Legend International Resorts Limited (Legend) vs Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda (KML-INDEPENDENT) Facts: - June 6, 2001, KML filed with

the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, San Fernando, Pampanga, a petition for certification election. KML alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization of the rank and file employees of Legend. It was issued its Certification of Registration by DOLE on May 18, 2001. - Legend moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it is not a legitimate labor organization because its membership is a mixture of rank and file employees and supervisory employees. KML also committed acts of fraud and misrepresentation when it made it appear that certain employees attended its general membership meeting on April 5, 2001 when in reality some of them were either at work, have already resigned, or were abroad. - - KML argued that even if the supervisory employees were excluded from membership, the certification election could still proceed because the required number of total rank and file employees necessary is still sustained. It also claimed that its legitimacy as a labor union cannot be attacked collaterally. - Med Arbiter judgment September 20, 2001: dismissed KMLs petition for certification election. Since its membership included supervisory employees, it was not a legitimate labor organization. KML was also guilty of fraud and misrepresentation; 70 employees who were claimed to be among those who attended its organizational meeting were either at work or elsewhere. - Office of the Secretary of DOLE May 22, 2002 decision: reversed MedArbiters decision. KMLs legitimacy as a union cannot be attacked collaterally. The presence of supervisory employees does not ipso facto render the existence of a labor organization illegal. Mixed membership is not one of the grounds for dismissal of a petition for certification election. Ordered the immediate conduct of the certification election. - Legend filed a Motion for Reconsideration. It also alleged that it filed a petition for cancellation of union registration of KML which was granted by the DOLE Regional Office, November 7, 2001. MFR was denied in a resolution dated August 20, 2002: a final order of cancellation is required before a petition for certification of election may be dismissed on the ground of lack of legal personality, and that the November 7, 2001 decision was reversed by the BLR March 26, 2002. - CA: held that the issue on the legitimacy of KML as a labor organization has already been settled with finality. The March 26, 2002 decision upholding the legitimacy had long become final and executor for failure of Legend to appeal.KML being a legitimate labor org, it could properly file a petition for certification election. Legend filed MFR stating that it has appealed to the CA the March 26, 2002 decision and is still pending. CA denied MFR. Issues: 1. Whether Legend has timely appealed the March 26, 2002 decision (re: cancellation of union registration) 2. Whether the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance (it was cancelled in the November 7, 2001 decision)

3. Whether the legitimacy of the legal personality of KML can be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election Held: 1. Yes. The March 26, 2002 decision has not yet attained finality considering that it has timely appealed to the CA and which at that time is still pending resolution. Legend timely filed on Sept 6, 2002 a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the March 26, 2002 decision. On June 30, 2005, CA reversed the March 26, 2002 decision of the BLR and reinstated the November 7, 2001 decision cancelling the certificate of registration of KML. KMLs MRF was denied. KML filed a petition for certiorari before the SC which was denied. KML moved for reconsideration but it was denied with finality. The decision to cancel KMLs certificate of registration became final and executory and entry of judgment was made on July 18, 2006. 2. No. According to ACA vs Calleja, a certification proceeding is not a litigation in the sense that the term is ordinarily understood, but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. An order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale is that at the time the union filed the petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation. There is no basis for Legends assertion that the cancellation of KMLs certificate of registration should retroact to the time of its issuance or that it effectively nullified all of KMLs activities, including its filing of the petition for certification election and its demand to collectively bargain. 3. NO. The legitimacy of the legal personality of KML cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election proceeding. Such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it. SC affirmed the May 22, 2002 decision (KMLs legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally, presence of supervisory employees does not render it illegal) and the August 20, 2002 resolution (a final order of cancellation is required before a petition for certification election may be dismissed on the ground of lack of personality, reversed March 26, 2002 decision)