ARTICLE 249.

[240] Equity of the
Incumbent. 190 — All existing federations and national
d. Cancellation of Registration- 245-250; 241 unions which meet the qualifications of a
SEC. 6. A new provision, Article 239-A is inserted into the
(j); 256; legitimate labor organization and none of the grounds
Labor Code to read as follows:
for cancellation shall continue to maintain their existing
affiliates regardless of the nature of the industry and the
ARTICLE 245. [238] Cancellation of Registration. — location of the affiliates. "ART. 239-A. Voluntary Cancellation of Registration. - The
The certificate of registration of any registration of a legitimate labor organization may be
legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, cancelled by the organization itself. Provided, That at least
may be cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only two-thirds of its general membership votes, in a meeting duly
on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.  ARTICLE 256. [245-A] Effect of Inclusion as Members of called for that purpose to dissolve the
Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. — The inclusion organization: Provided, further, That an application to cancel
as union members of employees outside the bargaining registration is thereafter submitted by the board of the
unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the organization, attested to by the president thereof."
ARTICLE 246. [238-A] Effect of a Petition for registration of the union. Said employees are
Cancellation of Registration. — automatically deemed removed from the list of
membership of said union.  SaIEcA
A petition for cancellation of union registration shall not
suspend the proceedings for certification election nor
shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification Sec. 4-6 of RA 9841
election.
In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the SEC. 4. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor
right of the union to seek just and equitable remedies in Code as Article 238-A t o read as follows:
the appropriate courts.

"ART. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of

Registration. - A petition for cancellation of union registration
ARTICLE 247. [239] Grounds for Cancellation of Union shall not suspend the proceedings for certification election
Registration.  — The following may constitute grounds nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification
for cancellation of union registration: election.
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of the In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the of the union to seek just and equitable remedies in the
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took appropriate courts."
part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters
SEC. 5. Article 239 of the Labor Code is amended to read as
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members. follows:

"ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. -

ARTICLE 248. [239-A] Voluntary Cancellation of The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
Registration. — The registration of a union registration:
legitimate labor organization may be cancelled by the
organization itself: Provided, That at least two-thirds of
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
its general membership votes, in a meeting duly called
with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
for that purpose to dissolve the organization: Provided,
laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and
further, That an application to cancel registration is
the list of members who took part in the ratification;
thereafter submitted by the board of the organization,
attested to by the president thereof.
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters;

(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members."

 G.R. No. 192648, March 15, 2017 the DOLE-NCR dated March 3, 2004, which cancelled and bargaining unit as described is composed of rank-and-file
struck off Union Registration No. NCR-UR-9-3858-2002 from employees with occupational classifications under technical
the registry of legitimate labor organizations for being an and faculty.26 The CA found that there could be no
DE OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOLS,
inappropriate bargaining unit.12 misrepresentation as the members appearing in the minutes
INC., Petitioner, v. BIGKIS MANGGAGAWA SA DE
of the general membership meeting, and the list of members
OCAMPO MEMORIAL SCHOOL, INC., Respondent.
On May 18, 2004, BMDOMSI filed its Comment-Opposition who attended the meeting and ratified the union constitution
to Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration and and by-laws, are in truth employees of the school, though
DECISION Supplemental Petition, 13 denying De Ocampo's allegations some service the hospital. 27 The CA also ruled that, other
and claiming that the latter only wants to impede the than De Ocampo's bare allegations, there was no proof of
formation of the union. intent to defraud or mislead on the part of BMDOMSI.
JARDELEZA, J.: Hence, the charge of fraud, false statement or
In a Decision14 dated July 26, 2004, Acting Regional Director misrepresentation cannot be sustained. 28
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court Ciriaco A. Lagunzad III of the DOLE-NCR ruled that
of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated July 15, 2009 and the BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation by making it However, the CA observed that the members of the union,
Resolution3 dated June 21, 2010 (assailed Decision). The appear that the bargaining unit is composed of faculty and who are from academic, non-academic, and general
assailed Decision affirmed the Decision4 dated December technical employees. In fact, all the union officers and most services, do not perform work of the same nature, receive
29, 2004 of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), of the members are from the General Services the same wages and compensation, nor share a common
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Case No. Division.15 Furthermore, the members of the union do not stake in concerted activities.29 While these factors dictate the
BLR-A-C-75-8-24-04, In Re: Petition for Cancellation of share commonality of interest, as it is composed of academic separation of the categories of employees for purposes of
Union Registration of Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo and non-academic personnel. 16 The nature of work of the collective bargaining,30 the CA reasoned that such lack of
Memorial School, Inc., - Lakas Union Registration Number employees of the General Services Division, while falling mutuality and commonality of interest of the union members
(NCR-12-CC-002-2003). within the category of non-academic personnel, differs from is not among the grounds for cancellation of union
that of the other non-academic employees composed of registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code. 31
I clerks, messengers, etc., since they also serve the hospital
component of De Ocampo.17 De Ocampo filed a motion for reconsideration which was
De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. (De Ocampo) is a denied in the assailed Resolution dated June 21, 2010.
domestic corporation duly-organized and existing under the BMDOMSI then filed an appeal to the BLR alleging that the Hence, this petition.
laws of the Philippines. It has two main divisions, namely: De union members are all employees of De Ocampo and that
Ocampo Memorial Medical Center (DOMMC), its hospital the bargaining unit it seeks to represent is appropriate. 18 De Ocampo maintains that BMDOMSI committed
entity, and the De Ocampo Memorial Colleges (DOMC), its misrepresentation and fraud in connection with its
school entity.5 In a Decision19 dated December 29, 2004, the BLR reversed application, creation and registration. It intentionally
the Regional Director's finding of misrepresentation, false suppressed the fact that at the time of its application, there
On September 26, 2003, Union Registration No. NCR-UR-9- statement or fraud in BMDOMSI's application for registration. was another union known as BMDOMMC, with whom they
3858-2002 was issued in favor of Bigkis Manggagawa sa De According to the BLR, De Ocampo failed to adduce proof to shared the same set of officers and members. 32 It was also
Ocampo Memorial Medical Center - LAKAS (BMDOMMC). 6 support its allegation of mixed membership within made to appear that BMDOMMC is a labor union
respondent union.20 Further, and contrary to De Ocampo's representing a separate bargaining unit whose personality,
Later, on December 5, 2003, Bigkis Manggagawa sa De claim, records show that BMDOMSI stated in its application affairs and composition are unknown to BMDOMSI. 33 Lastly,
Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. (BMDOMSI) was issued a that its members are composed of rank-and-file employees BMDOMSI suppressed the fact that its members have no
Union Registration/Certificate of Creation of Local Chapter falling under either faculty or technical occupational mutuality or commonality of interest as they belong to
No. NCR-12-CC-002-2003 and declared a legitimate labor classifications.21 The BLR also held that the existence of an different work classifications, nature and designations.34
organization.7 inappropriate bargaining unit would not necessarily result in
the cancellation of union registration, and the inclusion of a II
On March 4, 2004, De Ocampo filed a Petition for disqualified employee in a union is not a ground for
Cancellation of Certificate of Registration8 with the cancellation.22 Even if BMDOMSI shared the same set of We deny the petition.
Department of Labor and Employment - National Capital officers and members of BMDOMMC, the latter had already
Region (DOLE-NCR). It sought to cancel the Certificate of been delisted on March 3, 2004 and there is no prohibition Article 247, previously Article 239 of the Labor
Registration of BMDOMSI on the following grounds: 1) against organizing another union. 23 Code35 provides: Lawlibrary
misrepresentation, false statement and fraud in connection Art. 247. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration. -
with its creation and registration as a labor union as it shared De Ocampo filed a Petition for Certiorari24 with the CA The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
the same set of officers and members with BMDOMMC; 2) seeking to annul and set aside the BLR Decision as well as union registration:
mixed membership of rank-and-file and the Resolution25 dated January 24, 2005 denying its motion
managerial/supervisory employees; and 3) inappropriate for reconsideration. (a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
bargaining unit.9 with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
The CA affirmed the Decision of the BLR. It ruled that there laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and
On April 13, 2004, De Ocampo filed a Supplemental was no misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in the the list of members who took part in the ratification;
Petition,10 informing the DOLE-NCR of the cancellation of the application for registration.
Certificate of Registration of BMDOMMC in Case No. NCR- (b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
OD-0307-009-LRD. It attached a copy of the Decision 11 of The record shows that, as BMDOMSI had indicated, the connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters; misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members. [247] x x x of the Labor Code." 43 Thus, for purposes of de-
For fraud and misrepresentation to constitute grounds for certifying a union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-
cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the and-file union includes ineligible employees in its
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave membership. Pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article
and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority 247 of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was
of union members.36 misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
with: (1) the adoption or ratification of the constitution and
De Ocampo insists that "by conveniently disregarding" by-laws or amendments thereto; (2) the minutes of
BMDOMMC's existence during the filing of its application, ratification; (3) the election of officers; (4) the minutes of the
despite having the same set of officers and election of officers; and (5) the list of voters. 44 Failure to
members,37 BMDOMSI "had misrepresented facts, made submit these documents together with the list of the newly
false statements and committed fraud in its application for elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the
union registration for alleging facts therein which they [know] BLR may also constitute grounds for cancellation, lack of
or ought to have known to be false." 38 mutuality of interests, however, is not among said grounds. 45

We agree with the BLR and the CA that BMDOMSI did not The BLR and the CA's finding that the members of
commit fraud or misrepresentation in its application for BMDOMSI are rank-and-file employees is supported by
registration. In the form "Report of Creation of Local substantial evidence and is binding on this Court. 46 On the
Chapter"39 filed by BMDOMSI, the applicant indicated in the other hand, other than the allegation that BMDOMSI has the
portion "Description of the Bargaining Unit" that it is same set of officers with BMDOMMC and the allegation of
composed of "Rank and File" and under the "Occupational mixed membership of rank-and-file and managerial or
Classification," it marked "Technical" and "Faculty." supervisory employees, De Ocampo has cited no other
evidence of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
Further, the members appearing in the Minutes of the
General Membership and the List of Workers or Members A final word. A party seeking the cancellation of a union's
who attended the organizational meeting and certificate of registration must bear in mind that: Lawlibrary
adopted/ratified the Constitution and By-Laws are, as x x x [A] direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor
represented, employees of the school and the General organization based on fraud and misrepresentation in
Services Division, though some of the latter employees securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation
service the hospital.40 which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should
be compounded with supporting circumstances and
Moreover, there is nothing in the form "Report of Creation of evidence. The records of the case are devoid of such
Local Chapter" that requires the applicant to disclose the evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts, and
existence of another union, much less the names of the this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases.
officers of such other union. Thus, we cannot see how Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
BMDOMSI made the alleged misrepresentation or false bodies, such as the BLR, which have acquired expertise
statements in its application. because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.47
De Ocampo likewise claims that BMDOMSI committed fraud WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
and misrepresentation when it suppressed the fact that there merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
exists "no mutuality and/or communality of interest" 41 of its No. 89162 dated July 15, 2009 is AFFIRMED.
members. This, De Ocampo asserts, is a ground for the
cancellation of its registration. SO ORDERED.

We disagree.

While the CA may have ruled that there is no mutuality or

commonality of interests among the members of BMDOMSI,
this is not enough reason to cancel its registration. The only
grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration
may be sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor
Code. In Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club
Incorporated v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-
PTGWO,42 we ruled that "[t]he inclusion in a union of
disqualified employees is not among the grounds for
cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
G.R. No. 178296 : January 12, 2011 that respondent's Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be held, and the members had manifested their will to be
cancelled and its name be deleted from the list of legitimate represented by respondent.
labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of
THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its
the certification election proceedings. 4cralawredlaw
owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL Citing National Union of Bank Employees v. Minister of
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL UNION OF Labor, et al.9cralaw andSamahan ng Manggagawa sa Pacific
WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED On June 1, 2000, petitioner reiterated its request by filing a Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma, 10cralaw the Med-Arbiter held that
INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS Motion to Dismiss or Suspend the [Certification Election] the pendency of a petition for cancellation of registration is
CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondent. Proceedings, 5cralaw arguing that the dismissal or not a bar to the holding of a certification election. Thus, in an
suspension of the proceedings is warranted, considering that Order11cralaw dated January 26, 2001, the Med-Arbiter
the legitimacy of respondent is seriously being challenged in dismissed petitioner's protest, and certified respondent as
DECISION
the petition for cancellation of registration. Petitioner the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all supervisory
maintained that the resolution of the issue of whether employees.
NACHURA, J.: respondent is a legitimate labor organization is crucial to the
issue of whether it may exercise rights of a legitimate labor
Petitioner subsequently appealed the said Order to the
organization, which include the right to be certified as the
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the DOLE Secretary.12cralaw The appeal was later dismissed by
bargaining agent of the covered employees.
Decision1cralaw of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 30, DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (DOLE Secretary
2005 and Resolution dated June 4, 2007. The assailed Sto. Tomas) in the Resolution of August 21,
Decision affirmed the dismissal of a petition for cancellation Nevertheless, the certification election pushed through on 2002.13cralaw Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the
of union registration filed by petitioner, Grand Plaza Hotel June 23, 2000. Respondent emerged as the motion was also denied.14cralawredlaw
Corporation, owner of Heritage Hotel Manila, against winner.6cralawredlaw
respondent, National Union of Workers in the Hotel,
In the meantime, Regional Director Alex E. Maraan
Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
On June 28, 2000, petitioner filed a Protest with Motion to (Regional Director Maraan) of DOLE-NCR finally resolved
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), a labor
Defer Certification of Election Results and the petition for cancellation of registration. While finding that
organization of the supervisory employees of Heritage Hotel
Winner, 7cralaw stating that the certification election held on respondent had indeed failed to file financial reports and the
Manila.
June 23, 2000 was an exercise in futility because, once list of its members for several years, he, nonetheless, denied
respondent's registration is cancelled, it would no longer be the petition, ratiocinating that freedom of association and the
The case stemmed from the following antecedents entitled to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of employees' right to self-organization are more substantive
the supervisory employees. Petitioner also claimed that considerations. He took into account the fact that respondent
some of respondent's members were not qualified to join the won the certification election and that it had already been
On October 11, 1995, respondentfiled with the Department union because they were either confidential employees or certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory
of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE- managerial employees. It then prayed that the certification of employees. In view of the foregoing, Regional Director
NCR) a petition for certification election. 2cralaw The Med- the election results and winner be deferred until the petition Maraan-while emphasizing that the non-compliance with the
Arbiter granted the petition on February 14, 1996 and for cancellation shall have been resolved, and that law is not viewed with favor-considered the belated
ordered the holding of a certification election. 3cralaw On respondent's members who held confidential or managerial submission of the annual financial reports and the list of
appeal, the DOLE Secretary, in a Resolution dated August positions be excluded from the supervisors' bargaining unit. members as sufficient compliance thereof and considered
15, 1996, affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order and remanded the them as having been submitted on time. The dispositive
case to the Med-Arbiter for the holding of a preelection portion of the decision15cralaw dated December 29, 2001
conference on February 26, 1997. Petitioner filed a motion Meanwhile, respondent filed its Answer 8cralaw to the petition
reads
for reconsideration, but it was denied on September 23, for the cancellation of its registration. It averred that the
1996. petition was filed primarily to delay the conduct of the
certification election, the respondent's certification as the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition to
exclusive bargaining representative of the supervisory delist the National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant
The preelection conference was not held as initially employees, and the commencement of bargaining and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors
scheduled; it was held a year later, or on February 20, 1998. negotiations. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Chapter from the roll of legitimate labor organizations is
Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the petition due to petition for the following reasons: (a) petitioner is estopped hereby DENIED.
alleged repeated non-appearance of respondent. The latter from questioning respondent's status as a legitimate labor
agreed to suspend proceedings until further notice. The organization as it had already recognized respondent as
preelection conference resumed on January 29, 2000. SO ORDERED.16cralawredlaw
such during the preelection conferences; (b) petitioner is not
the party-in-interest, as the union members are the ones who
Subsequently, petitioner discovered that respondent had would be disadvantaged by the non-submission of financial Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the decision to the
failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) its reports; (c) it has already complied with the reportorial BLR.17cralaw BLR Director Hans Leo Cacdac inhibited
annual financial report for several years and the list of its requirements, having submitted its financial statements for himself from the case because he had been a former
members since it filed its registration papers in 1995. 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, its updated list of officers, and counsel of respondent.
Consequently, on May 19, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for its list of members for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and
Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of 1999; (d) the petition is already moot and academic,
the non-submission of the said documents. Petitioner prayed considering that the certification election had already been
In view of Director Cacdac's inhibition, DOLE Secretary Sto. In its Resolution23cralaw dated June 4, 2007, the CA denied Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it
Tomas took cognizance of the appeal. In a petitioner's motion, stating that the BLR Director's inhibition until the full termination of the case.25cralawredlaw
resolution18cralaw dated February 21, 2003, she dismissed from the case was a peculiarity not present in
the appeal, holding that the constitutionally guaranteed the Abbott case, and that such inhibition justified the
Thus, jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR
freedom of association and right of workers to self- assumption of jurisdiction by the DOLE Secretary.
Director's inhibition. When the DOLE Secretary resolved the
organization outweighed respondent's noncompliance with
appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of the BLR
the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a
In this petition, petitioner argues that Director and performed a function that the latter could not
legitimate labor organization.
himself perform. She did so pursuant to her power of
supervision and control over the BLR.26cralawredlaw
I.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 19cralaw but the
motion was likewise denied in a resolution 20cralaw dated
Expounding on the extent of the power of control, the Court,
May 30, 2003. DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas admitted that it The Court of Appeals seriously erred in ruling that the Labor
in Araneta, et al. v. Hon. M. Gatmaitan, et
was the BLR which had jurisdiction over the appeal, but she Secretary properly assumed jurisdiction over Petitioner's
al., 27cralaw pronounced that, if a certain power or authority
pointed out that the BLR Director had voluntarily inhibited appeal of the Regional Director's Decision in the
is vested by law upon the Department Secretary, then such
himself from the case because he used to appear as counsel Cancellation Petition x x x.
power or authority may be exercised directly by the
for respondent. In order to maintain the integrity of the
President, who exercises supervision and control over the
decision and of the BLR, she therefore accepted the motion
A. Jurisdiction is conferred only by law. The Labor Secretary departments. This principle was incorporated in the
to inhibit and took cognizance of the appeal.
had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Regional Administrative Code of 1987, which defines "supervision and
Director in a petition for cancellation. Such jurisdiction is control" as including the authority to act directly whenever a
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, raising the conferred by law to the BLR. specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
issue of whether the DOLE Secretary acted with grave subordinate.28cralaw Applying the foregoing to the present
abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the appeal and case, it is clear that the DOLE Secretary, as the person
B. The unilateral inhibition by the BLR Director cannot justify
affirming the dismissal of its petition for cancellation of exercising the power of supervision and control over the
the Labor Secretary's exercise of jurisdiction over the
respondent's registration. BLR, has the authority to directly exercise the quasi-judicial
Appeal. function entrusted by law to the BLR Director.
In a Decision dated May 30, 2005, the CA denied the
C. The Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over the
petition. The CA opined that the DOLE Secretary may legally It is true that the power of control and supervision does not
Appeal without notice violated Petitioner's right to due
assume jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the give the Department Secretary unbridled authority to take
process.
Regional Director in the event that the Director of the BLR over the functions of his or her subordinate.Such authority is
inhibits himself from the case. According to the CA, in the subject to certain guidelines which are stated in Book IV,
absence of the BLR Director, there is no person more II. Chapter 8, Section 39(1)(a) of the Administrative Code of
competent to resolve the appeal than the DOLE Secretary. 1987.29cralaw However, in the present case, the DOLE
The CA brushed aside the allegation of bias and partiality on Secretary's act of taking over the function of the BLR
the part of the DOLE Secretary, considering that such The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the dismissal Director was warranted and necessitated by the latter's
allegation was not supported by any evidence. of the Cancellation Petition despite the mandatory and inhibition from the case and the objective to "maintain the
unequivocal provisions of the Labor Code and its integrity of the decision, as well as the Bureau
Implementing Rules.24cralawredlaw itself."30cralawredlaw
The CA also found that the DOLE Secretary did not commit
grave abuse of discretion when she affirmed the dismissal of
the petition for cancellation of respondent's registration as a The petition has no merit. Petitioner insists that the BLR Director's subordinates should
labor organization. Echoing the DOLE Secretary, the CA have resolved the appeal, citing the provision under the
held that the requirements of registration of labor Jurisdiction to review the decision of the Regional Director Administrative Code of 1987 which states, "in case of the
organizations are an exercise of the overriding police power lies with the BLR. This is clearly provided in the absence or disability of the head of a bureau or office, his
of the State, designed for the protection of workers against Implementing Rules of the Labor Code and enunciated by duties shall be performed by the assistant
potential abuse by the union that recruits them. These the Court in Abbott. But as pointed out by the CA, the head."31cralaw The provision clearly does not apply
requirements, the CA opined, should not be exploited to present case involves a peculiar circumstance that was not considering that the BLR Director was neither absent nor
work against the workers' constitutionally protected right to present or covered by the ruling in Abbott. In this case, the suffering from any disability; he remained as head of the
self-organization. BLR Director inhibited himself from the case because he was BLR. Thus, to dispel any suspicion of bias, the DOLE
a former counsel of respondent. Who, then, shall resolve the Secretary opted to resolve the appeal herself.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, invoking this case in his place?
Court's ruling in Abbott Labs. Phils., Inc. v. Abbott Labs. Petitioner was not denied the right to due process when it
Employees Union,  21cralaw which categorically declared that In Abbott, the appeal from the Regional Director's decision was not notified in advance of the BLR Director's inhibition
the DOLE Secretary has no authority to review the decision was directly filed with the Office of the DOLE Secretary, and and the DOLE Secretary's assumption of the case. Well-
of the Regional Director in a petition for cancellation of union we ruled that the latter has no appellate jurisdiction. In the settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply
registration, and Section 4, 22cralaw Rule VIII, Book V of the instant case, the appeal was filed by petitioner with the BLR, an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. which, undisputedly, acquired jurisdiction over the case. proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.32cralaw Petitioner had the opportunity to (i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau Convention No. 87, 38cralaw pertaining to the non-dissolution
question the BLR Director's inhibition and the DOLE once a year or whenever required by the of workers' organizations by administrative
Secretary's taking cognizance of the case when it filed a Bureau.35cralawredlaw authority.39cralaw Thus, R.A. No. 9481 amended Article 239
motion for reconsideration of the latter's decision. It would be to read
well to state that a critical component of due process is a
These provisions give the Regional Director ample discretion
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, for all
in dealing with a petition for cancellation of a union's ART. 239. Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration.-
the elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would
registration, particularly, determining whether the union still The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of
be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come
meets the requirements prescribed by law. It is sufficient to union registration
from 33cralaw It was precisely to ensure a fair trial that moved
give the Regional Director license to treat the late filing of
the BLR Director to inhibit himself from the case and the
required documents as sufficient compliance with the
DOLE Secretary to take over his function. (a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection
requirements of the law. After all, the law requires the labor
with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-
organization to submit the annual financial report and list of
laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and
Petitioner also insists that respondent's registration as a members in order to verify if it is still viable and financially
the list of members who took part in the ratification; 
legitimate labor union should be cancelled. Petitioner posits sustainable as an organization so as to protect the employer
awlibrary
that once it is determined that a ground enumerated in and employees from fraudulent or fly-by-night unions. With
Article 239 of the Labor Code is present, cancellation of the submission of the required documents by respondent,
registration should follow; it becomes the ministerial duty of the purpose of the law has been achieved, though belatedly. (b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
the Regional Director to cancel the registration of the labor connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
organization, hence, the use of the word "shall." Petitioner election of officers, and the list of voters;  awlibrary
We cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Regional
points out that the Regional Director has admitted in its
Director and the DOLE Secretary in denying the petition for
decision that respondent failed to submit the required
cancellation of respondent's registration. The union members (c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
documents for a number of years; therefore, cancellation of
and, in fact, all the employees belonging to the appropriate
its registration should have followed as a matter of course.
bargaining unit should not be deprived of a bargaining agent,
R.A. No. 9481 also inserted in the Labor Code Article 242-A,
merely because of the negligence of the union officers who
which provides
We are not persuaded. were responsible for the submission of the documents to the
BLR.
ART. 242-A. Reportorial Requirements.-The following are
Articles 238 and 239 of the Labor Code read
documents required to be submitted to the Bureau by the
Labor authorities should, indeed, act with circumspection in
legitimate labor organization concerned
treating petitions for cancellation of union registration, lest
ART. 238. CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION; APPEAL
they be accused of interfering with union activities. In
resolving the petition, consideration must be taken of the (a) Its constitution and by-laws, or amendments thereto, the
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor fundamental rights guaranteed by Article XIII, Section 3 of minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part
organization, whether national or local, shall be canceled by the Constitution, i.e., the rights of all workers to self- in the ratification of the constitution and by-laws within thirty
the Bureauif it has reason to believe, after due hearing, organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and
that the said labor organizationno longer meets one or peaceful concerted activities. Labor authorities should bear by-laws or amendments thereto;  awlibrary
more of the requirements herein prescribed.34cralawredlaw in mind that registration confers upon a union the status of
legitimacy and the concomitant right and privileges granted
by law to a legitimate labor organization, particularly the right (b) Its list of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and
ART. 239. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF UNION list of voters within thirty (30) days from election;  awlibrary
to participate in or ask for certification election in a
REGISTRATION. bargaining unit.36cralaw Thus, the cancellation of a certificate
of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a (c) Its annual financial report within thirty (30) days after the
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of labor organization. For without such registration, it loses - as close of every fiscal year; and
union registration a rule - its rights under the Labor Code. 37cralawredlaw
(d) Its list of members at least once a year or whenever
xxx It is worth mentioning that the Labor Code's provisions on required by the Bureau.
cancellation of union registration and on reportorial
requirements have been recently amended by Republic Act
(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau (R.A.) No. 9481, An Act Strengthening the Workers' Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not
within thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amending for the be a ground for cancellation of union registration but
and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, shall subject the erring officers or members to
preparation of the financial report itself;  awlibrary Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines , suspension, expulsion from membership, or any
which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 and became effective appropriate penalty.
xxx on June 14, 2007. The amendment sought to strengthen the
workers' right to self-organization and enhance the ILO Convention No. 87, which we have ratified in 1953,
Philippines' compliance with its international obligations as provides that "workers' and employers' organizations shall
embodied in the International Labour Organization (ILO) not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative
authority." The ILO has expressed the opinion that the Such constitutional guarantees should not be lightly taken
cancellation of union registration by the registrar of labor much less nullified. A healthy respect for the freedom of
unions, which in our case is the BLR, is tantamount to association demands that acts imputable to officers or
dissolution of the organization by administrative authority members be not easily visited with capital punishments
when such measure would give rise to the loss of legal against the association itself."  awlibrary
personality of the union or loss of advantages necessary for
it to carry out its activities, which is true in our jurisdiction.
At any rate, we note that on 19 May 2000, appellee had
Although the ILO has allowed such measure to be taken,
submitted its financial statement for the years 1996-1999.
provided that judicial safeguards are in place, i.e., the right to
With this submission, appellee has substantially complied
appeal to a judicial body, it has nonetheless reminded its
with its duty to submit its financial report for the said period.
members that dissolution of a union, and cancellation of
To rule differently would be to preclude the union, after
registration for that matter, involve serious consequences for
having failed to meet its periodic obligations promptly, from
occupational representation. It has, therefore, deemed it
taking appropriate measures to correct its omissions. For the
preferable if such actions were to be taken only as a last
record, we do not view with favor appellee's late submission.
resort and after exhausting other possibilities with less
Punctuality on the part of the union and its officers could
serious effects on the organization.40cralawredlaw
have prevented this petition.41cralawredlaw

The aforesaid amendments and the ILO's opinion on this

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court of Appeals
matter serve to fortify our ruling in this case. We therefore
Decision dated May 30, 2005 and Resolution dated June 4,
quote with approval the DOLE Secretary's rationale for
2007 are AFFIRMED.
denying the petition, thus

SO ORDERED .
It is undisputed that appellee failed to submit its annual
financial reports and list of individual members in accordance
with Article 239 of the Labor Code. However, the existence
of this ground should not necessarily lead to the cancellation
of union registration. Article 239 recognizes the regulatory
authority of the State to exact compliance with reporting
requirements. Yet there is more at stake in this case than
merely monitoring union activities and requiring periodic
documentation thereof.

The more substantive considerations involve the

constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association and right
of workers to self-organization. Also involved is the public
policy to promote free trade unionism and collective
bargaining as instruments of industrial peace and
democracy. An overly stringent interpretation of the statute
governing cancellation of union registration without regard to
surrounding circumstances cannot be allowed. Otherwise, it
would lead to an unconstitutional application of the statute
and emasculation of public policy objectives. Worse, it can
render nugatory the protection to labor and social justice
clauses that pervades the Constitution and the Labor Code.

Moreover, submission of the required documents is the duty

of the officers of the union. It would be unreasonable for this
Office to order the cancellation of the union and penalize the
entire union membership on the basis of the negligence of its
officers. In National Union of Bank Employees vs. Minister of
Labor, L-53406, 14 December 1981, 110 SCRA 296, the
Supreme Court ruled

As aptly ruled by respondent Bureau of Labor Relations

Director Noriel: "The rights of workers to self-organization
finds general and specific constitutional guarantees. x x x
G.R. No. 155395             June 22, 2006 APC then immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari dated 12 Should the Court of Appeals decide, as it did, to dismiss the
December 2001 with the Court of Appeals, imputing grave petition outright on such ground, it would commit no
abuse of discretion on the part of the BLR in denying its reversible error of law nor any grave abuse of discretion,
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE UNION
appeal. However, the petition was dismissed outright by the considering that the rule requiring the filing of a motion for
REGISTRATION OF AIR PHILIPPINES FLIGHT
Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 10 January 2002, on reconsideration before resorting to the special civil action of
ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION, AIR PHILIPPINES
the ground that APC had "failed to avail of the remedy of a certiorari is well entrenched in jurisprudence.
CORPORATION, Petitioners,
prior Motion for Reconsideration" before the filing of the
vs.
certiorari petition, which step, it stressed, is a "condition sine
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and AIR PHILIPPINES It also does not escape the attention of the Court that the
qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari."5
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ASSOCIATION, Respondents. Motion for Reconsideration filed by APC before the Court of
Appeals was itself fatally defective, allowing the appellate
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 5 February court to deny the same without having to evaluate its
DECISION
2002, but this too was denied by the Court of Appeals in a substantial arguments. The action of the appellate court
Resolution dated 13 September 2002. This time, the relative to APC’s missteps is consistent with procedural
TINGA, J.: appellate court ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration was rules.
"totally defective," for failing to contain the proof of service or
registry return receipts to the respondents. The Court of
For resolution is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, filed by Still, the Court has deigned to give a close look at the
Appeals even noted that the Affidavit of Service attached to
petitioner Air Philippines Corporation (APC), assailing the substantial arguments raised in APC’s petition before the
the Motion for Reconsideration "failed to indicate the registry
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 10 January 2002 Court of Appeals.
return receipts of the registered mails to the respondents."6
and 13 September 2002.1
The DOLE-NCR Regional Director, in dismissing the petition
Hence, the present petition.
The case initially centered on the union registration of for cancellation, cited our minute resolution in SPI
respondent Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association Technologies Incorporated v. DOLE11 wherein the Court
(APFLAA), which was issued a Certificate of Registration No. APC argues that its petition before the Court of Appeals observed that Article 24512 of the Labor Code, the legal basis
NCR-UR-3-2067-99 by the Department of Labor and involved mere questions of law, among which is whether for the petition for cancellation, merely prescribed the
Employment (DOLE). APFLAA filed on 17 March 1999 a APFLAA’s union registration may be cancelled considering requirements for eligibility in joining a union and did not
petition for certification election as the collective bargaining that the union is allegedly composed of a mixture of prescribe the grounds for cancellation of union
representative of the flight attendants of APC. After the Med- supervisory and rank-and-file employees. It is posited that registration.13 Since the filing of this petition, the Court has
Arbiter rendered a ruling ordering the holding of a questions of law may be raised directly in a petition for had occasion to rule, in Tagaytay Highlands International
certification election, such election was held on 5 August certiorari without need of a prior motion for reconsideration.7 Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-
1999, with majority of the votes cast in favor of APFLAA.2 PGTWO,14 that "[t]he inclusion in a union of disqualified
employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless
However, it is clear from the petition filed by APC before the
such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement
On 25 November 1999, APC filed a Petition for De- Court of Appeals that the issues involved do not consist of
or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a)
Certification and Cancellation of Union Registration against questions of law only. It is insisted therein that employees
and (c) of Article 23915 of the Labor Code."16
APFLAA with the DOLE. APC alleged that APFLAA could holding the position of Lead Cabin Attendants are
not be registered as a labor organization, as its composition supervisory employees and hence disallowed from joining a
consisted of "a mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file flight union of rank-and-file employees. 8 On the other hand, Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a union, it is not
attendants." Particularly, APC alleged that flight attendants APFLAA countered before the DOLE-NCR and the BLR that enough to establish that the rank-and-file union includes
holding the position of "Lead Cabin Attendant," which only rank-and-file flight attendants comprised its ineligible employees in its membership. Pursuant to Article
according to it is supervisory in character, were among those membership.9 Thus, the very question of whether Lead 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it must be shown that
who comprised APFLAA. Cabin Attendants are indeed supervisory employees there was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
appears to be factual in nature, the proper resolution of connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution
which necessitates a factual determination of the actual and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
On 18 July 2001, the DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR) duties of Lead Cabin Attendants. Indeed, APC made ratification, or in connection with the election of officers,
Regional Director Alex E. Maraan rendered a Decision reference therein to such documents as an employee’s minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure
dismissing the petition. The DOLE-NCR held that Article 245 manual in support of its argument, 10 documents that would to submit these documents together with the list of the newly
of the Labor Code, which states that supervisory employees evidently require factual evaluation before accorded proper elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the
are not eligible for membership in labor organizations of evidentiary value. BLR.17
rank-and-file employees, does not provide a ground for
cancellation of union registration, which is instead governed
by Article 239 of the Labor Code.3 There is admittedly some leeway for the Court of Appeals if it In its Petition for De-certification and Cancellation of Union
was so minded to give due course to APC’s petition, Registration, APC did not impute on APFLAA such
notwithstanding the failure to file a motion for misrepresentation of the character necessitated under Article
APC filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal regarding this reconsideration. Yet ultimately, the determination of whether 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code. APC merely argued that
Decision of the DOLE-NCR. In a Resolution dated 18 July or not to admit a petition attended with such defect falls APFLAA was not qualified to become a legitimate labor
2001, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) denied the within the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. organization by reason of its mixed composition of rank-and-
appeal, affirming the rationale of the DOLE-NCR.4
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.

