MINDORO LUMBER VS.

BACAY the execution of a compromise settlement is a

basic requirement; without it, there can be no
FACTS: The private respondents executed a
valid compromise settlement. In this case, the
Sama-samang Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sakdal
petitioner admits that the purported
(Joint Affidavit of Withdrawal of Complaint),
compromise settlement was executed by the
declaring therein that by virtue of the amount
private respondents without such required
each of them received (which amount was either
assistance. The closest form of assistance
P3,000.00 or P6,000.00 per employee), they
adverted to by the petitioner in this case was
were withdrawing their claim against Mindoro
that of Bacay’s counsel when the latter appeared
Lumber. Their counsel then filed a motion to
before the Office of the Regional Director to file
dismiss. The private respondents said that Bacay
the following: the Sama-samang Salaysay sa Pag-
persuaded them to execute the JAWC. They
uurong ng Sakdal executed by the private
were then withdrawing the said JAWC for the
respondents; a Sinumpaang Salaysay executed
amount was grossly disproportionate to their
by Bacay withdrawing the complaint; and the
entitlement under the law, and were authorizing
Motion to Dismiss. Such assistance, however, is
Lanot, the new president, to pursue their claim.
not the “assistance” required by Article 227. As
Lanot then filed a motion before the DOLE-RO,
such, the Sama-samang Salaysay sa Pag-uurong
praying that the employees be paid the amounts
ng Sakdal executed by the respondents cannot
due to each of them, and that the said JAWC be
qualify as a valid compromise settlement.
declared null and void. The RD dismissed the
case while the DOLE-Sec granted it and 2.) No. The petitioner is correct in saying that
remanded the case to the DOLE-RO which issued there are legitimate waivers that represent a
writ of execution. voluntary and reasonable settlement of a
worker’s claim which should be respected by the
ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not the Sama-samang
courts as the law between the parties. Indeed,
Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sakdal constitutes a
not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against
valid compromise agreement considering it was
public policy, except (1)where there is clear
not assisted by the BLR or the Regional Office of
proof that the waiver was wangled from an
DOLE; and 2.) Whether or not the
unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the
acknowledgment of the respondents that they
terms of settlement are unconscionable on their
each received the amount of either P3,000.00 or
faces; in these cases, the law will step in to annul
P6,000.00 embodied in the said Salaysay
the questionable transactions. Such quitclaims
constitutes a valid quitclaim considering that the
are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers
individual claims are ranging from P6,744.20 to
from claiming the full measure of their legal
P242,626.90.
rights.
RULING: 1.) No. The petitioner points out that
In the case at bar, the private respondents’
while the Sama-samang Salaysay sa Pag-uurong
individual claims, ranging from P6,744.20 to
ng Sakdal was executed without the assistance
P242,626.90, are grossly disproportionate to
of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) or the
what each of them actually received under the
DOLE Regional Office, the November 4, 1999
Sama-samang Salaysay sa Pag-uurong ng Sakdal.
Order of the Regional Director in Case No. LSED-
The amount of the settlement is indubitably
RO400-9807-CI-001 nonetheless shows that
unconscionable; hence, ineffective to bar the
when Eduardo Bacay appeared before the said
workers from claiming the full measure of their
office, he was assisted by counsel. The assistance
legal rights.
of the BLR or the regional office of the DOLE in
 Commissions. With respect to the other officers
whose appointments are not otherwise provided
CALDERON V. CARALE
for by the law and to those whom the President
FACTS: In 1989, RA 6715 was passed. This law may be authorized by law to appoint, no
amended PD 442 or the Labor Code. RA 6715 confirmation by the Commission on
provides that the Chairman, the Division Appointments is required.
Presiding Commissioners and other
Jurisprudence established the following in
Commissioners [of the NLRC] shall all be
interpreting Sec 16, Art 7 of the Constitution
appointed by the President, subject to
confirmation by the CoA. Appointments to any 1. Confirmation by the Commission on
vacancy shall come from the nominees of the Appointments is required only for presidential
sector which nominated the predecessor. appointees mentioned in the first sentence of
Pursuant to the law, Cory assigned Carale et al as Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers
the Chairman and the Commissioners whose appointments are expressly vested by the
respectively of the NLRC, the appointment was Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral
not submitted to the CoA for its confirmation. representatives to Congress and members of the
Calderon questioned the appointment saying constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil Service
that w/o the confirmation by the CoA, such an and Election).
appointment is in violation of RA 6715. Calderon
2. Confirmation is not required when the
asserted that RA 6715 is not an encroachment on
President appoints other government officers
the appointing power of the executive contained
whose appointments are not otherwise provided
in Sec16, Art. 7, of the Constitution, as Congress
for by law or those officers whom he may be
may, by law, require confirmation by the
authorized by law to appoint (like the Chairman
Commission on Appointments of other officers
and Members of the Commission on Human
appointed by the President additional to those
Rights).
mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16 of
Article 7 of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not Congress may, by law, ROBOSA V. NLRC

