LabRel-Atty.

Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano
renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case, the
e.1 Election of officers – 250(c), 250(f), 250(k), 250 board of directors of the organization may make the
second to the last paragraph decision in behalf of the general membership;
ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
Labor Organization. The following are the rights and e.3 Admission and removal of members-260(a),
conditions of membership in a labor organization: ART. 260. [249] Unfair Labor Practices of Labor
Organizations. It shall be unfair labor practice for a
(c) The members shall directly elect their officers in labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
the local union, as well as their national officers in the
national union or federation to which they or their local (a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) of their right to selforganization. However, a labor
years. No qualification requirement for candidacy to any organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules
position shall be imposed other than membership in with respect to the acquisition or retention of
good standing in subject labor organization. The membership;
secretary or any other responsible union officer shall
furnish the Secretary of Labor and Employment with a list 250 (a) and (e);
of the newly-elected officers, together with the appointive ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of Labor Organization. The following are the rights and
funds within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of conditions of membership in a labor organization:
officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list
of officers of the labor organization; (a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be
250(f), required of the members of a legitimate labor
(f) No person who has been convicted of a crime organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for election as a fine and forfeiture be imposed;
union officer or for appointment to any position in the
union; (e) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as
members or continue in membership any individual who
250(k), belongs to a subversive organization or who is engaged
(k) The officers of any labor organization shall not directly or indirectly in any subversive activity;
be paid any compensation other than the salaries and
expenses due to their positions as specifically provided 292 (a) and (c)
for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a written ART. 292. [277] Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) All unions
resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees,
members at a general membership meeting duly called union dues, assessments and fines and other
for the purpose. The minutes of the meeting and the list contributions for labor education and research, mutual
of participants and ballots cast shall be subject to death and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike
inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly fund and credit and cooperative undertakings.
authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the
approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for
(c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite
impeachment or expulsion from the organization;
period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service,
be considered as an employee for purposes of
250 second to the last paragraph membership in any labor union.
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of
membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union
registration or expulsion of officers from office, whichever
is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the
members of a union or any member or members specially
concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The
Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any
reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.

Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of

above rights and conditions of membership shall
continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

e.2 Question of major policy- 250(d)

(d) The members shall determine by secret ballot,
after due deliberation, any question of major policy
affecting the entire membership of the organization,
unless the nature of the organization or force majeure

Page 1 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano
the accountant concluded that the union's finances, income,
United v Pinuela, July 31, 2017 and disbursements for the years 2003 and 2004 were not
G.R. No. 209555 properly documented, recorded, and reported. He
recommended that the union officers "take a seminar on
UNITED POL YRESINS, INC., ERNESTO UY SOON, JR., basic bookkeeping and accounting;"6 that the union adopt
and/or JULITO UY SOON, Petitioners and/or install the necessary accounting and internal control
vs. systems; that the union prepare the proper financial
MARCELINO PINUELA, Respondent statements; and that the officers take corrective measures in
financial management as an integral part of sound
Petitioner: United Polyresins, Inc. (UPI) is a registered management.
domestic corporation doing business in San Pedro, Laguna.
Ernesto Uy Soon, Jr. and Julito Uy Soon are its corporate during respondent's term as PORF A President, it appeared
officers. that UPI automatically deducted from the respective salaries
• substantive and procedural due process were of PORFA members amounts representing union
observed in respondent's case; that respondent membership dues and loan payments.
was apprised of the charges against him and
, were then regularly turned over by UPI to PORFA in the
given the opportunity to refute them; that the form of fifty eight (58) crossed checks, made payable to
evidence points to the conclusion that he PORFA.8 These amounts were then deposited and credited
misappropriated the union's funds and was to PORFA's account.
unable to explain the dissipation thereof; that for
what he has done, respondent violated Article XV, several days before the ₱300,000.00 loan by UPI to
Section 1, paragraphs (e) and (f) of the union's PORFA became due, petitioners, respondent, and the
Constitution; that respondent's dismissal on the other union officers met to discuss the proposed new
basis of the union security clause in the CBA was CBA. Thereat, petitioners told respondent that until
thus valid, based on substantial proof, and in the ₱300,000.00 is returned, the former shall not
accord with the pronouncement in Carino v. discuss the proposed CBA. Respondent explained that
National Labor Relations Commission,35 where the union did not have the finances and had only
the dismissal of an employee was upheld on the ₱78,723.60, which was the original amount turned
basis of the union security and expulsion clauses over by Cielo to respondent when the latter assumed
contained in the CBA; and that since his dismissal office as union President
is valid, then he is not entitled to his monetary
claims. Petitioners then told respondent and the other union
officers that if the amount is not returned, the same
Respondent: Marcelino Pinuela was employed by UPI will be deducted from the salaries of the union
He became a member of the labor union, Polyresins Rank
members.
and File Association (PORFA), and was elected President
thereof in May, 2005 and slated to serve until the end of
2007. respondent filed a complaint before the National
• his right to procedural due process was violated Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), claiming
when he was not properly informed of the that petitioners refused to bargain collectively
charges against him; and that for these reasons,
he was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to his petitioners raised the issue of non-payment of the
monetary claims. ₱300,000.00 owing to UPI and insisted on its payment;
they also threatened to deduct the amount of
₱l,500.00 from the respective salaries of the union
Upon his assumption as union President, respondent wrote members
the former union President, Geoffrey Cielo (Cielo), to turn
over the records, papers, documents and financial They likewise accused respondent and the other union
statements of the union
officers of mismanagement, unduly hanging on to
their positions, and lack of accountability.
Finding that the bank documents and Cielo's report did not
match, and Cielo unable to explain the discrepancies, the
union's Executive Committee, which was headed by special elections were held, and a new union President
respondent, resolved to hire a certified public accountant to and set of officers were elected
conduct an audit of the union's finances.

Page 2 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

the union's new set of officers conducted an give ground for the impeachment and recall of
investigation into the fact that the union had little or union officers
no funds remaining in its bank account.
letter to petitioners, PORF A communicated
Respondent attended the investigation, and admitted respondent's expulsion from the union.
that the union had no more funds as they were
"utilized in the prosecution of cases during his On April 14, 2008, petitioners issued a letter of
incumbency."14 He likewise failed to make a formal termination21 to respondent, to take effect
turnover of documents to the new President. immediately
Respondent was required to surrender union
documents in his possession on the next scheduled Action: Respondent filed a complaint against
meeting petitioners before the Labor Arbiter for illegal
dismissal, with monetary claims and damages,
The investigation centered on respondent's continued which was docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-08-
failure to account for the union's bank accounts, 27303-08-L. He claimed that his dismissal was
documents, and deposits made during his effected in bad faith and without due process and was
incumbency, and his failure to formally turn over thus illegal
union's papers to the new officers. After the meeting,
respondent and the new officers proceeded to the Defense: Petitioners countered that respondent's
bank, where they discovered that the PORFA account dismissal is valid under the union security clause of
had already been closed the CBA; that his failure to return the ₱300,000.00 loan
to the union due to
the new set of union officers issued a Resolution17 mismanagement/misappropriation constitutes just
expelling respondent from PORF A for being guilty cause for his expulsion from the union, as well as
of the following violations: dismissal from employment; that he was accorded
substantive and procedural due process; that the
1. No annual financial statement. herein individual petitioners may not be held liable for
respondent's claims; and that accordingly, the case
2. No listings or ledger of union member's [sic] should be dismissed.
emergency loans.
Labor Arbiter issued a Decision22 dismissing
3. Unposted cheques on the Union's passbook respondent's complaint on the finding that
collected from umon members [sic] monthly dues. respondent was not illegally terminated,

