The Court’s Ruling
We resolve the core issue of whether D.O. 40-03 is a valid exercise of the rule-making power of the DOLE.
We rule in the affirmative. Earlier in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment,[19] the Court encountered a similar question on the validity of the old Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code[20] which stated:
Union affiliation; direct membership with a national union. - The affiliate of a labor federation or national union may be a local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union.
a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicating the creation or establishment of a local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30) days from issuance of such charter certificate.
x x x x
e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.
Interpreting these provisions of the old rules, the Court said that by force of law,[21] the local or chapter of a labor federation or national union becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the only requirement being the submission of the charter certificate to the BLR. Further, the Court noted that Section 3 omitted several requirements which are otherwise required for union registration, as follows:
1) The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at least 20% of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit;
2) The submission of officers’ addresses, principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of organization meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
3) The submission of the minutes of the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws and the list of the members who participated in it.[22]
Notwithstanding these omissions, the Court upheld the government’s implementing policy expressed in the old rules when it declared in Progressive Development –
Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.[23]
It was this same Section 3 of the old rules that D.O. 40-03 fine-tuned when the DOLE amended the rules on Book V of the Labor Code, thereby modifying the government’s implementing policy on the registration of locals or chapters of labor federations or national unions. The company now assails this particular amendment as an invalid exercise of the DOLE’s rule-making power.
We disagree. As in the case of D.O. 9 (which introduced the above-cited Section 3 of the old rules) in Progressive Development, D.O. 40-03 represents an expression of the government’s implementing policy on trade unionism. It builds upon the old rules by further simplifying the requirements for the establishment of locals or chapters. As in D.O. 9, we see nothing contrary to the law or the Constitution in the adoption by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of D.O. 40-03 as this department order is consistent with the intent of the government to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union to enhance the local’s bargaining power. If changes were made at all, these were those made to recognize the distinctions made in the law itself between federations and their local chapters, and independent unions; local chapters seemingly have lesser requirements because they and their members are deemed to be direct members of the federation to which they are affiliated, which federations are the ones subject to the strict registration requirements of the law.
In any case, the local union in the present case has more than satisfied the requirements the petitioner complains about; specifically, the union has submitted: (1) copies of the ratified CBL; (2) the minutes of the CBL’s adoption and ratification; (3) the minutes of the organizational meetings; (4) the names and addresses of the union officers; (5) the list of union members; (6) the list of rank-and-file employees in the company; (7) a certification of non-existence of a CBA in the company; (8) the resolution of affiliation with WASTO and the latter’s acceptance; and (9) their Charter Certificate. These submissions were properly verified as required by the rules. In sum, the petitioner has no factual basis for questioning the union’s registration, as even the requirements for registration as an independent local have been substantially complied with.
We, thus, find no compelling justification to nullify D.O. 40-03. Significantly, the Court declared in another case:[24]
Pagpalain cannot also allege that Department Order No. 9 is violative of public policy. x x x [T]he sole function of our courts is to apply or interpret the laws. It does not formulate public policy, which is the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. It cannot, thus, be said that the principles laid down by the Court in Progressive and Protection Technology constitute public policy on the matter. They do, however, constitute the Court’s interpretation of public policy, as formulated by the executive department through its promulgation of rules implementing the Labor Code. However, this public policy has itself been changed by the executive department, through the amendments introduced in Book V of the Omnibus Rules by Department Order No. 9. It is not for us to question this change in policy, it being a well-established principle beyond question that it is not within the province of the courts to pass judgments upon the policy of legislative or executive action.
This statement is as true then as it is now.
In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in the appeal."