There may be remedies available to enforce the proscription

set forth in Article 245 of the Labor Code on supervisory
employees joining the union of rank-and-file employees. But
consistent with jurisprudence, the rule under Article 245
barring supervisory employees from joining the union of
rank-and-file employees is not a ground for cancellation of
union registration. Accordingly, we see no error on the part
of the DOLE-NCR and the BLR in having dismissed APC’s
petition, and thus no cause to compel the Court of Appeals
to disregard APC’s procedural errors and accept the petition
for certiorari.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against

petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
 e. Rights and conditions of membership (d) The members shall determine by authorized by written
in a labor organization – 250 secret ballot, after due resolution adopted by the
deliberation, any question majority of the members at
Rights and Conditions of Membership
of major policy affecting the a general meeting duly
ARTICLE 250. [241] Rights and Conditions of entire membership of the called for the purpose;
Membership in a Labor Organization. — The following organization, unless the
are the rights and conditions of membership in nature of the organization (j) Every income or revenue of the
a labor organization: or force majeure renders organization shall be
such secret ballot evidenced by a record
(a) No arbitrary or excessive impractical, in which case, showing its source, and
initiationfees shall be required the board of directors of the every expenditure of its
of the members of a organization may make the funds shall be evidenced by
legitimate labor organization decision in behalf of the a receipt from the person to
nor shall arbitrary, excessive general membership; whom the payment is
or oppressive fine and made, which shall state the
forfeiture be imposed; (e) No labor organization shall date, place and purpose of
knowingly admit as such payment. Such record
(b) The members shall be entitled to members or continue in or receipt shall form part of
full and detailed reports membership any individual the financial records of the
from their officers and who belongs to a organization.
representatives of all subversive organization or
financial transactions as who is engaged directly or  Any action involving the funds of the
provided for in the indirectly in any subversive organization shall prescribe
constitution and by-laws of activity; after three (3) years from
the organization; the date of submission of
(f) No person who has been convicted the annual financial report
(c) The members shall directly elect of a crime involving moral to the Department
their officers in the local turpitude shall be eligible of Labor and Employment
union, as well as their for election as a union or from the date the same
national officers in the officer or for appointment to should have been
national union or federation any position in the union; submitted as required by
to which they or their local law, whichever comes
union is affiliated, by secret (g) No officer, agent or member of earlier: Provided, That this
ballot at intervals of five (5) a labor organization shall provision shall apply only to
years. No qualification collect any fees, dues, or a
requirement for candidacy other contributions in its legitimate labor organizatio
to any position shall be behalf or make any n which has submitted the
imposed other than disbursement of its money financial report
membership in good or funds unless he is duly requirements under
standing in authorized pursuant to this Code: Provided,
subject labor organization. its constitution and by-laws; further, That failure of
The secretary or any other any labor organization to
responsible union officer (h) Every payment of fees, dues or comply with the periodic
shall furnish the Secretary other contributions by a financial reports required by
of Labor and Employment member shall be evidenced law and such rules and
with a list of the newly- by a receipt signed by the regulations promulgated
elected officers, together officer or agent making the thereunder six (6) months
with the appointive officers collection and entered into after the effectivity of this
or agents who are the record of the Act shall automatically
entrusted with the handling organization to be kept and result in the cancellation of
of funds within thirty (30) maintained for the purpose; union registration of
calendar days after the such labor organization;
election of officers or from (i) The funds of the organization shall
the occurrence of any not be applied for any (k) The officers of
change in the list of officers purpose or object other any labor organization shall
of than those expressly not be paid any
the labor organization; TIE provided by compensation other than
HDC its constitution and by-laws the salaries and expenses
or those expressly due to their positions as
 specifically provided for in the organization; its officers to inform its
its constitution and by-laws, and members on the provisions
or in a written resolution of its constitution and by-
duly authorized by a (3) Upon vacating his office. laws, collective bargaining
majority of all the members agreement, the
at a general membership The account shall be duly audited and prevailing labor relations
meeting duly called for the verified by affidavit and a system and all their rights
purpose. The minutes of copy thereof shall be and obligations under
the meeting and the list of furnished the Secretary existing labor laws.  ACcaE
participants and ballots cast of Labor. T
shall be subject to
(m) The books of accounts and other For this purpose,
inspection by the Secretary
records of the financial registered labor organizations may assess reasonable
of Labor or his duly
activities of dues to finance labor relations seminars and
authorized representatives.
any labor organization shall other labor education activities.
Any irregularities in the
be open to inspection by
approval of the resolutions
any officer or member Any violation of the above rights and
shall be a ground for
thereof during office hours; conditions of membership shall be a ground for
impeachment or expulsion
cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers
from the organization; (n) No special assessment or other from office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty
extraordinary fees may be percent (30%) of the members of a union or any
(l) The treasurer of
levied upon the members of member or members specially concerned may report
any labor organization and
a labor organization unless such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the
every officer thereof who is
authorized by a written power to hear and decide any reported violation to mete
responsible for the account
resolution of a majority of the appropriate penalty.
of such organization or for
all the members in a
the collection, Criminal and civil liabilities arising from
general membership
management, violations of above rights and conditions of membership
meeting duly called for the
disbursement, custody or shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary
purpose. The secretary of
control of the funds, courts.
the organization shall
moneys and other
record the minutes of the
properties of the
meeting including the list of
organization, shall render to
all members present, the
the organization and to its
votes cast, the purpose of
members a true and correct
the special assessment or
account of all moneys
fees and the recipient of
received and paid by him
such assessment or fees.
since he assumed office or
The record shall be attested
since the last day on which
to by the president.
he rendered such account,
and of all bonds, securities (o) Other than for mandatory activities
and other properties of the under the Code, no special
organization entrusted to assessments, attorney's
his custody or under his fees, negotiation fees or
control. The rendering of any other extraordinary
such account shall be fees may be checked off
made: from any amount due to an
employee without an
(1) At least once a year
individual written
within thirty (30)
authorization duly signed by
days after the
the employee. The
close of its fiscal
authorization should
year;
specifically state the
(2) At such other times as amount, purpose and
may be required beneficiary of the
by a resolution of deduction; and 
the majority of
(p) It shall be the duty of
the members of
any labor organization and
 [G.R. NO. 152356 : August 16, 2005] Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, various documents evidencing the designation of these two
Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of respondent's officers and their officers in supervisory roles, as well as their exercise of
respective addresses, again prepared by Bathan and various supervisory functions.9 Petitioner cited Article 245 of
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (MANDAUE PACKAGING
attested by Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that the Labor Code, which provides that supervisory employees
PRODUCTS PLANTS), Petitioners, v. MANDAUE
respondent had just been organized and no amount had yet shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
PACKING PRODUCTS PLANTS-SAN PACKAGING
been collected from its members, signed by respondent's the rank-and-file employees. 10
PRODUCTS - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION MONTHLIES
treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and attested by Sagun; and (5)
RANK-AND-FILE UNION - FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMAMRFU-
a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the
FFW), Respondent. On 20 August 1998, petitioner filed a petition to cancel the
Mandaue Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass
union registration of respondent. However, this petition was
Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun.3
denied, and such denial was subsequently affirmed by the
DECISION
Court of Appeals in a decision that has since become final.11
The petition was assigned to Mediator-Arbiter Achilles V.
TINGA, J.: Manit of the DOLE Regional Office No. VII, and docketed as
In the meantime, on 15 September 1998, Med-Arbiter Manit
Case No. R0700-9806-RU-013.4
issued an Order dismissing respondent's petition for
The central question in this Petition for Review is on what certification election. The sole ground relied upon for the
date did respondent Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San On 27 July 1998, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the dismissal was the Med-Arbiter's Opinion that as of the date
Miguel Packaging Products'San Miguel Corporation petition for certification election on the sole ground that of filing of the petition on 15 June 1998, respondent did not
Monthlies Rank-And-File Union FFW acquire legal herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of have the legal personality to file the said petition for
personality in accordance with the Implementing Rules of the legitimate labor organizations based on the certification certification election.12 No discussion was adduced on
Labor Code. The matter is crucial since respondent filed a issued by the Officer-In-Charge, Regional Director of the petitioner's claims that some of respondent's officers were
petition for certification election at a date when, it is argued, DOLE Regional Office No. VII, Atty. Jesus B. Gabor, on 24 actually supervisory employees.
it had yet to acquire the requisite legal personality. The July 1998.
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Court
Respondent promptly appealed the 15 September
of Appeals both ruled that respondent had acquired legal
On 29 July 1998, respondent submitted to the Bureau of 1998 Order to the DOLE. On 22 February 1999, DOLE
personality on the same day it filed the petition for
Labor Relations the same documents earlier attached to its Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz rendered
certification election. The procedure employed by the
petition for certification. The accompanying letter, signed by a Decision reversing the Order. Undersecretary Baldoz
respondent did not strictly conform with the relevant
respondent's president Sagun, stated that such documents concluded that respondent acquired legal personality as
provisions of law. But rather than insist on an overly literal
were submitted in compliance with the requirements for the early as 15 June 1998, the date it submitted the required
reading of the law that senselessly suffocates the
creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code and documents, citing Section 3, Rule VI of the New Rules
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization, we
its Implementing Rules; and it was hoped that the Implementing the Labor Code (Implementing Rules) which
uphold the assailed decisions and the liberal spirit that
submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under deems that a local/chapter acquires legal personality from
animates them.
the roster of legitimate labor organizations. 5 On 3 August the date of filing of the complete documentary requirements
1998, the Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE as mandated in the Implementing Rules. The DOLE also
Antecedent Facts Regional Office No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of ruled that the contention that two of respondent's officers
Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying that from were actually supervisors can be threshed out in the pre-
30 July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a election conferences where the list of qualified voters is to be
The present petition assailed the Decision dated 7 June labor organization/worker's association, it having submitted determined. The dispositive portion of the
2001 rendered by the Court of Appeals Eighth all the required documents. 6 DOLE Decision stated:
Division1 which in turn affirmed a Decision dated 22
Feburary 1999 by the DOLE Undersecretary for Labor
Relations, Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, ordering the Opting not to file a comment on the Motion to WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The order dated 15
immediate conduct of a certification election among the Dismiss,7 respondent instead filed a Position Paper wherein September 1999 of the Med-Arbiter is REVERSED and SET
petitioner's rank-and-file employees, as prayed for by it asserted that it had complied with all the necessary ASIDE. Accordingly, let the records of the case be remanded
respondent. The following facts are culled from the records. requirements for the conduct of a certification election, and to the office of origin for the immediate conduct of
that the ground relied upon in the Motion to Dismiss was a certification election, subject to the usual pre-election
mere technicality.8 conference, among the monthly-paid rank-and-file
On 15 June 1998, respondent, identifying itself as an affiliate employees of the Mandaue Packaging Products Plant San
of Federation of Free Workers (FFW), filed a petition for Miguel Corporation, with the following choices:
certification election with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. In turn, petitioner filed a Comment, wherein it reiterated that
In the petition, respondent stated that it sought to be certified respondent was not a legitimate labor organization at the
and to represent the permanent rank-and-file monthly paid time of the filing of the petition. Petitioner also propounded 1. MANDAUE PACKAGING PRODUCT PLANT SAN
employees of the petitioner.2 The following documents were that contrary to respondent's objectives of establishing an MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS SAN MIGUEL
attached to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificate issued by organization representing rank-and-file employees, two of CORPORATION MONTHLIES RANK AND FILE UNION
FFW on 5 June 1998 certifying that respondent as of that respondent's officers, namely Vice-President Emannuel L. FFW (MPPP-SMPP-SMCMRFUFFW),
date was duly certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a Rosell and Secretary Bathan, were actually supervisory
copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its employees. In support of this allegation, petitioner attached
2. NO UNION.
Pursuant to Rule XI, Section 11.1 of the New Implementing organization. Such has been traditionally provided instead in Regional Office the creation of such chartered local,
Rules, the company is hereby directed to submit to the office the Implementing Rules, particularly in Book V thereof. attaching thereto the charter certificate it had earlier issued.26
of origin the certified list of current employees in the However, in the last decade or so, significant amendments
bargaining unit, along with the payrolls covering the have been introduced to Book V, first by Department Order
But as stated earlier, it is Department Order No. 9 that
members of the bargaining unit for the last three months No. 9 which took effect on 21 June 1997, and again by
governs in this case. Section 1, Rule VI thereof prescribes
prior to the issuance of this decision. Department Order No. 40 dated 17 February 2003. The
the documentary requirements for the creation of a
differences in the procedures laid down in these various
local/chapter. It states:
versions are significant. However, since the instant petition
SO DECIDED.13
for certification was filed in 1998, the Implementing Rules, as
amended by Department Order No. 9, should govern the Section 1. Chartering and creation of a local chapter - A duly
These two conclusions of the DOLE were affirmed in the resolution of this petition.18 registered federation or national union may directly create a
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. It is now our task local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the
to review whether these conclusions are warranted under Bureau two (2) copies of the following:
Preliminarily, we should note that a less stringent procedure
law and jurisprudence. First, we shall discuss the aspect of
obtains in the registration of a local or chapter than that of a
respondent's legal personality in filing the petition for
labor organization. Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national
certification election.
imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local union indicating the creation or establishment of the
of a registered federation or national union is to encourage local/chapter;
First Issue: On the Acquisition of the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national
union in order to increase the local union's bargaining
(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their
powers respecting terms and conditions of labor. 19 This
Legal Personality by Respondent addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter;
policy has remained consistent despite the succeeding
amendments to Book V of the Omnibus Implementing Rules,
Statutory Provisions for Registration Of as contained in Department Orders Nos. 9 and 40. (c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided
that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the
same as that of the federation or national union, this fact
Local/Chapter of Federation or National Union The case of Progressive Development Corp. v. Secretary of
shall be indicated accordingly.
Labor,20 applying Section 3, Rule II, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, in force before 1997, ruled that "a local
Before we proceed to evaluate the particular facts of this or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified
case, it would be useful to review the statutory paradigm that only upon submission of the following to the BLR: (1) a under oath by the Secretary or Treasurer of the local/chapter
governs the establishment and acquisition of legal charter certificate, within thirty (30) days from its issuance by and attested by its President.
personality by a local/chapter of a labor organization. The the labor federation or national union; and (2) The
applicable rules have undergone significant amendments in constitution and by-laws, a statement of the set of officers,
the last decade, thus a recapitulation of the framework is in and the books of accounts all of which are certified under In contrast, an independent union seeking registration is
order. oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of further required under Dept. Order No. 90 to submit the
such local or chapter, and attested to by its president." 21 The number and names of the members, and annual financial
submission by the local/chapter of duly certified books of reports.27
The Labor Code defines a labor organization as any union or
association of employees which exists in whole or in part for accounts as a prerequisite for registration of the
the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with local/chapter was dropped in Department Order No. 9,22 a Section 3, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9 provides when
employers concerning terms and conditions of development noted by the Court in Pagpalain Haulers v. the local/chapter acquires legal personality.
employment,14 and a "legitimate labor organization" as any Hon. Trajano,23 wherein it was held that the previous
labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, including doctrines requiring the submission of books of accounts as a
prerequisite for the registration of a local/chapter "are Section 3. Acquisition of legal personality by local chapter. 'A
any branch or local thereof.15 Only legitimate labor
already passé and therefore, no longer applicable."24 local/chapter constituted in accordance with Section 1 of this
organizations may file a petition for certification election. 16
Rule shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of
the complete documents enumerated therein. Upon
Article 234 of the Labor Code enumerates the requirements Department Order No. 40, now in effect, has eased the compliance with all the documentary requirements, the
for registration of an applicant labor organization, requirements by which a local/chapter may acquire legal Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the
association, or group of unions or workers in order that such personality. Interestingly, Department Order No. 40 no local/chapter a certificate indicating that it is included in the
entity could acquire legal personality and entitlement to the longer uses the term "local/chapter," utilizing instead roster of legitimate labor organizations.
rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor "chartered local," which is defined as a "labor organization in
organizations. These include a registration fee of fifty pesos the private sector operating at the enterprise level that
acquired legal personality through the issuance of a charter It is evident based on this rule that the local/chapter acquires
(P50.00); a list of the names of the members and officers,
certificate by a duly registered federation or national union, legal personality from the date of the filing of the complete
and copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant
and reported to the Regional Office."25 Clearly under the documentary requirements, and not from the issuance of a
union.17
present rules, the first step to be undertaken in the creation certification to such effect by the Regional Office or Bureau.
of a chartered local is the issuance of a charter certificate by On the other hand, a labor organization is deemed to have
However, the Labor Code itself does not lay down the the duly registered federation or national union. Said acquired legal personality only on the date of issuance of its
procedure for the registration of a local or chapter of a labor federation or national union is then obligated to report to the certificate of registration,28 which takes place only after the
Bureau of Labor Relations or its Regional Offices has However, in ascertaining whether or not to recognize and not even been affirmed or reinstated by the Court on
undertaken an evaluation process lasting up until thirty (30) register the local/chapter, the Bureau or Regional Office review.40 Moreover, such pronouncement made prior to the
days, within which period it approves or denies the should not look beyond the authenticity and due execution of enactment of Department Order No. 9 squarely contradicts
application.29 In contrast, no such period of evaluation is the documentary requirements for the creation of the Section 3, Rule VI thereof, which provides that legal
provided in Department Order No. 9 for the application of a local/chapter as enumerated under Section 1, Rule VI, Book personality of the local/chapter is vested upon the
local/chapter, and more importantly, under it such V of Department Order No. 9. Since the proper submission submission of the complete documentary requirements.
local/chapter is deemed to acquire legal personality "from the of these documentary requirements is all that is necessary to
date of filing" of the documents enumerated under Section 1, recognize a local/chapter, it is beyond the province of the
It is also worth noting that petitioner union in Toyota was an
Rule VI, Book V. Bureau or Regional Offices to resort to other grounds as
independent labor union, and not a local/chapter, and under
basis for denying legal recognition of the local/chapter. For
Department Order No. 9, independent labor unions, unlike
example, Department Order No. 9 does not require the
Apart from promoting a policy of affiliation of local unions local/chapters, acquire legal personality only upon issuance
local/chapter to submit the names of its members as a
with national unions,30 there is a practical reason for of the certificate of registration by the Bureau or Regional
condition precedent to its registration.36 It therefore would be
sanctioning a less onerous procedure for the registration of a Office. Still, petitioner cites in its favor Section 5, Rule V of
improper to deny legal recognition to a local/chapter owing to
local/chapter, as compared to the national union. The Dept. Order No. 9, which states that "the labor organization
questions pertaining to its individual members since the
local/chapter relies in part on the legal personality of the or workers' association shall be deemed registered and
local/chapter is not even obliged to submit the names of its
federation or national union, which in turn, had already vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its
individual members prior to registration.
undergone evaluation and approval from the Bureau of Legal certificate of registration." Again, the citation is obviously
Relations or Regional Office. In fact, a federation or national misplaced, as respondent herein is a local/chapter, the
union is required, upon registration, to establish proof of Certainly, when a local/chapter applies for registration, acquisition of its legal personality being governed instead by
affiliation of at least ten (10) locals or chapters which are matters raised against the personality of the federation or Section 3, Rule VI.
duly recognized as the collective bargaining agent in the national union itself should not be acted upon by the Bureau
establishment or industry in which they operate; and the or Regional Office, owing to the preclusion of collateral
It is thus very clear that the issuance of the certificate of
names and addresses of the companies where the locals or attack. Instead, the proper matter for evaluation by the
registration by the Bureau or Regional Office is not the
chapters operate and the list of all the members in each of Bureau or Regional Office should be limited to whether the
operative act that vests legal personality upon a
the companies.31 Once the national union or federation local/chapter is indeed a duly created affiliate of the national
local/chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such legal
acquires legal personality upon the issuance of its certificate union or federation.
personality is acquired from the filing of the complete
or registration,32 its legal personality cannot be subject to
documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule
collateral attack.33
Parenthetically, under the present Implementing Rules as VI. Admittedly, the manner by which respondent was
amended by Department Order No. 40, it appears that the deemed to have acquired legal personality by the DOLE and
The fact that the local/chapter acquires legal personality from local/chapter (or now, "chartered local") acquires legal the Court of Appeals was not in strict conformity with the
the moment the complete documentary requirements are personality upon the issuance of the charter certificate by the provisions of Department Order No. 9. Nonetheless, are the
submitted seems to imply that the duty of the Bureau or duly registered federation or national union.37 This might deviations significant enough for the Court to achieve a
Regional Office to register the local/chapter is merely signify that the creation of the chartered local is within the different conclusion from that made by the DOLE and the
ministerial. However, in Progressive sole discretion of the federation or national union and thus Court of Appeals? awlibrary
Development Corporation v. Laguesma,34 the Court, in ruling beyond the review or interference of the Bureau of Labor
against a petition for certification filed by a chapter, held that Relations or its Regional Offices. However, Department
In regular order, it is the federation or national union, already
the mere submission of the documentary requirements does Order No. 40 also requires that the federation or national
in possession of legal personality, which initiates the creation
not render ministerial the function of the Bureau of Labor union report the creation of the chartered local to the
of the local/chapter. It issues a charter certificate indicating
Relations in according due recognition to the labor Regional Office.
the creation or establishment of the local/chapter. It then
organization.35 Still, that case was decided before the
submits this charter certificate, along with the names of the
enactment of Department Order No. 9, including the
Acquisition by Respondent of Legal Personality local/chapter's officers, constitution and by-laws to the
aforestated Section 3. Should we consider the said 1997
Regional Office or Bureau. It is the submission of these
amendments as having obviated our characterization
documents, certified under oath by the Secretary or
in Progressive of the Bureau's duty as non-ministerial? We now proceed to determine if and when the respondent
Treasurer of the local/chapter and attested by the President,
awlibrary acquired legal personality under the procedure laid down by
which vests legal personality in the local/chapter, which is
the rules then in effect, Department Order No. 9, that is.
then free to file on its own a petition for certification election.
Notwithstanding the amendments, it still is good policy to
maintain that per Department Order No. 9, the duty of the At the onset, the arguments raised by petitioner on this point
In this case, the federation in question, the FFW, did not
Bureau of Labor Relations to recognize the local/chapter are plainly erroneous. Petitioner cites the case of Toyota
submit any of these documentary requirements to the
upon the submission of the documentary requirements is not Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation
Regional Office or Bureau. It did however issue a charter
ministerial, insofar as the Bureau is obliged to adjudge the Labor Union,38 and the purported holding therein that "[if] it is
certificate to the putative local/chapter (herein respondent).
authenticity of the documents required to be submitted. For true that at the time of the filing of the petition, the said
Respondent then submitted the charter certificate along with
example, the Bureau is not mandated to accept just any registration certificate has not been approved yet, then,
the other documentary requirements to the Regional Office,
purported charter certificate matter how spurious it is in petitioner lacks the legal personality to file the
but not for the specific purpose of creating the local/chapter,
appearance. It is empowered to ascertain whether the petition."39 However, an examination of the case actually
but for filing the petition for certification election.
submitted charter certificate is genuine, and if finding that reveals that the cited portion was lifted from one of the
said certificate is fake, deny recognition to the local/chapter. antecedent rulings of the Med-Arbiter in that case which had
It could be properly said that at the exact moment analysis of this requirement though is in order, especially as not the FFW, which submitted the documents required under
respondent was filing the petition for certification, it did not it should apply to this petition. Section 1, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. The evident
yet possess any legal personality, since the requisites for rationale why the rule states that it is the federation or
acquisition of legal personality under Section 3, Rule VI of national union that submits said documents to the Bureau or
By-laws has traditionally been defined as regulations,
Department Order No. 9 had not yet been complied with. It Regional Office is that the creation of the local/chapter is the
ordinances, rules or laws adopted by an association or
could also be discerned that the intention of the Labor Code sole prerogative of the federation or national union, and not
corporation or the like for its internal governance, including
and its Implementing Rules that only those labor of any other entity. Certainly, a putative local/chapter cannot,
rules for routine matters such as calling meetings and the
organizations that have acquired legal personality are without the imprimatur of the federation or national union,
like.42 The importance of by-laws to a labor organization
capacitated to file petitions for certification elections. Such is claim affiliation with the larger unit or source its legal
cannot be gainsaid. Without such provisions governing the
the general rule. personality therefrom.
internal governance of the organization, such as rules on
meetings and quorum requirements, there would be no
Yet there are peculiar circumstances in this case that allow apparent basis on how the union could operate. Without a In the ordinary course, it should have been FFW, and not
the Court to rule that respondent acquired the requisite legal set of by-laws which provides how the local/chapter arrives respondent, which should have submitted the subject
personality at the same time it filed the petition for at its decisions or otherwise wields its attributes of legal documents to the Regional Office. Nonetheless, there is no
certification election. In doing so, the Court acknowledges personality, then every action of the local/chapter may be put good reason to deny legal personality or defer its conferral to
that the strict letter of the procedural rule was not complied into legal controversy. the local/chapter if it is evident at the onset that the
with. However, labor laws are generally construed liberally in federation or national union itself has already through its own
favor of labor, especially if doing so affirms the means established the local/chapter. In this case, such is
However, if those key by-law provisions on matters such as
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization. evidenced by the Charter Certificate dated 9 June 1998,
quorum requirements, meetings, or on the internal
issued by FFW, and attached to the petition for certification
governance of the local/chapter are themselves already
election. The Charter Certificate expressly states that
True enough, there was no attempt made by the national provided for in the constitution, then it would be feasible to
respondent has been issued the said certificate "to operate
federation, or the local/chapter for that matter, to submit the overlook the requirement for by-laws. Indeed in such an
as a local or chapter of the [FFW]". The Charter Certificate
enumerated documentary requirements to the Regional event, to insist on the submission of a separate document
expressly acknowledges FFW's intent to establish
Office or Bureau for the specific purpose of creating the denominated as "By-Laws" would be an undue technicality,
respondent as of 9 June 1998.44 This being the case, we
local/chapter. However, these same documents were as well as a redundancy.
consider it permissible for respondent to have submitted the
submitted by the local/chapter to the Regional Office as
required documents itself to the Regional Office, and proper
attachments to its petition for certification election. Under
An examination of respondent's constitution reveals it that respondent's legal personality be deemed existent as of
Section 3, Rule VI of Department Order No. 9, it is the
sufficiently comprehensive in establishing the necessary 15 June 1998, the date the complete documents were
submission of these same documents to the Regional Office
rules for its operation. Article IV establishes the requisites for submitted.
or Bureau that operates to vest legal personality on the
membership in the local/chapter. Articles V and VI name the
local/chapter.
various officers and what their respective functions are. The
Second Issue: On the Alleged Presence
procedure for election of these officers, including the
Thus, in order to ascertain when respondent acquired legal necessary vote requirements, is provided for in Article IX,
personality, we only need to determine on what date the while Article XV delineates the procedure for the Of Supervisory Employees as
Regional Office or Bureau received the complete impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishes the
documentary requirements enumerated under Section 1, standing committees of the local/chapter and how their
Officers of the Respondent
Rule VI of Department Order No. 9. There is no doubt that members are appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for
on 15 June 1998, or the date respondent filed its petition for meetings of the union, including the notice and quorum
certification election, attached thereto were respondent's requirements thereof. Article X enumerates with particularity The second issue hinges on a point of some controversy and
constitution, the names and addresses of its officers, and the the rules for union dues, special assessments, fines, and frequent discussion in recent years. Petitioner claims error in
charter certificate issued by the national union FFW. The first other payments. Article XII provides the general rule for the common pronouncement in the assailed decisions that
two of these documents were duly certified under oath by quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of the the matter concerning the two officers who are allegedly
respondent's secretary Bathan and attested to by president members of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of supervisory employees may be threshed out during pre-
Sagun.41 the Robert's Rules of Order43 in its meetings. And finally, election conferences. Petitioner cites the cases of Toyota
Article XVI governs and institutes the requisites for the Motors and Progressive Development Corporation-Pizza Hut
amendment of the constitution. v. Ledesma45 wherein the Court ruled that the question of
It may be noted though that respondent never submitted a
prohibited membership of both supervisory and rank-and-file
separate by-laws, nor does it appear that respondent ever
employees in the same union must be inquired into anterior
intended to prepare a set thereof. Section 1(c), Rule VI, Indeed, it is difficult to see in this case what a set of by-laws
to the granting of an order allowing a certification election;
Book V of Department Order No. 9 provides that the separate from the constitution for respondent could provide
and that a union composed of both of these kinds of
submission of both a constitution and a set of by-laws is that is not already provided for by the Constitution. These
employees does not possess the requisite personality to file
required, or at least an indication that the local/chapter is premises considered, there is clearly no need for a separate
for recognition as a legitimate labor organization. It should be
adopting the constitution and by-laws of the federation or set of by-laws to be submitted by respondent.
noted though that in the more recent case of Tagaytay
national union. A literal reading of the provision might
Highlands International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands
indicate that the failure to submit a specific set of by-laws is
The Court likewise sees no impediment in deeming Employees Union,46 the Court, notwithstanding Toyota and
fatal to the recognition of the local/chapter. A more critical
respondent as having acquired legal personality as of 15 Progressive, ruled that after a certificate of registration is
June 1998, the fact that it was the local/chapter itself, and issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to
collateral attack, but questioned only in an independent meaning of the law. This may, however, be outweighed by the final disposition of the petition for cancellation, and thus
petition for cancellation.47 his other functions which are not specified in the evidence. cannot be unsettled by reason of this present petition.

There is no need to apply any of the above cases at present Assuming that Bathan is a supervisory employee, this does Effect of Respondent's Manifestation
because the question raised by petitioner on this point is not prove the existence of fraud, false statement or
already settled law, as a result of the denial of the misrepresentation. Because good faith is presumed in all
Of Subsequent Developments
independent petition for cancellation filed by petitioner representations, an essential element of fraud, false
against respondent on 20 August 1998. The ground relied statement and misrepresentation in order for these to be
upon therein was the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and actionable is intent to mislead by the party making the A final note. In its Memorandum, petitioner alleges that the
false statement in describing itself as a union of rank and file representation. In this case, there is no proof to show that bargaining unit that respondent sought to represent is no
employees when in fact, two of its officers, Emmanuel Rosell Bathan, or appellee union for that matter, intended to longer the same because of the dynamic nature of
and Noel Bathan, were occupying supervisory mislead anyone. If this was appellee union's intention, it petitioner's business, a lot of changes having occurred in the
positions.48 Said petition was denied by the Regional would have refrained from using a more precise description work environment, and that four of respondent's officers are
Director, this action was affirmed by the DOLE, the Court of of the organization instead of declaring that the organization no longer connected with petitioner. 52 Assuming that these
Appeals, and the Supreme Court.49 The denial made by the is composed of 'rank and file monthlies'. Hence, the charge manifestations are true, they have no effect on the Court's
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court may have been of fraud, false statement or misrepresentation cannot be ruling that a certification election should be immediately
based on procedural grounds,50 but the prior decisions of the sustained. conducted with respondent as one of the available choices.
Regional Director and the DOLE ruled squarely on the same Petitioner's bare manifestations adduce no reason why the
issue now raised by the petitioner. We quote from certification election should not be conducted forthwith. If
Appellant's reliance on the Toyota case must be tempered
the Resolution of the DOLE dated 29 December 1998: there are matters that have arisen since the filing of the
by the peculiar circumstances of the case. Even assuming
petition that serve to delay or cancel the election, these can
that Bathan, or Rossel for that matter, are supervisory
be threshed out during the pre-election conferences. Neither
. . . . [The] substantive issue that is now before us is whether employees, the Toyota case cannot certainly be given an
is the fact that some of respondent's officers have since
or not the inclusion of the two alleged supervisory employees interpretation that emasculates the right to self-organization
resigned from petitioner of any moment. The local/chapter
in appellee union's membership amounts to fraud, and the promotion of free trade unionism. We take
retains a separate legal personality from that of its officers or
misrepresentation, or false statement within the meaning of administrative notice of the realities in union organizing,
members that remains viable notwithstanding any turnover in
Article 239(a) and (c) of the Labor Code. during which the organizers must take their chances,
its officers or members.
oftentimes unaware of the fine distinctions between
managerial, supervisory and rank and file employees. The
We rule in the negative.
grounds for cancellation of union registration are not meant WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against
to be applied automatically, but indeed with utmost petitioner.
Under the law, a managerial employee is "one who is vested discretion. Where a remedy short of cancellation is available,
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute that remedy should be preferred. In this case, no party will
SO ORDERED.
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, be prejudiced if Bathan were to be excluded from
layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees." A membership in the union. The vacancy he will thus create
supervisory employee is "one who, in the interest of the can then be easily filled up through the succession provision
employer, effectively recommends managerial actions if the of appellee union's constitution and by-laws. What is
exercise of such recommendatory authority is not merely important is that there is an unmistakeable intent of the
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of members of appellee union to exercise their right to
independent judgment. '" Finally, "all employees not falling organize. We cannot impose rigorous restraints on such right
within the definition of managerial or supervisory employee if we are to give meaning to the protection to labor and social
are considered rank-and-file employees". It is also well- justice clauses of the Constitution.51
settled that the actual functions of an employee, not merely
his job title, are determinative in classifying such employee
The above-cited pronouncement by Bureau of Labor
as managerial, supervisory or rank and file.
Relations Director Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr. in BLR-
A-C-41-11-11-98 was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and
In the case of Emmanuel Rossell, appellant's evidence the Supreme Court. Hence, its pronouncement affirming,
shows that he undertakes the filling out of evaluation reports notwithstanding the questions on the employment status of
on the performance of mechanics, which in turn are used as Rossell and Bathan, the legitimacy of the respondent, stands
basis for reclassification. Given a ready and standard form to as a final ruling beyond the ambit of review, thus warranting
accomplish, coupled with the nature of the evaluation, it the Court's respect. There may be a difference between this
would appear that his functions are more routinary than case, which involves a petition for certification election, and
recommendatory and hardly leave room for independent the other case, which concerns a petition for cancellation.
judgment. In the case of Noel Bathan, appellant's evidence However, petitioner opposes the petition for certification
does not show his job title although it shows that his election on the ground of the illegitimacy of respondent,
recommendations on disciplinary actions appear to have owing to the alleged supervisory nature of the duties of
carried some weight on higher management. On this limited Rossell and Bathan. That matter has already been settled in
point, he may qualify as a supervisory employee within the
 [G.R. No. 146073. January 13, 2003.] In accordance with the above-quoted provision of the CBA, The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive
the employees’ work week was reduced to five days or a portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
JERRY E. ACEDERA, ANTONIO PARILLA, AND OTHERS total of 250 days a year. ICTSI, however, continued using
LISTED IN ANNEX "A," 1 Petitioners-Appellants, v. the 304-day divisor in computing the wages of the WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring that
INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, employees. 6 the correct divisor in computing the daily wage and other
INC. (ICTSI), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS labor standard benefits of the employees of respondent
COMMISSION and HON. COURT OF On November 10, 1990, the Regional Tripartite Wage and ICTSI who are members of complainant Union as well as the
APPEALS, Respondents-Appellants. Productivity Board (RTWPB) in the National Capital Region other employees similarly situated is two hundred fifty (250)
decreed a P17.00 daily wage increase for all workers and days such that said respondent is hereby ordered to pay the
DECISION employees receiving P125.00 per day or lower in the employees concerned the differentials representing the
National Capital Region. 7 The then president of APCWU, underpayment of said salaries and other benefits reckoned
together with some union members, thus requested the three (3) years back from February 26, 1997, the date of
CARPIO MORALES, J.: ICTSI’s Human Resource Department/Personnel Manager to filing of this complaint or computed from February 27 1994
compute the actual monthly increase in the employees’ until paid, but for purposes of appeal, the salary differentials
wages by multiplying the RTWPB mandated increase by 365 are temporarily computed for one year in the amount of Four
days and dividing the product by 12 months. 8 Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Forty Pesos (P468,040.00).
For consideration is the petition for review
18
on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals
Heeding the proposal and following the implementation of
affirming that of the National Labor Relations Commission
the new wage order, ICTSI stopped using 304 days as In the same decision, the Labor Arbiter denied petitioners-
(NLRC) which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
divisor and started using 365 days in determining the daily appellants’ Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion for
denying herein petitioners-appellants’ Complaint-in-
wage of its employees and other consequential Intervention upon a finding that they are already well
Intervention with Motion for Intervention.chanrob1es virtua1
compensation, even if the employees’ work week consisted represented by APCWU. 19
1aw 1ibrary
of only five days as agreed upon in the CBA. 9
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
The antecedent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
In early 1997, ICTSI went on a retrenchment program and Arbiter and dismissed APCWU’s complaint for lack of merit.
library
laid off its on-call employees. 10 This prompted the APCWU- 20 The denial of petitioners-appellants’ intervention was,
ICTSI to file a notice of strike which included as cause of however, affirmed. 21
Petitioners-appellants Jerry Acedera, Et. Al. are employees
action not only the retrenchment of the employees but also
of herein private respondent International Container Terminal
ICTSI’s use of 365 days as divisor in the computation of Unsatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, APCWU filed a
Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and are officers/members of
wages. 11 The dispute respecting the retrenchment was petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals while
Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International
resolved by a compromise settlement 12 while that petitioners-appellants filed theirs with this Court which
Container Terminal Services, Inc. Local Chapter (APCWU-
respecting the computation of wages was referred to the referred the petition 22 to the Court of Appeals.
ICTSI), a labor organization duly registered as a local affiliate
Labor Arbiter. 13
of the Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union
The Court of Appeals dismissed APCWU’s petition on the
(APCWU).
On February 26, 1997, APCWU, on behalf of its members following grounds: failure to allege when its motion for
and other employees similarly situated, filed with the Labor reconsideration of the NLRC decision was filed, failure to
When ICTSI started its operations in 1988, it determined the
Arbiter a complaint against ICTSI which was dismissed for attach the necessary appendices to the petition, and failure
rate of pay of its employees by using 304 days, the number
APCWU’s failure to file its position paper. 14 Upon the to file its motion for extension to file its petition within the
of days of work of the employees in a year, as divisor. 2
demand of herein petitioners-appellants, APCWU filed a reglementary period. 23
motion to revive the case which was granted. APCWU
On September 28, 1990, ICTSI entered into its first
thereupon filed its position paper on August 22, 1997. 15 As for petitioners-appellants’ petition for certiorari, it was
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with APCWU with a
dismissed by the Court of Appeals in this wise:chanrob1es
term of five years effective until September 28, 1995. 3 The
On December 8, 1997, petitioners-appellants filed with the virtual 1aw library
CBA was renegotiated and thereafter renewed through a
Labor Arbiter a Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to
second CBA that took effect on September 29, 1995,
Intervene. 16 In the petition at bar, they justified their move It is clear from the records that herein petitioners, claiming to
effective for another five years. 4 Both CBAs contained an
to intervene in this wise:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library be employees of respondent ICTSI, are already well
identically-worded provision on hours and days of work
represented by its employees union, APCWU, in the petition
reading:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
[S]hould the union succeed in prosecuting the case and in before this Court (CA-G.R. SP. No. 53266) although the
getting a favorable reward it is actually they that would same has been dismissed. The present petition is, therefore
Article IX
benefit from the decision. On the other hand, should the a superfluity that deserves to be dismissed. Furthermore,
union fail to prove its case, or to prosecute the case only Acedera signed the Certificate of non-forum shopping.
Regular Hours of Work and Days of Labor
diligently, the individual workers or members of the union On this score alone, this petition should likewise be
would suffer great and immeasurable loss. . . . [t]hey wanted dismissed. We find that the same has no merit considering
Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be five
to insure by their intervention that the case would thereafter that herein petitioners have not presented any meritorious
(5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be
be prosecuted with all due diligence and would not again be argument that would justify the reversal of the Decision of
scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior
dismissed for lack of interest to prosecute on the part of the the NLRC.
notice unless any of this day is declared a special holiday. 5
union. 17
(Emphasis omitted)
Article IX of the CBA provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library III or a party authorized by law or these Rules . . . 27
(Emphasis supplied)
REGULAR HOURS OF WORK AND DAYS OF LABOR
. . . IN RULING THAT THE PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its
"Section 1. The regular working days in a week shall be five HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN AND members under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code which
(5) days on any day from Monday to Sunday, as may be PURSUE THIS CASE AND THAT THEIR INTERVENTION provides that a union may act as the representative of its
scheduled by the COMPANY, upon seven (7) days prior IS A SUPERFLUITY. members for the purpose of collective bargaining. This
notice unless any of this day is declared a special authority includes the power to represent its members for the
holiday."cralaw virtua1aw library IV purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. That
APCWU acted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf
This provision categorically states the required number of of its Union members and other employees similarly
working days an employee is expected to work for a week. It . . . IN HOLDING, ALTHOUGH MERELY AS AN OBITER situated," the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiter’s
does not, however, indicate the manner in which an DICTUM, THAT ONLY PETITIONER JERRY ACEDERA Office so expressly states.
employee’s salary is to be computed. In fact, nothing in the SIGNED THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
CBA makes any referral to any divisor which should be the SHOPPING.25cralaw:red While a party acting in a representative capacity, such as a
basis for determining the salary. The NLRC, therefore, union, may be permitted to intervene in a case, ordinarily, a
correctly ruled that." . . the absence of any express or The third assigned error respecting petitioners-appellants’ person whose interests are already represented will not be
specific provision in the CBA that 250 days should be used right to intervene shall first be passed upon, it being permitted to do the same 28 except when there is a
as divisor altogether makes the position of the Union determinative of their right to raise the other assigned errors. suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will
untenable."cralaw virtua1aw library not act in good faith for the protection of all interests
Petitioners-appellants anchor their right to intervene on Rule represented by him. 29
x       x       x 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1 of which
reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Petitioners-appellants cite the dismissal of the case filed by
ICTSI, first by the Labor Arbiter, and later by the Court of
Considering that herein petitioners themselves requested Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has legal Appeals. 30 The dismissal of the case does not, however, by
that 365 days be used as the divisor in computing their wage interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of
increase and later did not raise or object to the same during of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated to good faith on the part of APCWU. There must be clear and
the negotiations of the new CBA, they are clearly estopped be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of convincing evidence of fraud or collusion or lack of good faith
to now complain of such computation only because they no property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof independently of the dismissal. This, petitioners-appellants
longer benefit from it. Indeed, the 365 divisor for the past may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the failed to proffer.
seven (7) years has already become practice and law action. The court shall consider whether or not the
between the company and its employees. 24 (Emphasis intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of Petitioners-appellants likewise express their fear that
supplied) the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently because of
intervenor’s right may be fully protected in a separate its "sweetheart relationship" with ICTSI. 31 There is nothing
proceeding. on record, however, to support this alleged relationship
x       x       x which allegation surfaces as a mere afterthought because it
They stress that they have complied with the requisites for was never raised early on. It was raised only in petitioners-
intervention because (1) they are the ones who stand to gain appellants’ reply to ICTSI’s comment in the petition at bar,
Hence, the present petition of petitioners-appellants who the last pleading submitted to this Court, which was filed on
fault the Court of Appeals as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of any
judgment that may be rendered in this case, (2) no undue June 20, 2001 or more than 42 months after petitioners-
library appellants filed their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to
delay or prejudice would result from their intervention since
their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion for Intervention Intervene with the Labor Arbiter.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
I was filed while the Labor Arbiter was still hearing the case 1ibrary
and before any decision thereon was rendered, and (3) it
was not possible for them to file a separate case as they To reiterate, for a member of a class to be permitted to
. . . IN REJECTING THE CBA OF THE PARTIES AS THE would be guilty of forum shopping because the only forum intervene in a representative action, fraud or collusion or lack
SOURCE OF THE DIVISOR TO DETERMINE THE available for them was the Labor Arbiter. 26 of good faith on the part of the representative must be
WORKERS’ DAILY RATE TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE proven. It must be based on facts borne on record. Mere
APPLICABLE LANDMARK DECISIONS OF THE Petitioners-appellants, however, failed to consider, in assertions, as what petitioners-appellants proffer, do not
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT ON THE MATTER. addition to the rule on intervention, the rule on suffice.
representation, thusly:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
II The foregoing discussion leaves it unnecessary to discuss
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is the other assigned errors.
allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
. . . [IN] DISREGARD[ING] APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby DENIED.
THIS HONORABLE COURT WHEN IT RULED THAT THE be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS ARE ALREADY IN the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee
ESTOPPEL. of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator,
G.R. No. 152322             February 15, 2005 5. Withholding from the Association and/or A few days after the filing of the complaint, i.e., on 10
members material information as to their rightful December 1997, a resolution11 was passed by UEEA which
entitlement to benefits and/or money claims; reads as follows:
ERNESTO C. VERCELES, DIOSDADO F. TRINIDAD,
SALVADOR G. BLANCIA, ROSEMARIE DE LUMBAN,
FELICITAS F. RAMOS, MIGUEL TEAÑO, JAIME 6. Acting as a spy against the Association or RESOLUTION
BAUTISTA and FIDEL ACERO, as Officers of the divulging confidential matters to persons not
University of the East Employees’ entitled thereto;
WHEREAS, the Association has gone thru a most arduous,
Association, petitioners,
difficult, and trying times in working to obtain the best terms
vs.
7. Such other offenses, which may injure or disrupt and conditions of employment for its members, specifically
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS-DEPARTMENT OF
the functions of the Association.4 for the period 1992 to 1996;
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
RODEL E. DALUPAN, EFREN J. DE OCAMPO, PROCESO Through a collective reply dated 19 September 1997, private WHEREAS, said difficulties are in the form of near strikes,
TOTTO, JR., ELIZABETH ALARCA, ELVIRA S. MANALO, respondents denied the allegations. Thereafter, on 23 cases with the Department of Labor and Employment and its
and RICARDO UY, respondents. September 1997, they sent a letter dated 22 September agencies, as well as with the Supreme Court;
1997 to the Chairman and Members of UEEA’s Disciplinary
Committee, informing them that the Memorandum of 15
DECISION WHEREAS, the general membership (has) shown
September 1997 was vague and without legal basis,
exceptional patience and perseverance and generally (had)
therefore, no intelligent answer may be made by them. They
demonstrated full trust and confidence in the Association
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: likewise stated that any sanction that will be imposed by the
officers and accordingly approved the manner and/or actions
committee would be violative of their right to due process.5
undertaken in pursuing said difficult task of arriving at a most
Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 beneficial agreement for the general membership;
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the The Disciplinary Committee issued another Memorandum,
Decision1 and Resolution2 rendered by the Court of Appeals, dated 24 September 1997, giving the respondents another
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved
dated 24 October 2001 and 15 February 2002, respectively. seventy-two hours from receipt within which to properly
that:
reply, explaining that the collective reply letter and
supplemental answer which were earlier submitted were not
The Facts
responsive to the first Memorandum. Their failure would be ...
construed as an admission of the truthfulness and veracity of
Private respondents Rodel E. Dalupan, Efren J. De Ocampo, the charges.6
b) the general membership reiterate its loyalty to the
Proceso Totto, Jr., Elizabeth Alarca, and Elvira S. Manalo
Association and commends the Association officers for their
are members of the University of the East Employees’
On 01 October 1997, the respondents issued a denial for the effort expended in working for the benefit of the whole
Association (UEEA). On 15 September 1997, they each
second time, and inquired from the Disciplinary Committee membership.
received a Memorandum from the UEEA charging them with
as to whether they were being formally charged. 7
spreading false rumors and creating disinformation among
the members of the said association. They were given APPROVED.
seventy-two hours from receipt of the Memorandum to On 09 October 1997, Ernesto Verceles, in his capacity as
submit their Answer.3 president of the association, through a Memorandum,
Manila. 10 December 1997.
informed Rodel Dalupan, et al., that their membership in the
association has been suspended and shall take effect
The acts of the respondents allegedly fall under General
immediately upon receipt thereof. Verceles said he was On 22 November 1999, a decision12 was rendered by
Assembly Resolution No. 4, Series of 1979, to wit:
acting upon the disciplinary committee’s finding of a prima Regional Director Maximo B. Lim, adverse to petitioners, the
facie case against them.8 Respondent Ricardo Uy also dispositive portion of which reads:
1. Circulating false rumors about the progress of received a similar memorandum on 03 November 1997.9
the negotiations for collective bargaining;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent[s] [are]
On 01 December 1997, a complaint 10 for illegal suspension, hereby ordered:
2. Creating distrust or loss of trust and confidence willful and unlawful violation of UEEA constitution and by-
of members in the Association; laws, refusal to render financial and other reports, deliberate
refusal to call general and special meetings, illegal holdover 1. to immediately lift suspension imposed upon the
of terms and damages was filed by the respondents against complainants;
3. Creating dissension among the members; herein petitioners Ernesto C. Verceles, Diosdado F. Trinidad,
Salvador G. Blancia, Rosemarie De Lumban, Felicitas 2. to hold a general membership meeting wherein
4. Circulating false rumors about the work of the Ramos, Miguel Teaño, Jaime Bautista and Fidel Acero they (respondents) make open and available the
Association or sabotaging the same; before the Department of Labor and Employment, National union’s/association’s books of accounts and other
Capital Region (DOLE-NCR). documents pertaining to the union funds [and]
thereby explain the financial status of the union;
 3. to regularly conduct special and general WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition First Issue: was the court a quo correct in upholding the
membership meetings in accordance with the is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based only on the
union’s constitution and by-laws; No pronouncement as to costs. complaint and answer?