require confirmation by the CoA of
appointments extended by the President to FACTS: The NLRC issued a TRO and directed
government officers additional to those CTMI, De Luzuriaga and other company
expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. executives to cease and desist from dismissing
16, Art. 7 of the Constitution whose any member of the union and from
appointments require confirmation by the CoA. implementing memorandum terminating the
services of the sales drivers, and to immediately
RULING: reinstate them if the dismissals have been
effected.
The SC agreed with the Sol-Gen, confirmation by
the CoA is required exclusively for the heads of Allegedly, the respondents did not comply with
executive departments, ambassadors, public the NLRC’s resolution. They instead moved to
ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces dissolve the TRO and opposed the union’s
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and petition for preliminary injunction. Then, the
other officers whose appointments are vested in NLRC upgraded the TRO to a writ of preliminary
the President by the Constitution, such as the injunction.The respondents moved for
members of the various Constitutional
reconsideration. The union opposed the motion Arbiter. Riviera appealed to the NLRC contending
and urgently moved to cite the responsible CTMI just cause for the dismissal because of
officers in contempt of court. petitioner’s abandonment of work. NLRC ruled
there was just cause and petitioners were not
Meanwhile, the NLRC heard the contempt
entitled to backwages and separation pay. The
charge and issued a resolution dismissing the
CA in turn ruled that the dismissal was not illegal
charge. It ordered the labor arbiter to proceed
because they have abandoned their work but
hearing the main case on the merits.
ordered the payment of money claims.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has contempt
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were illegally
powers.
dismissed.
HELD: Yes. Under Article 218 the Labor Code,
RULING: To dismiss an employee, the law
the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may hold any
required not only the existence of a just and valid
offending party in contempt, directly or
cause but also enjoins the employer to give the
indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in
employee the right to be heard and to defend
accordance with law. The penalty for direct
himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and
contempt consists of either imprisonment or
unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his
fine, the degree or amount depends on whether
employment. For a valid finding or
the contempt is against the Commission or the
abandonment, two factors are considered:
labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however, requires
failure to report for work without a valid reason;
the labor arbiter or the Commission to deal with
and, a clear intention to sever employer-
indirect contempt in the manner prescribed
employee relationship with the second as the
under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Rule 71 of
more determinative factor which is manifested
the Rules of Court does not require the labor
by overt acts from which it may be deduced that
arbiter or the NLRC to initiate indirect contempt
the employees has no more intention to work.
proceedings before the trial court. This mode is
to be observed only when there is no law Where the employer had a valid reason to
granting them contempt powers. As is clear dismiss an employee but did not follow the due
under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, the labor process requirement, the dismissal may be
arbiter or the Commission is empowered or has upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay
jurisdiction to hold the offending party or parties an indemnity to the employee. This became
in direct or indirect contempt. Robosa, et al., known as the Wenphil Doctrine of the Belated
therefore, have not improperly brought the Due process Rule.
indirect contempt charges against the
Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it
respondents before the NLRC.
is not for any of the justifiable or authorized by
law. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the
lack of statutory due process should not nullify
AGABON V. NLRC
the dismissal but the employer should indemnify
FACTS: Petitioners were employed by Riviera the employee for the violation of his statutory
Home as gypsum board and cornice installers rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to
from January 1992 to February 23, 1999 when discourage the abhorrent practice of “dismiss
they were dismissed for abandonment of work. now, pay later” which we sought to deter in
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal Serrano ruling. The violation of employees’ rights
and was decided in their favor by the Labor warrants the payment of nominal damages.
 Case remanded to CA.

