Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

National Union of Bank Employees v.
PEMA and PNB

GR No. 174287 | Aug. 12, 2013 | Peralta, J.
Alba | Nature and Right of Legality
Case Summary: PNB became a private corporation. Its employees (when it was still not a private
corporation) were represented by PEMA. PEMA affiliated with NUBE and became NUBE-PEC.
NUBE-PEC was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for PNB’s rank-and-file employees and
successfully negotiated a CBA with PNB covering Jan 1997 to Dec 2001. The CBA contained a
provision stating that part of the monthly dues of NUBE-PEC shall go to NUBE. Upon expiration of
the CBA, a new group PEMA-FFW filed for certification election. Before the certification election
occurred, NUBE-PEC disaffiliated with NUBE.
The labor organization formerly known as NUBE-PEC (now referred to as PEMA) sent a letter to
PNB requesting them to stop giving the dues to NUBE. NUBE alleged that PNB committed unfair
labor practices. PEMA sought to intervene as the validity of their disaffiliation is also a subject of the
issue between NUBE and PNB.
The Acting DOLE Secretary denied the motion for intervention and ordered PNB to release the
dues in favor of NUBE. The CA held that the disaffiliation was valid. The SC affirmed the CA
decision.
Doctrine: A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing
that the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such disaffiliation does not result into the
loss of its legal personality.
Facts:
1. PNB used to be a government-owned and controlled banking institution established under
Public Act 2612 as amended by EO 80.
- Its rank-and-file employees (who are gov’t personnel) were represented for collective
negotiation by Philnabank Employees Association (PEMA).
2. In 1996, the SEC approved PNB’s new Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws and
changed its status as a private corporation.
3. PEMA affiliated with National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) → labor federation of
unions in the banking industry. PEMA adopted the name NUBE-PNB Employees Chapter
(NUBE-PEC).
4. NUBE-PEC was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PNB’s rank and file
employees.
- A CBA was signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB covering 1/1/97 → 12/31/01
5. Pursuant to Art. V of the CBA (Check Off Provision), PNB shall deduct the monthly
membership fee and other fees imposed by the union from the salary of each union
member, and agency fee (monthly membership dues) from the salary of rank and file
employees who are NOT UNION MEMBERS.
- During the effectivity of the CBA, NUBE-PEC agreed that PNB shall remit P15 of the
P65 union dues per month and PNB shall credit the amount to NUBE’s current account
with PNB.
6. After the CBA expired, Philnabank Employees Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed a petition
for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of PNB.
- The petition sought a certification election to be participated by NUBE-PEC and
PEMA-FFW.
7. While the petition was pending, two significant events transpired:
a. Independent union registration of NUBE-PEC
b. NUBE-PEC disaffiliated with NUBE.
8. NUBE-PEC applied for a separate registration with the DOLE (as its legal personality was
derived only from a charter issued by NUBE)
- It was registered as an independent labor organization on March 2002
- NUBE-PEC issued a resolution disaffiliating themselves with NUBE and claimed that
such resolution was ratified by 81% of the total union membership.
9. NUBE-PEC then filed a Manifestation and Motion before the Med-Arbitration Unit of DOLE
praying that its name (in the ballots) to be changed to PEMA or alternatively, both shall be
called PEMA, but they are denominated as PEMA-Serrana Group and PEMA-FFW as
PEMA-Bustria Group.
- They also sent a letter to PNB requesting them to stop giving the P15 to NUBE.
- NOTE: NUBE-PEC SHALL NOW BE REFERRED TO AS PEMA
10. NUBE replied that:
a. It remains the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees
b. The officers who signed the resolution have abandoned NUBE-PEC and joined another
union → considered abdicated and resigned
c. Those officers committed an act of disloyalty to NUBE-PEC and the general
membership
d. There is emergency in NUBE-PEC necessitating its placement under temporary
trusteeship;
e. PNB should cease and desist from dealing with Serrana and the others, who are
expelled from NUBE-PEC.
f. If PNB fails to comply with the Check-Off Provision, it would elevate the matter to the
grievance machinery pursuant to the CBA.
11. PNB did not remit to NUBE. NUBE brought the matter to the NCMB for preventive mediation
alleging ULP for non-implementation by the PNB of the grievance machinery and procedure.
12. MEANWHILE: the Certification Election occured with NUBE-PEC (slash PEMA) garnering
2683 of a possible 3065 votes.
13. PEMA filed a Motion for Intervention (re: NUBE vs PNB issue in Facts 11) as it stands to be
affected by whatever judgement may be issued as the validity of their disaffiliation from NUBE
is one of the issues to be decided.
- NUBE opposed and argued that PEMA had no personality (not a party to the CBA).
NUBE also claimed that in dealing with PEMA, PNB is guilty of another ULP as NUBE is
the exclusive bargaining representative.
14. DOLE Acting Secretary Imson denied the motion for intervention and ordered the release of
all union dues withheld by PNB.
15. CA: Denied PEMA’s petition for TRO and WPI.
- PEMA filed another petition for a TRO against Imson’s 2005 Resolution which ordered
PNB to issue a check payable to NUBE covering the funds withheld.
- CA granted this motion AND declared the validity of PEMA’s disaffiliation.
- CA also ordered to return the amounts deducted to the employees and to stop
further deductions in favor of NUBE.
Issue/s: Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE YES
Holding:
THIS IS A QUESTION OF FACT, NOT LAW, CA IS CONCLUSIVE, BUT EVEN IF WE LOOK INTO
IT, NUBE’S CLAIM IS BEREFT OF MERIT
1. Whether or not there was a valid disaffiliation is a question of fact. The SC may only review
questions of law as it is not a trier of facts.
- The general rule is that when supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of
the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.
- There are no exceptions applicable in this case.
2. Even if we look at the evidence, NUBE’s claims are bereft of merit.
THE RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE

1. The right to disaffiliate is well-settled in our jurisdiction.
- MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos: A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its
mother union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate and voluntary
association, is free to serve the interests of all its members including the freedom
to disaffiliate in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association.
- The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union is to increase by
collective action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of
labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their
own and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms
laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence.
- A local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such
affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty.
- Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC: echoed MSMG
- Coastal Subic Bay v. DOLE: A local union does not owe its existence to the
federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association
owing its creation to the will of its members.
- The relationship gives rise to an agency where the federation is merely the agent
of the local union.
- The unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.
2. In the recent case of Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek
Electronics, this Court has held:
- A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing
that the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule.
- Such disaffiliation does not result into the loss of its legal personality.
- A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated . It
is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its
members.
- The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither
does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It
only gives rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in representation of the
latter.
3. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation
of a local union, a local may sever its relationship with its parent.
- ITCAB: no evidence or claim that PEMA was forbidden to disaffiliate and no conditions
were imposed for a valid breakaway.
- Thus, PEMA is not precluded to disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the status of an
independent labor organization duly registered before the DOLE.
4. NUBE contends that the disaffiliation is invalid due to non-observance of the procedure that
union members should make such determination through secret ballot and after due
deliberation (LC 241d).
- The SC disagrees with the contention. NUBE failed to quote a specific provision of
the law or rule mandating that a local union's disaffiliation from a federation must comply
with Article 241 (d) in order to be valid and effective.
5. EVEN IF ASSUMING LC 241D IS APPLICABLE, the SC still upholds the disaffiliation due to:
a. Non-compliance with procedure cannot rise above the fundamental right to
self-organization and to form and join labor organizations
b. The Article provides that when the nature of the organization renders such secret ballot
impractical, the union officers may make the decision in behalf of the general
membership.
- PEMA membership is scattered and there are 300 branches in various towns. To
gather their votes in secret ballots would be highly impractical and is virtually
impossible.
c. NUBE did not dispute the existence of the persons or their due execution of the
document showing their unequivocal support for the disaffiliation of PEMA from NUBE.
- No evidence was presented that the union members' ratification was obtained by
mistake or through fraud, force or intimidation.
- This is not a case where one or two members of the local union decided to
disaffiliate from the mother federation, but one where more than a majority of the
local union members decided to disaffiliate.
6. By PEMA's valid disaffiliation from NUBE, the vinculum that previously bound the two entities
was completely severed.
- NUBE was divested of any and all power to act in representation of PEMA, any act
performed by the former that affects the interests and affairs of the latter (expulsion of
Serrana et al.) is rendered without force and effect.
7. .NUBE loses it right to collect all union dues held in its trust by PNB.
- The moment that PEMA separated from and left NUBE and exists as an independent
labor organization with a certificate of registration, the former is no longer obliged to
pay dues and assessments to the latter.
8. It was entirely reasonable for PNB to enter into a CBA with PEMA as represented by Serrana,
et al. Since PEMA had validly separated itself from NUBE, there would be no restrictions which
could validly hinder it from collectively bargaining with PNB.
Ruling: DENIED. CA decision affirmed.

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Union of Bank Employees v.

PEMA and PNB

Issue/s: Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE YES

THE RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE

Ruling: DENIED. CA decision affirmed.

You might also like

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nube Vs PEMA & PNB Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Union of Bank Employees v.

PEMA and PNB

Issue/s:​ ​Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE ​YES

THE RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE

Ruling:​ DENIED. CA decision affirmed.

You might also like

Issue/s: Whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from NUBE YES

Ruling: DENIED. CA decision affirmed.