VALIDITY OF RETRACTIONS IN SUPPORT SIGNATURES TO CE PETITION

3rd DIVISION G.R. No. 183317 December 21, 2009 MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC.,
vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
NACHURA, J.: petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45

102 of the union members disaffiliated after executing affidavits recanting their union membership. In appreciating affidavits of recantation, the Court is gudied by La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations:

if the withdrawal was made after the filing of the petition, it would then be presumed that the withdrawal was not free and voluntary. The presumption would arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress, coercion or for valuable consideration. In other words, the distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary unless there is convincing proof to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary.

The reason is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made before the filing of the petition, the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the subscription requirement has not been met.

When the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is filed, the employees who are supporting the petition become known to the opposite party since their names are attached to the petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it would not be unexpected that the opposite party would use foul means for the subject employees to withdraw their support.12

The affidavits of recantation were executed after the identities of the union members became public. The logical conclusion is that the employees were not totally free from the employer’s pressure, and the voluntariness of the employees’ execution of the affidavits becomes suspect.

Retractions are looked upon with disfavor. There must be a determination which between the original and the new statements should be given weight, following the general rules on evidence. Inasmuch as they remain bare allegations, the purported recantations should not be upheld.