4. Our union checking account at Security Bank , in the investigation conducted by the newly
were [sic] Zero balance/closed account. elected officers of the union, it was uncovered that
union funds were in fact personally used by the
5. No receipts/cash disbursement presented for the former officers of PORF A which includes
union operational [sic] expenses. complainant.

before the NLRC, which initially overturned the

6. Unable to return the ₱300,000.00 lent by the
Labor Arbiter
management free of interest. (Art. XXVII, Section 3
of our CBA).
However, on motion for reconsideration, the NLRC
issued its June 11, 2011 Decision, which held as
7. Unable to explain and present documents to
follows:
support where the agency fees and union dues
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents-
collected from legitimate union members were
appellees' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED,
used.18
a new Decision is rendered finding complainant's
dismissal as valid. Respondents-appellees are
The officers held that these violations constituted
however ordered to pay complainant the amounts
an infringement of the union's Constitution,
of ₱108,108.00 and ₱30,000.00 as separation pay
particularly Article XV, Section 1, paragraphs (e)
and nominal damages.
and (f) thereof, which specifically prohibit the
misappropriation of union funds and property and

Page 3 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

All other claims whether monetary or otherwise are only provision authorizing removal from the union is
hereby DISMISSED. found in Article X, Section 6, that is,
• on the ground of failure to pay union
Ruling of the Court of Appeals dues, special assessments, fines, and other
mandatory charges.
In sum, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
reconsidering its earlier Decision which is more in On the other hand, grounds for disqualification from
accord with the evidence on record. membership may be found in Article IV, which states
that-
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Section 3. The following are not eligible neither
assailed Decision dated 11 June 201029 is hereby [sic] for membership nor to election or
SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 8 December 2009 is appointment to any position in the union:
REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that the
backwages shall be recomputed from the date of a. Subversive or persons who profess subversive
Petitioner's dismissal to the finality of this Decision. ideas.

Supreme Court Ruling: b. Persons who have been convicted of crime

Respondent's expulsion from PORFA is grounded on involving moral turpitude.
Article XV, Section 1, paragraphs (e) and (f) of the
union's Constitution, which provides: c. Persons who are not employees of the company
Section 1. Any of the following shall be ground for
the impeachment or recall of the union officers. These provisions do not apply in respondent's
e. Misappropriation of union funds and property. case. Although he was eventually charged with estafa,
This is without prejudice to the filing of an a crime involving moral turpitude,41 still, he has not
appropriate criminal or civil action against the been convicted of the crime. For this reason, he may
responsible officer/(s) by any interested party; not be disqualified as union member.

f. Willful violation of any provision of the Thus, for what he is charged with, respondent may
constitution or rules, regulations, measures, not be penalized with expulsion from the union,
resolution(s) and decision of the union.37 since this is not authorized and provided for under
PORFA's Constitution.
However, these provisions refer to impeachment and
recall of union officers, and not expulsion from Contrary to petitioners' claim, Carino v. National Labor
union membership. Relations Commission is not applicable here. In that
case, the employee was terminated on the basis of
This is made clear by Section 2(e) of the same Article existing suspension and expulsion provisions
XV, which provides that "(t)he union officers contained in the CBA and rules on discipline found in
impeached shall 'IPSO FACTO' to [sic] be considered the union's Constitution. There are no such
resigned or ousted from office and shall no longer be provisions in PORFA's Constitution; neither has it
elected nor appointed to any position in the union." been shown that there are similar stipulations in the
parties' CBA.
In short, any officer found guilty of violating these
provisions shall simply be removed, impeached or The matter of respondent's alleged failure to return
recalled, from office, but not expelled or stripped of petitioners' ₱300,000.00 which was lent to PORFA is
union membership. immaterial as well. It may not be used as a ground
to terminate respondent's employment; under the
It was therefore error on the part of PORFA and Labor Code, such a contribution by petitioners to
petitioners to terminate respondent's employment PORFA is illegal and constitutes unfair labor
based on Article XV, Section 1, paragraphs (e) and practice.
(f) of the union's Constitution. Such a ground does
not constitute just cause for termination. ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It
shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of
the following unfair labor practice:

Page 4 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

xxxx

(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise

interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization, including the giving of
financial or other support to it or its organizers or
supporters;42 (Emphasis supplied)

This could be an opportune time for the union to

consider amending its Constitution in order to
provide for specific rules on the discipline of its
members, not just its officers.

After all, it is given the right under the Labor Code, "to
prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition
or retention of membership."43 But it may not insist
on expelling respondent from PORF A and assist in his
dismissal from UPI without just cause, since it is an
unfair labor practice for a labor organization to "cause
or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee, including discrimination against
an employee with respect to whom membership in
such organization has been denied or to terminate an
employee on any ground other than the usual terms
and conditions under which membership or
continuation of membership is made available to
other members."44

On account of the foregoing disquisition, the other

issues raised by the parties need not be discussed.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Petition is

hereby DENIED. The December 11, 2012 Decision and
October 10, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 115402 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 5 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

e.4 Check-off and Assessment – 250(n)(o);

ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
Labor Organization. The following are the rights and
conditions of membership in a labor organization:

(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary

fees may be levied upon the members of a labor
organization unless authorized by a written resolution of
a majority of all the members in a general membership
meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the
organization shall record the minutes of the meeting
including the list of all members present, the votes cast,
the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the
recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be
attested to by the president.

(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the

Code, no special assessments,

from any amount due to an employee without an

individual written authorization duly signed by the
employee. The authorization should specifically state the
amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and

292(a);
ART. 292. [277] Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) All unions
are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees,
union dues, assessments and fines and other
contributions for labor education and research, mutual
death and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike
fund and credit and cooperative undertakings.

228
ART. 228. [222] Appearances and Fees.1

(a) Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or

any Labor Arbiter only:

1. If they represent themselves; or

2. If they represent their organization or members

thereof

from any collective bargaining agreement shall be

imposed on any individual

charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed

upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or
arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and
void

Page 6 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

the check-off provision in question is illegal

ABS-CBN Union v. ABS-CBN, March 11, 1999 because it was
G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 • never submitted for consideration and
approval to "all the members at a general
ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION
membership meeting called for the
MEMBERS, petitioner,
vs. purpose"; and further alleged that the
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., HERBERT RIVERA,
ALBERTO BERBON, CINDY MUNOZ, CELSO • formalities mandated by Art. 241, paragraphs
JAMBALOS, SALVADOR DE VERA, ARNULFO (n) and (o) of the Labor Code, as amended,
ALCAZAR, JAKE MADERAZO, GON CARPIO, OSCAR were not complied with.
LANDRITO, FRED GARCIA, CESAR LOPEZ and RUBEN
BARRAMEDA, respondents.
• contend that Article 241 (n) of the Labor
Code, as amended, on special assessments,
ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union ("the Union"),
contemplates a general meeting after the
represented by respondent Union Officers, and ABS-
CBN Broadcasting Corporation ("the Company") conclusion of the collective bargaining
signed and concluded a Collective Bargaining agreement
Agreement with the following check-off provision
• that the amount to be deducted is uncertain
Art. XII — The [C]ompany agrees to advance to the
Respondent: the Union Officers and ABS-CBN
Union a sum equivalent to 10% of the sum total of
Broadcasting corporation
all the salary increases and signing bonuses
granted to the Supervisors under this collective
Defense:
Bargaining Agreement and upon signing hereof to
dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit.
cover the Union's incidental expenses, including
• They argued that the check-off provision is in
attorney's fees and representation expenses for its
accordance with law as majority of the Union
organization and (sic) preparation and conduct
members individually executed a written
hereof, and such advance shall be deducted from
authorization giving the Union officers and
the benefits granted herein as they accrue.
the Company a blanket authority to deduct
subject amount.
Petitioners (ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES
UNION MEMBERS,) filed with the Bureau of Labor
Med-Arbiter
Relations, DOLE-NCR, Quezon City,
a) declaring the special assessment of 10% of the
sum total of CBA benefits as illegal;
Action: a Complaint against the Union Officers and
ABS-CBN Broadcasting corporation
b) ordering respondents union officers to refund to
Allegation: the complainants and other union members the
1) the special assessment of ten percent amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(10%) of the sum total of all salary increases (P500,000.00) advanced by the respondent
and signing bonuses granted by respondent Company as part of the 10% sum total of CBA
Company to the members of the Union be benefits without unnecessary delay;
declared illegal for failure to comply with
the Labor Code, as amended, particularly c) ordering the respondent company to stop and
Article 241, paragraphs (g), (n), and (o); and desist from further making advances and
in utter violation of the Constitution and deductions from the union members' salaries their
By-Laws of the ABS-CBN Supervisors share in the advances already made to the union;
Employees Union;
d) ordering the respondent Company to remit
(2) respondent Company be ordered to directly to the complainants and other union
suspend further deductions from petitioners' members the amount already deducted from the
salaries for their shares thereof union members' salaries as part of their share
advances already made to the union and which it
had kept in trust during the pendency of this case;
and