4. to immediately hold/conduct an election of A Motion for Reconsideration22 was thereafter filed by the Petitioners contend that the complaint filed by the private
officers in accordance with the union’s constitution petitioners. In a Resolution23 dated 15 February 2002, the respondents in DOLE-NCR was a mere recital of bare, self
and by-laws. Court of Appeals modified its earlier decision. The decretal serving and unsubstantiated allegations. Both parties did not
portion of which states: submit position papers, and the DOLE-NCR resolved the
case based only on the complaint and answer. Also, by
Accordingly, the claims of complainants for damages [are]
failing to submit a reply to the answer, private respondents,
hereby ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of this court is
in effect admitted the petitioners’ controversion of the
MODIFIED. The 22 September 2000 and 15 January 2001
charges.26 They further argue that the private respondents
resolutions of the BLR insofar as they affirmed the part of the
However, within ten (10) days upon receipt of this Order, the did not exhaust administrative remedies and that the
22 November 1999 decision of the Regional Director of
complainants are hereby directed to submit a written report requirement of support by at least 30% of the members of
DOLE-NCR ordering the immediate holding of election are
whether or not the respondents had complied with this the association pursuant to Section 1, Rule XIV, Article I,
HEREBY ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. All the other
Order. Department Order No. 9 of DOLE, was not complied with.27
aspects of the assailed Resolutions are AFFIRMED.

The petitioners appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations of Private respondents, on the other hand, assert that the
Not satisfied, the petitioners filed a petition for review
the Department of Labor and Employment (BLR-DOLE). records show that despite their failure to submit their position
on certiorari24 before this Court.
During the pendency of this appeal, or on 07 April 2000, an papers, they nonetheless moved that the case be resolved
election of officers was held by the UEEA. The appeal, by DOLE-NCR based on the complaint, answer and
however, was dismissed for lack of merit in a The Issues available exhibits or annexes integrated with the aforesaid
Resolution13 dated 22 September 2000, the decretal portion pleadings.28 The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative
of which reads: remedies that would warrant the dismissal of the case should
The petitioners raise the following issues: not operate against them because they were deprived of
their right to due process when they were indefinitely
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS REVERSIBLE suspended without the benefit of a formal charge which is
merit and the decision dated 22 (November) 1999 of
ERROR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS’ sufficient in form and substance. 29 The respondents also
Regional Director Maximo B. Lim, DOLE-NCR, is
UPHOLDING THE DOLE-NCR AND BLR-DOLE point out that the thirty percent (30%) support requirement
AFFIRMED.
DECISIONS BASED ONLY ON THE COMPLAINT pursuant to Section 1, Rule XIV, Article I, Department Order
AND ANSWER; No. 9, is not applicable to them because their complaint was
Meanwhile, Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, was passed by primordially predicated on their suspension while the rest of
the UEEA, wherein the members allegedly reiterated their the causes of action were mere collateral consequences of
2. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REVERSIBLE the principal cause of action.30
support and approval of the acts and collateral actions of the
ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
officers.14
HOLD THE ELECTION OF APRIL 7, 2000 AS
INVALID AND A NULLITY; It is worthy to note that the BLR-DOLE, in its Resolution
A Motion for Reconsideration15 was filed by the petitioners dated 22 September 2000, underscored the negligence of
with the BLR-DOLE, but was denied in a Resolution 16 dated herein petitioners not only in the submission of their
3. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REVERSIBLE pleadings but also in attending the hearings called for the
15 January 2001.
ERROR TO UPHOLD BLR-DOLE’S FINDING purpose.31 Even the Court of Appeals, in its decision, made
THAT THE SUSPENSION WAS ILLEGAL; and this observation, thus:
A special civil action for certiorari17 was thereafter filed before
the Court of Appeals citing grave abuse of discretion
4. WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED NON- It is apparent, however, that petitioners were to blame for
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In a
HOLDING OF MEETINGS AND ALLEGED NON- their predicament. They repeatedly failed to appear in a
Resolution18 dated 22 February 2001, the Court of Appeals
SUBMISSION OF REPORTS ARE MOOT AND series of conferences scheduled by the DOLE-NCR, asked
dismissed the petition outright for failure to comply with the
ACADEMIC, AND WHETHER THE DECISION TO for resetting of hearings, and requested for extension of time
provisions of Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule
HOLD MEETINGS AND SUBMIT REPORTS to file its answer. Hence, when they again did not attend a
46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A Motion for
CONTRADICT AND OVERRIDE THE hearing on a date they themselves asked for, private
Reconsideration19 was filed which was granted in a
SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE MAJORITY.25 respondents (complainants therein) moved for the
Resolution20 dated 24 April 2001, thus, reinstating the
petition.1awphi1.nét submission of the case based on their complaint, position
The Court’s Rulings paper and annexes attached thereto.
On 24 October 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a
Decision21 dismissing the petition, the dispositive portion of We shall discuss the issues in seriatim. When DOLE-NCR directed the parties to submit their
which reads: respective position papers, petitioners again moved for
extension of time to file the same. When another notice was
given to the parties to comply with the directive, petitioners
prayed for another extension of time. (Private respondents, (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or It just so happened that the holding of the election coincided
however, reiterated their earlier motion to have the case members specially concerned." The use of the permissive with the DOLE-NCR decision.42
resolved based on available pleadings.) After six (6) months "may" in the provision at once negates the notion that the
or so, petitioners finally filed not their position paper but their assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory. More
The private respondents, in answer to this, point out that the
answer.32 decisive is the fact that the provision expressly declares that
07 April 2000 election, as appearing in the 22 September
the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or
2000 Resolution of the BLR-DOLE, was set aside not on the
members specially concerned." And further confirmation that
The Court of Appeals was justified in upholding the DOLE- flimsy reason that there was no complaint to invalidate it, but
the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the
NCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based on the complaint and due to the appeal of the petitioners questioning the BLR-
acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations is
answer. We cannot accept petitioners’ line of reasoning that DOLE’s order. The appeal effectively suspended the effect of
furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which
since no position papers were submitted, no decision may be the DOLE-NCR Regional Director’s order for the immediate
grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and
made by the adjudicating body. As ruled by Regional holding of election of officers in accordance with the union’s
the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the
Director Maximo B. Lim in his decision, the complaint and constitution and by-laws.43
Department of Labor, over "all inter-union and intra-union
the answer thereto were adopted as the parties’ position
conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising
papers. Thereafter, the case shall be deemed submitted for
from or affecting labor management relations," making no On this matter, the Court of Appeals made the following
resolution.33
reference whatsoever to any such 30%-support requirement. observation:
Indeed, the officials mentioned are given the power to act
Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, with "on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) " upon request
Consequently, the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR erred in
the least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the of either or both parties" as well as (2) "at their own
ordering the immediate holding of election of officers of
fundamental requisites of due process. 34 The essence of due initiative."
UEEA, and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)-Department
process is simply an opportunity to be heard.35 In this case, it
of Labor and Employment, insofar as it affirmed this
cannot be said that there was a denial of due process on the
Second Issue: was the election held on 07 April 2000 valid or particular order, committed an act amounting to grave abuse
part of the petitioners because they were given all the
a nullity? of discretion.
chances to refute the allegations of the private respondents,
and the delay in the proceedings before the DOLE-NCR was
clearly attributable to them. This issue arose from the fact that the original decision of the Nonetheless, despite of this finding, the election of UEEA
DOLE-NCR dated 22 November 1999, ordered petitioners, officers on 7 April 2000 cannot acquire a semblance of
among other things, to "immediately hold/conduct an election legality. First, it was conducted pursuant to the aforesaid
The argument that there was failure to exhaust
of officers . . ." Petitioners, it must be recalled, appealed from (erroneous) order of the Regional Director as manifested by
administrative remedies cannot be sustained. One of the
the DOLE-NCR decision to the BLR-DOLE. During the the petitioners. Second, it was purposely done to pre-empt
instances when the rule of exhaustion of administrative
pendency of the appeal, however, an election of officers was the resolution of the case by the BLR and to deprive private
remedies may be disregarded is when there is a violation of
held on 07 April 2000. Subsequently, the BLR-DOLE respondents their substantial right to participate in the
due process.36 In this case, the respondents have chronicled
affirmed the decision of the DOLE-NCR, but with the election. Third, petitioners cannot be allowed to take an
from the very beginning that they were indefinitely
pronouncement that ". . . the supposed election conducted inconsistent position to later on claim that the election of 7
suspended without the benefit of a formal charge sufficient in
on (07) April 2000 is null and void and cannot produce legal April 2000 was held because it was already due while
form and substance. Therefore, the rule on exhaustion of
effects adverse to appellants."40 previously declaring that it was made in line with the order of
administrative remedies cannot squarely apply to them.
the Regional Director, for this would go against the principle
of fair play.
The petitioners contend that since the election was held on
On the matter concerning the 30% support requirement
07 April 2000, and the original complaint before the DOLE-
needed to report violations of rights and conditions of union
NCR was filed on 01 December 1997, the former could not Thus, while the BLR was wrong in affirming the order of the
membership, as found in the last paragraph of Article 241 of
have been the subject of the complaint. There was, Regional Director for the immediate holding of election, it
the Labor Code,37 we likewise cannot sanction the
according to petitioners, reversible error in the BLR-DOLE’s was right in nullifying the 7 April 2000 UEEA election of
petitioners. We have already made our pronouncement in
adding to the DOLE-NCR’s decision, the nullification of the officers. It was simply improper for the petitioners to
the case of Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor
07 April 2000 election. The BLR–DOLE should have limited implement the said order which was then one of the subjects
Relations38 that the 30% requirement is not mandatory. In
itself to affirming, modifying or setting aside and canceling of their appeal in the BLR. To hold otherwise would be to
this case, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Andres
the provisions of the dispositive portion of the DOLE-NCR’s dispossess the BLR of its inherent power to control the
R. Narvasa,39 held in part:
decision which was subject of the appeal. The election was conduct of the proceedings of cases pending before it for
held because the term of the petitioners (extended for five resolution.44
The respondent Director’s ruling, however, that the assent of years under Republic Act No. 671541 ) expired on 07 April
30% of the union membership, mentioned in Article 242 of 2000. As amended by Republic Act 6715, paragraph (c) of
Based on the prevailing facts of this case, we affirm the
the Labor Code, was mandatory and essential to the filing of Article 241 of the Labor Code now reads:
foregoing findings of the court a quo. We cannot hold the
a complaint for any violation of rights and conditions of
election of 07 April 2000 valid as this would make us
membership in a labor organization (such as the arbitrary
(c) The members shall directly elect their officers in the local condone an iniquitous act. Said election was perceptibly
and oppressive increase of union dues here complained of),
union, as well as their national officers in the national union done to hinder any resolution or decision that would be made
cannot be affirmed and will be reversed. The very article
or federation to which they or their local union is affiliated, by by BLR-DOLE. The Regional Director indeed ordered the
relied upon militates against the proposition. It states that a
secret ballots at intervals of five (5) years. immediate holding of an election in its Order dated 22
report of a violation of rights and conditions of membership in
November 1999. The records show that the petitioners
a labor organization may be made by "(a)t least thirty percent
questioned this order of the Regional Director before the conduct special and general membership meetings in SO ORDERED.
BLR-DOLE by way of appeal,45 and yet, they conducted the accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws.51 It is to
election, allegedly because it was due under Republic Act be recalled that the private respondents, when they filed a
No. 6715. Why this was done by the petitioners escapes us. complaint before the DOLE-NCR also complained of
But as rightfully observed by the BLR-DOLE: petitioners’ refusal to render financial and other reports, and
deliberate refusal to call general and special meetings.
. . . Indeed, it is obvious that the general membership
meeting and election of officers was done purposely to pre- Petitioners do not hide the fact that they belatedly submitted
empt our resolution of this case and, more importantly, the their financial reports and the minutes of their meetings to
participation of appellees in the election. This cannot be the DOLE. The issue of belatedly submitting these reports,
tolerated.46 according to the petitioners, had been rendered moot and
academic by their eventual compliance. Besides, this has
been the practice of the association.52 Moreover, the
Third Issue: was the indefinite suspension of the private
petitioners likewise maintain that the passage of General
respondents illegal?
Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated 10 December 1997 and
Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, following the application of
We rule in the affirmative. the principle that the sovereign majority rules, cured any
liability that may have been brought about by their belated
actions.53 1awphi1.nét
The petitioners posit the theory that the records do not
support the findings of the BLR-DOLE that no investigation
was conducted making the suspension illegal because of As found by the Court of Appeals, the financial statements
lack of due process. for the years 1995 up to 1997 were submitted to DOLE-NCR
only on 06 February 1998 while that for the year 1998 was
submitted only on 16 March 1999. 54 The last association’s
It is best to remind the petitioners that this Court, as we have meeting was conducted on 21 April 1995, and the copy of
held in a long line of decisions, is not a trier of facts.47 The the minutes thereon was submitted to BLR-DOLE only on 24
instant case is a petition for review on certiorari48 where only February 1998.
questions of law may be raised. The exceptions 49 to this rule
find no application here. This being the case, the findings of
fact of the DOLE-NCR and the BLR-DOLE as affirmed by the The passage of General Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated
Court of Appeals to the effect that no investigation was 10 December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of
conducted, shall not be disturbed. As properly held by the 2000,55 which supposedly cured the lapses committed by the
court a quo: association’s officers and reiterated the approval of the
general membership of the acts and collateral actions of the
association’s officers cannot redeem the petitioners from
Petitioners have failed to show that the findings of facts and their predicament. The obligation to hold meetings and
conclusions of law of both the DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE render financial reports is mandated by UEEA’s constitution
were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion or without and by-laws. This fact was never denied by the petitioners.
substantial evidence. A careful review of the pleadings Their eventual compliance, as what happened in this case,
before Us reveals that the decision and resolutions of the shall not release them from the obligation to accomplish
concerned agencies were correctly anchored in law and on these things in the future.
substantial evidence.50

Prompt compliance in rendering financial reports together

Fourth Issue: is the non-holding of meetings and non- with the holding of regular meetings with the submission of
submission of reports by the petitioners moot and academic, the minutes thereon with the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR
and whether the decision to hold meetings and submit shall negate any suspicion of dishonesty on the part of
reports contradict and override the sovereign will of the UEEA’s officers. This is not only true with UEEA, but likewise
majority? with other unions/associations, as this matter is imbued with
public interest. Undeniably, transparency in the official
We do not believe so. undertakings of union officers will bolster genuine trade
unionism in the country.
This issue was precipitated by the Court of Appeals decision
affirming the order of DOLE Regional Director Maximo B. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and
Lim for the petitioners to hold a general membership meeting Resolution of the Court of Appeals subjects of the instant
wherein they make open and available the case, are affirmed. Costs against the petitioners.
union’s/association’s books of accounts and other
documents pertaining to the union funds, and to regularly
G.R. No. 194709               July 31, 2013 petitioners and 12 others,7 before the Chairman of RPNEU’s of the Labor Code. The LA clarified that only the union
Committee on Grievance and Investigation (the Committee) officers of RPNEU could be held responsible for ULP, so
citing as grounds the "commission of an act which violates they exonerated six (6) of the original defendants who were
MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, and
RPNEU Constitution and By-Laws, specifically, Article IX, mere union members. The LA also ordered the
MA. FEDAYON, Petitioners,
Section 2.2 for joining or forming a union outside the sixty reinstatement of petitioners as bonafide members of
vs.
(60) days period and Article IX, Section 2.5 for urging or RPNEU. The decretal portion reads:
ROSARIO VILLANUEVA, JANETTE ROLDAN, DANILO
advocating that a member start an action in any court of
OLAYVAR, ONOFRE ESTRELLA, CATALINO LEDDA,
justice or external investigative body against the Union or its
MANOLO GUBANGCO, GILBERT ORIBIANA, WHEREFORE, premises above considered, a decision is
officer without first exhausting all internal remedies open to
CONSTANCIO SANTIAGO, RUTH BAYQUEN, RUBY being issued declaring union officers Ruth Bayquen, Ruby
him or available in accordance with the CBL." 8 These
CASTANEDA, ALFRED LANDAS, JR., ROSELYN Castañeda, Alfred Landas, Roce Garces, Board of Directors
complaints were, later on, consolidated. 9
GARCES, EUGENE CRUZ, MENANDRO SAMSON, Federico Muñoz, Janette Roldan, Rosario Villanueva,
FEDERICO MUNOZ and SALVADOR DIWA, Respondents. Menandro Samson, Salvador Diwa and Eugene Cruz guilty
Thereafter, petitioners received a memorandum notice from of unfair labor practice for violating Article 249, paragraph A
Jeric Salinas, Chairman of the Committee, requesting them and B of the Labor Code. Respondents are also ordered to
DECISION
to answer the complaint and attend a hearing scheduled on cease and desist from further committing unfair labor
October 3, 2005.10 Petitioners and their group, through an practice and order the reinstatement of the complainants as
MENDOZA, J.: exchange of communications with the Committee, denied the bonafide members of the union.
charges imputed against them and contested the procedure
adopted by the Committee in its investigation. On November
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the The other claims are hereby denied for lack of factual and
9, 2005, the Committee submitted their recommendation of
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Minette Baptista, legal basis.
expulsion from the union to RPNEU’s Board of
Bannie Edsel San Miguel and Ma. Fe Dayon (petitioners) Directors.11 On December 21, 2005, the RPNEU’s Board of
assails the March 9, 2010 Decision2 and the December 1, Directors affirmed the recommendation of expulsion of SO ORDERED.20
2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. petitioners and the 12 others from union membership in a
SP No. 105027, which affirmed the March 31, 2008 Board Resolution No. 018-2005.12 Through a
Decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission Undaunted, the respondents appealed the LA decision to the
Memorandum,13 dated December 27, 2005, petitioners were
(NLRC) dismissing the complaint for Unfair Labor Practice NLRC.
served an expulsion notice from the union, which was set to
(ULP) filed against the named respondents. take effect on December 29, 2005. On January 2, 2006,
petitioners with the 12 others wrote to RPNEU’s President In its Decision,21 dated March 31, 2008, the NLRC vacated
The Facts and Board of Directors that their expulsion from the union and set aside the LA decision and dismissed the complaint
was an ultra vires act because the Committee failed to for ULP for lack of merit. The NLRC found that petitioners
observe the basic elements of due process because they filed a suit calling for the impeachment of the officers and
Petitioners were former union members of Radio Philippines were not given the chance to physically confront and members of the Executive Board of RPNEU without first
Network Employees Union (RPNEU), a legitimate labor examine their complainants. 14 resorting to internal remedies available under its own
organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
Constitution and By-Laws. The NLRC likewise decreed that
the rank and file employees of Radio Philippines Network
the LA’s order of reinstatement was improper because the
(RPN), a government-sequestered corporation involved in In a letter, dated January 24, 2006, RPNEU’s officers
legality of the membership expulsion was not raised in the
commercial radio and television broadcasting affairs, while informed their company of the expulsion of petitioners and
proceedings and, hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the
the respondents were the union’s elected officers and the 12 others from the union and requested the management
LA.22 The fallo of the NLRC decision reads:
members. to serve them notices of termination from employment in
compliance with their CBA’s union security clause.15 On
February 17, 2006, RPN HRD Manager, Lourdes Angeles, WHEREFORE, the partial appeal filed by the respondents is
On April 26, 2005, on suspicion of union mismanagement, informed petitioners and the 12 others of the termination of GRANTED. The decision, dated 30 April 2007 is VACATED
petitioners, together with some other union members, filed a their employment effective March 20, 2006, enforcing Article and SET ASIDE. The complaint is dismissed for lack of
complaint for impeachment of their union president, Reynato II, Section 216 also known as the union security clause of merit.
Siozon, before the executive board of RPN, which was their current CBA.17
eventually abandoned. They later re-lodged the
impeachment complaint, this time, against all the union SO ORDERED.23
officers and members of RPNEU before the Department of Aggrieved, petitioners filed three (3) separate complaints for
Labor and Employment (DOLE). They likewise filed various ULP against the respondents, which were later
consolidated,18 questioning legality of their expulsion from Petitioners filed for a motion for reconsideration, but the
petitions for audit covering the period from 2000 to 2004. 5
the union and their subsequent termination from NLRC denied it in its Resolution,24 dated May 30, 2008.
employment.
Thereafter, two (2) written complaints, dated May 26, 2005
The CA, in its March 9, 2010 Decision, sustained the NLRC
and May 27, 2005, were filed against petitioners and several
In a decision,19 dated April 30, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) decision. The CA stated that the termination of employment
others for alleged violation of the union’s Constitution and
ruled in favor of the petitioners and adjudged the by virtue of a union security clause was recognized in our
By-Laws.6 Months later, on September 19, 2005, a different
respondents guilty of ULP pursuant to Article 249 (a) and (b) jurisdiction. It explained that the said practice fortified the
group of union members filed a third complaint against
union and averted disunity in the bargaining unit within the 1. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
duration of the CBA. The CA declared that petitioners were COURT OF APPEALS MISERABLY FAILED TO discriminate against an employee, including
accorded due process before they were removed from office. APPRECIATE THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE. discrimination against an employee with respect to
In fact, petitioners were given the opportunity to explain their whom membership in such organization has been
case and they actually availed of said opportunity by denied or to terminate an employee on any ground
2. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE DECISION AND
submitting letters containing their arguments. 25 other than the usual terms and conditions under
RESOLUTION ARRIVED AT BY THE
which membership or continuation of membership
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT
is made available to other members;
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA likewise IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE
denied the same in its December 1, 2010 Resolution, 26 The JURISPRUDENCE, THEREBY GRAVELY
CA expounded: ABUSING ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO Petitioners posit that the procedure that should have been
LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.28 followed by the respondents in resolving the charges against
them was Article XVII, Settlement of Internal Disputes of
Anent petitioners’ charge of ULP against respondents, the
their Constitution and By-Laws, specifically, Section
records are barren of proof to sustain such charge. What Petitioners submit that the respondents committed ULP
232 thereof, requiring members to put their grievance in
remains apparent is that petitioners were expelled from the under Article 289 (a) and (b) of the Labor Code.29 They insist
writing to be submitted to their union president, who shall
union due to their violation of Section 2.5 of Article IX of the that they were denied substantive and procedural due
strive to have the parties settle their differences amicably.
CBL which punishes the act of "urging or advocating that a process of law when they were expelled from the RPNEU.
Petitioners maintain that any form of grievance would be
member start an action in any court of justice or external
referred only to the committee upon failure of the parties to
investigative body against the Union or any of its officer,
The petition is bereft of merit. settle amicably.33
without first exhausting all internal remedies open to him or
available in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws of
Union." As petitioners’ expulsion was pursuant to the union’s The primary concept of ULP is embodied in Article 247 of the The Court is not persuaded.
CBL, We absolve respondents of the charges of ULP absent Labor Code, which provides:
any substantial evidence to sustain it.
Based on RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws, the charges
Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure against petitioners were not mere internal squabbles, but
The importance of a union’s constitution and bylaws cannot for prosecution thereof.––Unfair labor practices violate the violations that demand proper investigation because, if
be overemphasized. They embody a covenant between a constitutional right of workers and employees to self- proven, would constitute grounds for their expulsion from the
union and its members and constitute the fundamental law organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both union. As such, Article X, Investigation Procedures and
governing the member’s rights and obligations. As such, the labor and management, including their right to bargain Appeal Process of RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws,
union’s constitution and bylaws should be upheld, as long as collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an which reads –
they are not contrary to law, good morals or public policy. In atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial
Diamonon v. Department of Labor and Employment, the peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-
SECTION 1. Charge against any member or officer of the
High Court affirmed the validity and importance of the management relations.
Union shall be submitted to the Board of Directors (BOD) in
provision in the CBL of exhaustion of administrative
writing, which shall refer the same, if necessary, to the
remedies, viz:
In essence, ULP relates to the commission of acts that committee on Grievance and Investigation. The Committee
transgress the workers’ right to organize. As specified in shall hear any charge and subsequently, forward its finding
When the Constitution and by-laws of both unions dictated Articles 248 and 249 of the Labor Code, the prohibited acts and recommendation to the BOD. The BOD has the power to
the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as petitioner’s must necessarily relate to the workers' right to self- approve or nullify the recommendation of the Committee on
complaint against private respondents for unauthorized or organization and to the observance of a CBA.30 Absent the Grievance and Investigation based on the merit of the
illegal disbursement of union funds, this should be resorted said vital elements, the acts complained, although seemingly appeal.
to before recourse can be made to the appropriate unjust, would not constitute ULP.31
administrative or judicial body, not only to give the grievance
was correctly applied under the circumstances.
machinery or appeals’ body of the union the opportunity to
In the case at bench, petitioners claim that the respondents,
decide the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary
as union officers, are guilty of ULP for violating paragraphs
and premature resort to administrative or judicial bodies. Besides, any supposed procedural flaw in the proceedings
(a) and (b) of Article 249 of the Labor Code, to wit:
Thus, a party with an administrative remedy must not merely before the Committee was deemed cured when petitioners
initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain were given the opportunity to be heard. Due process, as a
relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before ART. 249. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF LABOR constitutional precept, is satisfied when a person was
seeking judicial intervention. 27 ORGANIZATIONS.- It shall be unfair labor practice for a notified of the charge against him and was given an
labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives: opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
Thus, petitioners advance the following
opportunity for the person so charged to answer the
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the accusations against him constitute the minimum
exercise of their rights to self-organization.
GROUNDS/ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION requirements of due process.34 The essence of due process
However, a labor organization shall have the right is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative
to prescribe its own rules with respect to the proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an
acquisition or retention of membership: opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.35 It cannot be denied that petitioners were which in turn, resulted in the implementation of their CBA' s
properly notified of the charges filed against them and were union security clause. As earlier stated, petitioners had the
equally afforded the opportunity to present their side. burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its
allegations of ULP,42 which burden they failed to discharge.
In fact, both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioners
Next, petitioners point out that they were not given the
were unable to prove their charge of ULP against the
opportunity to personally face and confront their accusers,
respondents.
which were violative of their right to examine the
complainants and the supposed charges against them.36
It is axiomatic that absent any clear showing of abuse,
arbitrariness or capriciousness, the findings of fact by the
Petitioners’ contention is without merit. Mere absence of a
NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case,
one-onone confrontation between the petitioners and their
are binding and conclusive upon the Court.43 Having found
complainants does not automatically affect the validity of the
none, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the
proceedings before the Committee. Not all cases necessitate
challenged decision.
a trial-type hearing.37 As in this case, what is indispensable is
that a party be given the right to explain one’s side, which
was adequately afforded to the petitioners. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 9, 2010
Decision and the December 1, 2010 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105027 are AFFIRMED.
It is well-settled that workers’ and employers’ organizations
shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules to
elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their SO ORDERED.
administration and activities and to formulate their
programs.38 In this case, RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws
expressly mandate that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
have availed of all the internal remedies within the
organization. Petitioners were found to have violated the
provisions of the union’s Constitution and By-Laws when
they filed petitions for impeachment against their union
officers and for audit before the DOLE without first
exhausting all internal remedies available within their
organization. This act is a ground for expulsion from union
membership. Thus, petitioners’ expulsion from the union was
not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to
organize, but was triggered by the commission of an act,
expressly sanctioned by Section 2.5 of Article IX of the
union’s Constitution and By-Laws.1âwphi1

For a charge of ULP against a labor organization to prosper,

the onus probandi rests upon the party alleging it to prove or
substantiate such claims by the requisite quantum of
evidence.39 In labor cases, as in other administrative
proceedings, substantial evidence or such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a
conclusion is required.40 Moreover, it is indubitable that all
the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice should
materially relate to the workers' right to self-organization. 41