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL VS. NLRC

FACTS: Respondent Aricayos filed a complaint GARCIA V. PAL

for illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter. There
FACTS: The case stemmed from the
being no employer-employee relationship
administrative charge filed by Philippine Airlines
between the two, petition was dismissed for lack
(PAL) against its employees-herein petitioners
of jurisdiction. Arcayos appealed to NLRC
after they were allegedly caught in the act of
cotending errors of the labor arbiter.
sniffing shabu when a team of company security
ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court has personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL
jurisdiction over NLRC appeals? Technical Center’s Toolroom Section on July 24,
1995.
RULING: First established in 1972, decisions of
NLRC were declared to be appealable to the After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners for
Secretary of labor and, ultimately to the transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline,
President. But under the present state law, there prompting them to file a complaint for illegal
is no provision for appeals from NLRC decisions. dismissal and damages which was resolved by
The court held that there is an underlying power the Labor Arbiter in their favor, thus ordering
of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such PAL to, inter alia, immediately comply with the
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction reinstatement aspect of the decision.
even though not right of review is given by
Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of
statute, that the purpose of jurisdiction review is
Execution respecting the reinstatement decision
to keep the administrative agency within its
and issued a Notice of Garnishment.
jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of
the parties; and that is part of the checks and Respondent elevated the matter to the appellate
balances which restricts the separation of court which issued the herein challenged
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust Decision and Resolution nullifying the NLRC
jurisdictions. Resolutions on two grounds, essentially
espousing that:
Subsequently under RA 7902, effective March
1995, the mode for judicial review over NLRC (1) a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal
decisions in that of a petition for Certiorari under removes the basis for implementing the
Rule 65. The same confuses by declaring that the reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiter’s
CA has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions decision; and
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of SC,
including the NLRC decisions. (2) the impossibility to comply with the
reinstatement order due to corporate
Therefore, all references in the amended Section rehabilitation provides a reasonable justification
9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from NLRC to SC for the failure to exercise the options under
are interpreted and hereby declared to mean Article 223 of the Labor Code (the second
and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule ground).
65. All such petitions should henceforth be
initially filed in the doctrine on the hierarchy of RULING:
courts as appropriate forum for the relief Amplification of the First Ground:
desired.
The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that lawyers of the bank accused Sadac of abusive
even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor conduct which resulted to the termination of his
Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on services. Sadac then filed a complaint for illegal
the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the dismissal with damages. The dismissal was finally
wages of the dismissed employee during the declared as illegal. Sadac filed with the Labor
period of appeal until reversal by the higher Arbiter a motion for execution of the decision
court. and argued that in the computation of
backwages, salary increases should be deemed
It settles the view that the Labor Arbiter’s order
included.
of reinstatement is immediately executory and
the employer has to either re-admit them to ISSUE: Should periodic general increases in basic
work under the same terms and conditions salary be included in computing full backwages
prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate for illegally dismissed employees?
them in the payroll, and that failing to exercise
HELD: No. Backwages are granted on grounds of
the options in the alternative, employer must
equity for earnings which a worker or employee
pay the employee’s salaries.
has lost due to his illegal dismissal; it is not
Amplification of the Second Ground private compensation or damages but is
awarded in furtherance and effectuation of the
The Court sustains the appellate court’s finding
public objective of the Code. Backwages to be
that the peculiar predicament of a corporate
awarded to an illegally dismissed employee
rehabilitation rendered it impossible for
should not as a general rule be diminished or
respondent to exercise its option under the
reduced by the earnings derived by him
circumstances.
elsewhere during the period of his illegal
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual dismissal. Article 279 of the Labor Code
delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement mandates that an employee’s full backwages
pending appeal was not executed prior to its shall be inclusive of allowance and other benefits
reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to the or their monetary equivalent. The salary increase
employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the cannot be interpreted as either as an allowance
delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, or a benefit. Salary increases are not akin to
the employer may still be required to pay the allowances or benefits and cannot be confused
salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the with either. Allowances and benefits are granted
Labor Arbiter’s decision. to the employee apart or separate from the
wage or salary. In contrast, salary increases are
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY DENIED. amounts which are added to the employee’s
Insofar as the Court of Appeals Decision and salary as an increment thereto for varied reasons
Resolution annulling the NLRC Resolutions deemed appropriate by the employer. An
affirming the validity of the Writ of Execution unqualified award of backwages means that the
and the Notice of Garnishment are concerned, employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of
the Court finds no reversible error. his dismissal. And the court has declared that the
base figure to be used in the computation of
backwages due to the employee should include
EQUITABLE BANK V. SADAC not just the basic salary, but also the regular
FACTS: Respondent Sadac was appointed as the allowances that he had been receiving, such as
General Counsel of Equitable Bank. Later on, the emergency living allowances and the 13th
month pay mandated under the law The term 1. authorization by a written resolution of
“backwages without qualification and majority of all the members at the general
deduction” means that the workers are to be membership meeting called for the purpose.
paid their backwages fixed as of the time of the
2. secretary’s record of the minutes of the
dismissal or strike without deduction for their
meeting
earnings elsewhere during their layoff and
without qualification of their wages as thus 3. individual written authorization for check-off
fixed; unqualified by any wage increases or other duly signed by the employees concerned.
benefits that may have been received by their
co-workers who are not dismissed or did not go Such requirements were not complied with as
on strike. Awards including salary differentials there were no individual written check-off
are not allowed. The salary base properly used authorizations; thus, the employer cannot legally
should, however, included not only the basic deduct thus the assessment. The union should
salary but also the emergency cost of living be made to shoulder the expenses incurred for
allowance and also transportation allowances if the services of a lawyers and accordingly,
the workers are entitled thereto. reimbursement should be charged to the union’s
general fund or account. No deduction can be
made from the salaries of the concerned
employees other than those mandated by law.
GABRIEL V. SECRETARY