Page 7 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

Consequently, petitioners are now estopped from

e) directing the respondents union officers and raising the issue sought for resolution
respondent Company to submit report on the
compliance thereof it was only when the public respondent issued the
Order adverse to them that the petitioners raised the
DOLE Undersecretary WHEREFORE, the appeals question for the first time before this Court.
are hereby denied, the Order of the Med-Arbiter is Obviously, it is a patent afterthought which must be
affirmed en toto. abhorred.

they filed their Motion for Reconsideration stating, Issue of Check off provision:
inter alia that the questioned ten percent (10%)
special assessment is valid pursuant to the ruling in "A check-off
Bank of the Philippine Islands Employee Union - is a process or device whereby the employer, on
ALU vs. NLRC agreement with the Union, recognized as the proper
bargaining representative, or on prior authorization
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 01 July 1991 is from its employees, deducts union dues or agency
hereby SET ASIDE, In lieu thereof, a new one is fees from the latter's wages and remits them
hereby entered DISMISSING the Complaint/Petition directly to the union."15 Its desirability in a labor
for lack of merit. organization is quite evident. It is assured thereby of
continuous funding. As this Court has acknowledged,
Issue: the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of
Whether or not there was a valid check off. Yes. the Union and only indirectly, for the individual
employees.
Supreme Court Ruling:
the only way by which a labor case may reach the
The legal basis of check-off is found in statutes or in
Supreme Court is through a petition for certiorari
contracts
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
The statutory limitations on check-offs are found in
Article 241, Chapter II, Title IV, Book Five of the Labor
Such petition may be filed within a reasonable time
Code, which reads
from receipt of the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC decision
Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization — The following are the rights and
before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
conditions of membership in a labor organization:
Rules of Court may be availed of, the filing of a
motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua
xxx xxx xxx
non to afford an opportunity for the correction of
the error or mistake complained of.
(g) No officer, agent, or member of a labor
organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other
that a decision of the Secretary of Labor is subject
contributions in its behalf to make any
to judicial review only through a special civil action of
disbursement of its money or funds unless he is
certiorari and, as a rule, cannot be resorted to
duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and
without the aggrieved party having exhausted
by-laws.
administrative remedies through a motion for
reconsideration, the aggrieved party, must be
xxx xxx xxx
allowed to move for a reconsideration of the same so
that he can bring a special civil action for certiorari
(n) No special assessement or other extraordinary
before the Supreme Court.
fees may be leavied upon the members of a labor
organization unless authorized by a written
that the petitioners filed with the public respondent a
resolution of a majority of all the members of a
Motion for Early Resolution13 dated June 24, 1992,
general membership meeting duly called for the
averring that private respondents' Motion for
purpose. The secretary of the organization shall
Reconsideration did not contain substantial factual or
record the minutes of the meeting including the list
legal grounds for the reversal of subject decision.
of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose

Page 8 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

of the special assessment or fees and the recipient (3) individual written authorization for check-
of such assessment or fees. The record shall be off duly signed by the employee concerned
attested to by the president.
In this case:
(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the we find that the three (3) requisites for the validity of
Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees the ten percent (10%) special assessment for Union's
negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees incidental expenses, attorney's fees and
may be checked off from any amount due to an representation expenses were met
employee without an individual written
authorization duly signed by the employee. The the ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union held its
authorization should specifically state the amount, general meeting, whereat it was agreed that a ten
purpose and beneficiary of the deductions percent (10%) special assessment from the total
economic package due to every member would be
Art. 241 of the Labor Code, as amended, must be checked-off to cover expenses for negotiation,
read in relation to Article 222, paragraph (b) of the other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's fees.
same law, which states:
Union held its General Membership Meeting,
No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar wherein majority of the members agreed that "in as
charges of any kind arising from collective much as the Union had already paid Atty. P. Pascual
bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the the amount of P500,000.00, the same must be shared
collective agreement shall be imposed on any by all the members until this is fully liquidated
individual member of the contracting union:
Provided, however, that attorney's fees may be Eighty-five (85) members of the same Union executed
charged against union funds in an amount to be individual written authorizations for check-of
agreed upon by the parties. Any contract,
agreement or arrangement of any sort to the Records do not indicate that the aforesaid check-off
contrary shall be null and void authorizations were executed by the eighty-five (85)
Union members under the influence of force or
Bank of Philippine Islands Employees Union - compulsion. There is, then, the presumption that such
Association Labor Union (BPIEU-ALU) vs. National check-off authorizations were executed voluntarily by
Labor Relations Commission the signatories thereto

The Court reads the afore-cited provision (Article the check-off authorization clearly stated that the sum
222 [b] of the Labor Code) as prohibiting the to be deducted is equivalent to ten percent (10%) of
payment of attorney's fees only when it is all and whatever benefits may accrue under the CBA.
effected through forced contributions from the In other words, although the amount is not fixed, it
workers from their own funds as distinguished is determinable.
from the union funds. . . .
, I hereby authorize the Management and/or
Article 241 speaks of three (3) requisites that must Cashier of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
be complied with in order that the special CORPORATION to deduct from my salary the sum
assessment for Union's incidental expenses, of P30.00 per month as my regular union dues and
attorney's fees and representation expenses, as said Management and/or Cashier are further
stipulated in Article XII of the CBA, be valid and authorize (sic) to deduct a sum equivalent to10% of
upheld namely: all and whatever benefits that will become due to
me under the COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
1) authorization by a written resolution of AGREEMENT (CBA) that may be agreed upon by
the majority of all the members at the the UNION and MANAGEMENT and to apply the
general membership meeting duly called for said sum to the advance that Management will
the purpose; make to our Union for incidental expenses such as
attorney's fees, representations and other
(2) secretary's record of the minutes of the miscellaneous expenses pursuant to Article XII of
meeting; and the proposed CBA

