CASE NO. #1 (GALICIA) ***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e.

exceeding 20 pages**

UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio FACTS:

GR No . 131235 | Date: November 16, 1999| Union-Member Relations 1. Private Respondents were duly elected officers of the UST Faculty Union
(Petitioner), The union has a subsisting 5 yr CBA with UST,
Petitioner: UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA, CORAZON 2. On Sept 21, 1996, one of the PR’s as Secretary General of the Union posted
QUI, NORMA CALAGUAS, IRMA POTENCIANO, LUZ DE GUZMAN, a notice for all union members announcing a general assembly to be held on
REMEDIOS GARCIA, RENE ARNEJO, EDITHA OCAMPO, CESAR REYES, Oct 5 such GA was called to elect a new set of officers. The members were
CELSO NIERRA, GLICERIA BALDRES, MA. LOURDES MEDINA, also notified of the constitution of a COMELEC to oversee the elections.
HIDELITA GABO, MAFEL YSRAEL, LAURA ABARA, NATIVIDAD 3. The members of the union filed a separate petition with the Med-Arbiter
SANTOS, FERDINAND LIMOS, CARMELITA ESPINA, ZENAIDA against the PR and members of the COMELEC alleging that the
FAMORCA, PHILIP AGUINALDO, BENEDICTA ALAVA and LEONCIO COMELEC was not constituted in accordance the Union’s constitution and
CASAL Bylaws.(CBL)
Respondent: Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR. of the Bureau of 4. The Sec-gen of UST upon request of the various UST faculty club
Labor Relations, Med-Arbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The National Capital presidents, issued notices allowing all Faculty to hold a convocation on Oct
Region, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), EDUARDO J. MARIÑO 4, the convocation was supposed to discuss the state of the unratified CBA
JR., MA. MELVYN ALAMIS, NORMA COLLANTES, URBANO ALABAGIA, and the status and election of the Union’s officers.
RONALDO ASUNCION, ZENAIDA BURGOS, ANTHONY CURA, FULVIO 5. On Oct 4 The med-arbiter issued a TRO against the PR, enjoining them
M. GUERRERO, MYRNA HILARIO, TERESITA MEER, FERNANDO from conducting the elections scheduled on Oct 05
PEDROSA, NILDA REDOBLADO, RENE SISON, EVELYN TIROL and 6. On the same day as announced by the UST sec-gen, the general faculty
ROSIE ALCANTARA assembly as held, and was attended by members of the union and also by
non-Union members who are in good standing with the UST academic
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: The Private Respondents were officers Community Collective Care union On this occasion a new set of officers of
of the UST Faculty union, they posted a notice announcing a GA for the election the Union were elected.
of new officers, and that they were going to constitute a COMELEC for the a. The election came about upon a motion of Atty. Lopez admittedly
election. The petitioners filed a petition against the election. The UST sec gen not a member of the union stating that the CBL and the rules of the
upon request of Various faculty club presidents announcing a GA. In this GA a election and that the election be held on the same day.
new set of officers were elected however the voting was done with non union 7. On Oct 11, the PRs filed a petition seeking injunctive relief and the
members. This prompted the old officers to file injunctive relief with the Med- nullification of the results of the Oct 4 election, they allege that the holding
arbiter, which the Med arbiter. This was Affirmed by the Director Bitono. The SC of the election violated the TRO issued before, and accused the members of
affirmed the findings of Dir. Bitonio, stating that the election was null and void usurpation. The PRs characterized the election as spurious for being
because it was not done in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the violative of the CBL specifically because of the following:
Union and holding that the Constitution and Bylaws are the rules to be observed a. The GA resulted in the election was not called by the Board of
by union members and anything contradictory to such rules will be vod such as Officers of the union,
this election. b. No compliance with the 10 day notice rule
Doctrine: On joining a labor union, the constitution and bylaws become a part of c. Conducted w/o a COMELEC
the member’s contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by d. Not by Secret balloting
the constitution and governing rules of the union so far as it is not inconsistent e. Convened by faculty members who were not members of the
with controlling principles of law. The constitution and bylaws of an Union,
unincorporated trade union express the terms of a contract, which define the f. Non union members were allowed to vote
privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, those who have become 8. On Dec 3, the new officers of the union and UST allegedly entered into a
members. The agreement of a member on joining a union to abide by its laws and new CBA covering the period of Jun 1996- to May 2001.
comply with the will of the lawfully constituted majority does not require a 9. The PRs moved again for the issuance of a TRA to prevent the new officers
member to submit to the determination of the union any question involving his from making further representations that they had entered into a new
personal rights

1
 agreement with UST. They also assert that the new officers were usurping 2. On joining a labor union, the constitution and bylaws become a part of the
their duties and functions and that they should be stopped from doing so. members contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound
10. The Med-Arbiter granted the TRO directing the new officers from by the constitution and governing rules of the union so far as it is not
performing any and all acts pertaining to the duties and functions of the inconsistent with controlling principles of law. The constitution and bylaws
officers and directors of the union. of an unincorporated trade union express the terms of a contract, which
11. The new officers appealed the med arbiters decision to the labor secretary define the privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, those
who transmitted the records to the BLR. who have become members. The agreement of a member on joining a union
12. Bitonio, agreeing with the med arbiter that the elections held on oct 4 was to abide by its laws and comply with the will of the lawfully constituted
void for having been conducted in violation of the union’s CBL, and reject majority does not require a member to submit to the determination of the
the petitioner’s contention that it was a legitimate exercise of their right to union any question involving his personal rights.
self-organization. 3. Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly committed by the
a. He ruled that the CBL, which constituted the covenant between the private respondents during the latter’s incumbency impelled the October 4,
union and its members could not be suspended during the Oct 4 1996 election of the new set of USTFU officers. They assert that such
general assembly since such assemble was not convened or exercise was pursuant to their right to self organization
authorized by the Union itself. a. Petitioners frustration over the performance of private respondents,
b. He also held that the Oct 4 election could not be legitimized by the as well as their fears of a fraudulent election to be held under the
recognition of the newly elected officers by USt or the alleged latters supervision, could not justify the method they chose to
ratification of the new CBA by the general membership. impose their will on the union
c. He also stated that to accept the new officers’ claim to legitimacy b. Director Bitonio aptly elucidated: The constitutional right to self
is not invest in the new officer’s position duties, responsibilities, organization is better understood in the context of ILO Convention
rights and priviledges of officers without the benefit of a lawful No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of Right to
electoral exercise. Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the
d. He also stated that labor laws prohibit the employer from Convention provides that workers organizations shall have the
interfering with the employees in their rights to self organization. right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect their
That to allow them to become the new officers on the strength of representatives in full freedom, free from any interference from
UST’s recognition of them is to concede to the employer the power public authorities. The freedom conferred by the provision is
determining whou should be the union’s leader, whch is a clear expansive; the responsibility imposed on union members to respect
case of interference. the constitution and rules they themselves draw up equally so. The
point to be stressed is that the unions CBL is the fundamental law
that governs the relationship between and among the members of
ISSUES: WON the elections held on Oct 4 is valid? NO the union. It is where the rights, duties and obligations, powers,
functions and authority of the officers as well as the members are
RULING: defined. It is the organic law that determines the validity of acts
1. When a man joins a labor union (or almost any other democratically done by any officer or member of the union. Without respect for
controlled group), necessarily a portion of his individual freedom is the CBL, a union as a democratic institution degenerates into
surrendered for the benefit of all members. He accepts the will of the nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob rule
majority of the members in order that he may derive the advantages to be
gained from the concerted action of all. Just as the enactments of the
legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and bylaws of the union (unless
contrary to good morals or public policy, or otherwise illegal), which are
duly enacted through democratic processes, bind all of the members. If a
member of a union dislikes the provisions of the bylaws, he may seek to
have them amended or may withdraw from the union; otherwise, he must
abide by them. It is not the function of courts to decide the wisdom or
propriety of legitimate bylaws of a trade union.

2
CASE No. 2 (AGUSTIN) to retain his membership in the UNION as herein-before stated, for any
SALUNGA V. CIR cause other than voluntary resignation or non-payment of regular union
G.R. No. L-22456 | September 27, 1967 | CONCEPCION, C.J. dues on the part of said employee or worker."
2. Salunga was a Union member since 1953. In 1961, he resigned from the
Union, which accepted it, and transmitted it to the Company, with a request
Petitioner: FRANCISCO SALUNGA
for the immediate implementation of said Sec. 3.
Respondents: COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SAN MIGUEL
3. The Company informed Salunga that his union resignation would result in
BREWERY, INC., & MIGUEL NOEL, NATIONAL BREWERY, & ALLIED
the termination of his employment, so Salunga wrote to the Union,
INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NABAILUP-PAFLU),
withdrawing/revoking his resignation. He furnished a copy of this
JOHN DE CASTILLO and CIPRIANO CID
communication to the Company. Then the Company notified the Union of
the receipt of said copy and that "in view thereof, we shall not take any
Doctrine: Generally, a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to
action on this case and shall consider Mr. Salunga still a member of your
admit thereto any given individual, because membership therein may be accorded
union and continue deducting his union due." But the Union told the
or withheld as a matter of privilege, the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions
Company that Salunga’s membership could not be reinstated and insisted on
holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards
his separation from the service. Eventually the Company notified Salunga
a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. The reason is
that he was really dismissed from service.
that: “…The closed shop and the union shop cause the admission requirements of
4. Salunga then sought help from PAFLU’s Nat’l. Pres., respondent Cipriano
trade unions to become affected with the public interest. Likewise, a closed shop,
Cid, to which the Union was affiliated, for a review of the latter’s action.
a union shop, or maintenance of membership clauses cause the administration of
PAFLU asked the Company to defer Salunga’s dismissal for at least 2
discipline by unions to be affected with the public interest."
weeks, so that PAFLU’s Exec. Board could act on the appeal. But just the
same, PAFLU did not rule in favor of Salunga. Salunga therefore appealed
Note: The case is an appeal by Salunga from a CIR en banc resolution which to the PAFLU Nat’l. Convention. However, still on Oct 15, 1961, Salunga
dismissed his ULP charges against the Nat’l. Brewery and Allied Industries Labor was discharged from the employment of the Company, through its Asst.
Union of PH (PAFLU) — hereinafter referred to as the Union — John de Castillo, Sec. and VP herein respondent Miguel Noel.
Cipriano Cid, San Miguel Brewery, Inc. — hereinafter referred to as the 5. At Salunga’s request, a CIR prosecutor commenced ULP proceedings. CIR
Company — and Miguel Noel. en banc did not rule in Salunga’s favor. Instant case.