Unfortunately, petitioners failed to discharge the burden

required to prove the charge of ULP against the
respondents. Aside from their self-serving allegations,
petitioners were not able to establish how they were
restrained or coerced by their union in a way that curtailed
their right to self-organization. The records likewise failed to
sufficiently show that the respondents unduly persuaded
management into discriminating against petitioners. other
than to bring to its attention their expulsion from the union,
G.R. No. 154113               December 7, 2011 RAYMUNDO DELATADO, MERLYN NODADO, NOEL VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC)
HORTELANO, HERMELO DELA TORRE, LOURDES formerly known as METRO CEBU COMMUNITY
OLARTE, DANILO ZAMORA, LUZ CABASE, CATALINA HOSPITAL (MCCH), Petitioner,
EDEN GLADYS ABARIA, ROMULO ALFORQUE, ELENA
ALSADO, RUTH BANZON AND THE NAGKAHIUSANG vs.
ALLA, EVELYN APOSTOL, AMELIA ARAGON, BEATRIZ
MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTEZ
ALBASTRO, GLORIA ARDULLES, GLENDA BANTILAN,
HOSPITAL, Petitioners, and EVELYN ONG, Respondents.
VIRGILIE BORINAGA, ROLDAN CALDERON,
vs.
ILDEBRANDO CUTA, ROMEO EMPUERTO, LANNIE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH
FERNANDEZ, LUCINELL GABAYERON, JESUSA DECISION
DIVISION), METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC.,
GERONA, JOSE GONZAGA, TEOFILO HINAMPAS,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REV. GREGORIO IYOY, SHIELA
JOSEFINA IBUNA, MARLYN LABRA, MARIA
BUOT, REV. LORENZO GENOTIVA, RUBEN CABABAN, VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
CARMENCITA LAO, ERA CANEN, RODNEY REX LERIAS,
ROSENDO ESTOYE, LILIA SAURO, REV. ELIZER
ERNIE MANLIGAS, JOHANNE DEL MAR, RUBY
BERTOLDO, RIZALINA VILLAGANTE, DRA. LUCIA
ORIMACO, CONSTANCIO PAGADOR, MARVELOUS The consolidated petitions before us involve the legality of
FLORENDO, CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER
PANAL, NOLAN PANAL, LILLAN PETALLAR, GERNA mass termination of hospital employees who participated in
CANEN, DRA. CYD RAAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA,
PATIGDAS, MELODIA PAULIN, SHIRLEY ROSE REYES, strike and picketing activities.
AVIDNIGO VALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO
JOSEFINA REYES, OSCAR DE LOS SANTOS, SOLOMON
PONGASI, ISIAS WAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN,
DE LOS SANTOS, RAMON TAGNIPIS, BERNADETTE
REV. LEON MANIWAN, CRESENTE BAOAS, WINIFREDA The factual antecedents:
TIBAY, RONALD TUMULAK, LEONCIO VALLINAS,
BARLOSO, REV. RUEL MARIGA, THE UNITED CHURCH
EDELBERTO VILLA and the NAGKAHIUSANG
OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REV. HILARIO GOMEZ,
MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI), presently
REV. ELMER BOLOCON, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
HOSPITAL, Petitioners, known as the Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC),
OF LABOR AND ARMANDO ALFORQUE, Respondents.
vs. is a non-stock, non-profit corporation organized under the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, METRO laws of the Republic of the Philippines. It operates the Metro
CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., ITS BOARD OF x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH), a tertiary medical
TRUSTEES, REV. GREGORIO IYOY, SHIELA BUOT, REV. institution located at Osmeña Boulevard, Cebu City. MCCH
LORENZO GENOTIVA, RUBEN CARABAN, RUBEN is owned by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines
G.R. No. 187861
ESTOYE, LILIA SAURO, REV. ELIZER BERTOLDO, (UCCP) and Rev. Gregorio P. Iyoy is the Hospital
RIZALINA VILLAGANTE, DRA. LUCIA FLORENDO, Administrator.
CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER CANEN, DRA. METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, presently known
CYD RAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA, AVEDNIGO as Visayas Community Medical Center
VALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO PONGASI, The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the exclusive
(VCMC), Petitioner,
ISIAS WAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN, REV. LEON bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of
vs.
MANIWAN, CRESENTE BAOAS, WINEFREDA BARLOSO, MCCHI. Under the 1987 and 1991 Collective Bargaining
PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN
REV. RUEL MARIGA AND THE UNITED CHURCH OF Agreements (CBAs), the signatories were Ciriaco B.
ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO
CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REV. HILARIO GOMEZ, Pongasi, Sr. for MCCHI, and Atty. Armando M. Alforque
REDILOSA, CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA
REV. ELMER BOLOCON, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION (NFL Legal Counsel) and Paterno A. Lumapguid as
CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO
OF LABOR AND ARMAND ALFORQUE, Respondents. President of NFL-MCCH Chapter. In the CBA effective from
GASCON, ALBINA BANEZ, PEDRO CABATINGAN,
January 1994 until December 31, 1995, the signatories were
PROCOMIO SALUPAN, ELIZABETH RAMON, DIOSCORO
Sheila E. Buot as Board of Trustees Chairman, Rev. Iyoy as
GABUNADA, ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MCCH Administrator and Atty. Fernando Yu as Legal
MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS
Counsel of NFL, while Perla Nava, President of
CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO, BERNABE LUMABGUID, CELIA
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL)
G.R. No. 187778 SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO
signed the Proof of Posting.1
CANEN, JR., ELSA BUCAO, HANNAH BONGCARAS,
NEMA BELOCURA, PEPITO LLAGAS, GUILLERMA
PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN
REMOCALDO, ROGELIO DABATOS, ROBERTO JAYMA, On December 6, 1995, Nava wrote Rev. Iyoy expressing the
ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO
RAYMUNDO DELATADO, NOEL HORTELANO, union’s desire to renew the CBA, attaching to her letter a
REDILOSA, CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA
HERMELO DE LA TORRE, LOURDES OLARTE, DANILO statement of proposals signed/endorsed by 153 union
CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO
ZAMORA, LUZ CABASE, CATALINA ALSADO AND RUTH members. Nava subsequently requested that the following
GASCON, ALBINA BAÑEZ, PEDRO CABATINGAN,
BANZON, Respondents. employees be allowed to avail of one-day union leave with
PROCOMIO SALUPAN, ELIZABETH RAMON, DIOSCORO
pay on December 19, 1995: Celia Sabas, Jesusa Gerona,
GABUNADA, ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA
Albina Bañez, Eddie Villa, Roy Malazarte, Ernesto Canen,
MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Jr., Guillerma Remocaldo, Catalina Alsado, Evelyn Ong,
CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO, BERNABE LUMAPGUID, CELIA
Melodia Paulin, Sofia Bautista, Hannah Bongcaras, Ester
SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO
G.R. No. 196156 Villarin, Iluminada Wenceslao and Perla Nava. However,
CANEN, JR., ELSA BUCAO, HANNAH BONGCARAS,
MCCHI returned the CBA proposal for Nava to secure first
NEMA BELOCURA, PEPITO LLAGAS, GUILLERMA
REMOCALDO, ROGELIO DABATOS, ROBERTO JAYMA,
the endorsement of the legal counsel of NFL as the official b) Section 9 (b), Article IX which posters and streamers. Atty. Alforque immediately disowned
bargaining representative of MCCHI employees.2 pertains to the powers and the concerted activities being carried out by union members
responsibilities of the Regional Director, which are not sanctioned by NFL. MCCHI directed the union
particularly, to negotiate and sign officers led by Nava to submit within 48 hours a written
Meanwhile, Atty. Alforque informed MCCHI that the
collective bargaining agreement explanation why they should not be terminated for having
proposed CBA submitted by Nava was never referred to NFL
together with the local negotiating panel engaged in illegal concerted activities amounting to strike,
and that NFL has not authorized any other legal counsel or
subject to prior ratification by the general and placed them under immediate preventive suspension.
any person for collective bargaining negotiations. By January
membership; Responding to this directive, Nava and her group denied
1996, the collection of union fees (check-off) was temporarily
there was a temporary stoppage of work, explaining that
suspended by MCCHI in view of the existing conflict between
employees wore their armbands only as a sign of protest and
the federation and its local affiliate. Thereafter, MCCHI 2. Joining or assisting another labor organization
reiterating their demand for MCCHI to comply with its duty to
attempted to take over the room being used as union office or helping in the formation of a new labor
bargain collectively. Rev. Iyoy, having been informed that
but was prevented to do so by Nava and her group who organization that seeks or tends to defeat the
Nava and her group have also been suspended by NFL,
protested these actions and insisted that management purpose of the Federation (Section 4 (d), Article III)
directed said officers to appear before his office for
directly negotiate with them for a new CBA. MCCHI referred in relation to the National Executive Board’s
investigation in connection with the illegal strike wherein they
the matter to Atty. Alforque, NFL’s Regional Director, and Resolution No. 8, September 26-27, 1994, to wit:
reportedly uttered slanderous and scurrilous words against
advised Nava that their group is not recognized by NFL.3
the officers of the hospital, threatening other workers and
"Pursuant to the NEB Resolution disaffiliating from the KMU forcing them to join the strike. Said union officers, however,
In his letter dated February 24, 1996 addressed to Nava, dated September 11, 1993, the NEB in session hereby invoked the grievance procedure provided in the CBA to
Ernesto Canen, Jr., Jesusa Gerona, Hannah Bongcaras, declare that KMU is deemed an organization that seeks to settle the dispute between management and the union. 6
Emma Remocaldo, Catalina Alsado and Albina Bañez, Atty. defeat the objective of establishing independent and
Alforque suspended their union membership for serious democratic unions and seeks to replace the Federation as
On March 13 and 19, 1996, the Department of Labor and
violation of the Constitution and By-Laws. Said letter states: exclusive representative of its members.
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 7 issued
certifications stating that there is nothing in their records
During the last General Membership Meeting of the union on Committing acts that tend to alienate the loyalty of the which shows that NAMA-MCCH-NFL is a registered labor
February 20, 1996, you openly declared that you recognized members to the Federation, subvert its duly constituted organization, and that said union submitted only a copy of its
the officers of the KMU not those of the NFL, that you submit authorities, and divide the organization in any level with the Charter Certificate on January 31, 1995. 7 MCCHI then sent
to the stuctures [sic] and authority of the KMU not of the objective of establishing a pro-KMU faction or independent individual notices to all union members asking them to
NFL, and that you are loyal only to the KMU not to the NFL. union loyal to the KMU shall be subject to disciplinary action, submit within 72 hours a written explanation why they should
suspension or expulsion from union membership, office or not be terminated for having supported the illegal concerted
position in accordance with paragraph[s] d and f of Section activities of NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal
Also, in the same meeting, you admitted having sent a
4, Article III, and paragraph h, Section 6, Article VI, personality as per DOLE records. In their collective
proposal for a renewed collective bargaining agreement to
paragraph d, Section 9, Article IX." response/statement dated March 18, 1996, it was explained
the management without any consultation with the NFL. In that the picketing employees wore armbands to protest
fact, in your letter dated February 21, 1996 addressed to MCCHI’s refusal to bargain; it was also contended that
Rev. Gregorio Iyoy, the Administrator of the hospital, you You are, therefore, directed to submit written explanation on MCCHI cannot question the legal personality of the union
categorically stated as follows: "We do not need any the above charges within five (5) days from receipt hereof. which had actively assisted in CBA negotiations and
endorsement from NFL, more particularly from Atty. Failure on your part shall be considered a waiver of your implementation.8
Armando Alforque to negotiate our CBA with MCCH." You right to be heard and the Federation will act accordingly.
did not only ignore the authority of the undersigned as
Regional Director but you maliciously prevented and bluntly On March 13, 1996, NAMA-MCCH-NFL filed a Notice of
Considering the gravity of the charges against you, the
refused my request to join the union negotiating panel in the Strike but the same was deemed not filed for want of legal
critical nature of the undertaking to renew the collective
CBA negotiations. personality on the part of the filer. The National Conciliation
bargaining agreement, and the serious threat you posed to and Mediation Board (NCMB) Region 7 office likewise
the organization, you are hereby placed under temporary denied their motion for reconsideration on March 25, 1996.
Your above flagrant actuations, made in the presence of the suspension from your office and membership in the union Despite such rebuff, Nava and her group still conducted a
union membership, constitute the following offenses: immediately upon receipt hereof pending investigation and strike vote on April 2, 1996 during which an overwhelming
final disposition of your case in accordance with the union’s majority of union members approved the strike.9
constitution and by-laws.
1. Willful violation of the Constitution and By-Laws
of the Federation and the orders and decisions of Meanwhile, the scheduled investigations did not push
duly constituted authorities of the same (Section 4 For your guidance and compliance.4 through because the striking union members insisted on
(b), Article III), namely: attending the same only as a group. MCCHI again sent
On February 26, 1996, upon the request of Atty. Alforque, notices informing them that their refusal to submit to
a) Defying the decision of the MCCHI granted one-day union leave with pay for 12 union investigation is deemed a waiver of their right to explain their
organization disaffiliating from the KMU; members.5 The next day, several union members led by side and management shall proceed to impose proper
and Nava and her group launched a series of mass actions such disciplinary action under the circumstances. On March 30,
as wearing black and red armbands/headbands, marching 1996, MCCHI sent termination letters to union leaders and
around the hospital premises and putting up placards, other members who participated in the strike and picketing
activities. On April 8, 1996, it also issued a cease-and-desist having been conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which is not a WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
order to the rest of the striking employees stressing that the legitimate labor organization. The termination of union Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint for unfair
wildcat concerted activities spearheaded by the Nava group leaders Nava, Alsado, Bañez, Bongcaras, Canen, Gerona labor practice and illegal dismissal is AFFIRMED with
is illegal without a valid Notice of Strike and warning them and Remocaldo were upheld as valid but MCCHI was MODIFICATIONS declaring all complainants to have been
that non-compliance will compel management to impose directed to grant separation pay equivalent to one-half month validly dismissed. Necessarily, the award of separation pay
disciplinary actions against them. For their continued for every year of service, in the total amount of and attorney’s fees are hereby Deleted.
picketing activities despite the said warning, more than 100 ₱3,085,897.40 for the 84 complainants.13
striking employees were dismissed effective April 12 and 19,
SO ORDERED.22
1996.
Complainants appealed to the Commission. On March 14,
2001, the NLRC’s Fourth Division rendered its
The NLRC likewise denied the motion for reconsideration
Unfazed, the striking union members held more mass Decision,14 the dispositive portion of which reads:
filed by complainants Yballe, et al. in its Resolution dated
actions. The means of ingress to and egress from the
April 13, 2004.23
hospital were blocked so that vehicles carrying patients and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
employees were barred from entering the premises.
Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint for unfair
Placards were placed at the hospital’s entrance gate stating: On October 17, 2008, the CA rendered its Decision24 in CA-
labor practice and illegal dismissal is AFFIRMED with
"Please proceed to another hospital" and "we are on G.R. SP No. 66540, the dispositive portion of which states:
MODIFICATIONS declaring the dismissal of all the
protest." Employees and patients reported acts of
complainants in RAB Case No. 07-02-0394-98 and RAB
intimidation and harassment perpetrated by union leaders
Case No. 07-03-0596-98 valid and legal. Necessarily, the WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
and members. With the intensified atmosphere of violence
award of separation pay and attorney’s fees are hereby rendered AFFIRMING the Decision of the National Labor
and animosity within the hospital premises as a result of
Deleted. Relations Commission (NLRC) – Fourth Division dated
continued protest activities by union members, MCCHI
March 14, 2001 in NLRC Case No. V-001042-99, WITH
suffered heavy losses due to low patient admission rates.
MODIFICATIONS to the effect that (1) the petitioners, except
The hospital’s suppliers also refused to make further Resolution on RAB Case No. 07-02-0309-98 is hereby
the union officers, shall be awarded separation pay
deliveries on credit. Deferred upon Joint Motion of the parties.
equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of
service, and (2) petitioner Cecilia Sabas shall be awarded
With the volatile situation adversely affecting hospital SO ORDERED.15 overtime pay amounting to sixty-three (63) hours.
operations and the condition of confined patients, MCCHI
filed a petition for injunction in the NLRC (Cebu City) on July
In its Resolution dated July 2, 2001, the NLRC denied SO ORDERED.25
9, 1996 (Injunction Case No. V-0006-96). A temporary
complainants’ motion for reconsideration.16
restraining order (TRO) was issued on July 16, 1996. MCCHI
presented 12 witnesses (hospital employees and patients), Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration while private
including a security guard who was stabbed by an identified Complainants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration
sympathizer while in the company of Nava’s group. MCCHI’s (CA) (Cebu Station) via a petition for certiorari, docketed as questioning the award of separation pay. The former also
petition was granted and a permanent injunction was issued CA-G.R. SP No. 66540.17 invoked the decision of this Court in Bascon v. Court of
on September 18, 1996 enjoining the Nava group from Appeals,26 while the latter argued for the application of the
committing illegal acts mentioned in Art. 264 of the Labor ruling in decision rendered by the CA (Cebu City) in Miculob
Code.10 In its Resolution dated November 14, 2001, the CA’s Eighth
v. NLRC, et al. (CA-G.R. SP No. 84538),27 both involving
Division dismissed the petition on the ground that out of 88
similar complaints filed by dismissed employees of MCCHI.
petitioners only 47 have signed the certification against
On August 27, 1996, the City Government of Cebu ordered forum shopping.18 Petitioners moved to reconsider the said
the demolition of the structures and obstructions put up by dismissal arguing that the 47 signatories more than By Resolution28 dated April 17, 2009, the CA denied both
the picketing employees of MCCHI along the sidewalk, constitute the principal parties as the petition involves a motions:
having determined the same as a public nuisance or matter of common concern to all the petitioning
nuisance per se.11 employees.19 By Resolution20 dated May 28, 2002, the CA
WHEREFORE, the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration
reinstated the case only insofar as the 47 petitioners who
and the private respondent[s’] Motion for Partial
signed the petition are concerned.
Thereafter, several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair Reconsideration of the October 17, 2008 Decision are both
labor practice were filed by the terminated employees DENIED for lack of merit.
against MCCHI, Rev. Iyoy, UCCP and members of the Board Petitioners challenged the validity of the November 14, 2001
of Trustees of MCCHI. and May 28, 2002 resolutions before this Court in a petition
The Motions for Substitution of Counsel and Compromise
for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 154113.
Agreements submitted by petitioners Bernardito Lawas,
On August 4, 1999, Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. Avelina Bangalao, Dailenda Hinampas and Daylinda Tigo
Belarmino rendered his decision12 dismissing the complaints Meanwhile, the NLRC’s Fourth Division (Cebu City) rendered are hereby approved. Consequently, said petitioners are
for unfair labor practice in NLRC Case Nos. RAB-VII-02- its Decision21 dated March 12, 2003 in RAB Case Nos. 07- ordered dropped from the list of petitioners and the case is
0309-98, RAB-VII-02-0394-98 and RAB-VII-03-0596-98 filed 02-0309-98 (NLRC Case No. V-001042-99) pertaining to deemed dismissed as to them.
by Nava and 90 other complainants. Executive Labor Arbiter complainants Erma Yballe, Evelyn Ong, Nelia Angel and
Belarmino found no basis for the charge of unfair labor Eleuteria Cortez as follows:
practice and declared the strike and picketing activities illegal SO ORDERED.29
Complainants Yballe, et al. also challenged before the CA 22, 2011 Resolution of the CA, for this Court to declare the However, instead of remanding the case to the CA for it to
the March 12, 2003 Decision and April 13, 2004 Resolution dismissal of respondents Yballe, et al. as valid and legal and resolve the petition with respect to the herein petitioners in
of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. to reinstate the March 12, 2003 Decision and April 13, 2004 G.R. No. 154113, and as prayed for, the Court shall consider
SP No. 84998 (Cebu City). By Decision30 dated November 7, Resolution of the NLRC. them parties-petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 66540,which
2008, the CA granted their petition, as follows: case has already been decided and now subject of appeal in
G.R. No. 187778.
G.R. No. 187861 was consolidated with G.R. Nos. 154113
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of public respondent and 187778 as they involve similar factual circumstances
dated March 12, 2003 and its Resolution dated April 13, and identical or related issues. G.R. No. 196156 was later MCCHI not guilty of unfair labor practice
2004 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Private also consolidated with the aforesaid cases.
respondent Metro Cebu Community Hospital is ordered to
Art. 248 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended, makes it an
reinstate petitioners Erma Yballe, Eleuteria Cortes, Nelia
The issues are: (1) whether the CA erred in dismissing the unfair labor practice for an employer "[t]o violate the duty to
Angel and Evelyn Ong without loss of seniority rights and
petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 66540) with respect to bargain collectively" as prescribed by the Code. The
other privileges; to pay them their full backwages inclusive of
the petitioners in G.R. No. 154113 for their failure to sign the applicable provision in this case is Art. 253 which provides:
their allowances and other benefits computed from the time
certification against forum shopping; (2) whether MCCHI is
of their dismissal up to the time of their actual reinstatement.
guilty of unfair labor practice; (3) whether petitioning
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a
employees were illegally dismissed; and (4) if their
collective bargaining agreement. – When there is a collective
No pronouncement as to costs. termination was illegal, whether petitioning employees are
bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall
entitled to separation pay, backwages, damages and
also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such
attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.31 agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can
serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement
Dropping of petitioners who did not sign the certification at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be
Private respondents (MCCHI, et al.) moved to reconsider the
against forum shopping improper the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
above decision but the CA denied their motion on February
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of
22, 2011.32
the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until
The Court has laid down the rule in Altres v. Empleo35 as
a new agreement is reached by the parties.
culled from "jurisprudential pronouncements", that the
Both petitioners and private respondents in CA-G.R. SP No.
certification against forum shopping must be signed by all
66540 appealed to this Court. Private respondent MCCHI in
the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who NAMA-MCCH-NFL charged MCCHI with refusal to bargain
CA-G.R. SP No. 84998, under its new name Visayas
did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under collectively when the latter refused to meet and convene for
Community Medical Center (VCMC), filed a petition for
reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when purposes of collective bargaining, or at least give a counter-
certiorari in this Court.
all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and proposal to the proposed CBA the union had submitted and
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature which was ratified by a majority of the union membership.
In G.R. No. 187778, petitioners Nava, et al. prayed that the of only one of them in the certification against forum MCCHI, on its part, deferred any negotiations until the local
CA decision be set aside and a new judgment be entered by shopping substantially complies with the Rule. union’s dispute with the national union federation (NFL) is
this Court (1) declaring private respondents guilty of unfair resolved considering that the latter is the exclusive
labor practice and union busting; (2) directing private bargaining agent which represented the rank-and-file
In the case at bar, the signatures of 47 out of 88 petitioning
respondents to cease and desist from further committing hospital employees in CBA negotiations since 1987.
employees in the certification against forum shopping
unfair labor practices against the petitioners; (3) imposing
constitute substantial compliance with the rule. There is no
upon MCCH the proposed CBA or, in the alternative,
question that they shared a common interest and invoked a We rule for MCCHI.
directing the hospital and its officers to bargain with the local
common cause of action when they filed suit before the
union; (4) declaring private respondents guilty of unlawfully
Labor Arbiter and NLRC questioning the validity of their
suspending and illegally dismissing the individual petitioners- Records of the NCMB and DOLE Region 7 confirmed that
termination and charging MCCHI with unfair labor practice.
employees; (5) directing private respondents to reinstate NAMA-MCCH-NFL had not registered as a labor
Thus, when they appealed their case to the CA, they
petitioners-employees to their former positions, or their organization, having submitted only its charter certificate as
pursued the same as a collective body, raising only one
equivalent, without loss of seniority rights with full an affiliate or local chapter of NFL.37 Not being a legitimate
argument in support of their cause of action, i.e., the illegal
backwages and benefits until reinstatement; and (6) ordering labor organization, NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those
dismissal allegedly committed by MCCHI when union
private respondents to pay the petitioners moral damages, rights granted to a legitimate labor organization under Art.
members resorted to strike and mass actions due to
exemplary damages, legal interests, and attorney’s fees. 33 242, specifically:
MCCHI’s refusal to bargain with officers of the local chapter.
There is sufficient basis, therefore, for the 47 signatories to
On the other hand, petitioner MCCHI in G.R. No. 187861 the petition, to speak for and in behalf of their co-petitioners (a) To act as the representative of its members for
prayed for the modification of the CA decision by deleting the and to file the Petition for Certiorari in the appellate the purpose of collective bargaining;
award of separation pay and reinstating the March 14, 2001 court.36 Clearly, the CA erred in dropping as parties-
decision of the NLRC.34 petitioners those who did not sign the certification against
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative
forum shopping.lavvphil
of all the employees in an appropriate collective
In G.R. No. 196156, MCCHI/VCMC prayed for the bargaining unit for purposes of collective
annulment of the November 7, 2008 Decision and February bargaining;
xxxx cannot be considered an unfair labor practice to justify the action immediately. (As amended by Executive Order No.
staging of the strike.46 111, December 24, 1986.)
Aside from the registration requirement, it is only the labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the Strike and picketing activities conducted by union officers (d) The notice must be in accordance with such
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit which and members were illegal implementing rules and regulations as the Department of
is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit Labor and Employment may promulgate.
for the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided in Art.
Art. 263 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
255.38 NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not the labor organization
xxxx
certified or designated by the majority of the rank-and-file
hospital employees to represent them in the CBA ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – x x x
negotiations but the NFL, as evidenced by CBAs concluded (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
in 1987, 1991 and 1994. While it is true that a local union majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
has the right to disaffiliate from the national federation, concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
NAMA-MCCH-NFL has not done so as there was no any referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor
effort on its part to comply with the legal requisites for a valid lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
organizations to strike and picket and of employers to
disaffiliation during the "freedom period" 39 or the last 60 days directors of the corporation or association or of the partners
lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue
of the last year of the CBA, through a majority vote in a in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called
to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union
secret balloting in accordance with Art. 241 (d).40 Nava and for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration
may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on
her group simply demanded that MCCHI directly negotiate of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds
grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
with the local union which has not even registered as one. considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The
Department may, at its own initiative or upon the request of
x x x x (Emphasis supplied.) any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret
To prove majority support of the employees, NAMA-MCCH-
balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall
NFL presented the CBA proposal allegedly signed by 153
furnish the Ministry the voting at least seven days before the
union members. However, the petition signed by said As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a duly intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period
members showed that the signatories endorsed the registered or an independently registered union at the time it herein provided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang
proposed terms and conditions without stating that they were filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it 130, August 21, 1981 and further amended by Executive
likewise voting for or designating the NAMA-MCCH-NFL as conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996. It could not then Order No. 111, December 24, 1986.) (Emphasis supplied.)
their exclusive bargaining representative. In any case, legally represent the union members. Consequently, the
NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of submission of said mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike vote
proposals was not a duly registered labor organization, report were ineffective for having been filed and conducted Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
hence it cannot legally represent MCCHI’s rank-and-file by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal personality as a Labor Code reads:
employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Hence, legitimate labor organization, in violation of Art. 263 (c), (d)
even assuming that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had validly and (f) of the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the
RULE XXII
disaffiliated from its mother union, NFL, it still did not Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. 47
CONCILIATION, STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
possess the legal personality to enter into CBA negotiations.
A local union which is not independently registered cannot,
upon disaffiliation from the federation, exercise the rights and Art. 263 of the Labor Code provides:
xxxx
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations;
thus, it cannot file a petition for certification ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. — (a) x x x
election.41 Besides, the NFL as the mother union has the SEC. 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout. — Any certified
right to investigate members of its local chapter under the or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a
federation’s Constitution and By-Laws, and if found guilty to xxxx strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor
expel such members.42 MCCHI therefore cannot be faulted practices. The employer may declare a lockout in the same
for deferring action on the CBA proposal submitted by cases. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
NAMA-MCCH-NFL in view of the union leadership’s conflict bargaining representative, any legitimate labor organization
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
with the national federation. We have held that the issue of in the establishment may declare a strike but only on
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at
disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute43 which must be grounds of unfair labor practice. (Emphasis supplied.)
least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
resolved in a different forum in an action at the instance of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days
either or both the federation and the local union or a rival and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized Furthermore, the strike was illegal due to the commission of
labor organization, not the employer.44 bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any the following prohibited activities48 : (1) violence, coercion,
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. intimidation and harassment against non-participating
Not being a legitimate labor organization nor the certified However, in case of dismissal from employment of union employees; and (2) blocking of free ingress to and egress
exclusive bargaining representative of MCCHI’s rank-and-file officers duly elected in accordance with the union from the hospital, including preventing patients and their
employees, NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot demand from MCCHI constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, vehicles from entering the hospital and other employees
the right to bargain collectively in their behalf. 45 Hence, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day from reporting to work, the putting up of placards with a
MCCHI’s refusal to bargain then with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take statement advising incoming patients to proceed to another
hospital because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest. As
shown by photographs49 submitted by MCCHI, as well as the of the notice of strike and conducting a strike vote Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision
findings of the NCMB and Cebu City Government, the notwithstanding that their union has no legal personality to and disturb not what is settled. Under the doctrine of stare
hospital premises and sidewalk within its vicinity were full of negotiate with MCCHI for collective bargaining purposes, decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of law as
placards, streamers and makeshift structures that obstructed there is no question that NAMA-MCCH-NFL officers applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
its use by the public who were likewise barraged by the knowingly participated in the illegal strike. The CA therefore principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are
noise coming from strikers using megaphones. 50 On the did not err in ruling that the termination of union officers substantially the same,54 even though the parties may be
other hand, the affidavits 51 executed by several hospital Perla Nava, Catalina Alsado, Albina Bañez, Hannah different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that,
employees and patients narrated in detail the incidents of Bongcaras, Ernesto Canen, Jesusa Gerona and Guillerma absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like
harassment, intimidation, violence and coercion, some of Remocaldo was valid and justified. cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
these witnesses have positively identified the perpetrators. questions relating to the same event have been put forward
The prolonged work stoppage and picketing activities of the by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated
With respect to the dismissed union members, although
striking employees severely disrupted hospital operations and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is
MCCHI submitted photographs taken at the picket line, it did
that MCCHI suffered heavy financial losses. a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.55
not individually name those striking employees and specify
the illegal act committed by each of them. As to the affidavits
The findings of the Executive Labor Arbiter and NLRC, as executed by non-striking employees, they identified mostly The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing
sustained by the appellate court, clearly established that the union officers as the persons who blocked the hospital that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the
striking union members created so much noise, disturbance entrance, harassed hospital employees and patients whose great benefits derived by our judicial system from the
and obstruction that the local government authorities vehicles were prevented from entering the premises. Only doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it
eventually ordered their removal for being a public nuisance. some of these witnesses actually named a few union aside.56 For the Court, as the highest court of the land, may
This was followed by an injunction from the NCMB enjoining members who committed similar acts of harassment and be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the
the union leaders from further blocking the free ingress to coercion. Consequently, we find no error committed by the Court, especially with a new membership, is not obliged to
and egress from the hospital, and from committing threats, CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 66540 when it modified the decision follow blindly a particular decision that it determines, after re-
coercion and intimidation against non-striking employees of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal of union members examination, to call for a rectification. 57
and patients/vehicles desiring to enter for the purpose of who merely participated in the illegal strike was illegal. On
seeking medical treatment/confinement. By then, the illegal the other hand, in CA-G.R. SP No. 84998, the CA did not err
Although the Bascon case involved the very same illegal
strike had lasted for almost five months. in ruling that the dismissal of Yballe, et al. was illegal;
strike in MCCHI which led to the termination of herein
however, it also ordered their reinstatement with full back
petitioners, its clearly erroneous application of the law insofar
wages.
Consequences of illegal strike to union officers and members only as the award of back wages warrants setting aside the
doctrine. Indeed, the doctrine of stare
Dismissed union members not entitled to backwages but decisis notwithstanding, the Court has abandoned or
Art. 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides for the
should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement overruled precedents whenever it realized that the Court
consequences of an illegal strike to the participating workers:
erred in the prior decisions. "Afterall, more important than
anything else is that this Court should be right."58
Since there is no clear proof that union members actually
x x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
strike, they are not deemed to have lost their employment In G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante,59 the Court
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike
status as a consequence of a declaration of illegality of the explained the rationale for its recent rulings deleting back
may be declared to have lost his employment
strike. wages awarded to the dismissed workers if the strike was
status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a
found to be illegal. Considering that they did not render work
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
for the employer during the strike, they are entitled only to
termination of his employment, even if a replacement had Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778 assail the CA in
reinstatement.
been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. not ordering their reinstatement with back wages. Invoking
stare decisis, they cited the case of Bascon v. Court of
Appeals53 decided by this Court in 2004 and which involved With respect to backwages, the principle of a "fair day’s
The above provision makes a distinction between workers
two former hospital employees who likewise sued MCCHI wage for a fair day’s labor" remains as the basic factor in
and union officers who participate in an illegal strike: an
after the latter terminated their employment due to their determining the award thereof. If there is no work performed
ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere
participation in the same illegal strike led by NAMA-MCCH- by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of
participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he
NFL. In said case we ruled that petitioners Cole and Bascon course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but
or she committed illegal acts during a strike. A union officer,
were illegally dismissed because MCCHI failed to prove that was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or
on the other hand, may be terminated from work when he
they committed illegal acts during the strike. We thus otherwise illegally prevented from working. While it was
knowingly participates in an illegal strike, and like other
ordered the reinstatement of petitioners Bascon and Cole found that respondents expressed their intention to report
workers, when he commits an illegal act during a strike.52
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case.
payment of their back wages inclusive of allowances, and In Philippine Marine Officers’ Guild v. Compañia Maritima, as
Considering their persistence in holding picketing activities other benefits computed from the time they were dismissed affirmed in Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila
despite the declaration by the NCMB that their union was not up to the time of their actual reinstatement. Bascon was also Diamond Hotel Employees Union, the Court stressed that for
duly registered as a legitimate labor organization and the the basis of the award of back wages in CA-G.R. SP No. this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal,
letter from NFL’s legal counsel informing that their acts 84998. a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar.
constitute disloyalty to the national federation, and their filing
Under the circumstances, respondents’ reinstatement losses, and with many of the petitioners either employed
without backwages suffices for the appropriate relief. If elsewhere, already old and sickly, or otherwise
reinstatement is no longer possible, given the lapse of incapacitated, separation pay without back wages is the
considerable time from the occurrence of the strike, the appropriate relief. We note that during the pendency of the
award of separation pay of one (1) month salary for each cases in this Court, some of the petitioners have entered into
year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, is in compromise agreements with MCCHI, all of which were duly
order.60 (Emphasis supplied.) approved by this Court. Thus, excluded from the herein
monetary awards are the following petitioners whose
compromise agreements have been approved by this Court
The CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 66540 ordering the
and judgment having been entered therein: Gloria Arguilles,
payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without
Romulo Alforque, Gerna Patigdas-Barte, Daylinda Tigo
back wages is thus in order, to conform to the policy of a fair
Merlyn Nodado, Ramon Tagnipis, Bernabe Lumapguid,
day’s wage for a fair day’s labor. The amount of separation
Romeo Empuerto, Marylen Labra, Milagros Castillo
pay is increased to one month pay for every year of service,
Bernadette Pontillas-Tibay, Constancio Pagador, Nolan Alvin
consistent with jurisprudence. Accordingly, the decision in
Panal, Edilberto Villa, Roy Malazarte, Felecianita Malazarte
CA-G.R. SP No. 84998 is modified by deleting the award of
and Noel Hortelano.
back wages and granting separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement.
Attorney’s fees
It is to be noted that as early as April 8, 1996, union
members who took part in the concerted activities have been The dismissed employees having been compelled to litigate
warned by management that NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not a in order to seek redress and protect their rights, they are
legitimate labor organization and its notice of strike was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Art. 2208
denied by the NCMB, and directed to desist from further (2) of the Civil Code. In view of the attendant circumstances
participating in such illegal activities. Despite such warning, of this case, we hold that attorney’s fees in the amount of
they continued with their picketing activities and held more ₱50,000.00 is reasonable and justified. However, the
mass actions after management sent them termination respondents in G.R. No. 196156 are not entitled to the same
notices. The prolonged work stoppage seriously disrupted relief since they did not appeal from the CA decision which
hospital operations, which could have eventually brought did not include the award of attorney’s fees.
MCCHI into bankruptcy had the City Government of Cebu
not issued a demolition order and the NLRC Region 7 not
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R.
formally enjoined the prohibited picketing activities. Also, the
No. 187861 is DENIED while the petitions in G.R. Nos.
illegal dismissal complaints subsequently filed by the
154113, 187778 and 196156 are PARTLY GRANTED. The
terminated employees did not obliterate the fact that they did
Decision dated October 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
not suffer loss of earnings by reason of the employer’s
CA-G.R. SP No. 66540 is hereby AFFIRMED with
unjustified acts, there being no unfair labor practice
MODIFICATIONS in that MCCHI is ordered to pay the
committed by MCCHI. Hence, fairness and justice dictate
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778, except the
that back wages be denied the said employees who
petitioners who are union officers, separation pay equivalent
participated in the illegal concerted activities to the great
to one month pay for every year of service, and reasonable
detriment of the employer.
attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱50,000.00. The Decision
dated November 7, 2008 is likewise AFFIRMED with
Separation pay is made an alternative relief in lieu of MODIFICATIONS in that MCCHI is ordered to pay the
reinstatement in certain circumstances, like: (a) when private respondents in G.R. No. 196156 separation pay
reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, and
passage of a long period of time or because of the realities that the award of back wages is DELETED.
of the situation; (b) reinstatement is inimical to the
employer’s interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer feasible;
The case is hereby remanded to the Executive Labor Arbiter
(d) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the
for the recomputation of separation pay due to each of the
parties involved; (e) the employer is prejudiced by the
petitioners union members in G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778 and
workers’ continued employment; (f) facts that make
196156 except those who have executed compromise
execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or (g)
agreements approved by this Court.
strained relations between the employer and employee.61

No pronouncement as to costs.
Considering that 15 years had lapsed from the onset of this
labor dispute, and in view of strained relations that ensued,
in addition to the reality of replacements already hired by the SO ORDERED.
hospital which had apparently recovered from its huge
 the general membership; (2) the attempt to form another Siozon wanted all the cases dropped. The next day, upon
union; and (3) an appeal to the general membership urging the advice of their lawyer, the expelled union members
them to commence legal action without exhausting remedies informed the panel that they would no longer answer any
G.R. No. 201016, June 22, 2016
under the RPNEU CBL. questions.