Page 9 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

Subject Article does not state that the general Paragraph (o) on the other hand requires an individual
membership meeting should be called after the written authorization duly signed by every employee
conclusion of a collective bargaining agreement. Even in order that special assessment may be validly
granting ex gratia argumenti that the general meeting checked-off. Even assuming that the special
should be held after the conclusion of the CBA, such assessment was validly levied pursuant to paragraph
requirement was complied with since the May 24, (n), and granting that individual written authorizations
1991 General Membership Meeting was held after the were obtained by the Union, nevertheless there can
conclusion of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, be no valid check-off considering that the majority of
which was signed and concluded on December 7, the Union members had already withdrawn their
1989. individual authorizations. A withdrawal of individual
authorization is equivalent to no authorization at all. . .
the three requisites afforesaid for the validity of a . [Emphasis; supplied]
special assessment were observed or met, we uphold
the validity of the ten percent (10%) special In this case,
assessment authorized in Article XII of the CBA. majority of the Union members gave their individual
written check-off authorizations for the ten percent
ALU vs. NLRC 22 is apposite in this case. In BPIEU- (10%) special assessment. And they have never
ALU, the petitioners, impugned the Order of the withdrawn their individual written authorizations for
NLRC, holding that the validity of the five percent check-off.
(5%) special assessment for attorney's fees is
contrary to Article 222, paragraph (b) of the Labor There is thus cogent reason to uphold the assailed
Code, as amended. The court ratiocinated, thus: Order, it appearing from the records of the case that
twenty (20)25 of the forty-two (42) petitioners
The Court reads the aforecited provision as executed a Compromise Agreement26 ratifying the
prohibiting the payment of attorney's fees only controversial check-off provision in the CBA.
when it is effected through forced contributions
from the workers from their own funds as Premises studiedly considered, we are of the
distinguished from the union funds. The purpose irresistible conclusion and, so find, that the ruling in
of the provision is to prevent imposition on the BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC that (1) the prohibition against
workers of the duty to individually contribute their attorney's fees in Article 222, paragraph (b) of the
respective shares in the fee to be paid the attorney Labor Code applies only when the payment of
for his services on behalf of the union in its attorney's fees is effected through forced
negotiations with the management contributions from the workers; and (2) that no
deductions must be taken from the workers who did
And significantly, the authorized deductions not sign the check-off authorization, applies to the
affected only the workers who adopted and case under consideration.
signed the resolution and who were the only
ones from whose benefits the deductions were WHEREFORE, the assailed Order, dated July 31, 1992,
made by BPI. No similar deductions were taken of DOLE Undersecretary B. E. Laguesma is AFFIRMED
from the other workers who did not sign the except that no deductions shall be taken from the
resolution and so were not bound by it workers who did not give their individual written
check-off author
public respondent overlooked the fact that in the said
case, the deduction of the stipulated five percent (5%)
of the total economic benefits under the new
collective bargaining agreement was applied only to
workers who gave their individual signed
authorizations

The inapplicability of Palacol lies in the fact that it has

a different factual milieu from the present case. In
Palacol, the check-off authorization was declared
invalid because majority of the Union members had
withdrawn their individual authorizations, to wit:

Page 10 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

Defense:
Del Pilar Academy Union, April 30, 2008 denied committing unfair labor practices against the
G.R. No. 170112 April 30, 2008 UNION.
• It justified the non-deduction of the agency
DEL PILAR ACADEMY, EDUARDO ESPEJO and fees by the absence of individual check off
ELISEO OCAMPO, JR., petitioners, authorization from the non-union
vs. employees.
DEL PILAR ACADEMY EMPLOYEES UNION, • As regards the proposal to amend the
respondents. provision on summer vacation leave with
pay, DEL PILAR alleged that the proposal
Respondent Del Pilar Academy Employees Union (the cannot be considered unfair for it was done
UNION) is the certified collective bargaining to make the provision of the CBA
representative of teaching and non-teaching conformable to the DECS’ Manual of
personnel of petitioner Del Pilar Academy (DEL PILAR), Regulations for Private Schools
an educational institution operating in Imus, Cavite • admitted its failure to deduct the agency fees
from the salaries of non-union employees,
the UNION and DEL PILAR entered into a Collective but justifies the non-deduction by the
Bargaining Agreement (CBA)3 granting salary increase absence of individual written
and other benefits to the teaching and non-teaching authorization. It posits that Article 248(e) is
staff inapplicable considering that its employees
derived no benefits from the CBA.
The UNION then assessed agency fees from non-
union employees, and requested DEL PILAR to The annual salary increase of its employee is
deduct said assessment from the employees’ salaries a benefit mandated by law, and not
and wages. DEL PILAR, however, refused to effect derived from the CBA. According to DEL
deductions claiming that the non-union PILAR, the Department of Education, Culture
employees were not amenable to it and Sports (DECS) required all educational
institutions to allocate at least 70% of tuition
the UNION negotiated for the renewal of the CBA.
fee increases for the salaries and other
DEL PILAR, however, refused to renew the same unless
benefits of teaching and non-teaching
the provision regarding entitlement to two (2) months
personnel; that even prior to the execution of
summer vacation leave with pay will be amended by
the CBA in September 1994, DEL PILAR was
limiting the same to teachers, who have rendered at
already granting annual salary increases
least three (3) consecutive academic years of
to its employees. Besides, the non-union
satisfactory service
employees objected to the deduction;
hence, a written authorization is
UNION objected to the proposal claiming diminution
indispensable to effect a valid check off. DEL
of benefits. DEL PILAR refused to sign the CBA,
PILAR urges this Court to reverse the CA
resulting in a deadlock
ruling insofar as it ordered the deduction of
agency fees from the salaries of non-union
The UNION requested DEL PILAR to submit the case
employees, arguing that such conclusion
for voluntary arbitration, but the latter allegedly
proceeds from a misplaced premise that the
refused
salary increase arose from the CBA
Action: case for unfair labor practice with the Labor
Arbiter against DEL PILAR; Eduardo Espejo, its Labor Arbiter that it was an error on [the] part of
president; and Eliseo Ocampo, Jr., chairman of the [DEL PILAR] not to have collected agency fee due
Board of Trustees. other workers who are non-union members but are
included in the bargaining unit being represented
by [the UNION]. True enough as was correctly
Petitioners: DEL PILAR ACADEMY, EDUARDO ESPEJO
quoted by [the UNION] Art. 248
and ELISEO OCAMPO, JR.

the charge of unfair labor practice is hereby

Dismissed for want of basis.

Page 11 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

the National Labor Relations Commission employees accept the benefits resulting from the
(NLRC) affirmed the Arbiter’s ruling. In gist, it CBA
upheld the UNION’s right to agency fee, but did
not consider DEL PILAR’s failure to deduct the the grant of annual salary increase is not the only
same an unfair labor practice provision in the CBA that benefited the non-union
employees.
went to the CA via certiorari
affirming with modification the resolutions of the The UNION negotiated for other benefits, namely,
NLRC • limitations on teaching assignments to 23
hours per week,
the CA upheld the UNION’s right to collect agency • additional compensation for overload units
fees from non-union employees, but did not or teaching assignments in excess of the 23
adjudge DEL PILAR liable for unfair labor practice. hour per week limit, and payment of
However, it ordered DEL PILAR to deduct agency longevity pay.
fees from the salaries of non-union employees. • It also negotiated for entitlement to summer
vacation leave with pay for two (2) months
DEL PILAR filed a motion for reconsideration of for teaching staff who have rendered six (6)
the decision, but the CA denied the same consecutive semesters of service.
• For the non-teaching personnel, the UNION
Issue: worked for their entitlement to fifteen (15)
to whether or not the UNION is entitled to collect days leave with pay.13
agency fees from non-union members, and if so, These provisions in the CBA surely benefited the non-
whether an individual written authorization is union employees, justifying the collection of, and
necessary for a valid check off. the UNION’s entitlement to, agency fees.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Accordingly, no requirement of written
authorization from the non-union employees is
Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining
needed to effect a valid check off.
unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed
Article 248(e) makes it explicit that Article 241,
reasonable fees equivalent to the dues and other fees
paragraph
paid by the recognized collective bargaining agent, if
such non-union members accept the benefits
(o),14 requiring written authorization is inapplicable
under the collective bargaining agreement.
to non-union members, especially in this case where
the non-union employees receive several benefits
Provided, That the individual authorization required
under the CBA.
under Article 241, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not
Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Hon.
apply to the non-members of recognized collective
Joaquin
bargaining agent.
The employee's acceptance of benefits resulting
from a collective bargaining agreement justifies the
When so stipulated
deduction of agency fees from his pay and the
• in a collective bargaining agreement
union's entitlement thereto. In this aspect, the
• or authorized in writing by the employees
legal basis of the union's right to agency fees is
concerned,
neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi-
the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules recognize
contractual, deriving from the established principle
it to be the duty of the employer to deduct the sum
that non-union employees may not unjustly enrich
equivalent to the amount of union dues, as agency
themselves by benefiting from employment
fees, from the employees' wages for direct remittance
conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
to the union.