ISSUE: Whether Salunga is entitled to reinstatement (as Union member and as

FACTS: Company employee)?
1. Since 1948, Salunga had been an employee of the Company. In 1959, the
Company and the Union (where de Castillo was President) entered into a RULING: Yes. Having been denied readmission into the Union and having been
CBA (effective up to June 30 1962). The CBA’s Sec. 3 reads (contains a dismissed from the service owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of the
union security clause): "The company agrees to require as a condition of Union, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member of the Union.
employment of those workers covered by this agreement who either are
members of the UNION on the date of the signing of this agreement, or may ● The appeal is well taken, for, although petitioner had resigned from the
join the UNION during the effectivity of this agreement, that they shall not Union and the latter had accepted the resignation, the former had, soon later
voluntarily resign from the UNION earlier than 30 days before the expiry — upon learning that his withdrawal from the Union would result in his
date of this agreement as provided in Art. 13 hereof; provided, however, separation from the Company, owing to the closed-shop provision above
that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require the company to
enforce any sanction whatsoever against any employee or worker who fails
3
 referred to — revoked or withdrawn said resignation, and the Union refused Surely, he may, at least, invoke the rights of those who seek admission for
to consent thereto without any just cause therefor. the first time, and cannot arbitrarily be denied readmission.
● SC did not agree though with the finding of the trial Judge that the
● The Union had acted arbitrarily in not allowing the petitioner to continue Company was guilty of ULP. Note that the Company was reluctant — if not
his membership. The trial Judge found said refusal of the Union officers to unwilling to discharge Salunga based on the narration of facts. The
be due to his critical attitude towards certain measures taken or sanctioned Company was not "unfair" to Salunga.
by them. As set forth in the decision of the trial Judge: ● Salunga is entitled to reinstatement as a member of the Union and to his
● . . . Prior to August, 1961, he had been criticizing and objecting to what he former or substantially equivalent position in the Company, without
believed were illegal or irregular disbursements of union funds. Salunga prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges, and with back pay,
was later removed by the union from his position as steward without his which back pay shall be borne exclusively by the Union.
knowledge, and that the union did not honor the of attorney executed in his
favor by Alejandro Miranda, a co-worker, for the collection of Miranda's With this modification, the aforementioned decision of trial Judge is hereby
indebtedness of P60.00 to him. affirmed in all other respects, and the appealed resolution of the Court of
● The officers of the Union tried to justify themselves by characterizing said Industrial Relations en banc is reversed, with costs against respondents, except
criticisms as acts of disloyalty to the Union, which, of course, is not true, the Company.
not only because the criticism assailed, not the Union, but certain acts of its
officers, and, indirectly, the officers themselves, but also because the
Constitution and By-laws of the Union explicitly recognize the right of its
members to give their views on "all transactions made by the Union."
● Although, generally, a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations
to admit thereto any given individual, because membership therein may be
accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege, the rule is qualified in respect
of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given
locality, or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop
agreement. The reason is that: . . . The closed shop and the union shop cause
the admission requirements of the trade union to become affected with the
public interest. Likewise, a closed shop, a union shop, or maintenance of
membership clauses cause the administration of discipline by unions to be
affected with the public interest.
● It is well settled that unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified
applicants for membership and closed-shop provision would not justify the
employer in discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of, an
employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership, without
any reasonable ground therefor.
● Needless to say, if said unions may be compelled to admit new members,
who have the requisite qualifications, with more reason may the law and the
courts exercise the coercive power when the employee involved is a long-
standing union member, who, owing to provocations of union officers, was
impelled to tender his resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or revoked.

4
Case #3 (vergara) to wit: All members of the UNION as of the signing of this Agreement shall
Villar v. Inciong remain members thereof in good standing.
G.R. No. L-50283-84 | April 20, 1983 | GUERRERO, J ● Therefore, any members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any
Petitioner: DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS, manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be dismissed from his
BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO ACOSTA, RECITACION BERNUS, employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.
ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA LLAGAS ● The petitioners were summoned to appear before the (Philippine
Respondent: THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Association of Free Labor Unions) PAFLU Trial Committee for the
Ministry of Labor, AMIGO MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED and aforestated investigation of the charges filed against them but they did not
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) attend and instead requested for a "Bill of Particulars" of the charges which
had been formalized by the AEU-PAFLU officers;
Doctrine: A closed-shop is a valid form of union security, and a provision ○ they contend that their actions were merely exercise of the right to
therefore in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association.
freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. Where in a closed-shop ● Not recognizing PAFLU's jurisdiction over their case, petitioners again
agreement it is stipulated that union members who cease to be in good standing refused to participate in the investigation rescheduled and conducted.
shall immediately be dismissed, such dismissal does not constitute an unfair labor ○ Instead, they merely appeared to file their Answer to the charges
practice exclusively cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. Workers, and moved for a dismissal.
although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of ● Based on the findings and recommendations of the PAFLU trial committee,
their own, must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the the PAFLU President found the petitioners guilty of the charges against
union under the security clause of the CBA. them and it was requested that they be terminated in conformity with the
security clause in the CBA.
FACTS: ● Meanwhile, they were placed under preventive suspension and denied
● (Amigo Employees Union) AEU under (Federation of Unions of Rizal) access to the workplace.
FUR attempted to have a certification election but due to the opposition of
AEU-PAFLU, the petition was denied by the Med-Arbiter. ISSUE: Whether or not PAFLU had the authority to investigate the petitioners and
● AEU-PAFLU then called a special meeting among members and it was expel them from the roll of membership of the AEU-PAFLU
there decided that an investigation of certain people would be held pursuant
to the constitution and by-laws of the Federation, of all of the petitioners RULING: YES
and one Felipe Manlapao, for ● It is true that under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
○ "continuously maligning, libelling and slandering not only the Code, in case of intra-union disputes, redress must first be sought within the
incumbent officers but even the union itself and the federation;" organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws.
○ spreading 'false propaganda' that the union officers were 'merely ○ However, it has been held that this requirement is not absolute but
appointees of the management', and for causing divisiveness in the yields to exception under varying circumstances.
union. ● PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by
their co-employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as
● A Trial Committee was then formed to investigate the local union's charges
charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of the Amigo
against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty.
Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the constitution of the PAFLU to
● AEU-PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA which, besides
which the local union was affiliated.
granting additional benefits to the workers, also reincorporated the same
provisions of the existing CBA, including the union security clause reading,
5
 ○ And pursuant to the security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the ○ lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said ● Correctly and legally, therefore, the PAFLU acted when, after proper
security clause. investigation and finding of guilt, it decided to remove the petitioners from
● When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, and thereafter,
accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes subject to the laws of the recommended to the Amigo Manufacturing, Inc.;
superior body under whose authority the local union functions. ● the termination of the employment of the petitioners.
○ The constitution, by-laws and rules of the parent body, together
with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union, WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Order appealed from
constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the affirming the joint decision of the OIC of Regional Office No. 4 in RO4-Case No. T-
subordinate union, and between the members of the subordinate IV-3549-T and RO4 Case No. RD-4-4088-77-T granting clearance to terminate
union inter se. petitioners as well as dismissing their complaint with application for preliminary
● [PPT DOCTRINE] It is undisputable that the petitioners were members of injunction, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
the Amigo Employees Union at the time that said union affiliated with
PAFLU;
○ hence, under the earlier mentioned principle, they are bound by the
laws and regulations of PAFLU.
● PAFLU, therefore, correctly and legally acted when, pursuant to its
Constitution and By-Laws, it conducted and proceeded with the
investigation of the charges against the petitioners and found them guilty of
acts prejudicial and inimical to the interests of the Amigo Employees
Union- PAFLU, to wit:
○ that of falsely and maliciously slandering the officers of the union;
spreading false propaganda among the members of the Amigo
Employees Union-PAFLU;
○ calling the incumbent officers as mere appointees and robots of
management;
○ calling the union company-dominated or assisted union;
○ committing acts unbecoming of the members of the union and
destructive of the union and its members.
● [PPT DOCTRINE] Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for
that matter, is the right of self-preservation.
○ When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of
dissension and strife within the union; when they seek the
disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they
belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of
the union which they seek to destroy.
○ Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of law and justice,
therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of
such corrective and remedial measures in keeping with its laws and
regulations, for its preservation and continued existence;
6
Case #4 (De Castro) and by-laws of the union. Furthermore, his MR was not acted
upon by the officers.
Bugay v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR ○ Bugay did not have sufficient opportunity to defend himself
G.R. No. L-13093 | February 28, 1962 | BAUTISTA ANGELO, J. against the charge filed by Olazo since the proceedings were
Petitioner: PAULINO BUGAY continued despite Bugay’s absence. Such proceedings, being
Respondent: KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play, can not
RAILROAD COMPANY give validity to any act done pursuant thereto.
○ Bugay has been unduly and discriminatorily deprived of such
Doctrine: A worker’s right to due process is denied when he/she does not have the rights.
opportunity to defend him/herself. In this case, the petitioner was not notified about the ○ The CIR ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
board meeting regarding his expulsion and his expulsion was not submitted to the different ● Now, respondent union filed a MTD and argued that the CIR and SC
chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. decisions were solely based on procedural defects and Bugay cannot ask for
moral damages because there was no bad faith on the part of the officers
FACTS: who expelled him. He also did not lose his employment as payroll clerk in
● Petitioner Paulino Bugay filed against respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga the Manila Railroad Company nor did he suffer any change in his status as a
Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Company before the CFI of Manila an consequence thereof. He was also not awarded any damages by the CIR.
action for moral damages arising out of a previous unfair labor practice ● The CFI dismissed Bugay’s complaint.
case which was the subject of a decision rendered by the CIR and SC. ● Hence, this present appeal.