LEONCIA A. YUMANG, Petitioner, v. RADIO PHILIPPINES On September 29, 2005, Jeric Salinas, the GIC chairperson, Allegedly for this reason, the panel concluded the inquiry on
NETWORK, INC. (RPN 9), MIA A. CONCIO, LEONOR C. asked the union members charged to attend the hearings; February 15, 2006. In a memorandum19 to Concio on the
LINAO, IDA BARRAMEDA AND LOURDES O. otherwise, they would be considered to have waived their same day, the panel recommended that the RPN 9
ANGELES, Respondents. right to be heard. After attending the first three hearings, the management comply with the CBA's union security clause.
petitioner and the others moved to dismiss the charges for Consequently, or on February 17, 2006, RPN 9 notified 20 the
alleged noncompliance with certain provisions of the CBL, petitioner and the 14 others of their separation from the
DECISION the absence of substantial and procedural due process, and service effective March 20, 2006.
the non-appearance of their accusers. They no longer
BRION, J.: attended the subsequent hearings. Meantime, or on March 6, 2006, the petitioner filed a
complaint for unpaid CBA benefits and applicable wage
On November 9, 2005, the GIC submitted its report7 to the orders.  On May 31, 2006, she filed a second complaint for
We resolve the present petition for review RPNEU Board of Directors (BOD). It declared: "while illegal dismissal (consolidated with the first case) against
on certiorari1 assailing the decision2 dated July 8, 2011, and respondents cannot be said to have violated Article IX, RPN 9, Concio, General Manager Leonor Linao, Asst.
the resolution3 dated February 22, 2012, of the Court of Section 2.2 or forming another union outside the freedom General Manager for Finance Ida Barrameda, and HRD
Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 110266. period, they can be held guilty of malicious attack Manager Lourdes Angeles.21 awlibrary
against the union or the officers under Section 1 (d) of
The Antecedents Article XVIII."8They were found guilty "of violating Article The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
IX, Section 2.5 of the CBL for urging or advocating to the
On May 1, 1998, the petitioner Leoncia A. Yumang started members the filing of cases with the DOLE without In a decision22 dated April 20, 2007, Labor Arbiter (LA)
her employment with the respondent Radio Philippines availment (sic) or exhaustion of all remedies."9 awlibrary Manuel M. Manansala declared that the petitioner had been
Network, Inc. (RPN 9). She was a member of the Radio illegally dismissed, and ordered her reinstatement with
Philippines Network Employees Union (RPNEU) which had a The GIC recommended the expulsion of the charged union backwages, payment of her accrued monetary benefits, plus
collective bargaining agreement (CBA)4 with RPN 9 effective members. On December 21, 2005, the BOD approved the attorney's fees.
July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2009. GIC recommendation.10 The members affected were then
notified of their expulsion from RPNEU, to take effect on LA Manansala held that although the petitioner's dismissal
Allegedly, after the conclusion of the CBA, a new Toyota December 29, 2005.11 They assailed the board's action for was in compliance with the CBA's union security clause, her
Revo driven by RPNEU President Reynato Siozon, Jr., was being ultra vires. expulsion from the union was without due process. However,
found to be registered in the name of the RPN 9 General he absolved the respondent RPN 9 officers from liability as
Manager. The petitioner and 14 other union members filed In a letter12 dated January 24, 2006, the RPNEU officers and they merely acted, he stressed, on the petitioner's dismissal
complaints with the Department of Labor and Employment- directors asked RPN 9 to terminate the employment of the in their official capacities.
National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) against the RPNEU expelled union members, pursuant to the CBA's Union
officers and members of the Board of Directors (BOD) for: Security Clause.13 On January 30, 2006, the petitioner and On appeal by the respondents, the National Labor Relations
impeachment, an audit of union funds, and the conduct of a the 14 others wrote RPN 9,14 claiming that their expulsion Commission (NLRC), in its November 28, 2008
snap election. had been reversed by 118 union members or more than 30% decision,23 reversed LA Manansala's ruling and declared the
of RPNEU's General Membership Assembly petitioner's dismissal valid as it was in implementation of the
On August 17, 2005, Mediator-Arbiter Clarissa G. Beltran- (GMA).15 RPNEU would later on say that the GMA could not CBA's union security clause. It also found that the petitioner
Lerios (Med-Arbiter Lerios) ordered the conduct of a have validly convened since the petitioner and her group had been afforded due process.
referendum to determine whether the incumbent RPNEU failed to appeal the BOD resolution expelling them from the
officers would be impeached. The union officers and the union as required by the RPNEU CBL.16 awlibrary The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC
BOD appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations. BLR denied the motion.24 She then sought relief from the CA
Director Henry Parel granted the appeal and reversed Med- RPN 9 deferred action on RPNEU's request. In a through a petition for certiorari, charging the labor tribunal
Arbiter Lerios' ruling. 5 awlibrary memorandum17 dated February 1, 2006, of respondent Mia with grave abuse of discretion when it (1) entertained the
A. Concio (Concio), RPN 9 President and CEO, it respondents' appeal despite its non-perfection and (2)
In the meantime or on June 1, 2005, two complaints were announced that it will conduct an inquiry into the matter. declared the termination of her employment valid.
filed with the RPNEU Executive Board against several union
members, followed by a third complaint filed with the The inquiry commenced on February 6, 2006. At the The petitioner faulted the NLRC for disregarding its own
Grievance and Investigation Committee (GIC) against the proceedings18 the following day, the petitioner and her rules of procedure when it admitted the respondents' appeal
petitioner and the fourteen (14) other union members. colleagues sensed that the RPN panel was conducting the even in the absence of a joint declaration under oath by the
inquiry only to effect a reconciliation between them and the employer, his counsel and the bonding company attesting
The complaints, which were consolidated and referred to the officers, not to determine the validity of their expulsion. that the bond posted is genuine and shall be in effect until
GIC for investigation, involved alleged violations of the Nonetheless, they expressed no objection to a reconciliation the final disposition of the case.25 awlibrary
RPNEU Constitution and Bylaws (CBL),6 principally: (1) the on condition that: (1) a referendum be held; (2) the union
commission of acts inimical to the interests of the union and shoulder their attorney's fees; and (3) they be paid damages. On the merits of the case, she argued that while her
employment was terminated in compliance with the CBA's November 23, 2009; and (2) Radio Philippines Network v. the installation, of a new set of officers. In any event, she
union security clause, she was not accorded due process National Labor Relations Commission and Ibarra was not identified as one of those soliciting signatures for a
before she was dismissed. She assailed the supposed RPN Delantar,30 with the same results. The petitioner argued that new set of union officers.
9 inquiry into her expulsion from the union without the the identical decisions in the two cases constitute the law of
company investigating whether it was justified. the case and must be applied in all pending cases involving On the charge of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies,
the 15 dismissed RPNEU members. the petitioner admits that she was among the union
The inquiry, she claimed, was conducted for the sole members who filed the complaints before the DOLE for the
purpose of reconciling the officers and the complaining union The CA denied the motion, holding that the petitioner failed conduct of an audit of union funds and for the holding of a
members, not of determining whether they were validly to raise new and substantial matters in her plea for snap election of union officers. She explains that while an
expelled from the union; instead, the RPN 9 inquiry panel reconsideration. It stressed in particular that the cases cited internal union dispute is investigated by the GIC under Art.
merely questioned the resolution of at least 30% of the union by the petitioner "are not entirely applicable here as those XVII, Sec. 3 of the CBL, the final decision on the complaints
membership reversing their expulsion, to the extent of calling cases do not exactly share similar set of facts with the lies with the President and the BOD, the very respondents
some of the signatories to verify their "acquiescence" to the instant case."31 It explained that in the cited cases, the labor called upon to render an accounting of union funds and who
resolution. arbiter and the NLRC affirmed the illegality of the dismissal would be affected by a snap election. For this reason, she
of the complainants; whereas, in the present case, the labor doubts the impartiality of the union grievance procedure that
The petitioner denied the RPNEU's charges against her. She arbiter found the petitioner's dismissal illegal, but on appeal, is in place to resolve her case.
defended her actions to be in accordance with her right to the NLRC declared the dismissal valid.
information as a union member under Article 241 of the The same thing is true with the expelled union members'
Labor Code. This includes, she argued, the right to call for The Petition move for the impeachment of the union officers. Under the
the investigation of any irregularity within the union; thus, a CBL's Art.VIII, Sec. 2, the petitioner points out, the BOD shall
complaint filed regarding such an irregularity cannot be The petitioner now asks the Court to nullify the CA rulings convene an Ad Hoc Committee (committee) to hear the
considered a misconduct or a disloyalty under the union because they were rendered, she contends, with grave case. The committee is composed of the Chairman of the
CBL. abuse of discretion and, for being contrary to existing law BOD who is also the RPNEU President, one board member,
and jurisprudence. and two union members in good standing.
The CA Decision
She insists that the issue of whether she was illegally The problem, the petitioner bewails, is that if the President is
In its decision of July 8, 2011, the CA-CEB denied the dismissed has been put to rest by this Court in the two cases the subject of the proceedings, then the Vice-President shall
petition and affirmed the NLRC ruling. It brushed aside the she just cited and a third one, the Radio Philippines convene the committee, but since all the officers were
petitioner's procedural question, holding that the NLRC Network, Inc., v. Melanie Marteja, G.R. No. 192988.32 These respondents in the complaints before the DOLE-NCR, no
committed no grave abuse of discretion in giving due course three cases, she points out, involved 7 of the 15 employees other union officer could fill the vacancy in the committee.
to the appeal, as it was done in the interest of substantial subject of the present dispute and, no Court decision Assuming that union members could be appointed to the
justice. contrary to the rulings in the three cases currently exists. committee, the fact that they would be appointed by the
respondent union officers would taint the objectivity of the
On the substantive aspect of the case, the CA held that it Procedurally, the petitioner insists that the respondents' committee proceedings.
was well within the NLRC's jurisdiction to uphold the appeal to the NLRC should not have been allowed since it
petitioner's dismissal since the respondents satisfied the had not been perfected under the NLRC rules. She argues The petitioner believes that while an administrative
requisites for the observance of the CBA's union security that the appeal bond is not merely a procedural, but also a procedure is provided in the CBL for the resolution of internal
clause. jurisdictional, requirement. union disputes, it was not "readily available" to her and to the
14 others who were expelled from the union, in view of the
On the due process issue, the CA pointed out that the With regard to her dismissal, the petitioner asserts that RPN nature of the complaints and the reality that it was no less
petitioner and the other complainants were given several 9 terminated her employment without ascertaining the than the union officers who were subject of the complaints.
opportunities to defend themselves, but they responded with validity of her expulsion from the union. She considers the She argues that under the CBL procedure, they would not
suspicion and animosity; thus, they were to blame if their inquiry RPN 9 conducted on the union request for her obtain an impartial resolution of the complaints; thus, their
right to due process had been curtailed. dismissal grossly inadequate to satisfy the due process resort to the DOLE.
requirement.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration. She again raised She cites, in support of her position, Book V, Rule XI,
the matter of the non-perfection of the respondents' appeal, She maintains that had RPN 9 really inquired into whether Section 6 (f) of the Labor Code's Implementing Rules and
and bewailed the CA's failure "to explain why it departed her expulsion from the union and that of the 14 other Regulations which allows non-exhaustion of administrative
from the established facts as ruled by the other Divisions of members was justified, it could have discovered the invalidity remedies within the union when such remedies are not
this Honorable Court and affirmed by the Honorable of the union action. She strongly disputes the NLRC and the readily available through no fault of the complaining union
Supreme Court in at least two identical cases."26 awlibrary CA conclusion that the charges against her and the others member or members, or compliance with such remedies
had been proven. does not apply to them. She posits that under the
The two cases she referred to are the: (1) Radio Philippines circumstances, she and the 14 other expelled union
Network, Inc., (RPN) v. National Labor Relations Thus, she denies that she joined in the formation of a union members had no choice but to go direct to the public
Commission, Ruth F. Yap, et al, where the CA 4th Division outside of the CBA's 60-day freedom period. The GIC authorities for redress of their grievances.
dismissed RPN 9's petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. investigation, she reasons out, failed to show that such was
10456727 eventually affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. the case; rather, testimonies were given during the GIC The Respondents' Position
188033,28 for which an Entry of Judgment29 was issued on proceedings that she and the others were simply initiating
 "Management has to comply with the Union Security
On August 28, 2012, the respondents RPN 9 and its Some of the complaints had already been resolved at the CA clause,"47 without any finding on whether the expulsions
responsible officers filed their comment,33 praying for the level, and at least three had reached this Court. In these were justified or not.
petition's dismissal on the grounds that the CA correctly three cases, the Court found no reversible error in the CA's
upheld the NLRC ruling. affirmation of the NLRC ruling that the expelled union In the light of what the records reveal, we agree with the
members in the three cases were illegally dismissed. conclusions in RPN v. Yap, et al, and RPN v. Delantar that
The respondents assail the petitioner's "mistaken the RPN management did not conduct an investigation of its
belief"34 that the inquiry RPN 9 conducted into her expulsion Seven of the 15 expelled union members were the own as to whether the expulsion of the petitioner from the
from the union was aimed merely at reconciling the complainants in the aforementioned three cases, as follows: RPNEU was justified.
differences between the expelled union members and the Ruth F. Yap, Ma. Fe Dayon, Minette Baptista, Bannie Edsael
officers. They assert that the inquiry was in reality an San Miguel and Marisa Lemina in G.R. No. 188033; 38 Ibarra Notably, the CA 20th Division in Cebu City reached a similar
investigation which "they spurned and thereafter bewailed A. Delantar in G.R. No. 189535;39 and Melanie Marteja in conclusion when it said in Serrano v. NLRC, et al.:48 "A
that they were deprived due process allegedly because there G.R. 192988.40 In another case which found its way into the perusal of the evidence of RPN-9 shows that it failed to
was no inquiry management conducted separate from that of CA Visayas Station in Cebu City, Anna Liza M. Serrano v. conduct its own independent determination of whether or not
the union."35 awlibrary NLRC, et al.41 the CA 20th Division (the same Division which there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the
decided the present case) held that Serrano had been RPNEU's Board of Directors to expel the petitioner from the
The implementation of the union security clause in illegally dismissed by RPN 9. union."49 awlibrary
petitioner's case, the respondents submit, was warranted
because the validity of her expulsion had been established at The illegal dismissal finding in all the cited cases had been We wonder why the same CA division found the facts in the
the RPNEU hearings. based on the failure of the respondents to conduct a cases cited by the petitioner and, by implication its ruling
separate inquiry into the validity of the expulsion from in Serrano, different from the facts of the petitioner's case.
Lastly, they maintain that the CA correctly ruled that the RPNEU of the petitioner and the 14 others similarly situated, The petitioner, Yap and five others in G.R. No. 188033,
NLRC acted within its discretion in entertaining RPN's appeal contrary to existing jurisprudence. While the respondents Delantar in G.R. No. 189535, and Serrano in CA-G.R. No.
in the interest of substantial justice. insist that the inquiry conducted by the RPN 9 panel was in 111145,, were all expelled from the RPNEU. They all went
reality an investigation, the records prove otherwise. through the same GIC investigation and the same RPN 9
The Court's Ruling inquiry before they were dismissed. Needless to say, they
In its memorandum42 dated February 15, 2006, addressed to were all "victims" of the absence of an independent
The procedural question Concio, the inquiry panel headed by Atty. Marilyn Estaris of investigation by RPN-9 on whether they were validly
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, reported to expelled from the union. This militates against the
We find no reversible error in the CA's affirmation of the the RPN 9 management that the panel offered respondents' cause.
NLRC's acceptance of the appeal despite its non-perfection reconciliation/amicable settlement and never once wavered
as described by the petitioner. Article 227 (formerlyArt. 221) to patch up the differences between the parties."43 This is In Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M.
of the Labor Code (renumbered by R. A. No. 10151, An Act consistent with the minutes 44 of the panel meeting on Greenfield v. Ramos,50 the Court said: "While respondent
Allowing the Employment of Night Workers),36 provides February 7, 2006, where Atty. Estaris "informed the body company may validly dismiss the employees expelled by the
that "In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the that this meeting was called primarily for the reconciliation of union for disloyalty under the union security clause of the
Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of both parties."45 awlibrary collective bargaining agreement upon recommendation of
law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and the union, this dismissal should not be done hastily and
intention of this Code that the Commission and its members On the expulsion issue, the inquiry panel reported: summarily thereby eroding the employees' right to due
and the Labor Arbiter shall use every and all means to process, self-organization and security of tenure."
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and "In the issue of the expulsion case which is paramount
without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the in the mind of the management, we asked ourselves Moreover, as the CA noted in RPN v. Yap, the respondents
interest of due process x x x." whether the so-called General Assembly resolution that "should have been on guard,"51 considering that the
they tout as having reversed the expulsion case actually petitioner and her group sought to impeach the RPNEU
Consistent with the law and, as aptly cited by the occurred.  When asked whether a General Assembly officers and the BOD and to replace them with a new set of
CA, "Technicality should not stand in the way of equitably meeting was actually held to discuss the reversal of the officers, as well as to make them account for the union
and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the expulsion case, no categorical answer was given by Ms. funds. In short, given the charged atmosphere within the
parties for the ends of justice are reached not only through Ruth Yap, et al. In our search for truth, we called some union, the respondents should not have merely relied on the
the speedy disposal of cases but, more importantly, through members who signed and asked them if indeed a outcome of the RPNEU investigation as basis of its decision
a meticulous and comprehensive evaluation of the merits of General Assembly was called and if any deliberation on to terminate the petitioner's employment. They should have
the case."37 awlibrary the expulsion was discussed, the answer of the exerted a genuine effort to find out whether the petitioner's
member-signatories that we called was negative. In fact expulsion was arrived at fairly and with due concern for the
The substantive aspect of the case they said that one of the 15 in the group of Ms.Yap rights of the expelled member.
approached them and appealed to them to sign lest they
At the outset, we note that the present case is only one of be expelled from the union."46cralawred Is the petitioner guilty of non-exhaustion
several complaints for illegal dismissal filed against RPN 9, of administrative remedies?
which arose from the termination of employment of the After its inquiry on whether the RPNEU GMA reversed the
petitioner and 14 other union members, following their expulsion of the petitioner and the 14 others, the panel In the light of the fact that the expelled members sought to
expulsion from the RPNEU. concluded its inquiry/investigation with the recommendation: hold all the union officers, including the members of the
BOD, accountable for mismanagement of the union, we well within her rights as a union member when she took the
believe the petitioner had enough reason to be gravely officers to task for then-handling of the affairs of the union,
apprehensive of going through the RPNEU dispute especially with respect to matters relating to the union funds
settlement machinery. She feared she would not obtain a fair and the quality of the union leadership. The union
hearing from the union, considering that while the GIC President's integrity was itself put in serious doubt when he
investigates and hears intra-union disputes, 52 the final was seen using a vehicle registered in the name of the
decision lies with the BOD,53 which was headed by no less RPN9 General Manager after the conclusion of the July 1,
than the President. 2004 to June 30, 2009 CBA.

Further, on the matter of the impeachment of the union Under Article 250 of the Labor Code (formerly Article 241)
officers under the CBL provides that the BOD shall convene cited by the petitioner and which lists down the rights and
and create an Ad Hoc Committee on Impeachment conditions of membership in a labor organization, it is her
composed of the Chairman of the Executive Board (the right to be informed of what is going on within the union,
President), the Chairman of the GIC, a board member and especially in the handling of union funds, the negotiation and
two union members.54 awlibrary conclusion of the CBA, in labor education, and in all the
rights and obligations of union members under existing laws.
In case the President is under impeachment, the Vice-
President shall convene the Committee; 55 but since all the Apparently, the petitioner and the 14 other expelled union
officers, including the BOD, were all subject of the members were not informed about these matters, prompting
impeachment case, there would be no officers left to them to seek an investigation on how the union affairs were
constitute the committee. Assuming that the officers could being administered. The petitioner therefore cannot be made
appoint union members (any officer under impeachment is answerable for "malicious attack" against the RPNEU and its
disqualified to become a member of the committee) to officers as she was merely exercising her right, as a union
constitute the committee, the petitioner feared that the member, to ventilate before the public authorities her
arrangement would not ensure the impartiality of the perceived grievances against the union leadership; as earlier
proceedings. discussed, she had no expectations that these would be
fairly resolved within the union.
The petitioner thus submits that under the circumstances,
she is allowed by Section 6 (f). Rule XI. Book V of the Labor In sum, we find merit in the petition. The petitioner was
Code's Implementing Rules and Regulations to directly illegally dismissed as her expulsion from the union had no
petition the DOLE to rule on the complaints she and the 14 basis.
others brought against the RPNEU officers.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the
We understand the petitioner's position. As we see it, petition. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
obtaining justice from the RPNEU grievance machinery Appeals are SET ASIDE. LA Manansala's decision of April
would be illusory for her. In Kapisanang Manggagawa sa 20, 2007, is ordered REINSTATED with modification that in
MRR v. Hernandez,56 the Court said: "In the case at bar, the event the reinstatement of the petitioner Leoncia A.
noteworthy is the fact that the complaint was filed against Yumang is no longer tenable, she shall be paid backwages
the union and its incumbent officers, some of whom were to be computed from the date her wages were withheld up to
members of the board of directors. The constitution and the finality of this Decision, and separation pay computed at
bylaws of the union provide that charges for any violations one-month's pay for every year of service.
thereof shall be filed before the said board. But as explained
by the lower court, if the complainants had done so the SO ORDERED. lawlibrary
board of directors would in effect be acting as respondent
investigator and judge at the same time. To follow the
procedure indicated would be a farce under the
circumstances; where exhaustion of administrative remedies
within the union itself would practically amount to a denial of
justice or would be illusory or vain, it will not be insisted
upon x x x.57 (underscoring supplied). So it must be with the
petitioner's case.

Can the petitioner be held guilty of

malicious attack against the union
officers?

The records show that there was no categorical finding of the

petitioner's guilt on this question. 58 But we find the petitioner
 1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; INDUSTRIAL 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF AUTHORITY OF UNION
EN BANC PEACE ACT; COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT; DENIAL OF LEADERS TO COMPROMISE. — Another vital reason for
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE DRAFTING AND striking down the settlement is the lack of any express or
[G.R. Nos. L-23331-32. December 27, 1969.] APPROVAL THEREOF IN INSTANT CASE. — Where, for specific authority of the president and majority of the union
reasons unexplained in the record, the conference set for board of directors to execute the same and scale down the
HEIRS OF TEODOLO M. CRUZ, (represented by November 8, 1963 at 2:30 p.m. to take up formally the estimated P423,756.74 — judgment liability of respondent
ARSENIA, FREDESWINDA, TEODOLO, JR., ERLINDA, proposed settlement was cancelled and never held, and firm in favor of the individual union members to P110,000.00.
EDGARDO and MYRNA, all surnamed CRUZ), MARY instead the settlement as unilaterally drafted by respondent On the contrary, petitioner board member Magalpo timely
CONCEPCION and EDGARDO CRUZ, Petitioners, v. employer’s counsel was executed ahead of the scheduled challenged the authority of the union board to execute any
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SANTIAGO RICE hour of the conference that turned out to be a non- such settlement, expressly informing the trial judge that the
MILL and KING HONG AND COMPANY, Respondents. conference, by the union president with nine other members union had specifically appointed an entity in Manila, the
of the union’s board of directors, without the knowledge, "CREAM, Inc., ‘’ formerly Credit Research and Intelligence,
[G.R. Nos. L-23361-62. December 27, 1969.] advice and conformity of the union counsel, and by 1:45 p.m. as its attorney-in-fact and "exclusive authorized
of the same date, the settlement had been approved by the representative for the evaluation, adjustment and liquidation
LYDIA BULOS, PACIENCIA BATOON, NATIVIDAD V. trial judge as "not contrary to law, morals and public policy," of its claim against Respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library
MALGAPO, FAUSTINO ABEDOZA, CARMELITA due process of law was not accorded petitioners herein who
AGGASID, LYDIA ALBINO, JUANITO ANDRES, LEONILA are the affected members of the union. 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF UNION
ANDRES, AIDA BATOON, CORNELIO BANGOT, PABLO LEADERS REQUIRED BY NATURE OF SETTLEMENT. —
BAUTISTA, CONSOLACION GALAD, AVELINA CADUAS, 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF DUE DELIBERATION BY TRIAL When it is further taken into consideration that the judgment
ELENA DE LA CRUZ, VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ, JUDGE IN APPROVING SETTLEMENT. — The lack of due award was for the payment of overtime, premium and
LEOCADIO DASALLA, VIRGINIA DASALLA, FLORA S. deliberation and caution in the trial judge’s instant approval differential pay to the individual union members as claimants
DUCAY, CRESENCIA EVIDENCIO, CATALINO GIMENEZ, of the settlement is seen from the stipulations therein that the and for the reinstatement of the individual union members
DIONISIA GUILLERMO, ARSENIA LABASAN, union thereby waived and quitclaimed any and all claims who testified and proved their having been illegally laid-off,
FRANCISCO LAPLANO, DIONISIO LABASAN, MAURICIA which it may have against the respondent, as well as the which represent a personal material interest directly in favor
LAZATIN, LORETA MACAPAGAL, IGNACIA LUNA, claim of each and every one of the members of the union of the individual union members, as against the lack of
FELICITA MANGADAP, FELICIDAD MARIANO, JUAN against respondent, when precisely the authority of the union material interest on the part of the union as such, the union’s
MELCHOR, ANITA MENDOZA, ALBERTO MIGUEL, board members to enter into any such compromise or lack of authority to execute the settlement, in the absence of
FERNANDO NAVALTA, PEDRO NOOL, JUANITA ORANI, settlement was under express challenge by petitioner express or specific authorization by the union members,
MARGARITA PASION, BRIGIDA SOLA, HILARIA SOLA, Magalpo, a board member herself in her Objection and becomes patent. The authority of the union as such, to
NEMESIA SOLA, VERONICA SOLA, CECILIA SOLIVEN, Urgent Motion to shelve the settlement filed on November 5, execute a settlement of the judgment award in favor of the
MANUEL SAGABAIN, FILEMON SAGABAIN, ANICETA 1963, which the trial judge completely disregarded. individual union members, cannot be presumed but must be
RESPONSO, FELICIANO RICO, PETRONILA RIVERA, expressly granted.
ROSALINA TULAWAN and MARIA 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISREGARD OF GRAVE ADVERSE
VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF CONSEQUENCES TO UNION MEMBERS. — The trial 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAIR DEALING OF UNION WITH ITS
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, HONORABLE EMILIANO judge’s rush approval of the settlement disregarded the MEMBERS DEMANDED. — Just as this Court has stricken
TABIGNE, HONORABLE AMANDO BUGAYONG, grave adverse consequences thereof to the union members. down unjust exploitation of laborers by oppressive
HONORABLE ANSBERTO PAREDES, ASSOCIATE The settlement, as prepared by respondent’s counsel, employers, so will it strike down their unfair treatment by
JUDGES, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; provided for a union warranty that aside from the union itself their own unworthy leaders. The Constitution enjoins the
SANTIAGO RICE MILL; KING HONG CO., INC.; and the members thereof, "there are no other persons who State to afford protection to labor. Fair dealing is equally
SANTIAGO LABOR UNION alias MAGAT LABOR have any interest over the judgment debt and that if it should demanded of unions as well as of employers in their dealings
UNION, Respondents. happen that other persons shall make a claim against the with employees. The union has been evolved as an
respondent and/or said judgment, that the respondent, organization of collective strength for the protection of labor
No. L-23331-32 nevertheless, shall no longer be liable therefor." Such against the unjust exactions of capital, but equally important
warranty was against the very facts of record, which showed is the requirement of fair dealing between the union and its
Mary Concepcion and Eduardo P. Cruz, for Petitioners. that as early as June 21, 1963, petitioners-counsels in Cases members, which is fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two
L-2333 1-32 had duly recorded their attorneys’ lien of "30% factors: "one is the degree of dependence of the individual
Tolentino & Garcia and D. R. Cruz for Respondents. of whatever amount may finally be awarded in favor of the employee on the union organization; the other, a corollary of
petitioners." Thus, technically, since the award in favor of the the first, is the comprehensive power vested in the union with
No. L-23361-62 union members amounted to more than P400,000.00, the respect to the individual."cralaw virtua1aw library
settlement for P110,000.00 would conceivably just about to
Emilio D. Castellanes, for Petitioners. cover the 30% attorneys’ fees payable to the petitioners- 7. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASES OF JESALVA AND DIOMELA NOT
counsels under the contract, if they were so minded to APPLICABLE. — The cases of Jesalva, Et. Al. v. Bautista
Dioscoro P. Avanceña for respondent Santiago Labor enforce it and bad faith on the union’s part were shown, with and Diomela, Et. Al. v. Court of Industrial Relations clearly
Union. the union members left holding an empty bag. Such onerous have no application in the present case where the
terms of the settlement could not then properly be approved respondent court’s approval of the questioned settlement
by the trial judge as "not contrary to law, morals and public entered into by the union board of directors was without the
SYLLABUS policy."cralaw virtua1aw library authority of the claimants-members of the labor union
involved. In Jesalva, seventeen cases in different stages of
hearing or execution before the Industrial Court were settled union for lack of merit and want of jurisdiction; but, upon a
by a compromise agreement, and this Court held that the motion for reconsideration, the Court of Industrial Relations
three petitioners who questioned the settlement were "bound These cases are separate appeals filed by respective en banc, by a split decision of 3-2 vote, issued a resolution
by the actions of the Union, that is to say, a majority of the petitioners from respondent Court’s Orders of November 8, reversing the decision of the trial judge. The dispositive part
members of the union." There was no question there that the 1963 and March 9, 1964 approving by a split 3 to 1 vote the of said resolution reads:jgc: .com.ph
union had acted with the authority of the union membership. settlement for P110,000.00 of the estimated P423,756.74 —
No deceit or concealment or misrepresentation tainted the judgment liability of respondent firm in favor of the claimants- "‘WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay
settlement. Neither was the amount of the settlement members of the Santiago Labor Union, executed on the overtime claim of both male and female claimants herein
denounced as unconscionable. In Diomela, the labor- November 8, 1963 between respondent firm and the labor computed at their basic pay for each period in question; the
management disputes were settled amicably with the unfair union as represented by a majority of its board of directors. legal premium for night, Sunday and holiday work or services
labor practice charge against the employer being withdrawn, The appeals are jointly resolved in this decision. rendered by the male claimants herein computed also on the
upon motion signed by the union president and the three proven basic wage or salary at the time in question; to pay
employees against whom the acts of unfair labor practice Petitioners in Cases L-23331-32 are the retained lawyers of the overtime claim of their drivers computed on their
charged in the complaint had been allegedly committed, to the Santiago Labor Union who question respondent Court’s respective monthly salaries; to pay the differentials due each
which motion the Court’s prosecutor gave his conformity, approval of respondent firm’s settlement of the union of the women claimants on their wages from August 4, 1951
and with the employer, agreeing to pay three months members’ judgment claims with the union board of directors, at the rate of P2.00 daily and P3.000 daily from August 4,
separation pay to each striking employee. There was no without their knowledge and consent, notwithstanding their 1952; and to reinstate the claimants both male and female,
question, therefore, of the authority of the union president to duly recorded attorneys’ lien, and over the objection of a who have testified and proved their having been illegally laid-
withdraw the unfair labor practice charge, as the three board member that the union board had no authority to off, with the right of respondents to deduct from the back
employees directly affected had co-signed the withdrawal compromise or quit-claim the judgment rights of the union wages due each claimant any amount earned during the
motion with him. members. 1 period of the illegal dismissal.’"

