9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

VOL. 282, DECEMBER 10, 1997 635

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

*
G.R. No. 121241. December 10, 1997.

FURUSAWA RUBBER PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.

HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and
FURUSAWA EMPLOYEES UNION-INDEPENDENT
(FEU-IND), respondents.

Labor Law; Labor Unions; Court agrees with respondent

Secretary of Labor and Employment that FEU-IND is a legitimate
labor organization.—We cannot sustain petitioner. We agree with
respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment that FEU-IND is
a legitimate labor organization. As such, it enjoys all the rights
and privileges recognized by law. The fact that FEU-IND has
been issued Certificate of Registration No. RO-400-9502-UR-003
by Regional Office No. 14 of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) is sufficient proof of its legitimacy. The
presentation of the xerox copy of the certificate of registration to
support its claim of being a duly registered labor organization
instead of the submission of the original certificate is not a fatal
defect and does not in any way affect its legitimate status as a
labor organization conferred by its registration with DOLE. The
issuance of the certificate of registration evidently shows that
FEU-IND has complied with the requirements of Art. 234 of the
Labor Code. The requirements for registration being mandatory,
they are complied with before any labor organization, association
or group of unions or workers acquires legal personality and be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate
labor organizations.
Same; Same; The submission of a xerox copy of the union’s
certificate of registration to prove its legitimacy is sufficient, hence,
the Med-Arbiter correctly granted the petition for certification
election.—The issue on the legitimacy of the petitioning union
should be settled in its favor. The submission of a xerox copy of
the union’s certificate of registration to prove its legitimacy is
sufficient, hence, the Med-Arbiter correctly granted the petition
for certification election. As it been held in a long line of cases, a

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

certification proceeding is not a litigation in the sense that the

term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a fact-
finding and non-adversarial character.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and

Employment

It is not covered by the technical rules of evidence. Thus, as

provided in Art. 221 of the Labor Code, proceedings before the
National Labor Relations Commission are not covered by the
technical rules of evidence and procedure.
Same; Same; A legitimate labor organization has the right to
represent its members in collective bargaining agreements and to
be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in an
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.—One of the
rights of a legitimate labor organization is to represent its
members in collective bargaining agreements; also, to be certified
as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Hence the petition of
FEU-IND, as a legitimate labor organization, for certification
election may rightfully be granted.
Same; Same; Certification Election; Basically, a petition for
certification election is principally the concern of the workers.—
FEU-IND filed a petition for certification election precisely to
determine the will of the employees for purposes of collective
bargaining. Basically, a petition for certification election is
principally the concern of the workers. The only exception is
where the employer has to file a petition for certification election
so that it can bargain collectively as mandated by Art. 258 of the
Labor Code. Thereafter, the role of the employer in the
certification process ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. In one
case this court ruled that since the petition for certification
election was filed by a legitimate labor organization under Art.
258 of the Labor Code, the employer should not have involved
itself in the process.
Same; Same; Same; Any attempt on the part of management
or employers to curtail or stifle this right of the workers will be
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

deemed unconstitutional and considered as unfair labor practice

on the part of management.—To circumvent the law on the
fundamental right of the workers to self-organization would
render such constitutional provision meaningless. Section 3, Art.
XIII, of the 1987 Constitution underscores the right of the
workers to organize with others or to join any labor organization
which he believes can assist and protect him in the successful
pursuit of his daily grind. The choice is his. Any attempt on the
part of management or employers to curtail or stifle this right of
the workers will be deemed unconstitutional and considered as
unfair labor practice on the part of management.

637

VOL. 282, DECEMBER 10, 1997 637

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and

Employment

Briefly, this right to self-organization is a fundamental right—to

give the workers the freedom to form any labor organization
voluntarily without fear of suppression or reprisal from
management. PD No. 828 encourages trade unionism to
supplement and strengthen the exercise of the workers’ right to
self-organization.
Same; Same; Same; In an unorganized establishment where
there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon filing of a
petition by a legitimate labor organization for a certific ation
election.—Petitioner FURUSAWA further argues that the Med-
Arbiter ignored the fact that FEU-IND does not represent at least
20% of the employees in the bargaining unit which it seeks to
represent. Public respondent however has found the petition to be
sufficient in form and substance, there being compliance with the
required 20% support signatures. Article 257 of the Labor Code
provides that in an unorganized establishment where there is no
certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon filing of a
petition by a legitimate labor organization for a certification
election.

PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution of the

Secretary of Labor.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Bautista, Picazo, Buyco, Tan & Fider for petitioner.
     Napoleon Banzuela, Jr. for private respondent.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This petition for certiorari assails the resolution of

respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment dated 28
June 1995 which affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter
dated 3 April 1995 allowing a certification election to be
conducted among regular rank and file employees of
petitioner Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc.,
(FURUSAWA). The subsequent order of the Secretary of
Labor dated 26 July 1995 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration is likewise challenged herein.
638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

On 8 March 1995 private respondent Furusawa Employees

Union-Independent (FEU-IND) filed a petition for
certification election among the rank and file employees of
Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc., a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacture of rubber and other related
products for export. On 3 April 1995 petitioner herein
moved to dismiss the petition for certification election on
the ground that respondent FEU-IND was not a legitimate
labor organization not having complied with all the
requisites of law.
The main issue presented by petitioner was whether a
photocopy of its certificate of registration submitted by the
petitioning union which has not been duly authenticated
and not supported by any other documentary evidence
constitutes conclusive proof that FEU-IND has acquired
legitimate status and therefore entitled to pursue its
petition for certification election.
On 3 April 1995 the Med-Arbiter ruled in the affirmative
thus—

It appearing from the records of the case that the petitioner union
is a legitimate labor organization as evidenced by the attached
xerox copy of the certificate of registration, the instant petition
therefore is hereby given due course.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that a
certification election be conducted among the regular rank and
file employees of Furusawa Rubber Philippines Corporation. The
eligible voters shall be based on the Company payroll three (3)
months prior to the filing of the petition. The representation

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

Officer of this Office is hereby directed to conduct the usual pre-

election conference.
The choices in the certification election are as follows: (1)
Furusawa
1
Employees Union-Independent (FEU-IND); and, (2) No
union.

FURUSAWA appealed to the Secretary of Labor but the

latter affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter. On 13 July
1995

_______________

1 Order penned by Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin.

639

VOL. 282, DECEMBER 10, 1997 639

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

FURUSAWA moved for a reconsideration but the motion

was again denied.
The main contention of petitioner is that FEU-IND is
not a legitimate labor organization so that, under the law,
it could not file a petition for certification election. The
basis of this argument is the failure of the petitioning
union to submit an original copy of its certificate of
registration.
We cannot sustain petitioner. We agree with respondent
Secretary of Labor and Employment that FEU-IND is a
legitimate labor organization. As such, it2 enjoys all the
rights and privileges recognized by law. The fact that
FEU-IND has been issued Certificate of Registration No.
RO-400-9502-UR-003 by Regional Office No. 14 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) is sufficient
proof of its legitimacy. The presentation of the xerox copy of
the certificate of registration to support its claim of being a
duly registered labor organization instead of the
submission of the original certificate is not a fatal defect
and does not in any way affect its legitimate status as a
labor organization conferred by its registration with DOLE.
The issuance of the certificate of registration evidently
shows that FEU-IND has complied with the requirements
of Art. 234 of the Labor Code. The requirements for
registration being mandatory, they are complied with
before any labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers acquires legal personality and be

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to

legitimate labor organizations.
One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization is to
represent 3its members in collective bargaining
agreements; also, to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in 4an appropriate unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. Hence the petition of
FEU-IND, as a legitimate labor

_______________

2 Phil. Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) v. Court of Industrial

Relations, 17 September 1953, Nos. L-5664 and L-5698, 93 Phil. 747,751.
3 Art. 242, par. (a), Labor Code.
4 Art. 242, par. (b), Labor Code.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

organization,
5
for certification election may rightfully be
granted.
FEU-IND filed a petition for certification election
precisely to determine the will of the employees for
purposes of collective bargaining. Basically, a petition for
certification
6
election is principally the concern of the
workers. The only exception is where the employer has to
file a petition for certification election so that it can bargain
collectively as mandated by Art. 258 of the Labor Code.
Thereafter, the role of the employer in the certification
process ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. In one case
this court ruled that since the petition for certification
election was filed by a legitimate labor organization under
Art. 258 of the Labor Code, 7the employer should not have
involved itself in the process.
To circumvent the law on the fundamental right of the
workers to self-organization would render such
constitutional provision meaningless. Section 3, Art. XIII,
of the 1987 Constitution underscores the right of the
workers to organize with others or to join any labor
organization which he believes can assist and protect him
in the successful pursuit of his daily grind. The choice is
his. Any attempt on the part of management or employers
to curtail or stifle this right of the workers will be deemed
unconstitutional and considered as unfair labor practice on
the part of management. Briefly, this right to self-
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

organization is a fundamental right—to give the workers

the freedom to form any labor organization voluntarily
without fear of suppression or reprisal from management.
PD No. 828 encourages trade unionism to supplement and

_______________

5 Phil. Scouts Veterans Security and Investigation Agency v. Torres,

G.R. No. 92357, 21 July 1993, 224 SCRA 682.
6 R. Transport Corp. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 106830, 16 November 1993,
227 SCRA 826.
7 Trade Union Congress of the Phil. and Allied Services v. Trajano, G.R.
No. 61153, 17 January 1983, 120 SCRA 64, 66.