Antecedent Facts: ISSUE: Whether or not Bugay’s expulsion was illegal.

● Petitioner Paulino Bugay was formerly the auditor of the respondent union.
● In 1953, Bugay was requested by the secretary-treasurer of the company to RULING: YES, Bugay’s expulsion was illegal.
deliver certain documents which were in his possession belonging to the ● Even though the CIR and the SC did not rule that the respondent union
union and in compliance therewith he delivered them without consulting the acted in bad faith in expelling Bugay or that the expulsion was fabricated,
officers of the union. Making use of these documents, the management of the fact remains that the two courts have found that his expulsion was
the company filed with the fiscal against Olazo, the president of the union, illegal because of the irregularities committed in his investigation:
for falsification of commercial documents. The charge was subsequently ○ Not only has Bugay not been given an opportunity to defend
dismissed. himself but his expulsion was not submitted to the different
● Because of this, Bugay was charged with “disloyalty and conduct chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws.
unbecoming a union member” and he was eventually expelled from the ○ The result was that because of his expulsion he was subjected to
union. humiliation and mental anguish with the consequent loss of his
● Thus, Bugay filed before the CIR for unfair labor practice. The CIR ruled: good name and reputation.
○ ULP was committed by the union. ○ This is especially so considering that the members of the union
from which he was expelled amounted to around 20,000 more or
○ Bugay was denied due process when he was not notified of the
less.
Board Meeting, nor was he present in the Board Meeting to
○ Therefore, it is an error for the CFI to dismiss Bugay’s action.
approve of the investigation report . Also, the chapters did not
ratify his expulsion, which was required by the constitution
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings, with costs against respondent.
7
8
CASE NO. 5 Sison union, ITM management recognizing ANGLO as the sole and exclusive
bargaining unit, scheduling election of officers.
TANCINCO v. CALLEJA 4. A pre-election conference was held, but parties failed to agree on list of
GR | Date | Topic voters. 2 days later a pre-election conference attended by MOLE officers,
ANGLO was held where a certain Mr. Sy made a unilateral ruling
Petitioner: EDUARDO TANCINCO, OSCAR E. BARTOLO, DANIEL DE excluding 56 employees consisting of Manila office employees, members
LEON, EDDIE POE, VIRGILIO SAN PEDRO, MA. LUISA QUIBIN, FE of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of Mrs. Salazar, and
MUDLONG AND HENRY MADRIAGA cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar.
5. The petitioners protested this but no action was taken.
Respondent: DIRECTOR PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, EDWIN LACANILAO, 6. The election was conducted and the 56 participated but their votes were
BOYET DALMACIO, JOSEFINO ESGUERRA, TESSIE GATCHALIAN, LITO segregated and not counted. The group of Lacanilao eventually won by
CUDIA AND DING PAGAYON only 3
7. Formal protest was filed. Med-arbiter issued an order directing the opening
and counting of the segregated votes. Respondents argued that it was
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: An election for officers was set to be justified because: Manila Employees = personal employees; Iglesia =
held, but votes of 56 members were segregated and not counted. A formal protest allowing them would be anomalous because their policy not to participate in
was filed where the med-arbiter held the exclusion was without legal basis but any union activities; non-time card = managerial; cooperative = non-ITM
dismissed the challenge because 51/56 were not union members. employees.
8. BLR rendered decision holding that the exclusion was arbitrary,
SC held that the med arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion, and the 56 were whimsical, and had no legal basis, BUT set aside the challenge because
entitled to vote. Submission of employees names with BLR as qualified 51 of 56 were not union members at time of election. It also directed the
members is not a condition sine qua non to enable members to vote in election proclamation of Lacanilao group and for ITM-MEA to absorb the
of union’s officers. In addition, the 51 employees were qualified to be members challenged voters in the bargaining unit unless proven to be managerial
and their act of joining the election should be taken as a clear manifestation of employees.
their intention to join the union. They should then be considered ipso facto
members. ISSUES:
W/N the Director of Labor relations committed grave abuse of discretion in
Doctrine: issuing said order
- Submission of employees names with BLR as qualified members is W/N the 56 were entitled to vote
not a condition sine qua non to enable members to vote in election of RULING: Affirmative (grave abuse present, 56 shouldve been allowed to vote.
union’s officers. 1. The record is clear that the public respondent categorically declared the
- Qualified employees who join elections should be considered ipso disenfranchisement as arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis, and yet
facto members. still ruled to set aside the resolution on the ground that they were not union
***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e. exceeding 20 pages** members because their names do not appear in the records of the Union
FACTS: submitted.
1. Private respondents are the prime organizers of Imperial Textile Mills Inc. 2. This finding has no leg to stand on. Submission of employees names with
Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA). They were preparing to file a BLR as qualified members is not a condition sine qua non to enable
petition for direct certification of the Union as sole and exclusive bargaining members to vote in election of union’s officers.
agent, but the Union’s VP Dalmacio was promoted to Department Head and a. Using their logic, they should have disqualified 175 other voters as
thereby disqualified from union membership. well.
2. This led to a strike by the Lacanilao group (respondents). Another group, 3. The SC explained that it is true under Art. 242(c) (art. 250 now) that only
led by petitioners, staged a strike inside the company premises. members of the union can participate in the election of union officers.
3. Eventually, the strike was settled. An agreement was entered into by the However, the eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of
representatives of management, Lacanilao group, and Tancinco group. This applicable payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable
agreement included all monthly paid employees being united under one payroll period.

9
4. In the case at hand, none of the parties insisted on using payroll period-list
as voting list and considering the 51 remaining employees were correctly
ruled qualified for membership, their act of joining the election is a clear
manifestation of their intention to join the union.
5. They should then be considered ipso facto members. In addition, their
names could not have been included in the list of employees submitted
because the agreement to join was entered only almost a month after the
submission.
6. The SC also explained that the existence of a CBA and cordial relationship
between union and management should not be a justification to frustrate the
decision of the union members as to who should properly represent them. In
addition, petitioners joined the negotiations of the CBA, this already would
estop them from questioning the CBA afterwards.

10
CASE NO. # 6 (Aniwer) b. The union officers failed to keep, maintain and submit for
verification the records of union accounts for years 1977-1979,
Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP) v Trajano c. Respondent union officers failed to maintain segregated
GR L-62306 | Jan. 21, 1985 | Union Member Relations disbursement receipts in accordance with the five (5) segregated
union funds (general fund, educational funds, mutual aid fund,
Petitioner: KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP (KMP),
burial assistance fund and union building fund) for which they
ISAGANI GUTIERREZ, FLORENCIA CARREON, JOSE FLORES, DENNIS
maintained a distinct and separate bank accounts for each.
ALINEA, ELADIO DE LUNA and CRISANTO DE VILLA
d. The Union's constitution and by-laws is not ratified by the general
Respondent: THE HONORABLE CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, DIRECTOR OF
membership hence, illegal.
THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, CATALINO SILVESTRE, and
3. Based on such findings, Silvestre and others (Silvestre group) filed a
CESAR ALFARO
petition for the expulsion of the union officers on the ground that they
committed gross violation of the Labor Code.
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
4. In their Answer, the union officers denied the imputation and argued that
Several officers were charged with various Labor Code offenses, such as
a. The disallowed expenditures were made in good faith;
falsification and misrepresentation, before the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
b. That the same are used to the benefit of the members; and,
The Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a referendum whether to expel the
c. That they are willing to reimburse the same from their own
accused officers. The Director of BLR affirmed the order.
personal funds.
The SC ruled against the holding of the union referendum. To the SC, the result of
d. They likewise asserted that they should not be held accountable for
the 1982 election was a convincing manifestation of the union membership’s faith
the non-production of the books of accounts of the Union for the
in the incumbent members’ leadership and a clear condonation of any act they
years 1977, 1978 and 1979 because they were not the officers then
allegedly committed. The holding of a union referendum in question has become
and not one of the former officers of the Union had turned over to
moot because of the application of the condonation doctrine in Pascual v.
them the records in question.
Provincial Board.
e. Further, they averred that the non-ratification of the constitution
and by-laws of the Union and the non-segregation of the Union
Doctrine: The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his
funds occurred before they became officers and that they have
present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their
already been correcting the same.
right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it must
5. Med Arbiter Cabihan ordered the holding of a referendum, under the
be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that
supervision of the BLR, to decide on the issue of whether to expel or
they disregarded or forgave Ms faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any.
suspend the union officers.
It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically
6. KMP appealed the said order arguing the same grounds as the union
overrule the will of the people.
officers.
7. The Silvestre group claimed that the Med-Arbiter erred in calling a
***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e. exceeding 20 pages** referendum. They argued that the officers should have been expelled.
FACTS: 8. Director Trajano dismissed both appeals and affirmed the order of the Med-
1. In 1981, a written request for accounts examination of the financial status of Arbiter in toto.
the Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP) Labor Union , the 9. In their MR, KNP argued that the appeal should be dismissed for having
existing labor union at Franklin Baker Company in San Pablo City, was been rendered moot and academic by the re-election of the union officers.
filed by private respondent Catalino Silvestre and thirteen (13) other Trajano denied the MR.
employees, who are also members of the said Union.
2. Acting on said request, Union Account Examiner Florencio R. Vicedo of ISSUES:
the Ministry of Labor and Employment conducted the necessary W/N ordering the holding of a referendum is improper.
investigation and, thereafter, submitted a report, with the following
findings: RULING:
a. Disallowed expenditure amounting to 1.2k YES.

11
 1. The SC explained that if ever the union officers were found guilty for the
offenses imputed to them, Duyag v. Inciong enunciated that the erring
officers should be meted out with the appropriate penalty on them, and not
call for a referendum to decide the issue.
2. The repudiation of both private respondents to the highly sensitive position
of auditor at the October 4, 1982 election, is a convincing manifestation and
demonstration of the union membership's faith in the herein officers'
leadership on one hand and a clear condonation of an act they had allegedly
committed.
3. Moreover, KMP is correct in saying that the holding of referendum has
become moot and academic. In Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva
Ecija, the Court explained that the Court should never remove a public
officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise
would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers .
When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they
did this with knowledge of his life and character , and that they disregarded
or forgave Ms faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for
the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the
will of the people.
Moreover, (may be omitted from recit)
4. The alleged falsification and misrepresentation of herein union officers
were not supported by substantial evidence. The fact that they disbursed the
amount of P1,278.00 from Union funds and later on was disallowed for
failure to attach supporting papers thereon did not of itself constitute
falsification and/or misrepresentation. The expenditures appeared to have
been made in good faith and the amount spent for the purpose mentioned in
the report, if concurred in or accepted by the members, are reasonable.

