20, 2019

delisting outright the Union from the roster of legitimate labor

organizations, the appropriate recourse would be to allow the
Union to show proof that its members (1) belong in the same
grouping or class of employees, and (2) have communal or mutual
interests, which is the backbone of an appropriate bargaining unit.

WIIEREFORE, this Court resolves to REMAND the instant

case to the Bureau of Labor Relations for receipt of evidence of
the Samahang United Workers of Citra Mina Group of Companies
Union’s representation of its members to show that the same is an
appropriate bargaining unit.

SO ORDERED.” Bersamin, C.J. and Gesmundo, J., both

on official leave.

Very truly yours,

LIB . BUENA
Divisio Clerk of Courtly

8-A