By this jurisprudential yardstick, this Court finds that

The system is referred to as check off. No
the CA did not err in upholding the UNION’s right to
requirement of written authorization from the non-
collect agency fees.
union employees is necessary if the non-union

Page 12 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and

Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
86868, are AFFIRMED.

Page 13 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

CBA were subject to renegotiation for the fourth and

Mariño v. Gamilla, July 7, 2009 fifth years.

G.R. No. 149763 July 7, 2009 UST and USTFU executed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA),6 whereby UST faculty members
EDUARDO J. MARIÑO, JR., MA. MELVYN P. belonging to the collective bargaining unit were
ALAMIS, NORMA P. COLLANTES, and granted additional economic benefits for the fourth
FERNANDO PEDROSA, Petitioners, and fifth years of the 1988-1993 CBA
vs.
GIL Y. GAMILLA, RENE LUIS TADLE, NORMA S. RATIFICATION OF THE UST-USTFU
CALAGUAS, MA. LOURDES C. MEDINA, EDNA B. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED
SANCHEZ, REMEDIOS GARCIA, MAFEL YSRAEL, SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 GRANTING A PACKAGE
ZAIDA GAMILLA, and AURORA DOMINGO, OF THE ₱42 MILLION FACULTY BENEFITS WITH
Respondents. PROVISION FOR CHECK-OFF.

In consideration of the efforts of the UST Faculty

1) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022 Union as the faculty members’ sole and exclusive
collective bargaining representative in obtaining
Petitioners: Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr., Ma. Melvyn P. the said ₱42 million package of economic benefits,
Alamis, Norma P. Collantes, and Fernando Pedrosa a check-off of ten percent thereof covering union
were among the executive officers and directors dues, and special assessment for Labor Education
(collectively called the Mariño Group) of the University Fund and attorney’s fees from USTFU members and
of Sto. Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU), a labor union agency fee from non-members for the period of
duly organized and registered under the laws of the the Agreement is hereby authorized to be made in
Republic of the Philippines and the bargaining one lump sum effective immediately, provided that
representative of the faculty members of the two per cent (sic) shall be for [the] administration
University of Santo Tomas (UST) of the Agreement and the balance of eight per cent
(sic) shall be for attorney’s fees to be donated, as
Respondents Gil Y. Gamilla, Rene Luis Tadle, Norma pledged by the USTFU lawyer to the Philippine
S. Calaguas, Ma. Lourdes C. Medina, Edna B. Sanchez, Foundation for the Advancement of the Teaching
Remedios Garcia, Mafel Ysrael, Zaida Gamilla, and Profession, Inc. whose principal purpose is the
Aurora Domingo were UST professors and USTFU advancement of the teaching profession and
members teacher’s welfare, and provided further that the
deductions shall not be taken from my individual
The 1986 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
monthly salary but from the total package of ₱42
between UST and USTFU expired
million due under the Agreement.

bargaining negotiations ensued between UST and the

_________________________
Mariño Group, which represented USTFU. As the
Signature of Faculty Member
parties were not able to reach an agreement despite
their earnest efforts, a bargaining deadlock was USTFU, through its President, petitioner Atty. Mariño,
declared and USTFU filed a notice of strike wrote a letter8 dated 1 October 1992 to the UST
Treasurer requesting the release to the union of the
Secretary of the Department of Labor and sum of ₱4.2 million, which was 10% of the ₱42 million
Employment (DOLE) Franklin Drilon assumed economic benefits package granted by the MOA to
jurisdiction over the dispute faculty members belonging to the collective
bargaining unit. The ₱4.2 million was sought by
. The DOLE Secretary issued an Order on 19 October USTFU in consideration of its efforts in obtaining the
1990, laying the terms and conditions for a new CBA said ₱42 million economic benefits package. UST
between the UST and USTFU remitted the sum of ₱4.2 million to USTFU on 9
October 1992.
). In keeping with Article 253-A5 of the Labor Code, as
amended, the economic provisions of the 1988-1993 After deducting from the ₱42 million economic
benefits package the ₱4.2 million check-off to USTFU,

Page 14 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

the amounts owed to UST, and the salary increases ensure a free, clean, honest, and orderly election and
and bonuses of the covered faculty members, a net to afford the union members the time to prepare
amount of ₱6,389,145.04 remained. The remaining themselves for the same. The USTFU Committee on
amount was distributed to the faculty members on 18 Elections failed to act positively on respondents’
November 1994 letter, and neither did they adopt and promulgate
the rules and regulations for the conduct of the
Action respondents (UST professors and USTFU scheduled election.
members) filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-National
Capital Region (NCR), a Complaint for the expulsion Action: respondents filed with the Med-Arbiter,
of the Mariño Group as USTFU officers and directors, DOLE-NCR, an Urgent Ex-Parte Petition/Complaint,
which was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412- which was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-
022 001.16 Respondents alleged in their
Petition/Complaint that the general membership
Allegation: meeting called by the USTFU Board of Directors on 5
the Mariño Group violated the rights and conditions October 1996, the agenda of which included the
of membership in USTFU, particularly by: election of union officers, was in violation of the
1) investing the unspent balance of the ₱42 million provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws of
economic benefits package given by UST without USTFU. Respondents prayed that the DOLE supervise
prior approval of the general membership; the conduct of the USTFU elections, and that they be
2) simultaneously holding elections viva voce; awarded attorney’s fees.
3) ratifying the CBA involving the ₱42 million
economic benefits package; and Med-Arbiter DOLE-NCR, issued a Temporary
4) approving the attorney’s/agency fees worth ₱4.2 Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the holding of
million in the form of check-off. Respondents prayed the USTFU elections scheduled the next day.
that the Mariño Group be declared jointly and
severally liable for refunding all collected (4) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016
attorney’s/agency fees from individual members of the UST Secretary General headed a general faculty
USTFU and the collective bargaining unit; and that, assembly attended by USTFU members, as well as
after due hearing, the Mariño group be expelled as USTFU non-members, but who were members of the
USTFU officers and directors. collective bargaining unit. During said assembly,
respondents were among the elected officers of
2) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028 USTFU (collectively referred to as the Gamilla Group).
UST and USTFU, represented by the Mariño Group,
entered into a new CBA Petitioners filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, a
Petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification
Respondents12 filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE- of the results of the 4 October 1994 election. The
NCR, on 18 October 1995, another Complaint against Petition was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-
the Mariño Group for violation of the rights and 016.
conditions of union membership, which was docketed
as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028.13 The Complaint Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016, the Med-Arbiter
primarily sought to invalidate certain provisions of the DOLE-NCR, nullified the election of the Gamilla
1993-1998 CBA negotiated by the Mariño Group for Group as USTFU officers on 4 October 1996 for
USTFU and the registration of said CBA with the DOLE having been conducted in violation of the
Constitution and By-Laws of the union.
(3) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001
Petitioner Norma Collantes, as USTFU Secretary- This ruling of the Med-Arbiter was affirmed on
General, posted notices in some faculty rooms at UST, appeal by the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) in
informing the union members of a general assembly a Resolution issued on 15 August 1997.
to be held on 5 October 1996. Part of the agenda for
said date was the election of new USTFU officers. Respondents were, thus, prompted to file a Petition
for Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R.
The following day, 25 September 1996, respondents No. 131235.
wrote a letter to the USTFU Committee on Elections,
urging the latter to re-schedule the elections to