12
CASE NO. 7 (Marasigan) a. the affiliation of PEU with NUWHRAIN, and the direct
membership of its individual members thereto;
PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION (PEU) v. ESQUIVEL et. al. b. the compliance with all the requirements therefor; and
G.R. No. 218454 | December 1, 2016. | Special Assessments c. the Local President to sign the affiliation agreement with
NUWHRAIN upon acceptance of such affiliation.
Petitioner: PENINSULA EMPLOYEES UNION (PEU)
2. Jan. 1, 2009 – PEU-NUWHRAIN sought to increase union dues/agency
Respondent: MICHAEL B. ESQUIVEL, DOMINGO G. MABUTAS, RANDELL
fees from 1% to 2% of the rank and file employees’ monthly salaries
V. AFAN, LOISELLE S. AGUNOD, GEMELO L. ANSELMO, GERYMY
brought about by PEU’s affiliation with NUWHRAIN, which supposedly
ANCHETA, JOYLY V. ASUNCION, CRESENCIA A. BERMEJO, JOSHUA S.
requires its affiliates to remit to it 2% of their monthly salaries.
BERSAMINA, LITO S. CALINISAN, RANULFO C. CASTILLO, ENRICO C.
3. March 20019 – PEU-NUWHRAIN requested the Office of the Secretary
CASTRO, GERARDO R. CASTRO, GLICERIA H. CELIZ, MARIA POLA F.
(OSEC) of DOLE for Administrative Intervention for Dispute Avoidance
CORDERO et. al.
(AIDA) pursuant to DOLE Circular No. 1, series of 2006 in relation to the
issue, among others, of its entitlement to collect increased agency fees
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: PEU-NUWHRAIN sought to increase
from the non-PEU members, which was docketed as OSEC-AIDA-03-
union dues/agency fees from 1% to 2% of the rank and file employees’ monthly
001-09.
salaries brought about by PEU’s affiliation with NUWHRAIN, which supposedly
4. The non-PEU members objected to the assessment of increased agency fees
requires its affiliates to remit to it 2% of their monthly salaries. In the minutes of
arguing that: (a) the new CBA is unenforceable since no written CBA has
the General Membership Resolution meeting, it only stated that the 2% Union
been formally signed and executed by PEU-NUWHRAIN and the Hotel; (b)
dues “will have to be implemented”. PEU-NUWHRAIN alleges, on the other
the 2% agency fee is exorbitant and unreasonable; and (c) PEU-
hand, that the same was approved. The SC held that PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to
NUWHRAIN failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for
comply with the documentary requirements and there was no sufficient showing
such increase.
that the same had been duly deliberated and approved, thus no legal basis to allow
5. OSEC: Upheld the right of PEU-NUWHRAIN to collect agency fees from
the imposition of union dues more than what is stated in the CBA – 1% of the
the non-PEU members in accordance with Article 4, Section 2 of the
employee’s monthly basic salary.
expired CBA, which was declared to be in full force and effect pursuant to
the October 10, 2008 Decision, but only at the rate of 1% instead of 2% for
Doctrine:
failure to show that its general membership approved the same. The General
Three documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of increased union
Membership Resolution (GMR) submitted in support did not have a
dues:
reference to any approval on the increase in union dues. It merely stated that
(a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at
there was a need to update the individual check-off authorization to
the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose;
implement the two percent (2%) union dues, but was silent as to any
(b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall include the list
deliberation and formal approval thereof.
of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or
a. An MR was filed by PEU-NUWHRAIN. It was granted by the
fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees; and
OSEC, thus allowing the collection of 2% agency fees from non-
(c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees
PEU members.
concerned.
6. CA: PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to prove compliance with the requisites for a
valid check-off since the October 28, 2008 minutes do not show that the
Further, jurisprudence states that the express consent of the employee to any
increase in union dues was duly approved by its general membership. It also
deduction in his compensation is required to be obtained in accordance with the
found the July 1, 2010 GMR suspicious considering that it surfaced only
steps outlined by the law, which must be followed to the letter
after PEU received the OSEC's June 2, 2010 Decision disallowing the
collection of increased agency fees.
FACTS:
1. Dec. 3, 2007 – Petitioner PEU’s Board of Directors passed Local Board ISSUE: W/N PEU-NUWHRAIN had a right to collect the increased agency fees?
Resolution No. 12, s. 2007. The said act was submitted to the general NO.
membership and was ratified by 223 PEU members. It authorized the
following: RULING:

13
● The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully negotiated ● However, the Oct. 28, 2008 minutes only stated that the 2% Union dues
the CBA with the employer is given the right to collect a reasonable fee “will have to be implemented” since PEU was already affiliated with
called "agency fee" from non-union members who are employees of the NUWHRAIN and that 10% of CBA back wages through resolution
appropriate bargaining unit, in an amount equivalent to the dues and other authorizing payment of attorney’s fees.
fees paid by union members, in case they accept the benefits under the ● Thus, while the matter of implementing the two percent (2%) union dues
CBA. was taken up during the PEU-NUWHRAIN's 8th General Membership
● While the collection of agency fees is recognized by Article 259 (formerly Meeting on October 28, 2008, there was no sufficient showing that the same
Article 248) of the Labor Code, as amended, the legal basis of the union's had been duly deliberated and approved. It only stated that “the 2% will
right to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi- have to be implemented”. It would still then require the submission of the
contractual, deriving from the established principle that non-union matter to the Assembly for deliberation and approval.
employees may not unjustly enrich themselves by benefiting from ● Such conclusion is bolstered by the silence of the October 28, 2008 GMR
employment conditions negotiated by the bargaining union. on the matter of 2% union dues, in contrast to the payment of 10%
● PEU-NUWHRAIN's right to collect agency fees is not disputed. However, attorney's fees from the CBA backwages which was clearly spelled out
the rate of agency fees it seeks to collect from the non- PEU members is as having been "discussed and approved. "
contested, considering its failure to comply with the requirements for a ● As correctly pointed out by the CA, if majority of the members of PEU-
valid increase of union dues, rendering the collection of increased agency NUWHRAIN approved the increase in union dues, the same should have
fees unjustified. been mentioned in the Oct. 28, 2008 minutes, and reflected in the GMR of
● Jurisprudence interprets Art. 250 (n) and (o) of the LC as mandating the the same date.
submission of 3 documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of ● No individual check-off authorizations can proceed therefrom, and the
increased union dues: submission of the November 2008 check-off authorizations becomes
○ (a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all inconsequential. Jurisprudence states that the express consent of the
the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the employee to any deduction in his compensation is required to be
purpose; obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by the law, which must
○ (b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall be followed to the letter; however, PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to comply.
include the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose ● Therefore, there is no legal basis to impose union dues and agency fees
of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such more than what is allowed in the expired CBA – 1% of the employee’s
assessment or fees; and monthly basic salary.
○ (c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by
the employees concerned. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
● PEU-NUWHRAIN failed to show compliance with the foregoing February 9, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 21, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
requirements. It attempted to remedy the "inadvertent omission" of the (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 124566 are hereby AFFIRMED.
matter of the approval of the deduction of 2% union dues from the monthly
basic salary of each union member through the July 1, 2010 GMR, entitled
"A GENERAL MEMBERSHIP RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
DEDUCTION OF TWO PERCENT (2%) UNION DUES FROM THE
MONTHLY BASIC SALARY OF EACH UNION MEMBER," which
stated, among others, that:
○ The GMR approved the deduction of 2% union dues from the
monthly basic salary of each union member as shown in the Oct.
28, 2008 minutes.
○ Through inadvertence the Oct. 28, 2008 GMR failed to include
the Assembly’s approval of the 2% deduction of union dues.
○ The July 1, 2010 GMR is being issued to confirm and affirm
what was agreed upon during the 8th GMR Meeting.

14
CASE NO. # 8 (RIGOR) ● After the new CBA was signed, the bank, on request of the union, made
payroll deductions for attorney’s fees from the CBA benefits paid to the
GABRIEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR union members. This was in accordance with the resolution.
G.R. NO. 115949 | March 16, 2000 | ● Respondents instituted a complaint against the petitioners for illegal
Payment of Attorney’s Fees and Special Assessments deduction of attorney’s fees. The Med-Arbiter ruled in favor of the
respondents. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor affirmed the order with
Petitioner: Executive Board of the SolidBank Union
modification that the workers through their union should be made to
Respondent: Members of said Union
shoulder the expenses incurred for the attorney’s services. The
reimbursement should be charged to the union’s general fund/account.
Recit ready: Atty. Lacsina is counsel for SolidBank Union. At a general
membership meeting, the majority of union members signed a resolution to retain
Petitioners: the General Membership Resolution authorizing the bank to check-off
Atty. Lacsina, which also provided that the employer could check-off the
attorney's fee from the first lump sum payment of the benefits to the employees
attorney’s fees from lump sum payment of benefits to the employees under the
under the new CBA satisfies the legal requirements for such assessment.
new CBA and turn over the amount to Lacsina.
Respondents: the check-off provision in question is illegal because it was never
The SC ruled that this checkoff provision was not valid because there was no
submitted for approval at a general membership meeting called for the purpose and
written consent from the individual employees.
that it failed to meet the formalities mandated by the Labor Code.
Doctrine:
1. In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior ISSUE: W/N attorney’s fees may be checked off by the employer directly from the
authorization from employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's employees?
wages and remits them directly to the union.
2. Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the special RULING: NO. Attorney's fees may not be deducted or checked off from any
assessment for union's incidental expenses, attorney's fees and representation amount due to an employee without his written consent.
expenses. These are: 1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all
the members at the general membership meeting called for the purpose; (2) ● In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior
secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written authorization from employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the
authorization for check off duly signed by the employees concerned. latter's wages and remits them directly to the union. It assures continuous
funding for the labor organization.
● Art. 222(b) states that “No attorney’s fees… shall be imposed on any
individual member of the contracting union: Provided, however, that
attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be
FACTS: agreed upon by the parties.
● Art. 241(o) provides: “No… attorney’s fees… may be checked off from any
● The Executive Board of the SolidBank Union, the collective bargaining amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly
agent, decided to retain the service of Atty. Lacsina as union counsel in the signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the
negotiations for a new CBA. The board thus called a general membership amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.
meeting for the purpose. At this meeting, the majority of union members ● Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the special assessment
approved and signed a resolution confirming this decision of the executive for union's incidental expenses, attorney's fees and representation expenses.
board. These are: 1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the
○ The resolution contained an authorization for SolidBank Corp. to members at the general membership meeting called for the purpose; (2)
check-off the attorney’s fees from the lump sum payment of secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written
benefits to the employees under the new CBA and to turn over said authorization for check off duly signed by the employees concerned.
amount to Atty. Lacsina. ● The subject resolution did not satisfy the requirements. There were no
individual written check off authorization by the employees concerned and
so the assessment cannot be legally deducted by their employer.
15
Jurisprudence cited in the case:

● Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja - the express consent of employees is required, and

this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law,
which must be followed to the letter.
● Stellar Industrial Services Inc. v. NLRC - written individual authorization
duly signed by the employee concerned is a condition sine qua non for such
deduction.
● ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation - (1) the prohibition against attorney's fees in
Article 222, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code applies only when the
payment of attorney's fees is effected through forced contributions from the
workers; and (2) that no deduction must be take from the workers who did
not sign the check-off authorization, applies to the case under
consideration."
● BPIEU-ALU v. NLRC - The obligation to pay the attorney's fees belongs to
the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as their direct responsibility.
Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may require the individual worker to
assume the obligation to pay attorney's fees from their own pockets. So
categorical is this intent that the law makes it clear that any agreement to
the contrary shall be null and void ab initio.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Order dated June 3, 1994, of
respondent Secretary of Labor signed by Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma is
AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED

16
CASE NO. #9 (Alon) b. P100 for the 2nd year
c. P90 for the 3rd year.
Galvadores v. Trajano 4. On Sept 9, 1983, the Minister of Labor assumed jurisdiction over all
GR No. 70067 | September 15, 1986 | unresolved issues in teh bargaining deadlock between PLDT and FIWU
a. The minister of labor proceeded to resolve the issue by compulsory
Petitioner: Carlos P. Galvadores, et al.
arbitration.
Respondent: Cresenciano B. Trajano, Director of the BLR, Manggagawa ng
5. On October 3, 1983, the Minister of Labor awarded across-the-board wage
Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (FIWU), Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDT),
increase.
and Atty. Jose C. Espinas
a. P330/month effective Nov 9, 1982
b. P155/month effective Nov 9, 1983
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
c. P155/month effective Nov 9, 1984
PLDT and FIWU were involved in a deadlock in CBA negotiations, which
6. On Oct 29, 1983, the Union passed a resolution requesting PLDT to deduct
eventually leading to compulsory arbitration. Union engaged the legal services of
P115.00 per employee for the legal services extended to the Union by Atty.
respondent Espinas. The Union eventually won, and they were awarded salary
Espinas
increases. The Union’s executive board requested PLDT to deduct from the
7. On Nov 2, 1983, petitioners, which started with 600 people, and now 5258,
employees’ salaries P155 for payment of attorney’s fees. Petitioner employees
filed a letter-complaint before the Ministry of Labor through their
opposed this arguing that their writtent consent was not given, and that this
authorized representative, petitioner Carlos Galvadores
violated Article 250 (o) of the current labor code. Respondents on the other hand
a. They are assailing the imposition of P155 per employee as
argued that compulsory arbitration is a “mandatory activity” within the context of
attorney’s fees of Atty Espinas.
Article 250 (o)
b. That the said attorney’s fees of Atty. Espinas were not only
unreasonable but also violative of Article 242(o) (now Article 250)
Contrary to respondent Union’s and Counsel’s stand, the benefits awarded to
of the labor code
PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining negotiations
c. And that the deductions cannot be given legal effect by mere
although placed already under compulsory arbitration. This is not the “mandatory
Board resolution but needs ratification of the general membership
activity” under the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations
d. THe atty’s fees should be charged from the Union funds.
for check-offs, notwithstanding its “compulsory” nature. It is a judicial process of
8. Respondents FIWU and Espinas argue that
settling disputes laid down by law. Besides, Article 222(b) does not except a CBA,
a. The atty’s fees pertained to his services during compulsory
later placed under compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition.
arbitration and cannot be considered as negotiation fees or atty’s
fees within the context of Article 242(o) (Now Article 250)
Doctrine: Compulsory Arbitration is not a “mandatory activity” within the
b. Art 250 (o) “XXX Other than for mandatory activities under the
meaning of Article 250 (o)
Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or
***Indicate if mahaba yung case i.e. exceeding 20 pages** any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount
FACTS: due to an employee without an individual written authorization
1. The petitioners here are employees of respondent PLDT, and members of duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically
Respondent FIWU. state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction;
2. Respondent Atty. Espinas (Espinas) has been the legal counsel of FIWU c. That compulsory arbitration is a “mandatory-activity” and an
since 1964. On September 7, 1983, Espinas received a letter from FIWU exception to Article 242(o)
President 9. The case was referred to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) for being an
a. The letter contained a request for Espinas to appear once again as intra-union dispute
counsel in an on going labor dispute at PLDT.
b. That the amount for payment of the service of Espinas shall be ISSUES: Whether compuslory arbitration is a “mandatory activity” within the
10% of any improvement, with retroactive effect, of PLDT’s last meaning of Article 250 (o) of the current labor code? -no-
offer to the deadlock in CBA negotiations. RULING:
3. PLDT’s “last offer” referred to on the wage increases was: 1. ARTICLE 228. [222] Appearances and Fees:
a. P230 for the 1st year of the proposed CBA

17
 (b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind
arising from any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any
individual member of the contracting union: Provided, However, that
attorney's fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be
agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any
sort to the contrary shall be null and void.
2. ARTICLE 250 (o) “XXX Other than for mandatory activities under the
Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other
extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee
without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee.
The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and
beneficiary of the deduction;
3. As can be seen from the above two provision:
a. No check-offs from any amounts due employees may be effected
without individual written authorizations duly signed by the
employees specifically stating the amount, purpose and beneficiary
of the deduction.
b. IN THIS CASE, the individual authorizations were lacking.
4. Contrary to the respondent’s arguments, the benefits awarded to PLDT
employees still formed part of the Collective Bargaining negotiations
although placed under compulsory arbitration.
a. Besides Article 228 (b) does not except a CBA, later placed under
compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition
5. The cardinal principle should be borne in mind that employees are protected
by law from unwarranted practices that diminish their compensation
without their knowledge and consent.

ACCORDINGLY, the assailed Decision of February 18, 1985 rendered by

respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, is hereby SET ASIDE. The
attorney's fees herein involved may be charged against Union funds pursuant to
Article 222(b) of the Labor Code, as may be agreed upon between them.

18
 Evangeline Escall, Alberto Alcantara, Rogelio Cervitillo, Marcelino
CASE NO. #10 (Punzal) Morelos, and Faustino Ermino (Daya, et al.)
6. Another group led by private respondent Gaudencio Jimenez, Jr.,
DIOKNO v. CACDAC along with private respondents Johnson S. Reyes, Gavino R.
G.R. NO. 168475 | July 4, 2007 | Intra-union Dispute Vidanes, Arnaldo G. Tayao, Bonifacio F. Cirujano, Edgardo
G.Cadavona, Maximo A. Caoc, Jose O. Maclit, Jr., Luzmindo D. Acorda,
Petitioner:
Jr., Lemuel R. Ragasa and Gil G. de Vera(Jimenez, et al.) filed a Petition
Respondent:
with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE-NCR against petitioners to
nullify the 7 May 2003 election on the ground that the same was not free,
Recit ready summary of case with ruling:
orderly, and peaceful.
Doctrine:
7. Court of Appeals, in the aforesaid case, rendered a Decision upholding the
validity of the 30 June 2004 elections, and the declaration of herein private
Art. 232 - The BLR has exclusive jurisdiction for all inter-union and intra-
respondents Daya, et al., as the duly elected winners therein.
union disputes.
8. Med-Arbiter Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr. issued a Decision in favor of private
***mahaba facts but basically there was an intra-union dispute regarding the officers respondents, Daya,et al.However, the petition of Jimenez, et al.,was
and the election of the same in the union*** dismissed because it was premature, it appearing that theCOMELEC had
not yet resolved their protest prior to their resort to the Med-Arbiter.Finally,
The COMELEC referred to in this case is the Union’s COMELEC. the Petition ofOng, et al., seeking to declare themselves as bona fide
members of FLAMES was ordered dismissed.
FACTS: 9. Aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the Director of the BLR. The
1. The First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees (FLAMES) Director of the BLR issued a Resolution, affirming the assailed Decision of
is a legitimate labor organization which is the supervisory union of the Med-Arbiter.
Meralco. Petitioners and private respondents are members of FLAMES. 10. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
On1 April 2003, the FLAMES Executive Board created the Committee on Certiorari. The Court of Appeals found petitioners' appeal to be bereft of
Election (COMELEC) for the conduct of its union elections scheduled on 7 merit. The appellate court held that the provision relied upon by the
May 2003. COMELEC concerns the dismissal and/or expulsion of union members,
2. The COMELEC rejected Jimmy S. Ong’s candidacy on the ground that he which power is vested in the FLAMES Executive Board, and not the
was not a member of FLAMES.Meanwhile, the certificates of candidacy of COMELEC. It affirmed the finding of the BLR Director that the
Nardito C. Alvarez, AlfredoJ. Escall, and Jaime T. Valeriano were similarly COMELEC, in disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al., committed a
rejected on the basis of the exclusion of their department from the scope procedural shortcut
of the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA).The 11. It is the stance of petitioner that Article 226 of the Labor Code which
employees assigned to the aforesaid department are allegedly grants power to the BLR to resolve inter-union and intra-union
deemed disqualified from membership in the union for being disputes is dead law, and has been amended by Section 14 of Republic
confidential employees. Act No. 6715, whereby the conciliation, mediation and voluntary
3. Jimmy S. Ong, Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall, Jaime T. arbitration functions of the BLR had been transferred to the National
Valeriano(Ong, et al.), and a certain Leandro M. Tabilog filed a Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Petition before the Med-Arbitration Unit of theDepartment of Labor
and Employment (DOLE). ISSUE: Whether CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
4. DOLE-NCR Regional Director Alex E. Maraan issued an Order directing jurisdiction of the BLR over the case and then upholding the ruling of the BLR
DOLE personnel to observe the conduct of the FLAMES election on 7 May Director and Med-Arbiter. (NO)
2003.
5. Petitioners filed a Petition with the COMELEC seeking the RULING:
disqualification of private respondents Edgardo Daya, Pablo Lucas, The Petition is devoid of merit. We affirm the finding of the Court of Appeals
Leandro Tabilog, Reynaldo Espiritu, Jose Vito, Antonio de Luna,Armando upholding the jurisdiction of the BLR.
Yalung, Edwin Layug, Nards Pabilona, Reynaldo Reyes,

19
Article 232 of the Labor Code is hereunder reproduced, to wit:

ART. 232. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. The Bureau of Labor

Relations and the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the
Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their
own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and
intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or
affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non
agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of
collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.