641

VOL. 282, DECEMBER 10, 1997 641

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

strengthen the8
exercise of the workers’ right to self-
organization.
We quote 9with emphasis our ruling in Filipino Metal
Corp. v. Ople, that—

x x x this Court has authoritatively laid down the controlling

doctrine as to when an employer may have an interest sufficient
in law enabling him to contest a certification election. There is
relevance to this excerpt from Consolidated Farms, Inc. v. Noriel
(No. L-47752, 31 July 1978, 84 SCRA 469, 473.): “The record of
this proceeding leaves no doubt that all the while the party that
offered the most obdurate resistance to the holding of a
certification election is management x x x x That circumstance of
itself militated against the success of this petition. On a matter
that should be the exclusive concern of labor, the choice of a
collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an
intruder. His participation, to say the least, deserves no
encouragement. This court should be the last agency to lend
support to such an attempt at interference with a purely internal
affair of labor’ (italics supplied).

Petitioner FURUSAWA further argues that the Med-

Arbiter ignored the fact that FEU-IND does not represent
at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit which
it seeks to represent. Public respondent however has found
the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, there
being compliance with the required 20% support
signatures. Article 257 of the Labor Code provides that in

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

an unorganized establishment where there is no certified

bargaining agent, a certification election shall
automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon filing
of a petition by a 10legitimate labor organization for a
certification election.
The alleged termination of the union members who are
signatories to the petition for certification election was not

_______________

8 Pasimio, Renato R., Commentaries on the Labor Code of the

Philippines, p. 2, 1995.
9 No. L-43861, 4 September 1981, 107 SCRA 211.
10 California Manufacturing Corp. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 97020, 8 June
1992, 209 SCRA 606, 610-611.

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

substantiated by hard evidence. It in fact further indicated

the need to hold such certification election which is the best
and most appropriate means of ascertaining the will of the
employees as to their choice of an exclusive bargaining
representative. That there are no competing unions
involved should not alter this means, the freedom of choice
by the employees being the primordial consideration and
the fact that the employees
11
can still choose between FEU-
IND and NO UNION. Moreover, even on the assumption
that the evidence is clearly insufficient and the number of
signatories less than 30%, in this case, 20% this cannot
militate against the favorable response to such petition for
certification election.
We find no merit in the petition. The issue on the
legitimacy of the petitioning union should be settled in its
favor. The submission of a xerox copy of the union’s
certificate of registration to prove its legitimacy is
sufficient, hence, the Med-Arbiter correctly granted the
petition for certification election. As it been held in a long
line of cases, a certification proceeding is not a litigation in
the sense that the term is ordinarily understood, but an
investigation of a fact-finding and non-adversarial
character. It is not covered by the technical rules of
evidence. Thus, as provided in Art. 221 of the Labor Code,
proceedings before the National Labor Relations
Commission are not covered by the technical rules of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

evidence and procedure. The court has already construed

Art. 221 of the Labor Code in favor of allowing the NLRC or
the labor arbiter to decide the case on the basis of position
papers and other documents submitted without resorting to
technical
12
rules of evidence as observed in regular courts of
justice. Indeed, the technical rules of evidence do not
apply if the decision to grant the petition proceeds from an
examination of its sufficiency as well as a careful look into
the arguments contained in position papers and other
documents. In this

________________

11 George and Peter Lines, Inc. v. Associated Labor Union, No. L-51602,
17 January 1985, 134 SCRA 82.
12 Associated Labor Unions v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85085, 6
November 1989, 179 SCRA 127.

643

VOL. 282, DECEMBER 10, 1997 643

Furusawa Rubber Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment

regard, the factual findings of the Med-Arbiter appear to be

supported by substantial evidence, hence, we must accord
them great weight and respect.
Under the premises, or at the very least, when
conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed
on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the
latter should be balanced by sympathy and compassion
which the law must accord the underprivileged worker.
This is only in keeping with the constitutional13 mandate
that the State shall afford full protection to labor.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The
assailed resolution and order dated 28 June 1995 and 26
July 1995, respectively, of respondent Secretary of Labor
and Employment are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Vitug and Kapunan, JJ.,

concur.

Petition dismissed; Assailed resolution and order

affirmed.

Note.—Registration is a condition sine qua non for the

acquisition of legal personality by a labor organization.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/10
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 282

(Protection Technology, Inc. vs. Secretary, Department of

Labor and Employment, 242 SCRA 99 [1995])

——o0o——

________________

13 Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.

80600, 21 March 1990, 183 SCRA 451.

644

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442c8bee3539d5a1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/10