FACTS: Petitioners compromise the Executive

Board of Solidbank union, the collective COASTAL SUBIC vs. DOLE
bargaining agent for the Solidbank Corporation.
Private respondents are members of said union. FACTS: CSBTI Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-RFU)
The union’s EB decided to retain the services of and CSBTI Supervisory Union (CSBTI-SU) filed
their counsel in connection with negotiations for separate petitions for certification election
a new CBA. A general membership meeting was before Med-Arbiter de Jesus. The rank-and-file
called where majority of union members union insists that it is a legitimate labor
approved a resolution confirming the decision to organization having been issued a charter
engage the services of the union’s counsel, Atty. certificate by the Associated Labor Union (ALU),
Lacsina. The resolution provided that 10% of the and the supervisory union by the Associated
total economic benefits that may be secured be Professional, Supervisory, Office and Technical
given to the counsel at attorney’s fees. Also it Employees Union (APSOTEU). Private
contained an authorization for Solidbank respondents also alleged that the establishment
Corporation to check-off said attorney’s fees the in which they sought to operate was
first lump sum of payment of benefits under the unorganized. CSBTI opposed both petitions for
new CBA. Private respondents issued a certification election alleging that the rank-and-
complaint for illegal deduction. file union and supervisory union were not
legitimate labor organizations. Without ruling on
ISSUE: W/N the union may check-off attorney’s the legitimacy of the respondent unions, the
fees. Med-Arbiter dismissed both petitions. Med-
Arbiter held that the ALU and APSOTEU are one
HELD: No. Article 241 has 3 requisites for the
and the same federation having a common set of
validity of the special assessment for union’s
officers. Thus, both unions were in effect
incidental expenses, attorney’s fees and
affiliated with only one federation. On appeal to
representation expenses. They are:
the SOLE: Reversed the decision of the Med- Book V of the 1989 Revised Implementing Rules
Arbiter. SOLE ruled that CSBTI-SU and CSBTI-RFU of the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) provides
have separate legal personalities to file their that: Section 2. Where to file application;
separate petitions for certification election. SOLE procedure – Any national labor organization or
held that APSOTEU is a legitimate labor labor federation or local union may file an
organization because it was properly registered application for registration with the Bureau or
pursuant to the 1989 Revised Rules and the Regional Office where the applicant’s
Regulations implementing Republic Act No. principal offices is located. The Bureau or the
6715, the rule applicable at the time of its Regional Office shall immediately process and
registration. It further ruled that ALU and approve or deny the application. In case of
APSOTEU are separate and distinct labor unions approval, the Bureau or the Regional Office shall
having separate certificates of registration from issue the registration certificate within thirty (30)
the DOLE. They also have different sets of locals. calendar days from receipt of the application,
The Secretary declared CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU together with all the requirements for
as legitimate labor organizations having been registration as hereinafter provided. The
chartered respectively by ALU and APSOTEU Implementing Rules specifically Section 1, Rule III
after submitting all the requirements with the of Book V, as amended by Department Order No.
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). SOLE ordered 9, thus:
the holding of separate certification election.
SECTION 1. Where to file applications. – The
MFR of parties denied. Appeal to CA. Denied,
application for registration of any federation,
Hence, SC Petition.
national or industry union or trade union center
ISSUE: Can the supervisory and the rank-and-file shall be filed with the Bureau. Where the
unions file separate petitions for certification application is filed with the Regional Office, the
election? CSBTI argues that APSOTEU improperly same shall be immediately forwarded to the
secured its registration from the DOLE Regional Bureau within forty-eight (48) hours from filing
Director and not from the BLR; that it is the BLR thereof, together with all the documents
that is authorized to process applications and supporting the registration. The applications for
issue certificates of registration, that the registration of an independent union shall be
certificates of registration issued by the DOLE filed with and acted upon by the Regional Office
Regional Director pursuant to the rules are where the applicant’s principal office is located
questionable, and possibly even void ab initio for …. The DOLE issued Department Order No. 40-
being ultra vires. CSBTI insists that APSOTEU 03, which took effect on March 15, 2003, further
lacks legal personality, and its chartered affiliate amending Book V of the above implementing
CSBTI-SU cannot attain the status of a legitimate rules. The new implementing rules explicitly
labor organization to file a petition for provide that applications for registration of labor
certification election. organizations shall be filed either with the
Regional Office or with the BLR. Even after the
RULING: Pertinent is Article 235 of the Labor
amendments, the rules did not divest the
Code which provides that applications for
Regional Office and the BLR of their jurisdiction
registration shall be acted upon by the Bureau.
over applications for registration by labor
"Bureau" as defined under the Labor Code