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ARE THE Petitioners in Cases L-23361-62 are forty-nine (49) The workers’ decade of travail was not yet to be at an end,
INDIVIDUAL WORKERS. — Where collective bargaining claimants-members of the Santiago Labor Union who assail however, despite this Court’s affirmance of the judgment for
process is not involved, and what is at stake are back wages respondent Court’s approval of the questioned settlement, the workers. After the remand of the records for enforcement
already earned by the individual workers by way of overtime, without their authority as the real parties in interest, and who by respondent Court, and the corresponding examination of
premium and differential pay, and final judgment has been denounce the settlement as unconscionable and having books, said Court’s Chief Examiner filed his Partial Report of
rendered in their favor, as in the present case, the real party been entered into by the majority of the union board "under December 14, 1962, wherein the judgment award in favor of
in interest with direct material interest, as against the union circumstances of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and/or the workers was determined and computed, as follows
which has only served as a vehicle for collective action to concealment, especially where a member of the Court has
enforce their just claims, are the individual workers actively used his official and personal influence to effect the (a) For back wages from January 1, 1953 to
themselves. Authority of the union to waive or quitclaim all or settlement which is manifestly unjust to laborers who by
part of the judgment award in favor of the individual workers reason of their financial disadvantages in a conflict with their April 30, 1962 of all the 35 employees and laborers
cannot be lightly presumed but must be expressly granted, employers need all the aid of the Court for their protection,
and the employer, as judgment debtor, must deal in all good consonant with law, justice and equity." 2 (26 women workers, 6 laborers and 3 drivers) who testified
faith with the union as the agent of the individual workers.
The Court in turn should certainly verify and assure itself of The factual background goes as far back as June 21, 1952, in court, per dispositive part of the judgment, "before
the fact and extent of the authority of the union leadership to when the Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the deducting
execute any compromise or settlement of the judgment on Santiago Rice Mill, a business enterprise engaged in the
behalf of the individual workers who are the real judgment buying and milling of palay at Santiago, Isabela, and owned the amounts earned during the period of the back wages by
creditors. and operated by King Hong Co., Inc., filed before the
respondent Court of Industrial Relations Cases Nos. 709-V each claimant and before deduction of amounts
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; SETTLEMENT IN INSTANT CASE MUST BE and V-1 thereof, a petition for overtime pay, premium pay for corresponding
SET ASIDE. — Since the settlement in the instant case was night, Sunday and holiday work, and for reinstatement of
precipitately approved without verification of the union workers illegally laid off. As of then, the total sum claimed by to the back wages of claimants who died before April 30,
board’s authority to execute the compromise settlement, and the workers, as itemized in their amended petition of 1962"
there was no such authority, the said settlement must September 2, 1952 — P100,81.36 for overtime pay,
therefore be set aside and the cases below are restored to P19,350.00 for premium pay and P3,360.00 for differential at P6,380.00 for each of the 32 workers and P28,000.00 for
status quo with the payments already made to the union pay under the Minimum Wage Law — amounted to
members to be considered as partial payments on account, P123,526.36. 3 each of the 3 drivers P288,160.00
subject to final liquidation and adjustment.
As recorded in this Court’s decision of August 31, 1962, in (b) For overtime and premium pay from January
Santiago Rice Mill, Et. Al. v. Santiago Labor Union, 4 which
DECISION affirmed the Court of Industrial Relations judgment in favor of 1, 1948 to December 31, 1952 of some 104 workers, in
the workers, "on September 19, 1958, after a protracted
hearing during which scores of witnesses and voluminous varying amounts5 25,216.74
TEEHANKEE, J.: exhibits were presented, the court, thru Judge Emiliano G.
Tabigne, rendered decision dismissing the petition of the (c) For minimum wage differentials of P2.00 daily
 the union filed a mandamus petition with this Court, 8 after of record, on one hand and Segundino S. Maylem, president
from September 10, 1951 to December 31, 1951 of 60 which the trial judge issued and released on April 15, 1963 of the union and eight directors of the union, on the other.
women his Order dated March 30, 1963. In this Order, the trial Four of these nine union representatives, including the union
Judge, recognizing that "petitioner (union) and its members president himself, had no claims or awards whatever under
workers 10,380.00 concerned should be extended the necessary protection of the judgment. Said union officials were not assisted by
their lights" ordered respondent firm, within 10 days from its counsel, as petitioner Mary Concepcion, counsel of record of
TOTAL P423,756.74 finality, to deposit in Court the sum of one hundred thousand the union, was not present, not having been notified of the
(P100,000.00) pesos and to file a surety bond of equal conference.
Petitioners claim, furthermore, that "in this computation, amount, "to guarantee the payment of whatever amount (a)
however, the field examiners did not include the claims of due petitioner (union) and its members concerned after this At this conference of October 31, 1963, respondent firm
seventy (70) other laborers whose total claims (for back Court shall have finally decided the obligation of herein made again the same offer to settle and quitclaim the
wages), at the rate of P6,300.00 each, would be respondents under the judgment." This Order was affirmed judgment in favor of the union members for the same
P441,000.00. Therefore, the correct grand total amount due by respondent court en banc, in its Resolution denying amount of P110,000.00, which offer had already been
the laborers would be P864,756.74." 6 respondent firm’s motion for reconsideration thereof. rejected by the union at the earlier conference held on June
25, 1963 at Santiago, Isabela, supra. But this time, as
The Chief Examiner’s Report showed respondent firm’s total Respondent sought a review by this Court of the said Order appears from the transcript of the conference, respondent
assets as at October 31, 1962 to be P191,151.08 (cash and Resolution requiring it to deposit P100,000.00 and to file and the directors of the union decided to settle the case
account of P148,411.20, fixed assets of buildings, machinery a surety bond of equal amount to guarantee payment of its amicably with the payment by the firm of the same amount of
& equipment, corn mill, etc. with a book value of P40,073.75 judgment obligation in Santiago Rice Mill, Et. Al. v. Santiago P110,000.00 which was deposited with the Court’s
and deferred charges of P2,666.14), and its net worth to be Labor Union, etc., docketed as Cases G.R. Nos. L-21758-59 disbursing officer "immediately upon the signing of the
in the same amount of P191,151.08, (capital stock paid up of of this Court. This Court, in its Resolution of September 20, settlement which will be prepared by the respondent firm
P232,000.00 less deficit of P40,848.92). The Report further 1963, dismissed for lack of merit respondent’s petition for through its counsel." The complete transcript of the
stated that in January, 1962 and on August 9, 1962, review, and the dismissal became final on October 24, 1963. conference, as reproduced by respondent in its brief,
respondent firm sold its trucks, jeep and one car, with a net follows:jgc: .com.ph
book value of P2,628.71 for P27,000.00 or a net gain of Earlier, on June 25, 1963, pursuant to the request of the
P24,371.29. Petitioners claim that the book value of parties, who had advised the trial judge that they would meet "COURT:jgc: .com.ph
respondent firm’s fixed assets is only one-sixth of their actual at the premises of respondent firm at Santiago, Isabela, to
market value of P240,442.50, and that its total leviable take up direct negotiations for the possible settlement of the "The parties have solicited the intervention of the Court for
assets therefore amounted to close to P390,000.00, without judgment, a team of employees of the Court had been sent the settlement of this case. They have decided to settle it
taking into account the huge income potential of its rice mill to help in the negotiations. The transcript of the negotiations amicably with the condition that the management pay ONE
operations. Respondent firm disputes such a figure as records that respondent had then offered the Union the HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P110,000.00) cash,
"completely gratuitous and without basis in fact." 7 maximum amount of P110,000.00 in full settlement of its and that the said amount will be deposited with the
obligations to the members-claimants of the Union under the Disbursing Officer of this Court immediately upon the signing
A general opposition to the Chief Examiner’s Report was judgment, but that the union rejected the offer and counter- of the settlement which will be prepared by the respondent
filed by respondent firm. Judge Emiliano G. Tabigne, as the offered the minimum amount of P200,000.00. firm through its counsel. Now, Mr. Maylem, make your
trial judge, supra, ordered a hearing thereon on December manifestation on record.
22, 1962, as a condition precedent to execution of the The union meanwhile filed to no avail a series of urgent
judgment. Such Report was submitted for resolution and motions on May 8, July 1, August 29 and September 6, 1963 "MR. MAYLEM:jgc: .com.ph
approval at the hearing of December 22, 1962, but the for approval of the Chief Examiner’s Partial Report of
records before us fail to show that the trial judge ever acted December 14, 1962 and for enforcement, through a writ of "As per unanimous decision of the present members of the
on or approved the Report. execution or contempt proceedings, of the Order of March board composing of nine, the three are not members of the
30, 1963 requiring respondent firm to deposit an total of board, present before this Honorable Court to date, (sic) they
Before and after the submittal of the Chief Examiner’s Report P200,000.00 in cash and bond to guarantee payment of the have agreed to accept the proffer of ONE HUNDRED TEN
of December 14, 1962, the union pressed for execution of judgment. Upon the finality of this Court’s Resolution THOUSAND PESOS (P110,000.00) as full settlement of
the final judgment in favor of its claimants-members. It filed, dismissing respondent’s petition for a review of said Order of their claims in Cases Nos. 709-V and 709-V(1).
furthermore, on December 20, 1962, an Urgent Motion for March 30, 1963, the union again filed on October 29, 1963
Preliminary Attachment, in view of the disposition by still another Urgent Motion, advising the trial judge of this "ATTY. GARCIA:jgc: .com.ph
respondent firm of its trucks and automotive equipment and Court’s action rejecting respondent’s appeal and invoking the
by virtue of the fact admitted by respondent firm that it had Court’s ministerial duty of enforcing its said Order — in vain "In behalf of the respondent and the management of the said
stopped operations preparatory to liquidation, by reason of again, as shall presently be seen. respondent and also in behalf of Mr. Pino, who is the
the alien nationality of most of its stockholders, under the attorney-in-fact of the respondent corporation, with full power
provisions of Republic Act No. 3018 nationalizing the rice The trial judge took no action on this latest Urgent Motion of to enter into this settlement, we wish to manifest and inform
and corn industry. In another motion of December 4, 1962, the union, wherein it emphasized that respondent, with this this Honorable Court that the acceptance of the proffer of
the union had asked that the Court at least order respondent Court’s action rejecting its appeal, no longer had any excuse P110,000.00 in full settlement of the claims of petitioners is
firm to put up a bond of P500,000.00 to answer for the for refusing to comply with the deposit Order. Instead, an with the full agreement of the said Respondent. We are
payment of the judgment or to deposit said amount in Court. unscheduled conference was called and held on October 31, disposed to deposit the amount of P110,000.00 on or about
1963 in the chambers of the trial judge, and attended by Friday, November 8, 1963, and said deposit to be made with
Petitioners assert that these motions were left hanging until representatives of respondent firm, including their counsels the Disbursing Officer of this Court and said deposit to be in
certified checks of a local bank and which is actually 1963, thereby becoming final, and executory; that the made known to the movants, that a conference would be
equivalent to cash. In line further with the suggestion of the aforesaid entry of judgment reads as follows held before Judge Emiliano Tabigne. The only reason for the
Honorable Judge, we are willing to assume the payment of trip to Manila was the conference with ‘CREAM, Inc.’
the deposit fee upon our depositing the said amount of ‘After a consideration of the allegation of the petition filed in officials;
P110,000.00. There is a previous understanding which was cases L-21758 and L-21759 (Santiago Rice Mill, etc. v.
not made of record as to the fact that to enable the members Santiago Labor Union, Et. Al.) for review of the order and c) That the effect of the entry of judgment in G.R. Nos. L-
of the board of directors of the petitioner union to come back resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations referred to 21758-59, infra, was not explained to the members of the
to Manila next week to enable them to sign the settlement therein, the COURT RESOLVED to dismiss the petition for Board of Petitioner at any time, much less made known,
papers, we have agreed to advance the sum of TWO lack of merit.’ although it was later ascertained that President Segundino
HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) to the petitioner for the S. Maylem all the time, BEFORE THE CONFERENCE, knew
account of said settlement and which will be used by the said "5. That by the terms of the afore-cited entry of judgment, the of the existence of the order; what was emphasized was the
petitioners in their travelling expenses between Manila and Respondent’s, in effect, are ordered to deposit the sum of claim of the Respondents that they are unable to pay more
Santiago, going and coming. P100,000 in cash, Philippine Currency and similar amount than P110,000.00; (Italics supplied.)
P100,000 in surety bond, pursuant to the order of this
"COURT:jgc: .com.ph Honorable Court of March 30, 1963, which was affirmed in d) That the amount of P110,000.00 is unconscionable,
the above-cited Supreme Court resolutions; considering that the total claims of the members of the
"Noted. Petitioner, is more than P400,000, not to mention that all the
"6. That as a consequence of the ignorance of the Board of time the negotiations were being made the Supreme Court’s
"MR. MAYLEM:jgc: .com.ph Directors of Petitioner of this entry, then present, they final order makes mandatory Respondent’s deposit of
tentatively agreed to the offer of P110,000.00 of P100,000, cash in Philippine Currency and P100,000 in
"We request the Court that Mrs. Mary Concepcion should be Respondents, until November 8, 1963 when the final surety bond.
present during the signing of the agreement on or about conference before this Honorable Court will be held;
November 8, 1963, at 2:30 P.M. "9. That Movants vehemently disagree to any settlement as
"7. That movants consented to come to Manila on the tentatively agreed upon, for, in effect, they will only get
"COURT:jgc: .com.ph understanding that the conference was to be held with the fourteen percent, (14%) approximately, or one-seventh of the
Attorney-in-fact of the petitioner, the ‘CREAM, INC.’, amounts as computed by the Chief Examiner of this
"NOTED." 9 formerly, Credit Research and Intelligence, its exclusive Honorable Court;
authorized representative for the evaluation, adjustment and
As against the official transcript of the proceedings of the liquidation of its claim against Respondent, that they were x       x       x
conference above reproduced, petitioner Natividad Magalpo, very much taken back in having been taken to the Court of
a director of the union, together with petitioners Lydia Bulos Industrial Relations on October 31, 1963 by the President of
and Paciencia Batoon, both union members-claimants, filed the Petitioner, Mr. Segundino S. Maylem; that even while "WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:jgc: .com.ph
on November 5, 1963, through their present counsel, who they were already inside the building, they were never
duly entered their appearance, their verified "Manifestation informed that the purpose was to talk about a compromise "a) Respondent be required to deposit the sum of
and Objection with Ex-Parte Urgent Motion", relating what settlement with Respondent’s representatives; as a result of P100,000.00 in cash, Philippine Currency, and P100,000.00
transpired at the conference, charging the union president, these circumstances, your movants although present, were in surety bond, pursuant to the entry of judgment in G.R.
Maylem, with bad faith in that he never previously advised not able to register their objections to the proceedings; that Nos. L-21758-59;
the union representatives that the conference of October 31, immediately after the aforesaid conference, the herein
1963 was to discuss a compromise settlement nor that this movants came to know of the entry of judgment in the "b) That these movants be afforded opportunity by this
Court’s resolution dismissing respondent’s appeal from the Supreme Court, infra; (sic) Honorable Court to be heard regarding the surety bond to be
trial judge’s Order dated March 30, 1963 requiring submitted by the Respondent, before approval thereof;
respondent to deposit P200,000.00 in cash and surety bond "8. That the herein Movants register and manifest their
had already become final, and asking the trial judge to objections to the proceeding held and to the tentative "c) The tentative settlement be shelved;
shelve the proposed settlement until respondent firm shall agreement manifested by the Board of Directors of the
have complied with the said deposit order. The pertinent Santiago Labor Union then present, on the following grounds "d) Any further action on any settlement or compromise be
portions of said Objection and Urgent Motion read:jgc: held in abeyance to await compliance by the Respondent of
.com.ph the entry of judgment in G.R. Nos. L-21758-59;
a) That the Board of Directors did not have any express
"3. That during the conference, the matter of amicably authority of the members of the Santiago Labor Union to "e) Hearings on the Report of the Chief Examiner be
settling the case was discussed; petitioners representatives enter into any compromise for the sum of P110,000.00; on resumed immediately and without interruption in view of the
pressed for at least P150,000.00 as a fair amount and the the contrary, the latest authority granted its Attorney-in-fact, provisions of Republic Act 3108, until final termination as
representatives of the respondents were insisting on their the ‘CREAM, INC.’ was for the sum of P150,000.00 which soon as possible long before December 31, 1963." 10
offer of a definite sum of P10,000.00; authority was given only, very recently;
There petitioners further filed on the same date, November
"4. That in the course of the conference, no mention at all b) That the proceedings on October 31, 1963 was tainted by 4, 1963 an urgent Ex-parte Motion for the issuance of a writ
was made of the entry of judgment in G.R. Nos. L-21758-59, apparent bad faith on the part of the President of the of execution for the enforcement of the deposit order against
Supreme Court of the Philippines, entitled ‘Santiago Rice Petitioner, Mr. Segundino S. Maylem, in that there never was respondent firm, and asked the trial judge to act on their two
Mill, Et. Al. v. Santiago Labor Union, etc.’ on October 24, a time before the conference when he intimated or otherwise urgent motions upon receipt thereof.
 Petitioners-lawyers Mary Concepcion, Et. Al. upon learning penned by the trial judge, "finding no sufficient justifications
Both urgent motions were totally ignored by both the trial of the "Settlement" and respondent’s deposit with the Court to set aside, disturb or modify the Order issued in these
judge as well as by respondent firm, despite due notice on of the sum of P110,000.00 in pursuance thereof filed in the cases on November 8 and 9, 1963" and denying all three
the latter. The request of the union president, Maylem, at the afternoon of November 8, 1963 a motion for withdrawal of motions for reconsideration. Judges Amando C. Bugayong
October 31, 1963 conference that the trial judge have the the sum of P33,000.00 equivalent to their 30% contingent and Ansberto F. Paredes concurred under date of July 29,
union counsel present during the proposed signing of the fee, without prejudice to such action as they may take for 1964 with the Resolution, while Judge Arsenio Martinez took
settlement agreement set for November 8, 1963, as enforcing their lien to its full extent. The trial judge granted no part. No statement of the material allegations of, and
expressly noted by the trial judge, was likewise ignored. such motion in its Order of November 9, 1963. In due issues raised in, the pertinent pleadings set out in detail
Notwithstanding that notice of the conference set for course, said petitioners moved for reconsideration and hereinabove nor reasons for the conclusion of insufficient
November 8, 1963 at 2:30 p.m. was served on November 5, setting aside of the trial judge’s Order of November 8, 1963 justification reached by the majority resolution are given
1963 on the union counsel, petitioner Mary Concepcion, the approving the "Settlement" and prayed respondent Court en therein.
scheduled conference was never held. banc to reinstate the judgment against respondent and to
enforce the deposit order dated March 30, 1963. Then Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista dissented. "Taking
Unexplainedly, Maylem, the union president and nine other into account the precipitate approval of settlement over the
members of the union’s board of directors (out of 13 board Petitioners Magalpo, Bulos and Batoon, likewise moved objection of some union members concerned and without
members) even before the scheduled hour of the conference respondent Court en banc to reconsider and set aside the hearing them, on the strength simply of the manifestation of
on November 8, 1963 at 2:30 p.m. had earlier executed a trial judge’s approval of the "Settlement", in disregard of their the petitioner’s Board of Directors that it had authority to
"Settlement" on said date, without the knowledge, advice, objection and pending motions of November 5, 1963 to compromise when previously said union members
and conformity of the union counsel, with respondent firm’s shelve the proposed settlement and to enforce the deposit concerned had already manifested in Annex "E" (Exhibit "G",
attorney-in-fact, who was duly assisted by respondent’s two Order. On December 26, 1963, they were joined in their plea at bar) that there was no such authority," he voted "that the
counsels, who likewise executed the "Settlement." In this for reconsideration by forty-seven other union members- case be restored to the status quo as of October 30, 1963,
"Settlement", the said union officials claiming to act "with the claimants, Co-petitioners at bar. but the payment already made to the union members be
authorization of the Board of Directors and its members, "in considered as partial payments on account, subject to final
consideration of the sum of P110,000.00, or one-fourth of the Respondent, on the other hand, filed its opposition to the liquidation and adjustment; that an order of execution of the
estimated P423,756.74-judgment liability of respondent firm, motions for reconsideration, questioning the personality and judgment in cases Nos. G.R. L-21758 and L-21759 of the
as computed in the respondent Court’s Chief Examiner’s interest of petitioners-movants Magalpo and her 2 other co- Supreme Court be issued (upholding the Order of March 30,
Partial Report of December 14, 1962, "waived and movants and asserting that they were bound by the 1963 for deposit of P200,000.00 in cash and surety bond) be
quitclaimed . . . any and all claims it (the union) may have "Settlement" entered into by their union’s board of directors. issued and that the Hearing Officer shall resume the hearing
against the respondent as well as the claim of each and It alleged that it had deposited with respondent Court the of the Examiner’s Report.
every one of the members of the said petitioner union sum of P110,000.00 stipulated in the "Settlement" on the
against the respondent firm." The union further "warranted" same day of its approval by the trial judge. It filed with Hence, the appeals of petitioners.
in said "Settlement" "that aside from the petitioner (union) respondent Court on November 21, 1963 a letter of
itself and the members thereof, there are no other persons ratification dated November 10, 1963 addressed to the trial The Santiago Labor Union, impleaded as party respondent in
who have any interest over the judgment debt and that if it judge and purportedly signed by some 79 union members- Cases L-23361-62, filed its Answer on September 24, 1964,
should happen that other persons shall make a claim against claimants confirming and accepting the settlement executed "putting its weight behind the prayers of the petitioners." The
the respondent and/or said judgment debt, that the by the union board. Petitioners in their brief list 21 of these Answer reveals that the union members, feeling betrayed,
respondent, nevertheless, shall no longer be liable therefor." signatures as questionable, asserting that they are at had disauthorized and removed from office Maylem, the
11 variance with other corresponding signatures in the Payroll union president and his board of directors who had executed
dated November 8, 1963 submitted to respondent Court on the "Settlement" with respondent firm and disclaimed the
The "Settlement" was immediately submitted to the trial November 21, 1963, such that "either one or the other documents of ratification that they had signed at the behest
judge who forthwith on the same day, November 8, 1963, signature is a forgery." Respondent counters that there is of Maylem. The union averred in its Answer that:jgc: .com.ph
issued his Order, approving the same, and entered into "absolutely no truth to the claim" and that the signers of the
respondent Court’s records at 1:45 p.m. of the same day, as ratification letter "have all received their individual shares of "a) The real parties in interest in Cases 709-V and 709-V(l),
follows:jgc: .com.ph the P100,000.00 settlement paid by respondent company CIR, are the members of respondent Labor Union;
and this in itself is a ratification on their part of said
"Considering that the bases of the above quoted settlement settlement." Nothing appears in the record, however, as to "b) The records of the respondent labor union do not show
is well founded and justified and not contrary to law, morals whether and in what manner the respondent Court any grant by the members to the former incumbency of any
and/or public policy, approval of the same is, therefore, in determined the authenticity of the signatures. Respondent previous authority to negotiate the claim or subsequent
order. further filed on December 18, 1963 a motion for ratification of the settlement for P110,000.00 for it is
reconsideration of the trial judge’s Order approving payment unthinkable and ridiculous for the real parties in interest to
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby approves the settlement of of P33,000.00 to the petitioners-attorneys by way of give away gratuitously what had been awarded to them in a
the parties in these cases; and shall as between the parties attorneys’ fees. final judgment, for a much lesser amount than that of the
to the same be deemed to be a decision and/or award in award;
these matters therein treated in the aforesaid settlement; and On August 1, 1964, and August 4, 1964, after petitioners had
upon acknowledgment of the sum of money in the said filed on November 29, December 2 and 17, 1963 and "c) The members are unanimous in the assertion that the
settlement, these cases shall be deemed closed and January 16, 1964 various urgent motions to set for hearing documents they signed at the behest of former President
terminated."cralaw virtua1aw library and for resolution, they were served with copies of Segundino S. Maylem were represented and understood to
respondent Court’s en banc Resolution dated March 9, 1964, be but an authority to collect a part of the court award to the
members; assisted by its two counsels. By 1:45 p.m. of the same day, are no other persons who have any interests over the
the settlement had been approved by the trial judge as "not judgment debt and that if it should happen that other persons
d) That the records of the respondent labor union disclose contrary to law, morals and public policy." Similarly, shall make a claim against the respondent and/or said
that the members of the union have unanimously acted, in petitioners Magalpo, a board member herself and her co- judgment debt, that the respondent, nevertheless, shall no
their individual capacities to proceed with the prosecution petitioners Bulos and Batoon were not accorded an longer be liable therefor." Such warranty was against the
and collection of whatever sums they might yet be entitled to opportunity for a fair hearing on their grave charges against very facts of record, which showed that as early as June 21,
collect, in order to show unequivocally that the negotiation the union leadership and their urgent motions to shelve the 1963, petitioners-counsels in Cases L-23331-32 had duly
made by former President Segundino S. Maylem and his proposed settlement and to enforce the final order of recorded their attorneys’ lien of "30% of whatever amount
board of directors was unauthorized, and to spotlight the respondent court requiring respondent firm to deposit may finally be awarded in favor of the petitioner." Thus,
betrayal of the members of the Union by said Segundino S. P200,000.00 in cash and surety bond for satisfaction of the technically, since the award in favor of the union members
Maylem and his board of directors of the former union union members’ judgment, as said motions were totally amounted to more than P400,000.00, the settlement for
incumbency; ignored by the trial judge and not touched upon at all in his P110,000.00 would conceivably just about cover the 30%
Order rashly approving the settlement. attorneys’ fees payable to the petitioners-counsels under the
6. That fundamentally, there is no contentious issue between contract, if they were so minded to enforce it and bad faith
the petitioners and respondent labor union; if at all, the only 2. The lack of due deliberation and caution in the trial judge’s on the union’s part were shown, with the union members left
distinction is between the personality of the real parties in instant approval of the settlement is seen from the holding an empty bag. 14 Such onerous terms of the
interest, the union members who have initiated and instituted stipulations therein that the union thereby waived and settlement could not then properly be approved by the trial
this petition as against the limited and formal personality of quitclaimed any and all claims which it may have against the judge as "not contrary to law, morals and public policy.
the respondent labor union to represent them when so respondent, as well as the claim of each and every one of
authorized by their collective will." 12 the members of the union against respondent, when "4. All these underscore the failure of due process when
precisely the authority of the union board members to enter petitioners were deprived of the formal conference on the
The core question is whether this Court can give its sanction into any such compromise or settlement was under express proposed settlement scheduled for November 8, 1963 and of
to respondent Court’s majority resolution upholding the trial challenge by petitioner Magalpo, a board member herself in their right to be assisted by the union counsel as expressly
judge’s approval of the union board’s settlement for her Objection and Urgent Motion to shelve the settlement requested, so that a fair hearing could be accorded
P110,000.000 of the estimated P423,766.74-judgment filed on November 5, 1963, which the trial judge completely petitioners and an opportunity afforded them to air their
liability of respondent firm in favor of the individual union disregarded. Petitioner Magalpo further made serious serious charges of bad faith and lack of authority against the
members, over the timely opposition formally filed by three charges that Maylem, the union president, had misled the union leadership. Certainly, all these serious questions and
members (later joined by forty-seven other members) board members into attending the unscheduled conference charges made by petitioners could have been threshed out
expressly calling attention to the union board’s bad faith in held on October 31, 1963 before the trial judge, and had and verified, if the formal conference scheduled for
the premises and lack of any express authority to enter into deliberately concealed from them the fact of entry on November 8, 1963 had been held with the presence of union
the settlement, and without giving the union the opportunity October 24, 1963 of the Order of this Court in G.R. Nos. L- counsel, considering that the latter likewise had a right to be
of being heard and assisted by counsel, and notwithstanding 21758-59 upholding the P200,000.00 deposit Order of heard, since they had duly made of record their attorneys’
the fact that respondent firm, which had sufficient cash and respondent court and the effect thereof of making mandatory lien upon the judgment. 15 Respondent, in its brief, asserts
fixed assets, was under legal compulsion by virtue of upon the trial judge, in accordance with the terms of his own that it vividly remembers that the trial judge repeatedly made
respondent court’s own final order to deposit P100,000.00 in order, the issuance of a writ for execution or enforcement to mention of the p200,000.00 deposit order during the
cash and another P100,000.00 in surety bond to guarantee compel respondent to so deposit P100,000.00 in cash and unscheduled conference of October 31, 1963 and "even
payment of the union members’ judgment claims? an equal amount in surety bond to guarantee satisfaction of explained the matter to the members of the board in their
the union members’ judgment against Respondent. In point native dialect." But the transcript of the conference
The question answers itself. The precipitate approval of the of facts, the union’s own Urgent Motion of October 29, 1963, reproduced above (supra, pp. 7-9) does not bear out this
purported settlement under the circumstances goes against emphasizing that respondent no longer had any excuse for assertion. The transcript is obviously deficient and does not
the grain of fundamental considerations of justice, equity and not complying with the deposit order, as well as petitioner reflect the actual discussions and proceedings. This is to be
due process. Magalpo, Et. Al.’s Urgent ex parte motion of November 4, deplored, for in a matter of such great importance, especially
1963 to the same effect were pending before the trial judge, where the union officials were unassisted by counsel in an
1. To begin with, petitioners were not accorded due process unresolved and unacted upon. Petitioners Magalpo, Et. Al. unscheduled conference, care should be taken by the trial
of law, when, for reasons unexplained in the record, the had reason therefore, to assail the proposed settlement for judge that the proceedings are faithfully recorded. Thus,
conference set for November 8, 1963 at 2:30 p.m. to take up P110,000.00 as unconscionable, when at the very least the although the transcript again fails to make any mention of it,
formally the proposed settlement was cancelled and never union members could be assured of P200,000.00 under the respondent, in its brief, in effect provides support for
held. (supra, pp. 8-9) Notice thereof had been served on the deposit order to satisfy their judgment credit, while the report petitioners’ plaint against the unscheduled conference and
union counsel, in accordance with the express request of the of respondent court’s examiner showed that respondent firm precipitate approval of the settlement behind the back of
union president, as expressly noted by the trial judge. Yet, had sufficient assets, (supra, p. 5), and considering that their union counsel, when it states that "the presiding judge tried
such notice was deliberately disregarded and the union was partial judgment credit, as estimated by respondent court’s to help the parties reach a settlement by stressing to the
deprived of the assistance of its counsel. 13 Instead, the examiner, amounted to more than P400,000.00. union that there was no sense in demanding more than
settlement as unilaterally drafted by respondent’s counsel P110,000.00 from the respondent if that was all it could
(supra, p. 7) was executed ahead of the scheduled hour of 3. The trial judge’s rush approval of the settlement afford, and that any more delay in the execution of its award
the conference that turned out to be a non-conference, by disregarded the grave adverse consequences thereof to the to the union members might lead to their getting much less
the union president with nine other members of the union’s union members. The settlement, as prepared by than the P110,000.00 already being offered by respondents,"
board of directors, without the knowledge, advice and respondent’s counsel, provided for a union warranty that and "while it is true that the presiding judge took an active
conformity of the union counsel, while respondent was duly aside from the union itself and the members thereof, "there part in helping the parties reach such settlement, it was only
in line with the policy of the law encouraging settlement of this case before this Court, Atty, Eulogio R. Lerum, had been
cases even after final judgment." 16 The obvious fallacy of 6. When it is further taken into consideration that the relieved of his services in a letter of the union dated January
this untenable posture assumed by the trial judge, of course, judgment award, as affirmed by this Court’s decision of 13, 1969; and that ‘the dismissal of this instant case would
is that with this Court having upheld his P200,000.00 deposit August 31, 1962, 17 was for the payment of overtime, serve the best interests of both parties who are now in the
order, it made every sense to enforce execution of said premium and differential pay to the individual union members process of formulating a collective bargaining agreement in
order, which it was practically his ministerial duty to do so, to as claimants and for the reinstatement of the individual union their earnest desire to establish industrial peace and
assure the union members of recovery of their judgment members who testified and proved their having been illegally promote the economic well-being of all parties concerned.’
credit at the very least to the extent of P200,000.00, as the laid-off, which represent a personal material interest directly This drew a reply from Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum that ‘while he
trial judge had expressly recognized therein that "petitioner in favor of the individual union members, as against the lack admits that he had received termination notice from the
(union) and its members concerned should be extended the of material interest on the part of the union as such, the alleged officers of the above-named union, he had not been
necessary protection of their rights." Any further delay in the union’s lack of authority to execute the settlement, in the disauthorized by the complainants who had retained him to
execution of the judgment award in favor of the union absence of express or specific authorization by the union appear in their behalf’ and that ‘said complainants are
members could readily be obviated, if the trial judge would members, becomes patent. The authority of the union as against the dismissal of their case for the reason that they
but expedite the hearings for approval of the Court such, to execute a settlement of the judgment award in favor want to vindicate their rights and it is against public policy to
examiner’s Report which had been filed and left pending of the individual union members, cannot be presumed but settle an unfair labor practice by amicable settlement (Sec.
since December 14, 1962. As correctly contended by must be expressly granted. 5[a], Rep. Act 875).’
petitioners, he could have placed the union members,
unassisted as they were by counsel, on an equal footing in 7. Recently, in the analogous case of La Campana Food "While it may be true that the labor union itself has lost
negotiating with respondent by a mere stroke of his pen by Products, Inc. etc. Employees Ass’n v. Court of Industrial interest in the case, we do not believe that such should give
ordering the enforcement of his final P200,000.00 deposit Relations, Et Al., 18 this Court ruled upon the merits of the ground for the dismissal of this case. The labor union as a
order, as to which there no longer existed any obstacle. We union’s appeal, and set aside the Industrial Court’s body in reality has not so great a material interest in the
find the forcing through of the settlement, under such questioned orders which would reopen its previous judgment controversy as would prejudice it in the event of dismissal. It
circumstances, arbitrary, unfair and unconscionable. finding the employer guilty of unfair labor practice and is the twenty-one (21) members for whose benefit the ULP
ordering the reinstatement of, and payment of back wages case was prosecuted who stand to take tremendous losses.
5. Another vital reason for striking down the settlement is the from December 4, 1963 to, twenty-one (21) union members. Nor is the argument that union and employer are now in the
lack of any express or specific authority of the president and In handing down its decision, this Court disregarded the process of formulating a collective bargaining agreement of
majority of the union board of directors to execute the same petitioner union’s motion to dismiss the appeal, filed through any consequence. That would not be affected by the
and scale down the estimated P423.756,-74-judgment new counsel while the case was pending decision, alleging decision we now render as an aftermath of the ULP case.
liability of respondent firm in favor of the individual union that the union’s legislative council had adopted a resolution Unless of course such a dismissal is a quid pro quo before
members to P110,000.00. On the contrary, petitioner board relieving the former union counsel of his services and the parties could sit around the bargaining table. Which
member Magalpo timely challenged the authority of the authorizing the dismissal of the case, on the premise that surely enough is not to the ‘best interests’ of the laborers.
union board to execute any such settlement, expressly such dismissal "would serve the best interests of both parties
informing the trial judge that the union had specifically who are now in the process of formulating a collective "And, as we examine the record, we observe none of the
appointed an entity in Manila, the "CREAM, Inc.", formerly bargaining agreement in their earnest desire to establish members of the legislative council who adopted the
Credit Research and Intelligence, as its attorney-in-fact and industrial peace and promote the economic well-being of all resolution relied upon in the motion to dismiss is personally
"exclusive authorized representative for the evaluation, the parties concerned." For this Court ruled that the union’s affected by the decision rendered by the CIR in Case 3985-
adjustment and liquidation of its claim against Respondent." loss of interest in the case was no ground for dismissing the ULP. That decision, it will be recalled, directs private
Forty-seven other union members-claimants joined petitioner case, since "the labor union as a body in reality has not so respondents herein not only to reinstate the twenty one (21)
Magalpo in their denunciation of the union board’s great a material interest in the controversy as would union members with out loss of seniority and other benefits
unauthorized action, and in their plea for reconsideration with prejudice it in the event of dismissal. It is the twenty-one (21) and privileges but also to pay their respective backwages
respondent court. Forty-nine union members-claimants members for whose benefit the ULP case was prosecuted from December 4, 1963, date of filing of the charge, basis of
entitled to the bulk of the judgment award have filed this who stand to take tremendous losses" and suffer injustice. the complaint, until actual reinstatement. It is easy enough to
appeal from the adverse rulings of the Court below. These Upholding the individual union members in their stand of perceive the injustice which may be visited upon these
union members have repudiated the former union president, vindicating their rights acquired under the final judgment as twenty-one (21) union members if the petition herein were to
Maylem and his board of directors, for having betrayed the against the union’s legislative council’s resolution to dismiss be dismissed. For then, a new trial will be had, with the
union members, and the new union leadership, in its Answer the case, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Sanchez, consequent trouble, expense, anxiety and another long delay
filed with the Court, has joined petitioners in their prayer for thus held: — before they could enjoy the fruits of their victory which they
redress, categorically asserting that the union records do not have legally and definitely won only after a long and
show any grant by the members to the former union board "We now come to the motion to dismiss filed in this Court on protracted legal battle. At any rate, it is better on balance that
under Maylem to "negotiate the claim or subsequent March 10, 1969 by new counsel for petitioner. In that motion, we foreclose a flanking movement which could destroy
ratification of the settlement for P110,000.00" which is we read the averment that the petitioning union, ‘after careful rather than uphold the rights — to reinstatement and
"unthinkable and ridiculous." (supra, p. 15) Under such and serious consideration of their Petition, taken in the light monetary award — of individual laborers acquired under the
circumstances, the letter of ratification of the settlement of recent developments affecting their relationship with the final judgment.
purportedly signed by some 79 members, many of whose respondent-company, have decided that they have lost
signatures thereon are denounced as forgeries and which interest in the further prosecution of their claims’; that the "8. Just as this Court has stricken down unjust exploitation of
ratification was not authenticated in the proceedings below union’s legislative council, on February 5, 1969, adopted a laborers by oppressive employers, so will it strike down their
and has been expressly disowned by petitioners herein, resolution authorizing the new counsel to file a motion unfair treatment by their own unworthy leaders. The
cannot be given any legal significance or effect. dismissing this case; that the former counsel who directed Constitution enjoins the State to afford protection to labor. 19
Fair dealing is equally demanded of unions as well as of annexes furnished it, "no sufficient justification to set aside, compulsion of law and contract. The collective bargaining
employers in their dealings with employees. The union has disturb or modify" the questioned approval of the settlement. process should be carried on between parties who can
been evolved as an organization of collective strength for the mutually respect and rely upon the authority of each other."
protection of labor against the unjust exactions of capital, but 9. The cases of Jesalva, Et. Al. v. Bautista, 21 and Diomela, 23 Where, however, collective bargaining process is not
equally important is the requirement of fair dealing between Et. Al. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 22 cited by involved, and what is at stake are back wages already
the union and its members, which is fiduciary in nature, and respondent, clearly have no application in the present case. earned by the individual workers by way of overtime,
arises out of two factors: "one is the degree of dependence In Jesalva, seventeen cases in different stages of hearing or premium and differential pay, and final judgment has been
of the individual employee on the union organization; the execution before the Industrial Court were settled by a rendered in their favor, as in the present case, the real
other, a corollary of the first, is the comprehensive power compromise agreement, and this Court held that the three parties in interest with direct material interest, as against the
vested in the union with respect to the individual." 20 The petitioners who questioned the settlement were "bound by union which has only served as a vehicle for collective action
union may, be considered but the agent of its members for the actions of the Union, that is to say, a majority of the to enforce their just claims, are the individual workers
the purpose of securing for them fair and just wages and members of the union." There was no question there that the themselves. 24 Authority of the union to waive or quitclaim
good working conditions and is subject to the obligation of union had acted with the authority of the union membership. all or part of the judgment award in favor of the individual
giving the members as its principals all information relevant No deceit or concealment or misrepresentation tainted the workers cannot be lightly presumed but must be expressly
to union and labor matters entrusted to it. As already settlement. Neither was the amount of the settlement granted, and the employer, as judgment debtor, must deal in
discussed above, the union leadership in the case at bar was denounced as unconscionable. The employer there, all good faith with the union as the agent of the individual
recreant in its duty towards the union members in apparently Premiere Productions, Inc., agreed to pay the amount of workers. The Court in turn should certainly verify and assure
having failed to disclose to the union members the full P200,000.00 which appeared to be a reasonable settlement itself of the fact and extent of the authority of the union
situation of their judgment credit against respondent, to wit, as against the judgment credit of the union workers, and leadership to execute any compromise or settlement of the
that they were in the advantageous position of being able to further agreed to lease to the union its equipment and judgment on behalf of the individual workers who are the real
require enforcement of the respondent court’s P200,000.00- facilities for the Union to produce two moving pictures, judgment creditors.
deposit order, and in presuming that it had authority to waive apparently to cover the other wage claims of the union
and quitclaim the estimated P423,756.74-judgment credit of workers which were still pending trial and resolution. In We therefore sustain the minority opinion of then Presiding
the union members for the unconscionable amount of Diomela, the labor-management disputes were settled Judge Bautista of respondent Court that the settlement was
P110,000.00, which had already been previously rejected by amicably with the unfair labor practice charge against the precipitately approved without verification of the union
the workers. Respondent firm could not claim that it dealt in employer, Squibb and Sons, (Phil.) being withdrawn, upon board’s authority to execute the compromise settlement, and
good faith with the union officials, for it hastily executed the motion signed by the union president and the three find that there was no such authority. The said settlement is
purported settlement notwithstanding the serious charges of employees against whom the acts of unfair labor practice therefore set aside and the cases below are restored to the
bad faith against the union leadership, and the non-holding charged in the complaint had been allegedly committed, to status quo, as of October 30, 1963, with the payments
of the scheduled conference where the union leaders, at which motion the Court’s prosecutor gave his conformity, already made to the union members to be considered as
their express request, could be duly assisted by union and with the employer, which had secured a permanent writ partial payments on account, subject to final liquidation and
counsel. It is noteworthy that respondent never filed with the of injunction restraining the strikers who had apparently adjustment. It is directed that an order for the enforcement of
court below any denial or responsive pleading traversing the declared an illegal strike, against the commission of acts of the P200,000.00-deposit order dated March 30, 1963 issued
factual allegations in petitioner Magalpo’s Manifestation and violence, threats and intimidation, agreeing to pay three in the cases below, and upheld in Cases G.R. Nos. L-21758-
Objection charging that at the unscheduled conference of months separation pay to each striking employee. There was 59 of this Court dismissing the respondent’s petition for
October 31, 1963, the proposed settlement was in effect no question, therefore, of the authority of the union president review, be forthwith issued, and that hearings on the Chief
railroaded with the fact of the finality of the P200,000.00 to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge, as the three Examiner’s Report of December 14, 1962 be resumed
deposit order not having been disclosed to the union employees directly affected had cosigned the withdrawal immediately and without interruption so that the amounts due
representatives. Such failure on the part of respondent motion with him. The subsequent move of Diomela and 23 under the judgment to the individual union members may be
constitutes an implied admission of the material averments. co-petitioners to disauthorize the union and its counsel of finally determined without further delay. It is unfortunate that
Respondent’s justification now that it did not file any record, was by their own pleading overruled by the majority pending these proceedings, no application for preliminary
responsive pleading or denial because Magalpo and her co- of the union membership. The other acts of unfair labor injunction restraining respondent firm from disposing of its
petitioners had no personality to file their pleadings as they practice sought to be filed by Diomela and his companions assets was made, since as stated above, (supra, p. 5)
were not parties to the cases in the lower court is of no avail, were there ruled out as splitting a cause of action and respondent had stopped operations in 1962 preparatory to
for they were actually the awardees and beneficiaries under harassing the employer with subsequent charges, based liquidation, by virtue of the provisions of Republic Act No.
the judgment against respondent and the union was but their upon acts committed during the same period of time and 3018 nationalizing the rice and corn industry. The
agent. Deplorable also is the failure of the trial judge to defer which should have been included in the charges first respondent firm’s stockholders are, however, charged with
precipitate action on approval of the settlement until the preferred. What should be borne in mind is that the interests notice of the firm’s liability by virtue of the pendency of these
union could be afforded the opportunity of a hearing thereon of the individual worker can be better protected on the whole appeals, and should any liquidating dividends have been
duly assisted by counsel, and failure later of the majority of by a strong union aware of its moral and legal obligations to distributed and paid to them in the meantime, they shall
respondent court in the reconsideration proceedings, as well, represent the rank and file faithfully and secure for them the stand liable for the satisfaction of the union workers’
to look seriously into the grave charges of bad faith and best wages and working terms and conditions in the process judgment against respondent to the extent of such dividends
deception against the union officials and their lack of of collective bargaining. As has been aptly pointed out, the respectively paid to and received by them. Similarly, any
authority to execute the settlement. All of these charges will of the majority must prevail over that of the minority in outstanding unpaid subscriptions or balances of
were just swept under the rug, and summarily dismissed, the process, for "under the philosophy of collective subscriptions to the firm’s capital stock, estimated at
without even being mentioned, in the unreasoned en banc responsibility, an employer who bargains in good faith should P20,000.00, 25 shall be subject to garnishment and
Resolution, finding arbitrarily as against the facts herein be entitled to rely upon the promises and agreements of the execution in satisfaction of the judgment. As to the
collated by this Court from the pertinent pleadings and union representatives with whom he must deal under the contingent 30% attorneys’ fees of petitioners-lawyers, the
Court deems it proper at this stage, to direct in the exercise
of its authority to control the amount of such fees, that
petitioners-lawyers may collect their stipulated contingent
30% attorneys’ fees to the extent that additional amounts
may be realized on the union workers’ judgment up to the
sum of P150,000.00, including the initial payment of
P110,000.00, (on which they have already collected their
corresponding fee), such that any further amounts collected
beyond said sum of P150,000.00 shall no longer be subject
to said contingent fee.