Clarification on the what an intra-union conflict is;

Intra-union dispute is defined under Section (z), Rule I of the Rules Implementing
Book V of the Labor Code;

(z) Intra-Union Dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members,
and includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement
over any provision of the constitution and by-laws of a union, including cases arising
from chartering or affiliation of labor organizations or from any violation of the
rights and conditions of union membership provided for in the Code.

While an inter-union dispute is a case or dispute among unions.

The controversy in the case at bar is an intra-union dispute. There is no question

that this is one which involves a dispute within or inside FLAMES, a labor union.
The issues involved in the case were both; 1) a grievance over the constitution and
by laws which defines the qualifications of union members and how members should
be expelled from the organization. 2) It was also a grievance over a violation of the
rights and conditions of union membership as it was a grievance of the right of
suffrage of Daya and company under Art. 250. Further, the parties involved in this
case were members of the union.

20
CASE NO. # 11(Vergeire) 4. EUBP’s grievance committee questioned the action by Remigio and
reprimanded those responsible. The DOLE Sec. issued an arbitral award
Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Phils., Inc. ordering EUBP and Bayer to execute a CBA.
GR 162943 | December 6, 2010 | Enforcement of union members' rights and 5. During these proceedings, there was a rift ensuing between the Facundo
remedies – Intra-union disputes; jurisdiction; procedure and sanctions group and the Remigio group. 6 months after the execution of the CBA, the
respondents sought to disaffiliate themselves from EUBP.
Petitioner:EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS., FFW and JUANITO S.
6. A tug-of-war ensued between the 2 groups, both seeking recognition from
FACUNDO, in his capacity as President, Petitioners,
Bayer and demanding remittance of the union dues collected from its R&F
Respondent:BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., DIETER J. LONISHEN (President),
EEs.
ASUNCION AMISTOSO (HRD Manager), AVELINA REMIGIO AND
7. Bayer did not respond to their demands and placed the union dues in a trust
ANASTACIA VILLAREAL, Respondents.
account until the conflict between the 2 groups was resolved.
8. EUBP filed a complaint for ULP against Bayer for non-remittance of the
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: EUBP and Bayer were in negotiations
union dues. Bayer decided to turn over the collected union dues to the
towards the execution of a CBA, however EUBP rejected the proposals made by
reformed union (Remigio’s group).
Bayer. The Remigio Group accepted the proposals without the authorization from
9. EUBP filed a complaint against Remigio's group before the Industrial
EUBP. The Facundo group (current officers) sought to reprimand the Remigio
Relations Division (IRD) of DOLE. It prayed for the expulsion of the group
group. After the execution of the CBA, as ordered by the DOLE Sec., the Remigio
from the Union for commission of acts that threaten the life of the union.
group sought to disaffiliate from the EUBP. Both groups were seeking recognition
10. LA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
from Bayer, and claiming remittances from the union dues collected by the latter.
11. EUBP filed a 2nd ULP complaint against the respondents. It stated that
EUBP filed 2 ULP complaints against the Remigio group, but both were dismissed
Bayer refused to remit the union dues despite several demands and that
by the LA. The NLRC denied the appeal. The CA affirmed the NLRC and LA’s
Bayer opted to negotiate with the Remigio’s group instead of the union.
decisions.
12. Remigio’s group and Bayer agreed to sign a new CBA. EUP filed an urgent
motion for issuance of a TRO/Injunction before the LA.
SC: the case was in the nature of an intra-union dispute. (check doctrine).
13. The LA dismissed the complaints. The NRLC denied the appeal. The CA
Although none of the issues presented by EUBP fell under the circumstances
sustained both the LA and NLRC rulings.
constituting an intra-union dispute, the SC held that the case was in the nature of
such and hence the LA and NLRC did not have jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUES:
1. WON the case was in the nature of an intra-union dispute? [YES]
Doctrine: An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union
2. WON the LA and NLRC had jurisdiction over the intra-union dispute?
members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
[NO]
conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement with any provision in the
union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or
RULING:
disaffiliation of the union.
1. An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union
members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
FACTS: conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement with any provision
1. Employees Union of Bayer Phil. (EUBP) is the exclusive bargaining agent in the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering
of all rank-and-file employees (R&F EEs) of Bayer Phils. (Bayer). or disaffiliation of the union.
2. The union president negotiated with Bayer for the signing of a CBA. During
negotiations, EUBP rejected Bayer’s wage-increase proposal which resulted The SC held that the issues raised by EUBP do not fall under the
in a bargaining deadlock. circumstances constituting an intra-union dispute. EUBP did not seek a
3. During the pendency of the dispute, the respondents, headed by Remigio determination of whether it was the Facundo group or the Remigio group
accepted Bayer’s wage-increase proposal without the authorization from the which was the true set of union officers.
union leaders.
2. The LA and NLRC has jurisdiction over an ULP complaint, however this
case involves an intra-union dispute. The SC held that EUBP’s ULP

21
complaint cannot prosper since the issue involves an intra-union dispute
based on Sec. 1(n) of DOLE DO 40-03. If the LA and NLRC were to rule
on the validity or legality of their acts, they will necessarily touce on the
issues respecting the propriety of their disaffiliation and the legality of the
establishment of the reformed EUBP. These issues are clearly outside of the
scope of their jurisdiction.

22
CASE #12 (TAN) a. Pursuant thereto, the union's Legislative Council set the date of
provincial and Metro Manila elections for its officers.
RODRIGUEZ v. DIRECTOR 2. The same Council also quite drastically raised the fees for the filing of
G.R. No. 76579-82/G.R. No. 80504 | August 31, 1988 | Enforcement and certificates of candidates which had therefore ranged from P75.00 to
Remedies – Intra-union Disputes; Jurisdiction; Procedure and Sanctions P100.00.
3. Regarding the increased fees, two complaints were filed with the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) for their invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and
G.R. No. 76579-82 arbitrary.
Petitioner: Benedicto Rodriguez a. One was presented by Rey Sumangil, a candidate for president,
Respondents: HON. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, and the members of his slate.
CARLOS GALVADORES and LIVI MARQUEZ b. The other was filed by Carlos Galvadores, also a presidential
candidate, and his group.
G.R. No. 80504 c. Impleaded as respondents in both complaints were Benedicto
Petitioners: REY C. SUMANGIL, VIRGILIO V. HERNANDEZ, et al., Rodriguez, the Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the
Respondents: MANOLITO PARAN, ROSALINDA DE GUZMAN, FREE union, and the incumbent union officers, headed by the president,
TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE Manolito Paran.
TELEPHONE CO., and HON. PURA FERRER- CALLEJA 4. Notwithstanding the cases questioning the candidates' fees, the elections for
the provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain areas of Luzon were
RECIT-READY: nevertheless held.
5. Galvadores filed a petition with the BLR praying that the Union’s
FACTS: Complaints were filed before the BLR due to intra-union conflicts (re: COMELEC be directed to promulgate ground rules for the conduct of the
elections and increased rates of union dues). These complaints were allegedly not provincial elections.
supported by 30% of the general membership of the union as cited under Art. 242 6. Livi Marquez, a candidate for VP and Union President Manolito Paran also
of the Labor Code. The Med Arbiter and the BLR both ruled that lack of support sought to restrain the holding of Metro Manila elections until the ground
of at least 30% of all members of the union is a ground to deny the rules had been formulated.
complaints/petitions. Their view is that this 30% membership requirement is a. A TRO was then issued which prohibited the holding of Metro
mandatory in order to file a complaint involving intra-union conflicts. Manila elections.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Matter of 30%-Support for Complaints for Violations 7. The restraining order notwithstanding, the Union COMELEC proceeded
of Union Membership Rights was mandatory – NO with the general elections in all the PLDT branches in Metro Manila.
RULING: See Doctrine. 8. Livi Marquez and Carlos Galvadores, and their respective groups, then filed
separate motions praying that the COMELEC be declared guilty of
DOCTRINE: Art 242 of the Labor Code provides that a report of any violation of contempt for defying the TRO, and for the nullification not only of the
rights or conditions in union membership may be made by at least 30% of all the Metro Manila elections but also the provincial elections.
members of a union OR any member or members specially concerned." The a. The Med-Arbiter denied the petitions to nullify the elections, as
provision uses the permissive "may" which negates the notion that the 30% assent well as the motion for contempt, but invalidated the increase in
of all members is mandatory. The provision also expressly declares that the report rates of filing fees for certificates of candidacies.
may be made, alternatively by "any member or members specially concerned." 9. [IMPORTANT] The Med Arbiter decision (in fact #8a) was however
Further, the 30% assent of union members is not a factor in determining the overturned by the BLR-Officer-in-Charge on appeal seasonably taken.
jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations. a. It is this decision of the BLR Officer-in-Charge which is the
subject of the certiorari actions filed before the Supreme Court
by Benedicto Rodriguez, the chairman of the Union COMELEC
FACTS:
claiming that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of
G.R. No. 76579082
discretion considering that:
1. The union's by-laws provide for the election of officers every three (3)
i. the Med-Arbiter had found no fraud or irregularity in the
years, in the month of July.
elections;