organizations. The amendments to the
means the BLR and/or the Labor Relations
implementing rules merely specified that when
Division in the Regional Offices of the
the application was filed with the Regional
Department of Labor. Further, Section 2, Rule II,
Office, the application would be acted upon by
the BLR. The records in this case showed that FACTS: Respondent Air Philippines Flight
APSOTEU was registered on March 1, 1991. Attendants Association (APFLAA) was issued a
Accordingly, the law applicable at that time was Certificate of Registration by the DOLE
Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing
APFLAA filed a petition for certification election
Rules, and not Department Order No. 9 which
as the collective bargaining representative of the
took effect only on June 21, 1997. Thus,
flight attendants of APC
considering further that APSOTEU’s principal
office is located in Diliman, Quezon City, and its After the Med-Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering
registration was filed with the NCR Regional the holding of a certification election, such
Office, the certificate of registration is valid. election was held, with majority of votes cast in
Thus, APSOTEU is a legitimate labor organization favor of AFPLAA
and has authority to issue charter to its affiliates.
It may issue a local charter certificate to CSBTI- APC filed a petition for De-Certification and
SU and correspondingly, CSBTI-SU is legitimate. Cancellation of Union Registration against
Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a APFLAA with DOLE
chartered local union acquires legal personality - APFLAA could not be registered as a labor
through the charter certificate issued by a duly organization, as its composition consisted of “a
registered federation or national union, and mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file flight
reported to the Regional Office in accordance attendants
with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A
local union does not owe its existence to the - Flight attendants holding the position of
federation with which it is affiliated. It is a “Lead Cabin Attendant,” which according to it is
separate and distinct voluntary association supervisory in character, were among those who
owing its creation to the will of its members. comprised APFLAA
Mere affiliation does not divest the local union DOLE: dismissed petition, holding that Article
of its own personality, neither does it give the 245 of the Labor Code does not provide a ground
mother federation the license to act for cancellation of union registration, which is
independently of the local union. It only gives instead governed by Article 239 of the LC
rise to a contract of agency, where the former
acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local ISSUE: Whether or not APFLAA’s union
unions are considered principals while the registration may be cancelled considering that
federation is deemed to be merely their agent. the union is allegedly composed of a mixture of
As such principals, the unions are entitled to supervisory and rank-and-file employees
exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate
RULING: NO. For the purpose of de-certifying a
labor organization, including the right to seek
union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining
and-file union includes ineligible employees in its
agent in the appropriate employer unit.
membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c)
of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
AIR PHIL. CORP VS. BLR in connection with the adoption or ratification of
Topic: Cancellation of Union Certificate of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
Registration thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in
connection with the election of officers, minutes
of the election of officers, the list of voters, or
failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers
the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.
and their postal addresses to the BLR.

In its Petition for De-certification and

Cancellation of Union Registration, APC did not
impute on APFLAA such misrepresentation of
the character necessitated under Article 239 (a)
and (c) of the Labor Code. APC merely argued
that APFLAA was not qualified to become a
legitimate labor organization by reason of its
mixed composition of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees; and that APFLAA
committed misrepresentation by making it
appear that its composition was composed
purely of rank-and-file employees. Such
misrepresentation (if it can be called as such) as
alleged by APC, is not conformable to Article 239
(a) and (c) of the Labor Code. Indeed, it appears
from the record that APC instead devoted the
bulk of its arguments in establishing that
supervisory employees comprised part of the
membership of APFLAA, a ground which is not
sufficient to cause the cancellation of union
registration. And this is of course all under the
assumption that Lead Cabin Attendants are
indeed supervisory employees, a claim
consistently denied by APFLAA and which was
not confirmed by either the DOLE-NCR or the
BLR.

DISPOSITIVE: APFLAA won.

DOCTRINE: For the purpose of de-certifying a

union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-
and-file union includes ineligible employees in its
membership. Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c)
of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there
was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud
in connection with the adoption or ratification of
the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in
connection with the election of officers, minutes
of the election of officers, the list of voters, or
failure to submit these documents together with