WHEREFORE, the respondent Court’s Orders of November

8, 1963 and March 9, 1964 are hereby declared null and void
and set aside. The respondent court is directed to proceed
immediately with the execution of the judgment rendered by
it against respondent firm in Cases Nos. 709-V and V-1 as
affirmed by this Court’s decision of August 31, 1962, 26 in
accordance with the directives set forth in the next preceding
paragraph, which is incorporated by reference as an integral
portion of the dispositive part of this decision. With costs
against private respondent in both cases herein decided.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro

and Fernando, JJ., concur.
 to state a cause of action for it does not show that it bears he organized the Benguet-Balatoc Worker’s Union in 1948,
[G.R. No. L-19745. January 31, 1964.] the sanction of at least 10% of the entire membership of the he became its president and had been re-elected as such
union of which Oximana was president, and that assuming continuously up to the present time without any indication
ELISEO FLORA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. VICENTE that it does and Oximana was convicted of the offense which that throughout his actuation as such official he has ever
OXIMANA, ET AL., Respondents. involves moral turpitude, the same is not however one of the committed any misconduct or act unbecoming his office that
offenses contemplated by Section 17 (e) of Republic Act may disqualify him to continue deserving the confidence of
Cipriano Cid & Associates, for Petitioners. 875. In any event, respondent contend that the aforesaid the union and its members. It is perhaps for this reason that
legal provision, being penal in character, does not apply to on April 1, 1961 the President of the Philippines granted him
Salonga, Ordoñez, Sicat & Associates for Respondents. Oximana for he has been an official of good standing long full, absolute and plenary pardon which restored to him the
before the effectivity of Republic Act 875. full enjoyment of his civil and political rights, one of which is
the right to hold any office in any legitimate labor
SYLLABUS When the case was called for hearing, the parties submitted organization. We believe that the effect of this pardon is as
a stipulation of facts wherein, among other things, it was the President of the Philippines has stated: the restoration in
agreed that on April 1, 1961 the President of the Philippines full of Oximana’s civil and political rights, the effect of which
granted Oximana full, absolute and plenary pardon for the is to blot out any evil consequence of the crime he has
1. LABOR RELATIONS; LABOR UNIONS; crime he had committed in 1926, thereby restoring him to the committed. Authorities abound supporting this view.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF OFFICERS; COMMISSION OF full enjoyment of his civil and political rights, one of which is
CRIME; EFFECT OF ABSOLUTE PARDON. — An absolute the holding of the position now disputed by complainants. Thus, it has been held that "A full and complete pardon,
pardon restores a person to his civil and political rights, one granted after conviction, removes all penalties and legal
of which is the right to hold any office in any legitimate labor On November 29, 1961, Judge Amado C. Bugayong who disabilities, and restores the defendant to all his civil rights."
organization. In the case at bar, the conviction in 1926 of the heard the case, issued an order dismissing the complaint for Continuing, the court went on to say that "pardon completely
crime of abusos deshonestos for which he served time in jail lack of merit. He said that were it not for the absolute pardon destroys the effect of the judgment . . . (and) `obliterates, in
until 1930, cannot after his full and absolute pardon in 1961 granted to Oximana he would have been disqualified. But legal contemplation, the offense itself; and hence its effect is
serve to disqualify the respondent president of a labor union said pardon has erased all the ill effects of his conviction and to make the offender a new man’" (Stephens v. State of ex
from such office under Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875. had restored to him all his rights and privileges as a citizen rel. Goldsberry, 11 Okl. 262, 239 P. 450). In a similar vein,
as if he had not committed the crime at all. One of such this Court, thru Mr. Justice Laurel, stated that "an absolute
rights is to hold an office in any labor organization as the one pardon not only blots out the crime committed but removes
DECISION now being held by respondent Oximana. all disabilities resulting from the conviction; and that when
granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute
This order was affirmed by the court en banc. Hence the pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of the
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: present petition for review. conviction" (Pelobello v. Palatino, 72 Phil., 441). And in an
earlier case, this Court, thru the same Justice, also
Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875 provides as follows:jgc: stated:jgc: .com.ph
Vicente Oximana is the president of the Benquet-Balatoc .com.ph
Workers’ Union (BBWU), having been elected to said ". . . An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime
position on June 20, 1960, pursuant to the provisions of the "No person who has been convicted of a crime involving committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from the
constitution and by-laws of said union. Since 1948, when the moral turpitude shall be eligible for election to any office in a conviction. In the present case, the disability is the result of
union was organized, Oximana has been elected legitimate labor organization or for appointment to any conviction without which there would be no basis for
continuously as such president and has performed the duties position involving the collection, custody, management, disqualification from voting. Imprisonment is not the only
and functions of said office without interruption in control or disbursement of its funds and any such person punishment which the law imposes upon those who violate
accordance with the provisions of said constitution and by- shall be disqualified from continuing to hold any office or its command. There are accessory and resultant disabilities,
laws. such position in the organization."cralaw virtua1aw library and the pardoning power likewise extends to such
disabilities. When granted after the term of imprisonment has
In 1926, Oximana was convicted of the crime of abusos If the case of respondent Oximana should be considered in expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the
deshonestos for which he was sentenced to 3 years 6 the light of what is provided for in the section abovequoted consequences of conviction. In the present case, while the
months and 25 days of imprisonment which he served until there would be no doubt that he would be disqualified from pardon extended to respondent Santos is conditional in the
December 4, 1930. As a consequence, a complaint was holding the position of president which is now being disputed sense that `he will be eligible for appointment only to
lodged against him before the Court of Industrial Relations by complainants for the crime for which he was convicted in positions which are clerical or manual in nature involving no
on February 2, 1961 by a prosecutor of said court seeking to 1926 is one which involves moral turpitude because the money, or property responsibility,’ it is absolute insofar as it
disqualify him as president of the union on the strength of the purpose of the law is indeed to disqualify one who, because `restores the respondent to full civil and political rights.’"
provisions of Section 17(e) of Republic Act 875. In this of gross misconduct, has rendered himself unfit to hold any (Cristobal v. Labrador, Et Al., 71 Phil., 34, 38).
complaint, the union was made party respondent because of office in a legitimate labor organization. But here the
complainant’s desire to restrain Oximana from performing situation of respondent Oximana has changed since his We are, therefore, persuaded to affirm the views expressed
the duties and functions of his office as president and to conviction. It appears that since the time of his conviction in by the court a quo in its order of November 29, 1961.
have a new election held for the purpose of electing a new 1926 up to the time the complaint for disqualification was
qualified president. lodged against him in 1961, a long period of time has WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No
passed, and, in the meantime, he may have reformed costs.
In answer to the complaint, respondents alleged that it fails himself and become a new and repentant man. In fact, when
 [G.R. No. L-78131. January 20, 1988.] against herein petitioners and hence will estop them later if On May 19, 1986, a pre-election conference was held, but
ever, from questioning the CBA which petitioners concurred the parties failed to agree on the list of voters. During the
EDUARDO TANCINCO, OSCAR E. BARTOLO, DANIEL with. Furthermore, the inclusion and counting of the 56 May 21, 1986 pre-election conference attended by MOLE
DE LEON, EDDIE POE, VIRGILIO SAN PEDRO, MA. segregated votes would not necessarily mean success in officers, ANGLO through its National Secretary, a certain Mr.
LUISA QUIBIN, FE MUDLONG and HENRY favor of herein petitioners as feared by private respondents Cornelio A. Sy made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56
MADRIAGA, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR PURA FERRER- herein. Otherwise, could this be the very reason behind their employees consisting of the Manila office employees,
CALLEJA, EDWIN LACANILAO, BOYET DALMACIO, fears why they made it a point to nullify said votes? members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees,
JOSEFINO ESGUERRA, TESSIE GATCHALIAN, LITO drivers of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of
CUDIA and DING PAGAYON, Respondents. Mrs. Salazar. Prior to the holding of the election of union
DECISION officers petitioners, 2 through a letter addressed to the
Election Supervisor, MOLE San Fernando Pampanga,
SYLLABUS protested said ruling but no action was taken. On May 26,
1986, the election of officers was conducted under the
GANCAYCO, J.:
supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question
participated but whose votes were segregated without being
1. LABOR LAW; CERTIFICATION ELECTION; ELIGIBILITY counted. Lacanilao’s group won. Lacanilao garnered 119
TO VOTE; DETERMINATION THRU THE USE OF THE This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the votes with a margin of three (3) votes over Tancinco
APPLICABLE PAYROLL PERIOD AND EMPLOYEE’S Resolution of February 12, 1987 and the Decision of prompting petitioners to make a protest. Thereafter,
STATUS DURING THE SAME PERIOD. — The question December 10, 1986 of the Bureau of Labor Relations * in petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry of Labor
however of eligibility to vote may be determined through the BLR Case No. A-9-221-86, setting aside the order of July 25, Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga 3 claiming that
use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status 1986 which decreed the inclusion and counting of the 56 the determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is
during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month segregated votes for the determination of the results of the beyond the competence of ANGLO. Private respondents
next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular election of officers of Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. Monthly maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of union’s
employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of Employees Association (ITM-MEA). membership is solely within their jurisdiction. law library
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries.
Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-MEA. On the basis of the position papers submitted by the parties
2. ID.; ID.; ACT OF JOINING ELECTION BY CASTING THE While said respondents were preparing to file a petition for MOLE’s Med-Arbiter 4 issued an order dated July 25, 1986
VOTES, A CLEAR MANIFESTATION OF JOINING THE direct certification of the Union as the sole and exclusive directing the opening and counting of the segregated votes.
UNION. — Considering that none of the parties insisted on bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the union’s Vice- 5 From the said order private respondents appealed to the
the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering President, Carlos Dalmacio was promoted to the position of Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) justifying the
further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for union disenfranchisement of the 56 votes. Private respondents
to be qualified for membership, their act of joining the membership. Said incident, among others led to a strike categorized the challenged voters into four groups namely,
election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents herein. the Manila Employees, that they are personal employees of
10, 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention Another group however, led by herein petitioners staged a Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo, that al lowing them to vote will
to join the union. They must therefore be considered ipso strike inside the company premises. After four (4) days the be anomalous since it is their policy not to participate in any
facto members thereof Said employees having exercised strike was settled. On May 10, 1986 an agreement was form of union activities; the non-time card employees, that
their right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA their decision is entered into by the representatives of the management, they are managerial employees; and the employees of the
paramount. Their names could not have been included in the Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group the relevant terms cooperative as non-ITM employees. 6 On December 10,
list of employee submitted on April 24, 1986 to the Bureau of of which are as follows:jgc: .com.ph 1986, BLR rendered a decision 7 holding the exclusion of the
Labor for the agreement to join the union was entered into 56 employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal
only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was supervised "‘1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be united under basis 8 but set aside the challenged order of July 25, 1986
by the Department of Labor where said 56 members were one union, the ITM Monthly Employees Association (ITM- on the ground that 51 ** of 56 challenged voters were not yet
allowed to vote. Private respondents never challenged their MEA), to be affiliated with ANGLO; union members at the time of the election per April 24, 1986
right to vote then. list submitted before the Bureau. 9 The decision directed
2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO as the among others the proclamation of Lacanilao’s group as the
3. ID.; ID.; CBA, EXISTENCE AND CORDIAL RELATION sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the monthly-paid duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA to absorb in the
BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE MANAGEMENT, NOT A employees; bargaining unit the challenged voters unless proven to be
HINDRANCE TO THE DECISION OF UNION MEMBERS managerial employees. 10 Petitioners’ motion for
ON MATTERS OF REPRESENTATION IN THE 3. That an election of union officers shall be held on 26 May reconsideration was likewise denied.
BARGAINING UNIT. — Existence of a CBA and cordial 1986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
relationship developed between the union and the Dissatisfied with the turn of events narrated above
management should not be a justification to frustrate the 4. That the last day of filing of candidacy shall be on 19 May petitioners elevated the case to this Court by way of the
decision of the union members as to who should properly 1986 at 4:00 p m.; instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
represent them in the bargaining unit. Neither may the Court.
inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes serve to 5. That a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of
disturb the existing relationship with management as feared qualified voters shall be held on 19 May 1986, at 5:00 p.m.;" Petitioners allege that public respondent director of Labor
by herein private respondents. Respondents themselves 1 Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering
pointed out that petitioners joined the negotiating panel in the the Med-Arbiter to disregard the 56 segregated votes and
recently concluded CBA. This fact alone is conclusive
proclaim private respondents as the duly elected officers of petitioners that public respondent committed a grave abuse
ITM-MEA whereas said respondent ruled that the grounds of discretion in deciding the issue on the basis of the records
relied upon by ANGLO for the exclusion of voters are of membership of the union as of April 24, 1986 when this
arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis. issue was not put forward in the appeal.

The petition is impressed with merit. The record of the case It is however the position of private respondents that since a
shows that public respondent categorically declared as collective bargaining agreement (CBA) has been concluded
arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis the grounds 11 between the local union and ITM management the
relied upon by ANGLO in disenfranchising the 56 voters in determination of the legal question raised herein may not
question. However, despite said finding public respondent serve the purpose which the union envisions and may
ruled to set aside the Resolution of July 25, 1986 of the Med- destroy the cordial relations existing between the
Arbiter based on its own findings 12 that 51 of the 56 management and the union.
disenfranchised voters were not yet union members at the
time of the election of union officers on May 26, 1986 on the We do not agree. Existence of a CBA and cordial
ground that their names do not appear in the records of the relationship developed between the union and the
Union submitted to the Labor Organization Division of the management should not be a justification to frustrate the
Bureau of Labor on April 24, 1986. decision of the union members as to who should properly
represent them in the bargaining unit. Neither may the
The finding does not have a leg to stand on. Submission of inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes serve to
the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of disturb the existing relationship with management as feared
the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said by herein private respondents. Respondents themselves
members to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds no pointed out that petitioners joined the negotiating panel in the
support in fact and in law. Per public respondent’s findings, recently concluded CBA. This fact alone is conclusive
the April 24, 1986 list consists of 158 union members only 13 against herein petitioners and hence will estop them later if
wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters’ names do not ever, from questioning the CBA which petitioners concurred
appear. Adopting however a rough estimate of a total with. Furthermore, the inclusion and counting of the 56
number of union members who cast their votes of some 333 segregated votes would not necessarily mean success in
14 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged votes, if the favor of herein petitioners as feared by private respondents
list is to be the basis as to who the union members are then herein. Otherwise, could this be the very reason behind their
public respondent should have also disqualified some 175 of fears why they made it a point to nullify said votes?
the 333 voters. It is true that under Article 242(c) of the Labor awlibrary .com: .com.ph
Code, as amended, only members of the union can
participate in the election of union officers. The question WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
however of eligibility to vote may be determined through the for certiorari is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order
use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status issued by this Court on May 13, 1987 is hereby made
during the applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month permanent. The questioned Resolution of February 12, 1987
next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular and the Decision of December 10, 1986 are hereby set aside
employees 15 and the payroll period at or near the peak of for being null and void and the Order of July 25, 1986 of the
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries. 16 Mediator Arbiter is hereby declared immediately executory.

In the case before Us, considering that none of the parties Cost against private respondents.
insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and
considering further that the 51 remaining employees were SO ORDERED.
correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of
joining the election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986
after the May 10, 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of
their intention to join the union. They must therefore be
considered ipso facto members thereof Said employees
having exercised their right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA
their decision is paramount. Their names could not have
been included in the list of employee submitted on April 24,
1986 to the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join the
union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the
election was supervised by the Department of Labor where
said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private respondents
never challenged their right to vote then.cralawnad

The Solicitor General in his manifestation agreed with

 persons acting as officers of the said union, to cease acting
[G.R. Nos. 72772-73. June 28, 1989.] 4. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; as such upon receipt of this resolution, and to turn over
DISQUALIFICATION OF WINNING CANDIDATE DOES immediately the management of the union affairs to
RICARDO R. MANALAD, ALFONSO ROMERO, MARIO NOT ENTITLED CANDIDATE HAVING THE SECOND respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, who
SANTOS, RITCHIE TUICO, HONORATO K. LEAÑO, HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES TO OFFICE. — Even if the shall act as caretaker until after a new set of union officers
SANTOS B. PUERTO, LEONARDO NAVARRO, disqualification of private respondents could be justified, the shall have been elected and duly qualified as provided in the
BENJAMIN ERNACIO, FELIPE BENCITO, GERARDITO candidates of petitioners certainly cannot be declared as the next succeeding paragraph, and accordingly, (c) to GRANT
ROXAS, GONZALO RAMOS, FEDERICO MUÑOZ, PABLO winners in the disputed election. The mere fact that they the motion to transfer the union funds to said respondent
FRANCO and CONRADO LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. obtained the second highest number of votes does not mean Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations as such caretaker,
DIRECTOR CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, PABLO B. that they will thereby be considered as the elected officers if which funds may not be disbursed by him except for urgent
BABULA, JULIAN DUYAG, DOMINADOR JAVIER, the true winners are disqualified. union purposes and for necessary expenses of the election
REMIGIO DEL MUNDO, OLMO MIJARES, RUDY and which funds shall be turned over by him to the new set
VERGARA, ARTURO AZARCON, JOSE BINDOY, of union officers to be duly elected and qualified, as herein
GERARDO COMMANDANTE, ROBERTO BUSTILLOS, DECISION provided; and
PAQUITO BALANDING, OSCAR FERNANDEZ, and JACK
HUGGINS, JR., Respondents. * "3. To ORDER the holding of a special election of union
officers under the supervision of the National Capital Region
REGALADO, J.:
Remberto Z. Evio, for Petitioners. Labor Office not later than Saturday, July 20, 1985, which
shall be governed by the union’s 1978 Constitution and By-
De Jesus, Paguio & Manimtim for Private Respondents. Laws as amended in 1981 (disregarding all subsequent
The parties herein are employees of United Dockhandlers, amendments) and the outcome of which shall be
Inc. They are members of rival groups in the Associated Port immediately certified as to the president and officers of the
Checkers and Workers’ Union (APCWU, for short) in said union who shall forthwith assume and discharge the
SYLLABUS
company, the petitioners’ faction being led by petitioner functions of the respective offices to which they shall have
Ricardo R. Manalad, with respondent Pablo B. Babula been thus elected." 3
heading the group of private respondents.
1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; MOOT AND ACADEMIC; Pursuant thereto, the Director of the Bureau of Labor
DISMISSAL OF PETITION SEEKING THE ANNULMENT From their submissions, it appears that sometime in 1982, Relations issued an order on July 10, 1985 to the effect that
OF ELECTION OF OFFICERS WHOSE TERMS OF the petitioners were disqualified from running as candidates he was taking over the management of the affairs of said
OFFICE HAD EXPIRED. — The expiration of the terms of in the election of APCWU officers by the Med-Arbiter, which union, ordering private respondents Babula and all other
office of the union officers and the election of officers on election had theretofore been scheduled for November 17, persons to cease acting as officers of the union, and
November 28, 1988 have rendered the issues raised by 1981 but was enjoined and ordered reset. 1 However, on requiring them to turn over the union funds to said director. 4
petitioners in this case moot and academic. It is pointless appeal, said order was set aside by the Director of the Subsequently, the Court’s aforesaid resolution of July 3,
and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers Bureau of Labor Relations on October 31, 1984. Thereafter, 1985 was modified on July 17, 1985 by providing that the
whose terms had already expired. We would have thereby a the election of officers and board members of the union was special election scheduled on July 20, 1985 shall be held
judgment on a matter which cannot have any practical legal held on November 26, 1984, with the candidates of the under the personal supervision of respondent Director
effect upon a controversy, even if existing, and which, in the petitioners, that is, Manalad, Leaño and Puerto, winning over Trajano, with the assistance of his staff, under the usual
nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must consequently those of the private respondents, who were Babula, Mijares rules and applying suppletorily the union’s 1978 constitution
abide by our consistent ruling that where certain events or and Navarro, for the positions of president, treasurer and and by-laws. 5
circumstances have taken place during the pendency of the auditor, respectively. As a consequence, the latter group
case which would render the case moot and academic, the filed a petition for review with this Court assailing the Meanwhile, on July 13, 1985, a motion was filed by the
petition should be dismissed. aforesaid order of October 31, 1984 of the Bureau of Labor petitioners with this Court in G.R. No. 69684-85 asking that
Relations which had declared the aforesaid petitioners the private respondents be cited in contempt and for their
2. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; DISREGARD OF eligible to run for said union offices. 2 This case, entitled disqualification from running in the projected special election
FAULTS OR MISCONDUCT OF CANDIDATES ELECTED "Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union, Et. Al. v. due to their alleged refusal to comply with the resolution
TO OFFICE. — Where the people have elected a man to Ricardo R. Manalad, Et. Al." was docketed as G.R. Nos. above quoted. 6 The petitioner also wrote a letter to the
office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge 69684-85. Director on July 18, 1985 objecting to the candidacy of
of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave private respondents. 7
his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. On July 3, 1985, the Court promulgated a resolution therein,
which was immediately executory, as follows: lawlibrary Nevertheless, the scheduled special election was held
3. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CONTEMPT; resulting in the victory of the candidates of the private
ALLEGATIONS MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. — "1. To DISMISS the petition for lack of merit and to DENY all respondents. Petitioner then filed a motion with the Court for
Before the alleged disobedient party may be cited for pending motions incident thereto; the annulment of the special election, repeating their
contempt, the allegations against him should be clearly allegation that there was non-compliance with the Court’s
established. The contentions of petitioners, even "2. (a) To DECLARE VACANT all the offices of the resolution of July 3, 1985 by private respondents. 8
disregarding some evidential deficiencies, do not adequately Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union, and (b) to
establish the basis for contempt. On the contrary, ORDER that the petitioners headed by Pablo B. Babula who On July 26, 1985, respondent Director issued a resolution
respondents have satisfactorily answered the averments has held over as acting president since 1981, and all other proclaiming private respondents as the winners in the special
thereon.
election and duly elected officers of APCWU, with the to render the issue raised herein moot and academic." 14 established. The contentions of petitioners, even
following observation: "The submission that Mr. Babula failed We denied this motion on May 25, 1988 for lack of merit, disregarding some evidential deficiencies, do not adequately
to completely turn over management of the union to the considering that" (w)hen this Court, through its First Division establish the basis for contempt. On the contrary,
undersigned is within the competence and authority of the called for the holding of special elections of union officers in respondents have satisfactorily answered the averments
Supreme Court to pass upon considering that the mandate G.R. Nos. 69684-85, there was an implied nullification of the thereon.
for such a turn-over came from the Court." 9 results of the November 26, 1984 elections. This being the
case, and petitioners having participated in the special At this juncture, it would further be appropriate to remind
Petitioners filed with respondent director a motion for elections held on July 20, 1985, they cannot now claim a petitioners that even if the disqualification of private
reconsideration on August 2, 1985 seeking he reversal of right to the positions under consideration on the basis of said respondents could be justified, the candidates of petitioners
said resolution of July 26, 1985. This motion having been voided November 26, 1984 elections." 15 certainly cannot be declared as the winners in the disputed
denied, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration election. The mere fact that they obtained the second
on August 28, 1985 but the same was likewise denied on Meanwhile, the three-year term of the private respondents highest number of votes does not mean that they will thereby
October 14, 1985. 10 under the disputed July 20, 1985 elections expired on July be considered as the elected officers if the true winners are
20, 1988, hence We resolved to require the petitioners to disqualified.
In the meantime, this Court in a resolution dated September show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for
1, 1985 denied the motion of the petitioner to annul the being moot and academic. 16 Responding thereto, ACCORDINGLY, this case is DISMISSED for being moot
special election of July 20, 1985, but without prejudice to the petitioners reiterated their position stated in their urgent and academic.
filing of a proper petition with the Bureau of Labor Relations. motion, dated November 27, 1987, that they be declared the
11 winners is said election with their terms of three (3) years to SO ORDERED.
commence from the time they assume office in execution of
The instant petition was thereafter filed, principally a final and executory resolution of this Court. 17 On
praying:jgc: .com.ph November 17, 1988, petitioners filed a motion to restrain the
holding of a new election of officers of the union scheduled
"1. That the questioned Resolution dated July 26, 1985 on November 28, 1988. However, before any action could be
(Annex ‘A’), Order dated August 19, 1985 (Annex ‘B’), and taken on said motion the election was held as scheduled,
Order dated October 4, 1986 (Annex ‘C’) of public hence the petitioner filed a motion, dated December 1, 1988,
respondent Cresenciano B. Trajano, Director of Bureau of to annul said election. lawlibrary
Labor Relations be reversed and set aside;
After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We are
"2. That respondents Pablo B. Babula and his group be of the considered view that the expiration of the terms of
disqualified for not complying with the Resolution dated July office of the union officers and the election of officers on
3, 1985 (Annex ‘D’) of this Honorable Court and the votes November 28, 1988 have rendered the issues raised by
cast in their favor in the July 20, 1985 election be invalidated petitioners in this case moot and academic. It is pointless
and the candidates who received the next highest number of and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers
votes in said election be declared the winner thereof; whose terms had already expired. We would have thereby a
judgment on a matter which cannot have any practical legal
"3. Or in the alternative, that the election held in (sic) July 20, effect upon a controversy, even if existing, 18 and which, in
1985 be annulled and a new election be called three weeks the nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must
after respondents Pablo Babula, Et. Al. have complied with consequently abide by our consistent ruling that where
the conditions imposed by the Resolution dated July 3, 1985 certain events or circumstances have taken place during the
of this Honorable Court and an audit has been made of the pendency of the case which would render the case moot and
different funds of the Union for the year 1985;" 12 academic, the petition should be dismissed. 19

x       x       x Moreover, it is the better part of conventional or pragmatic

solutions in cases of this nature, absent overriding
considerations to the contrary, to respect the will of the
We gave due course to this petition on April 9, 1986 but majority of the workers who voted in the November 28, 1988
petitioners’ motion for a writ of preliminary injunction was elections. Although decreed under a different setting, it is
denied. 13 apropos to recall in this case Our ruling that where the
people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that
In an urgent motion, dated November 18, 1987, petitioners they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and
prayed that "in the event that they win the present case this that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if
Honorable Court upholds the November 24, (sic) 1984 he had been guilty of any. 20
election, the three-year term of office of petitioners should
commence only after the finality of the resolution/decision to We agree with the petitioners that disobedience to a
be rendered in the case at bar; that a restraining order be resolution of this Court should not be left unpunished.
issued enjoining the holding of the new election of union However, before the alleged disobedient party may be cited
officers until the final disposition of the instant case so as not for contempt, the allegations against him should be clearly
 3, 1994, in Case No. OS-MA A-8-170-92, which ruled that
SECOND DIVISION the workers through their union should be made to shoulder "Furthermore, Complainants are directed to pay five percent
the expenses incurred for the professional services of a (5%) of the total amount to be refunded or returned by the
[G.R. No. 115949. March 16, 2000.] lawyer in connection with the collective bargaining Respondent Union Officers and Counsel to them in favor of
negotiations and that the reimbursement for the deductions Atty. Armando D. Morales, as attorney’s fees, in accordance
EVANGELINE J. GABRIEL, TERESITA C. LUALHATI, from the workers should be charged to the union’s general with Section II, Rule VIII of Book II (sic) of the Omnibus
EVELYN SIA, RODOLFO EUGENIO, ISAGANI MAKISIG, fund or account. lawlibrary Rules Implementing the Labor Code." 5
and DEMETRIO SALAS, Petitioners, v. THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND The records show the following factual antecedents On appeal, the Secretary of Labor rendered a Resolution 6
EMPLOYMENT and SIMEON SARMIENTO, JESUS dated December 27, 1993, stating:jgc: .com.ph
CARLOS MARTINEZ III, ALBERT NAPIAL, MARVIN Petitioners comprise the Executive Board of the SolidBank
ALMACIN, ROGELIO MATEO, GLENN SIAPNO, Union, the duly recognized collective bargaining agent for "WHEREFORE, the appeal of respondents Evangeline
EMILIANO CUETO, SALOME ATIENZA, NORMA V. GO, the rank and file employees of Solid Bank Corporation. Gabriel, et. al., is hereby partially granted and the Order of
JUDITH DUDANG, MONINA DIZON, EUSEBIO ROMERO, Private respondents are members of said union. the Med-Arbiter dated 22 April 1993 is hereby modified as
ISAGANI MORALES, ELISEO BUENAVENTURA, follows: (1) that the ordered refund shall be limited to those
CLEMENTE AGCAMARAN, CARMELITA NOLASCO, Sometime in October 1991, the union’s Executive Board union members who have not signified their conformity to the
JOVITA FERI, LULU ACOSTA, CAROL LAZARO, NIDA decided to retain anew the service of Atty. Ignacio P. Lacsina check-off of attorney’s fees; and (2) the directive on the
ARRIZA, ROMAN BERNARDO, DOMINGO B. MACALDO, (now deceased) as union counsel in connection with the payment of 5% attorney’s fees should be deleted for lack of
EUGENE PIDLAOAN, MA. SOCORRO T. ANGOB, negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement basis.
JOSEPHINE ALVAREZ, LOURDES FERRER, (CBA). Accordingly, on October 19, 1991, the board called a
JACQUILINE BAQUIRAN, GRACIA R. ESCUADRO, general membership meeting for the purpose. At the said SO ORDERED." 7
KRISTINA HERNANDEZ, LOURDES IBEAS, MACARIO meeting, the majority of all union members approved and
GARCIA, BILLY TECSON, ALEX RECTO III, LEBRUDO, signed a resolution confirming the decision of the executive On Motion for Reconsideration, public respondent affirmed
JOSE RICAFORTE, RODOLFO MORADA, TERESA board to engage the services of Atty. Lacsina as union the said Order with modification that the union’s counsel be
AMADO, ROSITA TRINIDAD, JEANETTE ONG, counsel. dropped as a party litigant and that the workers through their
VICTORINO LAS-AY, RANIEL DAYAO, OSCAR SANTOS, union should be made to shoulder the expenses incurred for
CRISTINA SALAVER, VICTORIA ARINO, A.H. SAJO, As approved, the resolution provided that ten percent (10%) the attorney’s services. Accordingly, the reimbursement
MICHAEL BIETE, RED RP, GLORIA JUAT, ETHELINDA of the total economic benefits that may be secured through should be charged to the union’s general fund/account. 8
CASILAN, FAMER DIPASUPIL, MA. HIDELISA POMER, the negotiations be given to Atty. Lacsina as attorney’s fees.
MA. CHARLOTTE TAWATAO, GRACE REYES, ERNIE It also contained an authorization for SolidBank Corporation Hence, the present petition seeking to partially annul the
COLINA, ZENAIDA MENDOZA, PAULITA ADORABLE, to check-off said attorney’s fees from the first lump sum above-cited order of the public respondent for being
BERNARDO MADUMBA, NESTOR NAVARRO, EASTER payment of benefits to the employees under the new CBA allegedly tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
YAP, ALMA LIM, FELISA YU, TIMOTEO GANASTRA, and to turn over said amount to Atty. Lacsina and/or his duly lack of jurisdiction. lawlibrary
REVELITA CARTAJENAS, ANGELITO CABUAL, authorized representative. 2
ROBERTA TAN, DOMINADOR TAPO, GRACE LIM, The sole issue for consideration is, did the public respondent
GADIANE JEMIE, CHRISTHDY DAUD, BENEDICTO The new CBA was signed on February 21, 1992. The bank act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged
ACOSTA, JESUSA ACOSTA, MA. AVELINA ARYAP, then, on request of the union, made payroll deductions for order?
EVELYN BENITEZ, ESTERITA CHU, EVANGELINE CHU, attorney’s fees from the CBA benefits paid to the union
BETTY CINCO, RICARDO CONNEJO, MANULITO members in accordance with the abovementioned resolution. Petitioners argue that the General Membership Resolution
EVALO, FRANCIS LEONIDA, GREGORIO NOBLEZA, authorizing the bank to check-off attorney’s fee from the first
RODOLFO RIVERAL, ELSA SIA, CLARA SUGBO, On October 2, 1992, private respondents instituted a lump sum payment of the benefits to the employees under
EDGARDO TABAO, MANUEL VELOSO, MARLYN YU, complaint against the petitioners and the union counsel the new CBA satisfies the legal requirements for such
ABSALON BUENA, WILFREDO PUERTO, FLORENTINA before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for assessment. 9 Private respondents, on the other hand, claim
PINGOL, MARILOU DAR, FE MORALES, MALEN BELLO, illegal deduction of attorney’s fees as well as for that the check-off provision in question is illegal because it
LORENA TAMAYO, CESAR LIM, PAUL BALTAZAR, quantification of the benefits in the 1992 CBA. 3 Petitioners, was never submitted for approval at a general membership
ALFREDO GAYAGAS, DUMAGUETE EMPLOYEES, in response, moved for the dismissal of the complaint citing meeting called for the purpose and that it failed to meet the
CEBU EMPLOYEES, OZAMIZ EMPLOYEES, TACLOBAN litis pendentia, forum shopping and failure to state a cause of formalities mandated by the Labor Code. 10
EMPLOYEES AND ALL OTHER SOLIDBANK UNION action as their grounds. 4
MEMBERS, Respondents. In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or
On April 22, 1993, Med-Arbiter Paterno Adap of the DOLE- on prior authorization from employees, deducts union dues
DECISION NCR issued the following Order:jgc: .com.ph or agency fees from the latter’s wages and remits them
directly to the union. 11 It assures continuous funding for the
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Respondents labor organization. As this Court has acknowledged, the
QUISUMBING, J.: Union Officers and Counsel are hereby directed to system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the union
immediately return or refund to the Complainants the illegally and only indirectly for the individual employees. 12
deducted amount of attorney’s fees from the package of
benefits due herein complainants under the aforesaid new The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are found in
Before us is a special civil action for certiorari seeking to
CBA. Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of the Labor Code.
reverse partially the Order 1 of public respondent dated June
 Corporation, et. al., 15 which provides:jgc: .com.ph
Article 222 (b) states:jgc: .com.ph
"Premises studiedly considered, we are of the irresistible
"No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of conclusion and, so find that the ruling in BPIEU-ALU v.
any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations NLRC that (1) the prohibition against attorney’s fees in
or conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed Article 222, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code applies only
on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, when the payment of attorney’s fees is effected through
however, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union forced contributions from the workers; and (2) that no
funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any deduction must be take from the workers who did not sign
contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the the check-off authorization, applies to the case under
contrary shall be null and void." (Emphasis ours) consideration." (Emphasis ours.)

Article 241 (o) provides:jgc: .com.ph We likewise ruled in Bank of the Philippine Islands
Employees Union-Association Labor Union (BPIEU-ALU) v.
"Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no NLRC, 16
special assessment, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any
other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any ". . . the afore-cited provision (Article 222 (b) of the Labor
amount due to an employee without an individual written Code) as prohibiting the payment of attorney’s fees only
authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization when it is effected through forced contributions from workers
should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary from their own funds as distinguished from the union funds.
of the deduction." (Emphasis ours.) The purpose of the provision is to prevent imposition on the
workers of the duty to individually contribute their respective
Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the shares in the fee to be paid the attorney for his services on
special assessment for union’s incidental expenses, behalf of the union in its negotiations with management. The
attorney’s fees and representation expenses. These are: 1) obligation to pay the attorney’s fees belongs to the union and
authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the cannot be shunted to the workers as their direct
members at the general membership meeting called for the responsibility. Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may
purpose; (2) secretary’s record of the minutes of the require the individual worker to assume the obligation to pay
meeting; and (3) individual written authorization for check off attorney’s fees from their own pockets. So categorical is this
duly signed by the employees concerned. intent that the law makes it clear that any agreement to the
contrary shall be null and void ab initio." (Emphasis ours.)
Clearly, attorney’s fees may not be deducted or checked off
from any amount due to an employee without his written From all the foregoing, we are of the considered view that
consent. public respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion
in ruling that the workers through their union should be made
After a thorough review of the records, we find that the to shoulder the expenses incurred for the services of a
General Membership Resolution of October 19, 1991 of the lawyer. And accordingly the reimbursement should be
SolidBank Union did not satisfy the requirements laid down charged to the union’s general fund or account. No
by law and jurisprudence for the validity of the ten percent deduction can be made from the salaries of the concerned
(10%) special assessment for union’s incidental expenses, employees other than those mandated by law.
attorney’s fees and representation expenses. There were no
individual written check off authorizations by the employees WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Order
concerned and so the assessment cannot be legally dated June 3, 1994, of respondent Secretary of Labor signed
deducted by their employer. by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Even as early as February 1990, in the case of Palacol v.
Ferrer-Calleja 13 we said that the express consent of SO ORDERED. lawlibrary:red
employees is required, and this consent must be obtained in
accordance with the steps outlined by law, which must be
followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed. In Stellar
Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC 14 we reiterated that a
written individual authorization duly signed by the employee
concerned is a condition sine qua non for such deduction.
.com : lawlibrary