23
 ii. the election was participated in by more than 73% of the appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any
entire union membership; and member or members specially concerned may report such violation to the
iii. [relevant issue] the petition for nullity was not Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported violation
supported by 30% of the general membership. to mete the appropriate penalty."
G.R. No. 80504
10. Rey Sumangil filed a petition challenging the resolution for the increase in RULING:
union dues. 1. The very article states that a report of a violation of rights and conditions of
a. The Med-Arbiter denied the petition on the ground of lack of membership in a labor organization may be made by "at least thirty
support of at least 30% of all members of the union, citing percent (30%) of all the members of a union OR any member or
Article 242 of the Labor Code members specially concerned."
b. On appeal to the Director of Labor Relations, it rendered a decision 2. The use of the permissive "may" in the provision at once negates the notion
reversing that of the Med-Arbiter. It was ruled that the 30%- that the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory.
support therein provided is not mandatory, and is not a condition a. More decisive is the fact that the provision expressly declares that
precedent to the valid presentation of a grievance before the the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or members
Bureau of Labor Relations. specially concerned."
c. Furthermore, it ruled that even assuming the contrary, the lack of 3. And further confirmation that the assent of 30% of the union members is
30%-support will not preclude the BLR from taking cognizance of not a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor
the petition where there is a clear violation of the rights and Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which grants
conditions of union membership because Article 226 of the Labor original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations
Code, expressly confers on it the authority to act on all intra-union Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all inter-
and inter-union conflicts and grievances affecting labor and union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems
management relations, at the instance of either or both parties. arising from or affecting labor management relations," making no reference
11. HOWEVER, Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP) — with whatsoever to any such 30 % support requirement.
which the FTWU is affiliated — intervened in the case where the Director a. Indeed, the officials are given the power to act "on all inter-
reversed herself (in fact #10B). union and intra-union conflicts (1) "upon request of either or
a. The Director opined that the intervenor (MKP) was correct in its both parties" as well as (2) "at their own initiative."
contention that there was no 30%-membership-support for the 4. IN THIS CASE, There can thus be no question about the capacity of Rey
petition, since only 829 members had signed their support therefor, Sumangil and his group of more than eight hundred, to report and seek
as correctly found by the Med-Arbiter, and because of this, the redress in an intra-union conflict involving a matter they are specially
BLR never acquired jurisdiction over the case. concerned, i.e., the rates of union dues being imposed on them.
b. (In short, she ruled again that the 30% membership support is 5. These considerations apply equally well to controversies over elections.
mandatory) a. The petition to nullify the 1986 union elections could not be
12. Hence, Rey Sumangil and his group went to the Supreme Court via Rule 65 deemed defective because it did not have the assent of 30% of the
insisting that the support of 30% of the union membership is not a union membership.
jurisdictional requirement for the ventilation of their grievance before the b. The petition clearly involved an intra-union conflict — one
BLR. directly affecting the right of suffrage of more than 800 union
members and the integrity of the union elections — over which, as
ISSUE: Whether or not the Matter of 30%-Support for Complaints for Violations of the law explicitly provides, jurisdiction could be assumed by the
Union Membership Rights was mandatory – NO Labor Relations Director or the Med-Arbiters "at their own
initiative" or "upon request of either or both parties."
RELEVANT PROVISION: Article 242 of the Labor Code

"Art. 242. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. — . . . Any

violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground for
cancellation of union registration and expulsion of officer from office, whichever is
24
CASE NO. 13 (Alejo) FACTS:
1. Duyag and the other 4 petitioners are arrastre checkers of E. Razon Inc in
DUYAG V. INCIONG South Harbor, Port Area, Manila and are members of the Associated Port
GR L-47775 | July 5, 1980 | Union-Member Relations - Enforcement of Union Checkers and Workers Union (Union).
Members’ RIghts and Remedies
2. Duyag (and the petitioners) filed a complaint before the DOLE Regional
office against the following Union officers:
Petitioner: Julian Duyag, Armando Olivares, Jose Echevaria, Alejandro Sevilla, and
a. Ricardo Manalad - Union President
Felimon Guingon.
b. Honorato Leano - Treasurer
c. Eduardo Amparo - Vice-President
Respondent: Amando Inciong as Acting Director of Labor Relations; Carmelo Noriel
d. Santos Puerto - Auditor of the Union
as Director of Labor Relations; Ricardo Manalad, Honorato Leano, Eduardo Amparo,
and Santos Puerto.
3. Duyag alleged the following:
a. Unauthorized increase in union dues
Recit ready summary of case with ruling: On multiple grounds, under the Art 250 LC
b. Withholding of the union members’ share in the profits
and the union’s constitution and bylaws, Duyag sought the removal of 4 union officers
c. Unauthorized disbursements exceeding Php.500
for unauthorized collection of union dues and other monetary violations amounting to
d. Maladministration of welfare fund
a deduction of their wages. The BLR Director ruled that the remedy sought may only
e. Membership in another union
be done intra-union through the union constitution and bylaws out of the policy
f. Manalad’s conflict of interest
consideration for autonomy and freedom of unions from government interference.
4. Duyag alleged that there was an unauthorized increase in union dues. The
Is the BLR empowered to remove guilty union officers from the union even without
monthly union dues was initially set to Php.10, but after subsequent
resorting to the remedies provided by the Union’s constitution and bylaws?
increases, the Union officers began collecting a total of Php.19 without
benefit of any board resolution.
Yes, union members may petition the BLR for the removal of erring union officers
without first resorting to the remedies under the union’s constitution and bylaws for
5. Duyag alleged that there was a withholding of the union members’ share in
violations of their rights and conditions of membership in the union. The membership
the profits amounting to Php.18,640. The Php.25,684 Razon Inc. paid to the
of Manalad and Puerto in another union is sufficient ground for their removal under
union as profits were not distributed to the members. The Union retained a
the Union’s constitution and bylaws. The violation by the imputed officers of the
balance of Php.5,710 which wasn’t accounted for.
rights and conditions of membership under Art 250 are also sufficient grounds for
a. The other profits in November 1973 and Feb 1974 were deposited
their removal. Thus, on the basis of both the Labor Code and the Union’s constitution
in the account of another union, Cooperative Credit Union, of
and bylaws, the officers must be expelled.
which Manalad was also the president. The profits were distributed
to the members, but Php 1,711 was withheld by the officers.
The labor officials should not hesitate to strictly enforce the law and regulations
governing trade unions even if that course of action would curtail the so-called union
6. The Union officers also made disbursements exceeding Php.500 which
autonomy and freedom from government interference.For the protection of union
weren’t authorized by the board of directors as required by the Union’s
members and in order that the affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor
constitution and bylaws.
officials should be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the
administration of union affairs.
7. Duyag claimed maladministration of the welfare fund by Manalad in the
application of the Union’s welfare plan for personal expenses such as
Doctrine: Labor officials shouldn’t hesitate to strictly enforce the law and regulations
repayment of his credit union loan.
governing unions even if it would curtail the union’s autonomy and freedom from
a. In addition, the union officers unduly approved the payment of
government interference.
retirement benefits to members who were dismissed for prolonged
absences and were no longer members of the Welfare Plan.

25
 8. Duyag asserts that Manalad, Amparo, and Puerto are members in another RULING: Yes, union members may petition the BLR for the removal of erring union
union, the Philippine Technical Clerical Commercial Employees officers without first resorting to the remedies under the union’s constitution and
Association. This was violative of the Union’s constitution and bylaws bylaws for violations of their rights and conditions of membership in the union.
which deems an officer disqualified for having a membership in another
labor organization. 1. The membership of Manalad and Puerto in another union is sufficient
ground for their removal under the Union’s constitution and bylaws. The
9. As to conflict of interest, Duyag alleges Manalad organized a family violation by the imputed officers of the rights and conditions of membership
corporation, Comet Integrated Stevedoring Services, Inc., whose rank-and- under Art 250 are also sufficient grounds for their removal. Thus, on the
file employees are also members of the Union. Thus, Manalad functioned in basis of both the Labor Code and the Union’s constitution and bylaws, the
the dual capacity of a labor leader and employer at the same time. officers must be expelled.

Lower Tribunal Decisions 2. SC states the Director should apply the law and not make policy
considerations that would supersede the clear intent and meaning of Art 250
10. The Med-Arbiter and the Labor Arbiter ordered the removal of the Union LC.
officers from the union and directed them to reimburse the amounts illegally a. Thus, the STATCON principle that where the laws need no
collected from them. It held that the collection of the amounts amounted to interpretation or construction, it requires only application to ensure
unauthorized deductions from the wages of the workers were contrary to the stability in the law and so that more people know what the law is.
rights and conditions of union membership in Art 250 pars. (g), (h), (n), and
(o). 3. The labor officials should not hesitate to strictly enforce the law and
regulations governing trade unions even if that course of action would
11. Upon appeal, the BLR Director reversed the decision, ruling that the resort curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government
to intra-union remedies isn’t necessary and that Duyag had the right and interference.
personality to institute proceedings for the officers’ removal as well as to
recover the amounts illegally collected. 4. For the protection of union members and in order that the affairs of the
a. However, the Director held that the power to remove union union may be administered honestly, labor officials should be vigilant and
officers rests with the members and that the BLR has nothing to do watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs.
with the tenure of union officers.
b. Additionally, the BLR has jurisdiction to look into the charge of 5. Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and regulating the
illegal disbursements of union funds. activities of union officials would result in corruption and oppression.
Case before SC Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored or swept aside by
abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union officials to the prejudice of the
12. On the same allegations and for the reason that the BLR has the power to members.
expel erring union officers, Duyag argues that the respondent officers a. The BLR and DOLE should exercise close and constant
should be expelled from the union. supervision over unions particularly in the handling of funds to
forestall abuses and venalities.
13. Although admitting that Art 250 LC empowers the BLR to do so, the
officers argue that the BLR may only remove them should the union
members fail to do so under the Union’s constitution and bylaws, and that
such removal is subject to review by the DOLE Secretary.

