Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Asian Institute of Management vs.

Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association

G.R. No. 207971

• This case involves two petitions, one from each party. As to the first petition, it was the respondent
(AFA) who filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent a bargaining unit in Asian
Institute of Management (AIM). Said petition was opposed by petitioner, claiming that respondent
members are neither rank-and-file employees nor supervisory, but rather, managerial employees. Hence,
they are disqualified from having a certification election.
• Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondents’ certificate of registration
alleging that there was a misrepresentation for managerial employees are disqualified from forming a
• The med-arbiter denied the petition for certification election finding that the faculty members are
managerial employees. On appeal, the SOLE, reversed the MA. The CA reinstated the decision of the
MA finding that the faculty members determine all standars. Hence they are managerial employees, the
law provides that only legitimate labor organizations are given the right to be certifies as sole and
exclusive bargaining agent in an establishment. The CA concluded that the certification election shall be
denied due to: 1) AFA are managerial employees and 2) not a legitimate labor organization. Hence, these
finding rendered AFA ineligible and without any right to file a certification election.
• As to the cancellation of the Cert of Registration, the DOLE-NCR granted the cancellation of the cert.
of registration. The BLR however, reversed the DOLE-NCR finding that the grounds relied upon in the
petition for cancellation are NOT among the grounds authorized under Art. 239 of the LC and that
respondents are not managerial employees. The petitioner appealed to the CA, but the CA found in favor
of the respondents. The petitioners failed to allege any specific act of fraud or misrepresentation which
would warrant the cancellation. Hence, this petition.

Whether or not AFA are managerial employees, hence, disqualified from joining, assisting or
forming a labor organization.

Held: The case is not resolved. The SC consolidated the two cases as the resolution on whether or not the
respondents are managerial employees or not shall be the determining factor to resolve whether or not the
certificate of registration shall be cancelled in view of the alleged misrepresentation claimed by petitioners.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard Rep. by its President, Alfie Alipio vs. BLR, Hanjin Heavy
Industries and Construction Co., G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015

NOTE: This case is regarding the cancellation of registration of petitioner as a worker’s association under
Art. 249 of the LC.

• On February 16, 2010, Samahan filed an application for registration of its name.
• DOLE Regional Office issued a certificate of registration in favor of Samahan.
• Hanjin filed a petition for the cancellation of the certificate on the ground that its members did not fall
under any of the types of workers enumerated in the 2nd sentence of Article 249 to wit: only ambulant,
intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-employed and those without definite employers may form a
worker’s association and that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection with the list of
member and/or voters who took part in the ratification of their Constitution and by-laws in its application
for registration.
• The DOLE RD ruled in favor of Hanjin and ordered the cancellation of certificate of registration for
failing to adduce evidence that the 63 out of 120 members were employees so as to form a legitimate
• The BLR reversed the ruling of the RD. It ruled that the law clearly afforded the right to self-organization
to all workers including those without definite employers, as such they mar form an association subject
to the limitation that it was only for mutual aid and protection. It found that there was no
misrepresentation on the part of Samahan.
• On appeal, the CA ruled that the registration of Samahan as a legitimate worker’s association was
contrary to the provisions of Art 243 of the LC. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the Samahan could form a worker’s association. Hence, the warrant to the continuance
of the certificate of registration.

Held: Yes, the Samahan could form a worker’s association as this is in accord with the constitutional
mandate that workers shall have a right to self-organization. It further ruled that the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is not mandatory in the formation of workers’ association. What the law
simply requires is that the members of the workers’ association, at the very least, share the same interest.
(This is with regard to the 63 persons who are not employed by Hanjin). Such self-organization is in
furtherance of the mutual aid and protection of their interest and does not include collective bargaining.
With regard to the alleged misrepresentation, the court ruled that such, to be a ground for the
cancellation of the cert. of reg., it must be done maliciously and deliberately. However, in the instant case,
records reveal that there is no deliberate or malicious intent to commit misrepresentation of the part of

Additional notes:
- there was also an order with regard to the removal of the word “Hanjin Shipyard”
- The SC ruled that such shall be removed for the reason that it would be misleading for the members of
Samahan to use “Hanjin Shipyard” in its name as it could give the wrong impression that all of its
members are employed by Hanjin. The change of name of a labor org shall not affect its legal personality.
All the rights of a labor organization under its old name shall continue to be exercised by the labor org
under its new name.