These pronouncements are also in accord with the recent

ruling of this Court in the case of ABS-CBN Supervisors
Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
 In the meantime, there ensued between the two unions a for resolution to the voluntary arbitrator
[G.R. No. 110007. October 18, 1996.] full-blown action on the basic issue of representation, which
was to last for some two years. It began with the filing by the a. Whether or not the CBA which expired on May 31, 1989
HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC., Petitioner, v. new union (headed by Gallera) of a petition for certification was automatically renewed and did not serve merely as a
HON. JEROME JOAQUIN, in his capacity as Voluntary election in the Office of the Med-Arbiter. 5 KAMAPI holdover CBA; and
Arbitrator, and HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE responded by filing a motion asking the Med-Arbiter to
UNION - KALIPUNAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO dismiss the petition. On August 31, 1989, KAMAPI also b. Whether or not there was refusal to negotiate on the part
(KAMAPI), Respondents. advised Holy Cross of the election of a new set of officers of the Holy Cross of Davao College.
who would also comprise its negotiating panel. 6
On both issues, Voluntary Arbitrator Jerome C. Joaquin
DECISION The Med-Arbiter denied KAMAPI’s motion to dismiss, and found in favor of KAMAPI.
ordered the holding of a certification election. On appeal,
however, the Secretary of Labor reversed the Med-Arbiter’s Respecting the matter of the automatic renewal of the
ruling and ordered the dismissal of the petition for bargaining agreement, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that the
NARVASA, C.J.:
certification election, which action was eventually sustained request for extension filed by KAMAPI constituted
by this Court in appropriate proceedings. seasonable notice of its intention to renew, modify or amend
the agreement, which it could not however pursue because
A collective bargaining agreement, effective from June 1, After its success in the certification election case KAMAPI of the absence of the teachers who were then on summer
1986 to May 31, 1989 was entered into between petitioner presented, on April 11, 1991, revised bargaining proposals to vacation. 11 He rejected the contention of Holy Cross that
Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. (hereafter Holy Cross), an Holy Cross; 7 and on July 11, 1991, it sent a letter to the KAMAPI had unreasonably delayed (until July 31, 1989) the
educational institution, and the affiliate labor organization School asking for its counter-proposals. The School replied, submission of bargaining proposals, opining that the delay
representing its employees, respondent Holy Cross of Davao that it did not know if the Supreme Court had in fact affirmed was partly attributable to the School’s prolonged inaction on
College Union-KAMAPI (hereafter KAMAPI). Shortly before the Labor Secretary’s decision in favor of KAMAPI as the KAMAPI’s request for extension of the CBA. He also ruled
the expiration of the agreement, KAMAPI President, Jose exclusive bargaining representative of the School that Holy Cross was estopped from claiming automatic
Lagahit, wrote Holy Cross under date of April 12, 1989 employees, whereupon KAMAPI’s counsel furnished it with a renewal of the CBA because it ceased to implement the
expressing his union’s desire to renew the agreement, withal copy of the Court’s resolution to that effect; and on check-off provision embodied in the CBA, declaring said
seeking its extension for two months, or until July 31, 1989, September 7, 1991, KAMAPI again wrote to Holy Cross School’s argument — that a "definitive ruling" by the DOLE
on the ground that the teachers were still on summer asking for its counter-proposals as regards the terms of a on the correct interpretation of the automatic-extension
vacation and union activities necessary or incident to the new CBA. clause of the old CBA was a condition precedent to
negotiation of a new agreement could not yet be conducted. negotiations for a new CBA — to be a mere afterthought set
1 Holy Cross President Emilio P. Palma-Gil replied that he In response, Holy Cross declared that it would take no action up to justify its refusal to bargain with KAMAPI after the latter
had no objection to the extension sought, it being allowable towards a new CBA without a "definitive ruling" on the proper had proven that it was the legally-empowered bargaining
under the collective bargaining agreement. 2 interpretation of Article I of the old CBA which should have agent of the school employees. In the dispositive portion of
expired on May 31, 1989 (but, as above stated, had been his award, the Voluntary Arbitrator ordered Holy Cross to
On July 24, 1989, Jose Lagahit convoked a meeting of the extended for two months at the KAMAPI’s request). Said
KAMAPI membership for the purpose of electing a new set Article provides inter alia for the automatic extension of the 1. sit down, negotiate and conclude (an agreement) with the
of union officers, at which Rodolfo Gallera won-election as CBA for another period of three (3) years counted from its Holy Cross of Davao College Faculty Union-KAMAPI, which,
president. To the surprise of many, and with resultant expiration, if the parties fail to agree on a renewal, by Resolution of the Supreme Court, remains the collective
dissension among the membership, Galera forthwith initiated modification or amendment thereof. It appears, in fact, that bargaining agent of the permanent and regular teachers of
discussions for the union’s disaffiliation from the KAMAPI the opinion of the DOLE Regional Director on the meaning said educational institution; (and)
Federation. and import of said Article I had earlier been sought by the
College president, Emilio Palma Gil. 8 2. pay to the Union the amount equivalent to the uncollected
Gallera’s group subsequently formed a separate union dues from August 1989 up to the time respondent shall
organization known as the Holy Cross of Davao College KAMAPI then sent another letter to Holy Cross, this time have concluded a new CBA with the Union, it appearing that
Teachers Union, and elected its own officers. For its part, the accusing it of unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain respondent stopped complying with the CBA’s check-off
existing union, KAMAPI, sent to the School its proposals for despite the former’s repeated demands; and on the following provisions as of said date. 12
a new collective bargaining contract; this it did on July 31, day, it filed a notice of strike with the National Mediation and
1989, the expiry date of the two-month extension it had Conciliation Board. 9 The Voluntary Arbitrator also requested the Fiscal Examiner
sought. 3 of the NLRC, Region XI, Davao City, to make the proper
KAMAPI and Holy Cross were ordered to appear before computation of the union dues to be paid by management to
Holy Cross thereafter stopped deducting from the salaries Conciliator-Mediator Agapito J. Adipen on October 2, 1991. the complainant union.
and wages of its teachers and employees the corresponding Several conciliation meetings were thereafter held between
union dues and special assessments (payable by union them, and when these failed to bring about any amicable Dissatisfied, Holy Cross filed the petition at bar, challenging
members), and agency fees (payable by non-members), in settlement, the parties agreed to submit the case to the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision on the following grounds,
accordance with the check-off clause of the CBA, 4 voluntary arbitration. 10 Both parties being of the view that viz.: 13
prompting KAMAPI, on September 1, 1989, to demand an the dispute did indeed revolve around the interpretation of §1
explanation. and §2 of Article I of the CBA, they submitted position papers 1. That the voluntary arbitrator erred and acted in grave
explicitly dealing with the following issues presented by them abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in ordering petitioner to pay the union the check-off question — the factual premises thereof not being employees may not unjustly enrich themselves by benefiting
uncollected union dues to private respondent which was not indisputable, and technical objections of this sort being from employment conditions negotiated by the bargaining
even an issue submitted for voluntary arbitration, resulting in generally inconsequential in quasi-judicial proceedings — union. 22
serious violation of due process. the issues here ultimately boil down to whether or not an
employer is liable to pay to the union of its employees, the No provision of law makes the employer directly liable for the
2. That the voluntary arbitrator erred in considering that amounts it failed to deduct from their salaries — as union payment to the labor organization of union dues and
petitioner refused to negotiate with (the) Union, contrary to dues (with respect to union members) or agency fees (as assessments that the former fails to deduct from its
the records and evidence presented in the case. regards those not union members) — in accordance with the employees’ salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off
check-off provisions of the collective bargaining contract stipulation. The employer’s failure to make the requisite
The Voluntary Arbitrator’s conclusion — that petitioner Holy (CBA) which it claims to have been automatically extended. deductions may constitute a violation of a contractual
Cross had, in light of the evidence on record, failed to commitment for which it may incur liability for unfair labor
negotiate with KAMAPI, adjudged as the collective A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on practice. 23 But it does not by that omission, incur liability to
bargaining agent of the school’s permanent and regular agreement with the union recognized as the proper the union for the aggregate of dues or assessments
teachers — is a conclusion of fact that the Court will not bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from its uncollected from the union members, or agency fees for non-
review, the inquiry at bar being limited to the issue of employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the union employees.
whether or not said Voluntary Arbitrator had acted without or latter’s wages and remits them directly to the union. 16 Its
in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of desirability to a labor organization is quite evident; by it, it is Check-offs in truth impose an extra burden on the employer
discretion; nor does the Court see its way clear, after assured of continuous funding. Indeed, this Court has in the form of additional administrative and bookkeeping
analyzing the record, to pronouncing that reasoned acknowledged that the system of check-off is primarily for costs. It is a burden assumed by management at the
conclusion to have been made so whimsically, capriciously, the benefit of the union and, only indirectly, of the individual instance of the union and for its benefit, in order to facilitate
oppressively, or unjustifiably — in other words, attended by laborers. 17 When so stipulated in a collective bargaining the collection of dues necessary for the latter’s life and
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of agreement; or authorized in writing by the employees sustenance. But the obligation to pay union dues and agency
jurisdiction — as to call for extension of the Court’s concerned — the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules fees obviously devolves not upon the employer, but the
correcting hand through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. recognize it to be the duty of the employer to deduct sums individual employee. It is a personal obligation not
Said finding should therefore be, and is hereby, sustained. equivalent to the amount of union dues from the employees’ demandable from the employer upon default or refusal of the
wages for direct remittance to the union, in order to facilitate employee to consent to a check-off. The only obligation of
Now, concerning its alleged failure to observe the check-off the collection of funds vital to the role of the union as the employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, Holy representative of employees in a bargaining unit if not, and remit the collections to the union. The principle of unjust
Cross contends that this was not one of the issues raised in indeed, to its very existence. And it may be mentioned in this enrichment necessarily precludes recovery of union dues —
the arbitration proceedings; that said issue was therefore connection that the right to union dues deducted pursuant to or agency fees — from the employer, these being, to repeat,
extraneous and improper; and that even assuming the a check-off, pertains to the local union which continues to obligations pertaining to the individual worker in favor of the
contrary, it (Holy Cross) had not in truth violated the CBA. represent the employees under the terms of a CBA, and not bargaining union. Where the employer fails or refuses to
to the parent association from which it has disaffiliated. 18 implement a check-off agreement, logic and prudence
Holy Cross asserts that it could not comply with the check-off dictate that the union itself undertake the collection of union
provision because contrary to established practice prior to The legal basis of check-off is thus found in statute or in dues and assessments from its members (and agency fees
August, 1989, KAMAPI failed to submit to the college contract. 19 Statutory limitations on check-offs generally from non-union employees); this, of course, without prejudice
comptroller every 8th day of the month, a list of employees require written authorization from each employee to deduct to suing the employer for unfair labor practice.
from whom union. dues and the corresponding agency fees wages; however, a resolution approved and adopted by a
were to be deducted, further, that there was an uncertainty majority of the union members at a general meeting will There was thus no basis for the Voluntary Arbitrator to
as to the recognized bargaining agent with whom it would suffice when the right to check-off has been recognized by require Holy Cross to assume liability for the union dues and
deal — a matter settled only upon its receipt of a copy of this the employer, including collection of reasonable assessments, and agency fees that it had failed to deduct
Court’s Resolution on July 18, 1991 — and in any case, the assessments in connection with mandatory activities of the from its employees’ salaries on the proffered plea that
Voluntary Arbitrator’s order for it to pay to the union the union, or other special assessments and extraordinary fees. contrary to established practice, KAMAPI had failed to
uncollected employees’ dues or agency fees — would 20 submit to the college comptroller every 8th day of the month,
amount to the union’s unjust enrichment. 14 a list of employees from whose pay union dues and the
Authorization to effect a check-off of union dues is co- corresponding agency fees were to be deducted.
KAMAPI maintains, on the other hand, that the check-off terminous with the union affiliation or membership of
issue was raised in the position paper it submitted in the employees. 21 On the other hand, the collection of agency WHEREFORE, the requirement imposed on petitioner Holy
voluntary arbitration proceedings; and that in any case, the fees in an amount equivalent to union dues and fees, from Cross by the challenged decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator,
issue was intimately connected with those submitted for employees who are not union members, is recognized by to pay respondent KAMAPI the amount equivalent to the
resolution and necessary for complete adjudication of the Article 248 (e) of the Labor Code. No requirement of written uncollected union dues and agency fees from August 1989
rights and obligations of the parties; 15 and that said position authorization from the non-union employee is imposed. The up to the time a new collective bargaining agreement is
paper had alleged the manifest bad faith of management in employee’s acceptance of benefits resulting from a collective concluded, is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE; but in all other
not providing information as to who were regular employees, bargaining agreement justifies the deduction of agency fees respects, the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is hereby
thereby precluding determination of teachers eligible for from his pay and the union’s entitlement thereto. In this AFFIRMED.
union membership. aspect, the legal basis of the union’s right to agency fees is
neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi-contractual, SO ORDERED.
Disregarding the objection of failure to seasonably set up the deriving from the established principle that non-union
 [G.R. NO. 169940 : September 14, 2009] 1. Salary increase of P1,700.00 per month summoned and heard on their respective claims, and were
required to submit their respective position papers.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO 2. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00
TOMAS, Petitioner, v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG On May 31, 2002, the DOLE Secretary issued an Order,3 the
UST (SM-UST), Respondent. pertinent portions of which read, as follows:
In November 2001, the parties agreed in principle on all non-
economic provisions of the proposed CBA, except those
DECISION pertaining to Agency Contract or contractualization (Art. III, x x x In arguing on the reasonableness of its demands, it
Sec. 3 of the proposed CBA), Union Leave of the SM-UST cites the income of the school from tuition fee increases and
President (No. 4 of the Addendum to the proposed CBA), the allocation of this amount to the faculty and non-teaching
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
and hiring preference. employees of the School x x x. According to the Union, the
School's estimate of the tuition fee increase for the school
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the year 2003-2004 at P76,410,000.00 is erroneous. The Union
In December 2001, petitioner submitted its final offer on the
January 31, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA- argues that the total income of the School from tuition fee
economic provisions, thus:
G.R. SP No. 72965, which affirmed the May 31, 2002 Order increases for school year 2003-2004 is P101,000,000.00
of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and more or less, or a net of P98,252,187.36, after deducting
Employment (DOLE) directing the parties to execute a A. ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002 adjustments for additional charges, allowances and
Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating the terms in discounts. This is based on the computation of the School's
said Order with modification that the signing bonus is Assistant Chief Accountant x x x.
1. Salary increase of P1,000.00 per month
increased to P18,000.00. Also assailed is the September 23,
2005 Resolution2 denying the motion for reconsideration.
xxx
2. Signing bonus of P10,000.00
Respondent Samahang Manggagawa ng U.S.T. (SM-UST)
The Union feels that the members of the bargaining unit are
was the authorized bargaining agent of the non- 3. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00 the least favored. On the wage increases alone, the Union
academic/non-teaching rank-and-file daily - and monthly-
points out that a comparison of the average monthly salary
paid employees (numbering about 619) of petitioner, the
B. ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003 of the non-academic personnel from school year 1995-1996
Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, The Catholic
up to school year 1999-2000 shows a declining relative
University of the Philippines (or UST), a private university in
percentage. For this period, the bargaining unit enjoyed an
the City of Manila run by the Order of Preachers. In October 1. Salary increase of P1,700.00 per month average monthly salary increase of 14.234%, the lowest
2001, during formal negotiations for a new collective
being 8.9% in school year 1998-1999 and the highest being
bargaining agreement (CBA) for the academic year 2001
2. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00 15.38% in school year 1995-1996. The School's offer for this
through 2006, petitioner submitted its "2001-2006 CBA
CBA cycle translates to an increase of only 8.23%, specified
Proposals" which, among others, contained the following
as follows: (1) 5.69% increase in school year 2000-2001
economic provisions: 3. P6,190,000.00 to be distributed in the form of salary (P1,000.00); (2) 9.15% increase in school year 2001-2002
restructuring (P1,700.00); and (3) 9.86% increase in 2002-2003
A. ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002 (P2,000.00).
C. ACADEMIC YEAR 2003-2004
1. Salary increase of P800.00 per month The Union also submits a comparative chart of the allocation
1. Salary increase of P2,000.00 per month to non-academic personnel of the 70% increase in tuition
fees from school year 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 x x x. The
2. Signing bonus of P10,000.00 average percentage allocation to non-academic personnel
2. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00 during this period is 32.8% of the total 70% of total tuition fee
3. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00 increases, the lowest being 20.83% for the school year
On the other hand, respondent reduced its demands for the 1999-2000 and the highest being 43.11% of the total
first year from P8,000.00 monthly salary increase per allocation in 1997-1998. Using P101,036,330.37 as the
B. ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003 estimated increase in tuition fee, 70% of this amount, net of
employee to P7,000.00, and from P75,000.00 signing bonus
to P60,000.00 for each employee, but petitioner insisted on adjustment, is P68,775,831.15 x x x. The Union argues that
1. Salary increase of P1,500.00 per month its final offer. As a result, respondent declared a deadlock it is entitled to at least the average percentage of allocation
and filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and to it for the past four (4) school years which is at 32.85%, or
Mediation Board -National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR). P22,592,860.53 of the total allocation of P68,775,831.15.
2. Additional Christmas bonus of P2,000.00

Conciliation and mediation proved to be futile, such that in It maintains, however, that it is entitled to more than the
3. P6,000,000.00 for salary restructuring average percentage of its allocation of the total 70%
January 2002, majority of respondent's members voted to
stage a strike. However, the DOLE Secretary timely because it is School practice to allocate more than 70% of
C. ACADEMIC YEAR 2003-2004 assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, and the parties were the total tuition fee increases for the salaries and benefits of
School employees. Comparing the employees' share in the
tuition fee increases from school year 1996-1997 to 1999- 2nd Year - P33,568,970.00 to apply to its demand for salary Signing Bonus
2000, the School allocated an average percentage of increase, Christmas bonus, rice subsidy and clothing/uniform
76.75% for the benefits and salaries of its personnel, or from allowance.
A review of the past bargaining history of the parties shows
a low of 72% in 1998-1999 to a high of 84.4% in 1996-1997
that the School as a matter of course grants a signing bonus.
x x x. If the average is applied this year, the Union argues
3rd Year - P46,653,295.37 to apply to its demand for salary This ranged from P8,000.00 during the first three (3) years of
that the available amount is P75,407,786.29. Because of this
increase, Christmas bonus, medicine allowance, mid-year the last CBA to P10,000.00 during the remaining two (2)
practice, the Union maintains that the School is already
bonus allowance and meal allowance. years of the re-negotiated term. In this instance, the School's
estopped from arguing that the allocation for employee
offer of P10,000.00 signing bonus is already reasonable
wages and benefits should not exceed 70% of tuition fee
considering that the School could have taken the position
increases. Based on the Union's computation, its demands will cost the
that no signing bonus is due on compulsory arbitration in line
School a total of P133,765,125.37 for the entire three (3)
with the ruling in Meralco v. Quisumbing et al., G.R. No.
year period.
Aside from this amount, the Union maintains that it is entitled 127598, 27 January 1999.
to an additional P15,475,000.00, sourced from other income,
for the signing bonus or one-time grant of P25,000.00 per xxx
Christmas Bonus
member x x x. The Union alleges that it is school practice to
appropriate other funds for the wages and benefits of its
Given all the foregoing, we cannot follow the Union's formula
employees. For the school year 1996-1997, the School used We note that the members of the bargaining unit receive a
and in effect disregard the School's two other bargaining
funds from other sources to fund the P2,000,000.00 P6,500.00 Christmas bonus. Considering this current level,
units; to do so is a distortion of economic reality that will not
hospitalization fund and 50% of the signing bonus for the we believe that the School's offer of P2,000.00 for each of
bring about long term industrial peace. We cannot simply
academic personnel; in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, it used the next three (3) years of the CBA is already reasonable.
adopt the School's proposal in light of the parties' bargaining
additional funds for the P1,000,000.00 hospitalization fund of Under this grant, the workers' Christmas bonus will stand at
history, particularly the pattern of increases in the last cycle.
the academic personnel; and in 1999-2000, it used other a total of P12,500 at the end of the third year.
Considering all these, we believe the following to be a fair
funds to finance the one-time grant of P10,000.00 each to
and reasonable resolution of the wage issue.
the non-academic personnel and additional P4,000,000.00
Hospitalization Benefit
for the hospitalization fund of the academic employees or a
total of P17,592,500.00 for the past four (4) academic years 1st Year - P1,000.00/month
x x x. We believe that the current practice is already reasonable
and should be maintained.
2nd Year - P2,000.00/month
The School cannot claim that the funds are insufficient to
cover the expenses for the CBA because for the fiscal year Meal Allowance
2000-2001 alone, the accumulated excess of revenues over 3rd Year - P2,200.00/month
expenses at the end of the year totaled P148,881,678.00 x x
x. The Statement of Revenues and Expenses from School The Union failed to show any justification for its demand on
These increases, at a three-year total of P68,337,600, are
Operations collated from the audited Financial Statements of this item, hence its demand on the increase of meal
less than the three (3)-year increases in the last CBA cycle
the School for the school years 1996-1997 up to 2000-2001 allowance is denied.
to accommodate the School's proven lack of capacity to
shows that except for school years 1996-1997 and 2000- afford a higher increase, but are still substantial enough to
2001, the School posted a net income from school accommodate the workers' needs while taking into account Rice Allowance
operations. Its average annual net income from school the symmetry that must be maintained with the wages of the
operations alone is P7,956,187.00 and the net loss in 2000- other bargaining units. On a straight line aggregate of
2001 was a result of the revaluation of the Main Building as We believe an additional 2 sacks of rice on top of the
P5,200.00, the non-academic personnel will receive P498.48
part of the assets from its fully depreciated value so that a existing 6 sacks of rice is reasonable and is hereby granted,
less than an Instructor I (member of the faculty union) who
new depreciation cost was reported and charged to general effective on the second year.
received an aggregate of P5,698.48, thus maintaining the
expenses. gap between the teaching and non-teaching personnel. The
salary difference will as well be maintained over the three Medical Allowance
From the foregoing arguments, the Union demands that an (3)-year period of the CBA. An RFI employee (member of the
amount should be allocated to it annually to finance its union's bargaining unit) will receive a monthly salary of
In the absence of any clear justification for an improvement
demands as follows: P21,695.95 while an Instructor I (faculty union member) will
of this benefit, we find the existing practice to be already
have a salary of P22,948.00; while an RF5-5/A (member of
reasonable and should be maintained.
the union's bargaining unit) will receive a salary of
1st Year - P38,067,860.00 distributed as follows: P23,462.97 compared to an Asst. Prof. 1 (faculty) who will
P22,592,860.53 (share from tuition fee increases) for the receive P29,250.96. From a total cost of salary increases for Uniform/Clothing
economic benefits with sliding effect on the succeeding the first year at P7,428,000, these costs will escalate to
years; plus P15,475,000.00 for the one-time signing bonus of P22,284,000 in the second year, and to P38,625,000 at the
P25,000.00 for each employee sourced from other funds. third year. Given these figures, the amounts available for The Union has not established why the School should grant
distribution and the member of groups sharing these the benefit; hence this demand is denied.
amounts, these increases are by no means minimal.
Mid-year Bonus
The P3,000.00 bonus is already fair and should be WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties are hereby 1st year - P1,000.00/month
maintained. directed to execute within ten (10) days from receipt of this
Order a Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating the
2nd year - P2,000.00/month
terms and conditions of this Order as well as other
Hazard Pay
agreements made in the course of negotiations and on
conciliation.4 3rd year - P2,000.00/month
There is no basis to increase this benefit, the current level
being fair and reasonable.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was Based on public respondent's arbitral award for the first year
denied by the Secretary of Labor. Thus, respondent filed an (AY 2001-2002), We determine the allocation that SM-UST
Educational Benefit original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, would get from the 70% of the tuition fee increment for AY
claiming that the awards made by the DOLE Secretary are 2001-2002 by approximating UST's expense on the
not supported by the evidence on record and are contrary to increment of salaries/wages, allowances and benefits of the
The existing provision is already generous and should be law and jurisprudence. non-teaching personnel:
maintained.

On January 31, 2005, the appellate court rendered the 1. Increment on Salaries/Wages P 8,047,000.00
Retirement Plan assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, as + 13th month pay
follows: (P1,000 x 13 months x 619
We are convinced that the 100% of basic salary per year of employees)
service is already reasonable and should be maintained. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is partially
2. Signing Bonus 6,190,000.00
GRANTED. The assailed Order of May 31, 2002 of
(P10,000/employee)
Hiring Preference Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification that the P10,000.00 signing bonus awarded is 3. P2,000 Christmas Bonus 1,238,000.00
increased to P18,000.00.
Based on the Minutes of Meeting on 18 October 2001 and 8
November 2001, the parties agreed to retain the existing Total P15,475,000.00
provision; hence, our ruling on this matter is no longer called SO ORDERED.5
=============
for.
In arriving at the foregoing disposition, the appellate court
Contractualization noted that: The amount of P15,475,000.00 represents 22.50% of the
allocated P68,775,831.00 (70% of the tuition fee increment
for AY 2001-2002). UST has allocated P45 million or 65.43%
The Union's proposed amendments are legal prohibitions Based on UST Chief Accountant Antonio J. Dayag's of the P68,775,831 to UST-Faculty Union.
which need not be incorporated in the CBA. The Union has Certification, the tuition fee increment for the SY 2001-2002
alternative remedies if it desires to assail the School's amounted to P101,036,330.37. From this amount, the tuition
contracts with agencies. fee adjustment amounting to P2,785,143.00 was deducted Is the distribution equitable? If the share from the allocated
leaving a net tuition fee increment of P98,251,189.36. P68,775,831.00 for each bargaining unit would be based on
the union's membership, then the distribution appears fair
Full-time Union Leave of Union President and reasonable:
Pursuant to Section 5 (2) RA 6728, seventy percent (70%) of
P98,251,187.36 or P68,775,831.15 is the amount UST has
The Union failed to provide convincing reasons why this to allocate for salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits xxx
demand should be favorably granted; hence, the same is of its 2,290 employees, categorized as follows: 619 non-
denied. teaching personnel represented by herein petitioner SM-
UST; 1,452 faculty members represented by UST-Faculty Academic 1,452 employees awarded P45 million
Other Demands Union (UST-FU) and 219 academic/administrative officials. Non-academic 619 employees awarded P15.475 million
The last group of employees is excluded from the coverage
of the two bargaining units. Academic &
All other demands not included in the defined deadlock Administrative 219 employees awarded P8 million
issues are deemed abandoned, except for existing benefits
which the School shall continue to grant at their current Public respondent, taking into consideration the bargaining
levels consistent with the principle of non-diminution of history of the parties, the needs of the members of Union in
benefits. relation to the capability of its employer, UST, to grant its Total awarded P68,475,000.00
demands, the impact of the award on the UST-Faculty Union
members (UST-FU), and how the present salary and
benefits of the non-academic personnel compare with the The difference between P68,775,831 (70% of incremental
compensation of the employees of other learning institutions, tuition fee proceeds) and P68,475,000 (total actual allocation
arrived at the following "fair and reasonable" resolution to the or award to the two bargaining units and the school officials)
wage issue:
is P300,831.00, which is only .437% of the 70% mandatory share per employee) END OF
allocation (P68,775,831.00). YEAR
8. Pag-Ibig (2% of the
742,800.00
basic pay)
The Supreme Court in the case of Cebu Institute of Medicine
v. Cebu Institute of Medicine Employees' Union National Thus, if We charge the employees' other benefits from the
9. Phil Health
Federation of Labor held that SSS, Medicare and Pag-Ibig 928,500.00   accumulated excess of revenues, We will come up with the
(P125.00/employee)
employer's share may be charged against the "seventy following:
percent (70%) incremental tuition fee increase (sic)" as they P28,837,780.00
are, after all, for the benefit of the University's teaching and Total ============
= Accumulated Excess of Revenues
non-teaching personnel. The High Court further ruled that
Over Expenses (2001) P148,881,678.00
"the private educational institution concerned has the
discretion on the disposition of the seventy percent (70%) Less:
incremental tuition fee increase (sic). It enjoys the privilege The allocation for salary increases, 13th month pay, signing
Other Benefits of Non-Teaching
of determining how much increase in salaries to grant and bonus and Christmas bonus for UST's teaching and non-
Personnel 28,837,780.00
the kind and amount of allowances and other benefits to teaching employees, as well as the school officials, amount
give. The only precondition is that seventy percent (70%) of to P68.475 million. This represents almost 70% of the UST
the incremental tuition fee increase (sic) goes to the payment incremental tuition fee proceeds for AY 2001-2002.
Balance P120,043,898.00
of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching Considering the fringe benefits being extended to UST
and non-teaching personnel."ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl employees, it is safe to assume that the funds for such
lαω  lιbrαrÿ benefits need to be sourced from the University's other Even if the other benefits of the faculty members were to be
revenues. We looked into UST's financial statements to charged from the remaining balance of the Accumulated
determine its financial standing. The financial statements Excess of Revenues Over Expenses, there would still be
In the (sic) light of the foregoing jurisprudence, the duly audited by independent and credible external auditors sufficient amount to fund the other benefits of the non-
University, in order to comply with R.A. 6728, must fully constitute the normal method of proof of profit and loss teaching personnel.
allocate the 70% of the tuition fee increases to salaries, performance of a company. We examined UST audited
wages, allowances and other benefits of the teaching and financial statements from 1997 to 2001 and found that the
non-teaching personnel. The amount of P300,831.00 must University's "other incomes" come from parking fees, rent xxx
therefore be allocated either as salary increment or fringe income and interest income. It, likewise, derives income from
benefits of the non-teaching personnel. school operations: However, while We subscribe to UST's position on "salary
distortion", Our earlier findings support the petitioner's
We noted that UST's non-teaching employees enjoy several contention that the UST has substantial accumulated income
1999 2000 2001
fringe benefits. and thus, We deem it proper to award an increase, not in
Income from P19,874,937.0 (40,905,598 salary, to prevent any salary distortion, but in signing bonus.
Operations 0 (24,222,602) ) The arbitral award of P10,000 signing bonus per employee
We listed them down and estimated their costs for AY 2001- awarded by public respondent is hereby increased to
2002: Other Income 85,995,039.00 77,335,032.00 78,358,303 P18,000.00.
Excess of
1. P3,000.00 mid-year P1,857,000.0 Revenues We are well aware of the need for the University to maintain
bonus 0 Over a sound and viable financial condition in the light of the
Expenses decreasing number of its enrollees and the increasing costs
2. 6 sacks of Before (29,726,651 of construction of buildings and modernization of equipment,
rice/employee Income Tax 96,869,976.00 53,112,480.00 ) libraries, laboratories and other similar facilities. To balance
@ P1,000.00/sack 3,714,000.00 this concern of the University with the need of its non-
Provision for academic employees, the additional award, which We deem
3. Hospitalization benefit 2,476,000.00 Income Tax 2,122,518.00 2,602,305.00 reasonable, and to be funded from the University's
4. Meal allowance Excess of accumulated income, is thus limited to the increase in
(P600/month/employee) 4,456,800.00 Revenues signing bonus.6
Over (32,115,272
5. Hazard pay Expenses 94,747,458.00 50,510,175.00 ) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
(P200/month for
198 entitled employees) 8,430,780.00 ACCUMULAT appellate court denied in its September 23, 2005 Resolution.
ED Hence, the instant petition which raises the following issues:
6. Medicine Allowance EXCESS OF
(P1,000/month/employe REVENUES I.
e) 7,428,000.00 20,407,000.00 OVER
7. SSS (P910.00 EXPENSES P180,996,950. P130,486,775. P148,881,6
AT 00 00 78 THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
employer's 6,759,480.00
PALPABLE ERROR OF SUBSTANCE WHEN IT RULED
THAT THE MEMBERS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT DID KAMI NA NAKALAGDA SA IBABA AY NAGPAPAABOT NG also committing a serious infraction of the mandatory
NOT VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY ACCEPT THE AMING TAHASANG PAGTANGGAP SA AWARD NG provisions of RA 6728.
ARBITRAL AWARD OF THE SECRETARY OF DOLE. SECRETARY OF LABOR SA AMING (CBA) DEADLOCK
CASE.
The law is silent, however, on the remaining ten percent of
II. the tuition fee increase. The DepEd has referred to it as the
SANA PO AY MA-RELEASE ANG AMING MGA WAGE "return of investment" for proprietary schools and the "free
ADJUSTMENTS AT IBA PANG BENEPISYO BAGO MAG portion" for non-stock, non-profit educational institutions.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
DECEMBER 15, 2002. This ten percent (10%) is the only portion of the tuition fee
PALPABLE ERROR OF SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO
increase which schools may use as they wish.11
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT INCREASED
THE SIGNING BONUS AWARDED BY THE SECRETARY x x x x9
OF DOLE TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF PRIVATE Petitioner thus concedes liability only up to P300,831.00,
RESPONDENT FROM P10,000.00 TO P18,000.00. which is the remaining balance of the undistributed amount
Petitioner claims that it began paying the wage adjustment
of P68,775,831.00, which represents 70% of the incremental
and other benefits pursuant to the May 31, 2002 Order of the
tuition fee proceeds for the period in question.
III. DOLE Secretary; and that to date, 572 out of the 619
members of respondent have been paid. It now argues that
by their acceptance of the award and the resulting payments Petitioner contends further that the appellate court's award of
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS
made to them, the said union members have ratified its offer additional signing bonus (from P10,000.00 to P18,000.00) is
COMPLETELY IGNORED THE CLEAR MANDATE AND
and thus rendered moot the case before the Court of contrary to the nature and principle behind the grant of such
INTENTION OF R.A. 6728 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 72965). benefit, which is one given as a matter of discretion and
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS AND
cannot be demanded by right,12 a consideration paid for the
TEACHERS IN PRIVATE EDUCATION ACT.
goodwill that existed in the negotiations, which culminate in
Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in
the signing of a CBA.13 Petitioner claims that since this
ordering it to source part of its judgment award from the
IV. condition is absent in the parties' case, it was erroneous to
school's other income, claiming that Republic Act
have rewarded respondent with an increased signing bonus.
672810 does not compel or require schools to allocate more
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED than 70% of the incremental tuition fee increase for the
PALPABLE ERROR OF SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO salaries and benefits of its employees. Citing an authority in Finally, petitioner endorses the original award of the DOLE
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT education law, it stresses that - Secretary, calling her disposition of the case "fair and
THE FRINGE BENEFITS BEING ENJOYED BY THE equitable"14 and deserving of our attention, in light of the
ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES OF principle that -
Clearly, only 70% may be used for the "payment of salaries,
PETITIONER WERE SOURCED OUT FROM ITS OTHER
wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-
INCOME.
teaching personnel," since 20% "shall go to the improvement The conclusions reached by public respondent (Secretary of
or modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries, Labor) in the discharge of her statutory duty as compulsory
V. laboratories, gymnasia and similar facilities and the payment arbitrator, demand the high respect of this Court. The study
of other costs of operation." and settlement of these disputes fall within public
respondent's distinct administrative expertise. She is
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED especially trained for this delicate task, and she has within
PALPABLE ERROR OF SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO A school does not exist solely for the benefit of its teachers
her cognizance such data and information as will assist her
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT IGNORED THE and non-teaching personnel. A school is principally
in striking the equitable balance between the needs of
TIME HONORED PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PETITION established to deliver quality education at all levels, as the
management, labor, and the public. Unless there is clear
FOR CERTIORARI INVOLVING LABOR CASES. 7 Constitution requires. Therefore, any tuition fee increase
showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court cannot and
authorized by either the DepEd Secretary, the CHED or the
will not interfere with the labor expertise of public respondent
Director General of the TESDA for private schools should not
Petitioner alleges that, as of December 11, 2002, 526 regular x x x.15
solely benefit the teaching and non-teaching personnel but
non-academic employees - out of a total of 619 respondent's should rather be used for the welfare of the entire school
members - have decided to unconditionally abide by the May community, particularly the students. The students are On the other hand, respondent seeks to sustain the
31, 2002 Order of the DOLE Secretary.8 A letter signed by entitled as a matter of right to the improvement and appellate court's disposition, echoing its ruling that even
the 526 non-academic employees allegedly reads: modernization of the school "buildings, equipment," as this is though majority of the non-teaching employees agreed to
fundamental to the maintenance or improvement of the petitioner's offer and accepted payment thereupon, they are
December 3, 2002 quality of education they receive. not precluded from receiving additional benefits that the
courts may award later on, bearing in mind that -
TO: REV. FR. TAMERLANE R. LANA, O.P. Thus, if schools use any part of the 20% reserved for the
Rector upgrading of school facilities to supplement the salaries of the employer and the employee do not stand on the same
their academic and non-academic personnel, they would not footing. Considering the country's prevailing economic
only be violating the students' constitutional right to quality conditions, the employee oftentimes finds himself in no
REV. FR. JUAN V. PONCE, O.P. education through "improvement and modernization" but position to resist money proffered, thus, his case becomes
Vice-Rector
one of adherence and not of choice. This being the case, provisions for the academic year (AY) 2001-2002, @ P1,000/sack
they are deemed not to have waived any of their rights. 16 specifically the appellate court's increased award of signing
bonus, from P10,000.00 as originally granted by the DOLE 3. Hospitalization benefit 2,476,000.00
Secretary, to P18,000.00; the parties do not appear to
As regards petitioner's assertion that the funds to cover for 4. Meal allowance
question any other disposition made by the DOLE Secretary. 4,456,800.00
the cost of the other benefits awarded by the DOLE (P600/month/employee)
Secretary may not be sourced from its other income
pursuant to R.A. 6728 as these benefits should only be paid Thus, it has been determined that from the tuition fees for 5. Hazard pay
out from the 70% tuition fee increment, respondent argues the academic year in question, petitioner earned an (P200/month for 8,430,780.00
that R.A. 6728' increment of P101,036,330.37. Under R.A. 6728, 70% of that 198 entitled employees)
amount - or the net18 amount of P68,775,831.15 - should be
allotted for payment of salaries, wages, allowances and 6. Medicine Allowance
does not provide that the increase or improvement of the (P1,000/month/employe
other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel
salaries and fringe benefits of the employees should be e) 7,428,000.00 20,407,000.00
except administrators who are principal stockholders of the
exclusively funded from the income of the University which is
school. 7. SSS (P910.00
derived from the increase in tuition fees. In fact, the statute
has no application with respect to the manner of disposition employer's 6,759,480.00
of the other incomes (as distinguished from income derived Of this amount (P68,775,831.15), an aggregate of share per employee)
from tuition fee increases) of the University, nor does it P15,475,000.00 (or 22.5 %) was allocated to the university's
8. Pag-Ibig (2% of the
preclude or exempt the latter from using its other income or non-teaching or non-academic personnel, by way of the 742,800.00
basic pay)
part thereof to fund the cost of increases or improvements in following:
the salaries and benefits of its employees. x x x 9. Philhealth
928,500.00
(P125.00/employee)
Increment on Salaries/Wages P 8,047,000.00
15. Contrary to the assertion of Petitioner, it is very clear that plus 13th month pay
the funds used by the University to cover the cost of other (P1,000 x 13 months x 619
fringe benefits (under the existing CBA) granted to the non- non-academic personnel) Total P28,837,780.0
academic employees for AY 2001-2002 in the amount of 0
P28,837,780.00 as observed by the Court of Appeals, came Signing Bonus 6,190,000.00
from the other income of the University and not from the (P10,000 per employee)
share of the said employees in the income derived from the
tuition fee increases during the same period. Logically, the P2,000 Christmas Bonus 1,238,000.00
Clearly, these fringe benefits would have to be obtained from
grant of the said fringe benefits could not have come from sources other than the incremental tuition fee proceeds
the amount of P15,475,000.00 which was already allocated (P68,775,831.15), since only P15,475,000.00 thereof was
TOTAL 15,475,000.00
by the University to cover the total cost of the increases in set aside for the non-teaching personnel; the rest was
the salaries, grant of signing bonus, and increase in the allocated to the teaching personnel.
Christmas bonus to the non-academic employees for AY
2001-2002.17
On the other hand, the amount of P45 million (or 65.43% of The appellate court, moreover, granted an increase in the
P68,775,831.15) was allocated to the teaching personnel. signing bonus, that is, from the DOLE Secretary's award of
On the appellate court's award of additional signing bonus, P10,000.00, to P18,000.00. This, exactly, is the parties' point
respondent argues that since no strike or any untoward of contention.
incident occurred, goodwill between the parties remained, After distribution of the respective shares of the teaching and
which entitles respondent's members to receive their signing non-teaching personnel, there remained a balance of
bonus. Besides, respondent asserts that since petitioner did P300,831.00 from the P68,775,831.15. Going now to the question of whether respondent's
not appeal the DOLE Secretary's award, it may not now members' individual acceptance of the award and the
argue against its grant, the issue remaining being the In addition to the salary increase, signing and Christmas resulting payments made by petitioner operate as a
propriety of the awarded amount; that is, whether or not it bonuses, the Court of Appeals extended to respondent's ratification of the DOLE Secretary's award which renders
was proper for the appellate court to have raised it from members the following fringe benefits for AY 2001-2002, CA-G.R. SP No. 72965 moot, we find that such do not
P10,000.00 to P18,000.00. which benefits petitioner has been giving its non-teaching operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary's award; nor
employees in the past, and which are included in the DOLE a waiver of their right to receive further benefits, or what they
Secretary's award - an award which petitioner prays for this may be entitled to under the law. The appellate court
We resolve to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. correctly ruled that the respondent's members were merely
Court to affirm in toto:
constrained to accept payment at the time. Christmas was
To put matters in their proper context, we must first simplify then just around the corner, and the union members were in
the facts. 1. P3,000.00 mid-year P1,857,000.0 no position to resist the temptation to accept much-needed
bonus 0 cash for use during the most auspicious occasion of the
year. Time and again, we have held that necessitous men
Although the parties were negotiating on the CBA for 2. 6 sacks of are not, truly speaking, free men; but to answer a present
academic years 2001 through 2006 (2001-2006 CBA rice/employee 3,714,000.00
Proposals), we are here concerned only with the economic
emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
impose upon them.19 signing bonus of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P18,000.00) per member of respondent Samahang
Manggagawa ng U.S.T. as awarded by the Court of Appeals
Besides, as individual components of a union possessed of a
is REDUCED to TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). All
distinct and separate corporate personality, respondent's
other findings and dispositions made by the Court of Appeals
members should realize that in joining the organization, they
in its January 31, 2005 Decision and September 23, 2005
have surrendered a portion of their individual freedom for the
Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 72965 are AFFIRMED.
benefit of all the other members; they submit to the will of the
majority of the members in order that they may derive the
advantages to be gained from the concerted action of SO ORDERED.
all.20 Since the will of the members is personified by its board
of directors or trustees, the decisions it makes should
accordingly bind them. Precisely, a labor union exists in
whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of
dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment.21 What the individual employee may not do
alone, as for example obtain more favorable terms and
conditions of work, the labor organization, through
persuasive and coercive power gained as a group, can
accomplish better.ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl  lαω
lιbrαrÿ

Regarding petitioner's assertion that it was unlawful for the

Court of Appeals to have required it to source the award of
fringe benefits (in the amount of P28,837,780.00) from the
school's other income, since R.A. 6728 does not compel or
require schools to allocate more than 70% of the incremental
tuition fee increase for the salaries and benefits of its
employees, we find it unnecessary to rule on this matter.
These fringe benefits are included in the DOLE Secretary's
award - an award which petitioner seeks to affirm in toto; this
being so, it cannot now argue otherwise. Since it abides by
the DOLE Secretary's award, which it finds "fair and
equitable," it must raise the said amount through sources
other than incremental tuition fee proceeds.

Finally, we come to the appellate court's award of additional

signing bonus, which we find to be unwarranted under the
circumstances. A signing bonus is a grant motivated by the
goodwill generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated
and signed between the employer and the union. 22 In the
instant case, no CBA was successfully negotiated by the
parties. It is only because petitioner prays for this Court to
affirm in toto the DOLE Secretary's May 31, 2002 Order that
we shall allow an award of signing bonus. There would have
been no other basis to grant it if petitioner had not so prayed.
We shall take it as a manifestation of petitioner's liberality,
which we cannot now allow it to withdraw. A bonus is a
gratuity or act of liberality of the giver;23 when petitioner filed
the instant petition seeking the affirmance of the DOLE
Secretary's Order in its entirety, assailing only the increased
amount of the signing bonus awarded, it is considered to
have unqualifiedly agreed to grant the original award to the
respondent union's members.
e.1 Election of officers – 250 second to the last paragraph
250(c)
For this purpose, registered labor organizations may
The members shall directly elect their officers in assess reasonable dues to finance labor relations
the local union, as well as their national officers in seminars and other labor education activities.
the national union or federation to which they or
their local union is affiliated, by secret ballot at Any violation of the above rights and conditions of
intervals of five (5) years. No qualification membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union
requirement for candidacy to any position shall be registration or expulsion of officers from office, whichever
imposed other than membership in good standing is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the
in subject labor organization. The secretary or any members of a union or any member or members specially
other responsible union officer shall furnish the concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment with a list of Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any
the newly-elected officers, together with the reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
appointive officers or agents who are entrusted
Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above
with the handling of funds within thirty (30)
rights and conditions of membership shall continue to be
calendar days after the election of officers or from
under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
the occurrence of any change in the list of officers
of the labor organization; TIEHDC
e.2 Question of major policy- 250(d)
250(f),
(d) The members shall determine by secret ballot,
(f) No person who has been convicted of a crime after due deliberation, any question of major policy
involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for affecting the entire membership of the
election as a union officer or for appointment to organization, unless the nature of the organization
any position in the union; or force majeure renders such secret ballot
impractical, in which case, the board of directors of
the organization may make the decision in behalf
of the general membership;
250(k),

(k) The officers of any labor organization shall not

be paid any compensation other than the salaries
and expenses due to their positions as specifically
provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a
written resolution duly authorized by a majority of
all the members at a general membership meeting
duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast
shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary
of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions
shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion
from the organization;