Page 15 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

While G.R. No. 131235 was pending, the term of office conduct a general assembly every three months.
of the Gamilla Group as USTFU officers expired on 4 The DOLE-NCR Regional Director also ruled that
October 1999. The Gamilla Group then scheduled the the Mariño Group violated Article 241(c)22 and
next election of USTFU officers on 14 January 2000. (l)23 of the Labor Code when they did not submit a
list of union officers to the DOLE; when they did
On 16 November 1999, the Court promulgated its not submit/provide DOLE and the USTFU members
Decision in G.R. No. 131235, affirming the BLR with copies of the audited financial statements of
Resolution dated 15 August 1997 which ruled that the the union; and when they invested in a bank,
purported election of USTFU officers held on 4 without prior consent of USTFU members, the sum
October 1996 was void for violating the Constitution of ₱9,766,570.01, which formed part of the ₱42
and By-Laws of the union million economic benefits package.

(5) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9611-009 the check-off of ₱4.2 million collected by the
respondents18 filed before the Med-Arbiter, DOLE- Mariño Group, as negotiation fees, was invalid.
NCR, a fourth Complaint/Petition against the Mariño Under Republic Act No. 6728,24 70% of the tuition
Group, as well as the Philippine Foundation for the fee increases should be allotted to academic and
Advancement of the Teaching Profession, Inc., non-academic personnel. Given that the records
Security Bank Corporation, and Bank of the Philippine were silent as to how much of the ₱42 million
Islands, which was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M- economic benefits package was obtained through
9611-009.19 negotiations and how much was from the statutory
allotment of 70% of the tuition fee increases, the
they were the legitimate USTFU officers, having been DOLE-NCR Regional Director held that the entire
elected on 4 October 1996. They prayed for an order amount was within the statutory allotment, which
directing the Mariño Group to cease and desist from could not be the subject of negotiation and, thus,
using the name of USTFU and from performing acts could not be burdened by negotiation fees.
for and on behalf of the USTFU and the rest of the
members of the collective bargaining unit. principal subject of Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001
(i.e., violation by the Mariño Group of the
DOLE Department Order No. 9 took effect on 21 provisions on election of officers in the Labor Code
June 1997, amending the Rules Implementing Book and the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws) had
V of the Labor Code, as amended. Thereunder, been superseded by the central event in Case No.
jurisdiction over the complaints for any violation of NCR-OD-M-9611-009 (i.e., the subsequent election
the union constitution and by-laws and the of another set of USTFU officers consisting of the
conditions of union membership was vested in the Gamilla Group). While there were two sets of
Regional Director of the DOLE USTFU officers vying for legitimacy, the eventual
ruling of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, for the
Pursuant to said Department Order, all four expulsion of the Mariño Group from their positions
Petitions/Complaints filed by respondents against as USTFU officers, practically extinguished Case No.
the Mariño Group, particularly, Case No. NCR-OD- NCR-OD-M-9611-009.
M-9412-022, Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028, Case
No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001, and Case No. NCR-OD- Petitioners interposed an appeal26 before the BLR,
M-9611-009 were consolidated and indorsed to which was docketed as BLR-A-TR-52-25-10-99.
the Office of the Regional Director of the DOLE-
NCR the election of USTFU officers was held as scheduled
on 14 January 2000,27 in which the Gamilla Group
LE-NCR Regional Director rendered a Decision21 in claimed victory
the consolidated cases in respondents’ favor.
the Gamilla group, as the new USTFU officers, entered
Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022 and Case No. NCR- into a Memorandum of Agreement29 with the UST,
OD-M-9510-028, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director which provided for the economic benefits to be
adjudged the Mariño Group, as the executive granted to the faculty members of the UST for the
officers of USTFU, guilty of violating the years 1999-2001. Said Agreement was ratified by the
provisions of the USTFU Constitution and By- USTFU members on 9 March 2000.
laws by failing to collect union dues and to

Page 16 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

the BLR promulgated its Decision30 in BLR-A-TR- payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other
52-25-10-99, the fallo of which provides: benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel
for the UNIVERSITY.44 (Emphases supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED IN PART.
Accordingly, the decision appealed from is hereby The "law" in the aforequoted Section 7 of the MOA
MODIFIED to the effect that appellant USTFU can only refer to Republic Act No. 6728, otherwise
officers are hereby ordered to return to the general known as the "Government Assistance to Students
membership the amount of P4.2 million they have and Teachers in Private Education Act."
collected by way of attorney’s fees.
Republic Act No. 6728 was enacted in view of the
Let the entire records of this case be remanded to declared policy of the State, in conformity with the
the Regional Office of origin for the immediate mandate of the Constitution, to promote and make
conduct of election of officers of USTFU quality education accessible to all Filipino citizens, as
well as the recognition of the State of the
the Petition is denied due course and is hereby complementary roles of public and private
DISMISSED.41 educational institutions in the educational system and
the invaluable contribution that the private schools
Petitioners moved for reconsideration42 of the have made and will make to education.
Decision dated 16 March 2001 of the Court of
Appeals, but it was denied by the said court in its The said statute primarily grants various forms of
Resolution43 dated 30 August 2001 financial aid to private educational institutions
such as tuition fee supplements, assistance funds,
Issue: and scholarship grants.46

Supreme Court Ruling:

Although Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6728 does
speak of government assistance to students in private
(1) The ₱42 million economic benefits package
high schools, it is not limited to the same. Contrary to
The provisions of Republic Act No. 6728 were not petitioners’ puerile claim, Section 5 likewise grants
arbitrarily applied by the DOLE-NCR Regional an unmistakable authority to private high schools
Director, the BLR, or the Court of Appeals to the ₱42 to increase their tuition fees, subject to the
million economic benefits package granted by UST to condition that seventy (70%) percent of the tuition
USTFU, considering that the parties themselves fee increases shall go to the payment of the
stipulated in Section 7 of the MOA they signed on 10 salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of
September 1992 that: their teaching and non-teaching personnel.
7.0. It is clearly understood and agreed upon that
the aggregate sum of ₱42 million is chargeable The said allocation may also be used to cover
against the share of the faculty members in the increases in the salaries, wages, allowances, and other
incremental proceeds of tuition fees collected and benefits of school employees as provided for in the
still to be collected[;] Provided, however, that he CBAs existing or in force at the time when Republic
(sic) commitment of the UNIVERSITY to pay the Act No. 6728 was approved and made effective.
aggregate sum of ₱42 million shall subsist even if
the said amount exceeds the proportionate share Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the right of
that may accrue to the faculty members in the private schools to increase their tuition fee -- with
tuition fee increases that the UNIVERSITY may be their corresponding obligation to allocate 70% of
authorized to collect in School–Year 1992-1993, said increase to the payment of the salaries,
and, Provided, finally, that the covered faculty wages, allowances, and other benefits of their
members shall still be entitled to their employees -- is not limited to private high schools.
proportionate share in any undistributed portion of
the incremental proceeds of the tuition fee Indeed, a private educational institution under
increases in School-Year 1992-1993, and which Republic Act No. 6728 still has the discretion on the
incremental proceeds are, by law and pertinent disposition of 70% of the tuition fee increase. It
Department of Education Culture and Sports enjoys the privilege of determining how much
(DECS) regulations, required to be allotted for the increase in salaries to grant and the kind and amount
of allowances and other benefits to give.