ISSUES: Is the BLR empowered to remove guilty union officers from the union even
without resorting to the remedies provided by the Union’s constitution and bylaws?

26
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

Art 250 LC: Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization. — The
following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization:

(g) No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues,
or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds
unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws;

(h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be

evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and
entered into the record of the organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose;

(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the
members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a
majority of all the members in a general membership meeting duly called for the
purpose. The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting
including the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special
assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be
attested to by the president.

(o)Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments,
attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off
from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization
duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount,
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and…

For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable dues to
finance labor relations seminars and other labor education activities

Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a

ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from
office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a
union or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to
the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported
violation to mete the appropriate penalty.

27
Case #14 (Roy) ○ For such failure to pay the union dues, petitioner and several
others violated MWEU’s Constitution and By-Laws. The
MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION matter was referred to the MWEU grievance committee for
G.R. No. 201595. January 25, 2016. Del Castillo, J
investigation.
● A notice of hearing was sent to petitioner who attended the same.
The MWEU grievance committee recommended that petitioner be
Petitioner: ALLAN M. MENDOZA
suspended for 30 days.

Respondent: OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION ● Petitioner and co-respondents took exception to the imposition and
(MWEU), namely, EDUARDO B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, indicated their intention to appeal the same to the General
ELIZABETH COMETA, ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA, Membership Assembly in accordance with with Union’s Constitution
SOLEDAD YEBAN, LUIS RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO, TERESITA and By-Laws, which grants the right to appeal any arbitrary
BOLO, ROGELIO BARBERO, JOSE CASAÑAS, ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO resolution, policy and rule promulgated by the Executive Board to the
FERNANDEZ, ROSITA BUENAVENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO, ADELA General Membership Assembly.
IMANA, MARIO MANCENIDO, WILFREDO MANDILAG, ROLANDO
○ Borela denied the appeal, stating that the prescribed period
MANLAPAZ, EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON PAGULAYAN, CARLOS
VILLA, RIC BRIONES, and CHITO BERNARDO for appeal had expired.
● Petitioner was once more charged with non-payment of union dues
Topic: Enforcement of Union Members’ rights and remedies – Intra-union and was required to attend another hearing. Thereafter, petitioner
disputes; jurisdiction; procedure and sanctions was again penalized with a 30-day suspension imposed by Borela
informing the former of the Executive Board’s “unanimous approval”
Doctrine: of the grievance committee recommendation to suspend him.
● MWEU scheduled an election of officers. Petitioner filed his COC for
VP but was disqualified for not being a member in good standing on
account of his suspension.
FACTS:
● Petitioner was again charged with non-payment of union dues (3rd
● Petitioner was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union
time na). He did not attend the scheduled hearing. He meted the
(MWEU), a DOLE-registered organization consisting of rank-and-file
penalty of expulsion from the union, per “unanimous approval” of the
employees within Manila Water Company (MWC). The respondents
members of the Executive Board. His pleas to the General
were MWEU officers during the period material to this Petition.
Membership Assembly were again unheeded.
○ Borela - President and Chairman, Quebral as First-VP and
● During the freedom period and negotiations for a new CBA with
Treasurer, and Cometa as Secretary.
MWC, petitioner joined another union, the Workers Association for
● MWEU informed petitioner that the union was unable to fully deduct
Transparency, Empowerment and Reform, All-Filipino Workers
the increased P200.00 union dues from his salary due to lack of the
Confederation (WATER-AFWC). He was elected union President.
required December 2006 check-off authorization from him. Petitioner
Other MWEU members were inclined to join WATER-AFWC but
was warned that his failure to pay the dues would result in sanction
MWEU director Torres threatened that they would not get benefits
upon him.
from the new CBA.
28
 ● MWEU submitted a proposed CBA stating to the effect that in the arrived at by them is erroneous in certain respects, and would result in
event of retrenchment, non-MWEU members shall be removed first, injustice as to the parties, this Court must intervene to correct the error.
and that upon the signing of the CBA, only MWEU members shall While the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in their conclusion in this case,
receive a signing bonus. they erred in failing to resolve petitioner's charge of unfair labor practices
● Petitioner filed a complaint against respondents for ULP before the against respondents.
NLRC. He accused respondents of illegal termination from MWEU in
connection with the events relative to his non-payment of union ● It is true that some of petitioner's causes of action constitute intra-
dues; unlawful interference, coercion, and violation of the rights ot union cases cognizable by the BLR under Article 226 of the Labor
MWC employees to self-organization -- in connection with the Code.
proposed CBA submitted by MWEU, which contained provisions that ○ An intra-union dispute refers to any con􏰗ict between and
discriminated against non-MWEU members. among union members, including grievances arising from
● LA: instant case is still premature; parties should exhaust first all the any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
administrative remedies before resorting to compulsory arbitration. violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union's
Thus, the case is referred back to the Union for the General constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering
Assembly to act on complainant’s appeal. or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of
● NLRC: the commission lacks the jurisdictional competence to act on Department Order No. 40- 03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE
this case because such falls under those of inter/intra-union enumerate the following circumstances as inter/intra-union
disputes; decision of LA is null and void for being rendered without disputes
jurisdiction and instant complaint is dismissed. ● However, petitioner's charge of unfair labor practices falls within the
● CA: petition lacks merit thus dismissed; the cause of action are original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to
considered inter/intra-union disputes cognizable by the BLR whose Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article 247 of the same
functions and jurisdiction are largely confined to union matters, Code provides that "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair
collective bargaining registry and labor education. labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other
ISSUE: af􏰖rmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters."
● Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer under
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PRESENCE OF Article 248 and by labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor
INTER/INTRA-UNION CONFLICTS NEGATES THE COMPLAINT FOR Code.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AGAINST A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND
● Under Article VI, Section 2 (a) of MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws,
ITS OFFICERS, AND IN AFFIRMING THAT THE NLRC PROPERLY
the general membership assembly has the power to "review revise
DISMISSED THE CASE FOR ALLEGED LACK OF JURISDICTION.
modify af􏰖rm or repeal [sic] resolution and decision of the Executive
RULING: Board and/or committees upon petition of thirty percent (30%) of the
Union in good standing," and under Section 2 (d), to "revise, modify,
In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals and the CA to affirm or reverse all expulsion cases." Under Section 3 of the same
resolve, as this Court is not a trier of facts. However, when the conclusion Article, "[t]he decision of the Executive Board may be appealed to the
29
 General Membership which by a simple majority vote reverse the time and thereafter unlawfully expelled from MWEU due to
decision of said body. If the general Assembly is not in session the respondents' failure to act on his written appeals. The required
decision of the Executive Board may be reversed by a petition of the petition to convene the general assembly through the required
majority of the general membership in good standing." And, in Article signature of 30% (under Article VI, Section 2 [a]) or majority (under
X, Section 5, "[a]ny dismissed and/or expelled member shall have the Article VI, Section 3) of the union membership does not apply in
right to appeal to the Executive Board within seven days from notice petitioner's case; the Executive Board must 􏰖rst act on his two
of said dismissal and/or expulsion which, in [turn] shall be referred to appeals before the matter could properly be referred to the general
the General membership assembly. In case of an appeal, a simple membership. Because respondents did not act on his two appeals,
majority of the decision of the Executive Board is imperative. The petitioner was unceremoniously suspended, disquali􏰖ed and
same shall be approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the deprived of his right to run for the position of MWEU Vice-President
general membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the in the September 14, 2007 election of officers, expelled from MWEU,
purpose." and forced to join another union, WATER-AFWC. For
● In regard to suspension of a union member, MWEU's Constitution these,respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices under Article
and By-Laws provides under Article X, Section 4 thereof that "[a]ny 249 (a) and (b) — that is, violation of petitioner's right to self-
suspended member shall have the right to appeal within three (3) organization, unlawful discrimination, and illegal termination of his
working days from the date of notice of said suspension. In case of union membership — which case falls within the original and
an appeal a simple majority of vote of the Executive Board shall be exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, in accordance with Article
necessary to nullify the suspension." 217 of the Labor Code.
● Thus, when an MWEU member is suspended, he is given the right to ● "In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission of acts
appeal such suspension within three working days from the date of that transgress the workers' right to organize." "[A]ll the prohibited
notice of said suspension, which appeal the MWEU Executive Board acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the
is obligated to act upon by a simple majority vote. When the penalty workers' right to self-organization." " [T]he term unfair labor practice
imposed is expulsion, the expelled member is given seven days from refers to that gamut of offenses de􏰖ned in the Labor Code which, at
notice of said dismissal and/or expulsion to appeal to the Executive their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees
Board, which is required to act by a simple majority vote of its to self-organization."
members. The Board's decision shall then be approved/disapproved ● As members of the governing board of MWEU, respondents are
by a majority vote of the general membership assembly in a meeting presumed to know, observe, and apply the union's constitution and
duly called for the purpose. by-laws. Thus, their repeated violations thereof and their disregard of
● Contrary to respondents' argument that petitioner lost his right to petitioner's rights as a union member — their inaction on his two
appeal when he failed to petition to convene the general assembly appeals which resulted in his suspension, disquali􏰖cation from
through the required signature of 30% of the union membership in running as MWEU of􏰖cer, and subsequent expulsion without being
good standing pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 (a) of MWEU's accorded the full bene􏰖ts of due process — connote willfulness and
Constitution and By-Laws or by a petition of the majority of the bad faith, a gross disregard of his rights thus causing untold
general membership in good standing under Article VI, Section 3, this suffering, oppression and, ultimately, ostracism from MWEU. "Bad
Court 􏰖nds that petitioner was illegally suspended for the second
30
 faith implies breach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and
well understood obligation."

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The assailed April 24,

2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115639 is hereby
MODIFIED, in that all of the respondents — except for Carlos Villa, Ric
Briones, and Chito Bernardo — are declared guilty of unfair labor practices
andORDERED TO INDEMNIFY petitioner Allan M. Mendoza the amounts of
P100,000.00 as and by way of moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10 per cent (10%) of the total
award. SO ORDERED.

31