Page 17 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

The only precondition is that 70% percent of the an item in the agenda. Petitioners fault the Court of
incremental tuition fee increase goes to the Appeals for disregarding the authorization of the
payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other special assessment by USTFU members.
benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
There is no law that prohibits the insertion of a
In this case, written authorization for the special assessment in
UST and USTFU stipulated in their 10 September 1992 the same instrument for the ratification of the 10
MOA that the ₱42 million economic benefits package September 1992 MOA.
granted by UST to the members of the collective
bargaining unit represented by USTFU, was Neither is there a law prescribing a particular form
chargeable against the 70% allotment from the that needs to be accomplished for the authorization
proceeds of the tuition fee increases collected and of the special assessment.
still to be collected by UST. As observed by the
DOLE-NCR Regional Director, and affirmed by both The faculty members who signed the ratification of
the BLR and the Court of Appeals, there is no the MOA, which included the authorization for the
showing that any portion of the ₱42 million special assessment, have high educational attainment,
economic benefits package was derived from and there is ample reason to believe that they affixed
sources other than the 70% allotment from tuition their signatures thereto with full comprehension of
fee increases of UST. what they were doing.

Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, it can be Again, the Court is not persuaded.
conclusively presumed that the entire ₱42 million
economic benefits package extended to USTFU The pertinent legal provisions on a check-off are
came from the 70% allotment from tuition fee found in Articles 222(b) and 241(n) and (o) of the
increases of UST. Preceding from this presumption, Labor Code, as amended.
any deduction from the ₱42 million economic benefits
package, such as the ₱4.2 million claimed by the Article 222(b) states:
Mariño Group as attorney’s/agency fees, should not
be allowed, because it would ultimately result in the (b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar
reduction of the statutorily mandated 70% allotment charges of any kind arising from any collective
from the tuition fee increases of UST. bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective
agreement shall be imposed on any individual
The other reasons for disallowing the ₱4.2 million member of the contracting union: Provided, however,
attorney’s/agency fees collected by the Mariño Group that attorney's fees may be charged against unions
from the ₱42 million economic benefits package are funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties.
discussed in the immediately succeeding paragraphs. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort
to the contrary shall be null and void.
(2) The ₱4.2 Million Check-off
Article 241(n) reads:
Petitioners contend that the ₱4.2 million check-off,
from the ₱42 million economic benefits package, was (n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees
lawfully made since the requirements of Article 222(b) may be levied upon the members of a labor
of the Labor Code, as amended, were complied with organization unless authorized by a written resolution
by the Mariño Group. The individual paychecks of the of a majority of all the members at a general
covered faculty employees were not reduced and the membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The
₱4.2 million deducted from the ₱42 million economic secretary of the organization shall record the minutes
benefits package became union funds, which were of the meeting including the list of all members
then used to pay attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, and present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special
similar charges arising from the CBA. In addition, the assessment or fees and the recipient of such
₱4.2 million constituted a special assessment upon assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to by
the USTFU members, the requirements for which were the president.
properly observed. The special assessment was
authorized in writing by the general membership of And Article 241(o) provides:
USTFU during a meeting in which it was included as

Page 18 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the the form of salary increases, returns on paycheck
Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees, deductions; and increases in hospitalization,
negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may educational, and retirement benefits, and other
be checked off from any amount due to an employee economic benefits.
without an individual written authorization duly
signed by the employee. The authorization should The deduction of the ₱4.2 million, as alleged
specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary attorney’s/agency fees, from the ₱42 million economic
of the deduction. benefits package effectively decreased the share
from said package accruing to each member of the
Article 222(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, collective bargaining unit.
prohibits the payment of attorney's fees only
when it is effected through forced contributions Petitioners’ line of argument – that the amount of
from the employees from their own funds as ₱4.2 million became union funds after its deduction
distinguished from union funds.49 from the ₱42 million economic benefits package and,
thus, could already be used to pay attorney’s fees,
Hence, the negotiation fees, or similar charges from the CBA – is
general rule: is that attorney’s fees, negotiation absurd.
fees, and other similar charges may only be collected
from union funds, not from the amounts that pertain Petitioners’ reasoning is evidently flawed since the
to individual union members. attorney’s fees may only be paid from union funds;
As an exception to the general rule, special yet the amount to be used in paying for the same
assessments or other extraordinary fees may be levied does not become union funds until it is actually
upon or checked off from any amount due an deducted as attorney’s fees from the benefits
employee for as long as there is proper awarded to the employees.
authorization by the employee.
It is just a roundabout argument. What the law
A check-off requires is that the funds be already deemed union
is a process or device whereby the employer, on funds even before the attorney’s fees are deducted
agreement with the Union, recognized as the proper or paid therefrom; it does not become union funds
bargaining representative, or on prior authorization after the deduction or payment.
from the employees, deducts union dues or agency
fees from the latter's wages and remits them directly To rule otherwise will also render the general
to the Union. Its desirability in a labor organization is prohibition stated in Article 222(b) nugatory, because
quite evident. The Union is assured thereby of all that the union needs to do is to deduct from the
continuous funding. As this Court has acknowledged, total benefits awarded to the employees the amount
the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of intended for attorney’s fees and, thus, "convert" the
the Union and, only indirectly, for the individual latter to union funds, which could then be used to pay
employees.50 for the said attorney’s fees.

In this case: The Court further determines that the requisites for a
the ₱42 million economic benefits package granted valid levy and check-off of special assessments, laid
by UST did not constitute union funds from down by Article 241(n) and (o), respectively, of the
whence the ₱4.2 million could have been validly Labor Code, as amended, have not been complied
deducted as attorney’s fees. with in the case at bar.

The ₱42 million economic benefits package was not To recall, these requisites are:
intended for the USTFU coffers, but for all the (1) an authorization by a written
members of the bargaining unit USTFU resolution of the majority of all the union
represented, whether members or non-members of members at the general membership
the union. A close reading of the terms of the MOA meeting duly called for the purpose;
reveals that after the satisfaction of the outstanding (2) secretary's record of the minutes of the
obligations of UST under the 1986 CBA, the balance of meeting; and
the ₱42 million was to be distributed to the covered
faculty members of the collective bargaining unit in

Page 19 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

(3) individual written authorization for legitimacy of the authorization for the ₱4.2 million
check-off duly signed by the employee check-off by a majority of USTFU membership.
concerned.51
Although the law does not prescribe a particular form
Additionally, Section 5, Rule X of the USTFU for the written authorization for the levy or check-off
Constitution and By-Laws mandates that: of special assessments, the authorization must, at
the very least, embody the genuine consent of the
Section 5. Special assessments or other extraordinary union member.
fees such as for payment of attorney’s fees shall be
made only upon a resolution duly ratified by the The failure of the Mariño Group to strictly comply with
general membership by secret balloting. the requirements set forth by the Labor Code, as
amended, and the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws,
In this case: invalidates the questioned special assessment.
In an attempt to comply with the foregoing
requirements, the Mariño Group caused the majority Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the
of the general membership of USTFU to individually fact that the special assessment will diminish the
sign a document, which embodied the ratification of compensation of the union members. Their express
the MOA between UST and USTFU, dated 10 consent is required, and this consent must be
September 1992, as well as the authorization for the obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by
check-off of ₱4.2 million, from the ₱42 million law, which must be followed to the letter. No
economic benefits package, as payment for attorney’s shortcuts are allowed.52
fees.
Viewed in this light, the Court does not hesitate to
As held by the Court of Appeals, however, the said declare as illegal the check-off of ₱4.2 million,
documents constitute unsatisfactory compliance from the ₱42 million economic benefits package, for
with the requisites set forth in the Labor Code, as union dues and special assessments for the Labor
amended, and in the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws, Education Fund and attorney’s fees.
even though individually signed by a majority of
USTFU members. Said amount rightfully belongs to and should be
returned by petitioners to the intended beneficiaries
The inclusion of the authorization for a check-off of thereof, i.e., members of the collective bargaining unit,
union dues and special assessments for the Labor whether or not members of USTFU.
Education Fund and attorney’s fees, in the same
document for the ratification of the 10 September This directive is without prejudice to the right of
1992 MOA granting the ₱42 million economic benefits petitioners to seek reimbursement from the other
package, necessarily vitiated the consent of USTFU USTFU officers and directors, who were part of the
members. Mariño Group, and who were equally responsible for
the illegal check-off of the aforesaid amount.
For sure, it is fairly reasonable to assume that no
individual member of USTFU would casually turn (3) Election of new officers
down the substantial and lucrative award of ₱42
million in economic benefits under the MOA. Having been overtaken by subsequent events, the
Court need no longer pass upon the issue of the
However, there was no way for any individual union validity of the order of BLR for USTFU to conduct its
member to separate his or her consent to the long overdue election of union officers, under the
ratification of the MOA from his or her control and supervision of the DOLE-NCR Regional
authorization of the check-off of union dues and Director.
special assessments.
The BLR issued such an order since USTFU then had
As it were, the ratification of the MOA carried with two groups, namely, the Mariño Group and the
it the automatic authorization of the check-off of Gamilla Group, each claiming to be the legitimate
union dues and special assessments in favor of the officers of USTFU.
union. Such a situation militated against the

Page 20 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano

The DOLE-NCR Regional Director, in his Decision the amount of ₱4.2 million checked-off as union dues
dated 27 May 1999, decreed that the Mariño Group and special assessments for the Labor Education Fund
be expelled from their positions as USTFU officers. But and attorney’s fees, with legal interest of 6% per
then, the BLR, in its Decision promulgated on 9 March annum from 15 December 1994, until the finality of
2000, declared that the change of officers could best this decision. The order for the conduct of election for
be decided, not by expulsion, but by the general the officers of the University of Sto. Tomas Faculty
membership of the union through the conduct of Union, under the control and supervision of the
election, under the control and supervision of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and
DOLE-NCR Regional Director. In its assailed Decision Employment-National Capital Region, is hereby
dated 16 March 2001, the Court of Appeals agreed DELETED. No costs.
with the BLR judgment in its ruling that the conduct of
an election, under the control and supervision of the SO ORDERED.
DOLE-NCR Regional Director, is necessary to settle
the question of who, as between the officers of the
Mariño Group and of the Gamilla Group, are the
legitimate officers of the USTFU.

The Court points out, however, that neither the

Decision of the BLR nor of the Court of Appeals took
into account the fact that an election of USTFU
officers was already conducted on 14 January
2000, which was won by the Gamilla Group.

There is nothing in the records to show that the said

election was contested or made the subject of
litigation.

The Gamilla Group had exercised their powers as

USTFU officers during their elected term. Since the
term of union officers under the USTFU Constitution
and By-Laws was only for three years, then the term of
the Gamilla Group already expired in 2003. It is
already beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, in the
present Petition, to still look into the subsequent
elections of union officers held after 2003.

The election of the Gamilla Group as union officers

in 2000 should have already been recognized by
the BLR and the Court of Appeals. The order for
USTFU to conduct another election was only a
superfluity. The issue of who between the officers
of the Mariño Group and of the Gamilla Group are
the legitimate USTFU officers has been rendered
moot by the succeeding events in the case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for

Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is hereby
DENIED. The Decision dated 16 March 2001 and the
Resolution dated 30 August 2001 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60657, are hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners are
hereby ORDERED to reimburse, jointly and severally,
to the faculty members of the University of Sto.
Tomas, belonging to the collective bargaining unit,

Page 21 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano
submission of the annual financial report to the
e.5 Management of union funds- 250 (a)(c) (f)-(o); Department of Labor and Employment or from the date
ART. 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of Membership in a the same should have been submitted as required by law,
Labor Organization. The following are the rights and whichever comes earlier: Provided, That this provision
conditions of membership in a labor organization: shall apply only to a legitimate labor organization which
has submitted the financial report requirements under
(a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be this Code: Provided, further, That failure of any labor
required of the members of a legitimate labor organization to comply with the periodic financial reports
organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive required by law and such rules and regulations
fine and forfeiture be imposed; promulgated thereunder six (6) months after the
effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the
(c) The members shall directly elect their officers in cancellation of union registration of such labor
the local union, as well as their national officers in the organization;
national union or federation to which they or their local
union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) (k) The officers of any labor organization shall not
years. No qualification requirement for candidacy to any be paid any compensation other than the salaries and
position shall be imposed other than membership in expenses due to their positions as specifically provided
good standing in subject labor organization. The for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a written
secretary or any other responsible union officer shall resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the
furnish the Secretary of Labor and Employment with a list members at a general membership meeting duly called
of the newly-elected officers, together with the appointive for the purpose. The minutes of the meeting and the list
officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of of participants and ballots cast shall be subject to
funds within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly
officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the
of officers of the labor organization; approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for
impeachment or expulsion from the organization;
(f) No person who has been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for election as a (l) The treasurer of any labor organization and
union officer or for appointment to any position in the every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of
union; such organization or for the collection, management,
disbursement, custody or control of the funds, moneys
(g) No officer, agent or member of a labor and other properties of the organization, shall render to
organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other the organization and to its members a true and correct
contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of account of all moneys received and paid by him since he
its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant assumed office or since the last day on which he rendered
to its constitution and by-laws; such account, and of all bonds, securities and other
properties of the organization entrusted to his custody or
(h) Every payment of fees, dues or other under his control. The rendering of such account shall be
contributions by a member shall be evidenced by a made:
receipt signed by the officer or agent making the
collection and entered into the record of the organization (1) At least once a year within thirty (30) days after
to be kept and maintained for the purpose; the close of its fiscal year;

(i) The funds of the organization shall not be (2) At such other times as may be required by a
applied for any purpose or object other than those resolution of the majority of the members of the
expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws or organization; and
those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted
by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly (3) Upon vacating his office.
called for the purpose;
The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit
(j) Every income or revenue of the organization and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of
shall be evidenced by a record showing its source, and Labor.
every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a
receipt from the person to whom the payment is made, (m) The books of accounts and other records of the
which shall state the date, place and purpose of such financial activities of any labor organization shall be open
payment. Such record or receipt shall form part of the to inspection by any officer or member thereof during
financial records of the organization. office hours;

Any action involving the funds of the organization shall (n) No special assessment or other extraordinary
prescribe after three (3) years from the date of fees may be levied upon the members of a labor

Page 22 of 23
 LabRel-Atty. Sagmit 2020
Part 5
NGEnano
organization unless authorized by a written resolution of
a majority of all the members in a general membership
meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the
organization shall record the minutes of the meeting
including the list of all members present, the votes cast,
the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the
recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be
attested to by the president.

(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the

Code, no special assessments,

from any amount due to an employee without an

individual written authorization duly signed by the
employee. The authorization should specifically state the
amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and

280
ART. 280. [265] Improved Offer Balloting. In an effort to
settle a strike, the Department of Labor and Employment
shall conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day
of the strike. When at least a majority of the union
members vote to accept the improved offer the striking
workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing
of the agreement.

In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and

Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote
to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.

Page 23 of 23