You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

L-47775 July 5, 1980
FELIMON GUINGON, petitioners,
HON. AMANDO G. INCIONG, as Acting Director of Labor Relation CARMELO C. NORIEL, as
and SANTOS PUERTO,respondents.
This case is about the removal of private respondents as union officers due to alleged irregularities
and anomalies in the administration of the affairs of the union.
On January 14, 1977, the five petitioners, who are arrastre checkers of E. Razon, Inc. in the South
Harbor, Port Area, Manila as well as bona fide members of the Associated Port Checkers and
Workers Union, filed with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor a complaint containing
several charges against the four private respondents, who, respectively, are the president (for more
than twenty years), treasurer, vice-president and auditor of the union.
The record reveals the following facts, some of which are admitted or not denied by the private
respondents, whiny the other facts are supported by substantial evidence which is summarized in
the decisions of the med-arbiter and the Director of Labor Relations:
Unauthorized increases in union dues. —
Withholding of union members' share in the profits amounting to P18,640.09. —
Disbursements exceeding P500 which were not authorized by the board of directors. —
Maladministration of welfare fund. —
Membership in another union. —
Conflict of interest on the part of Manalad. —
Under these facts, the med-arbiter in his decision of August 29, 1977 ordered the removal of the
private respondents as officers of the union and directed them to reimburse to the members thereof
the amounts illegally collected from them.
On appeal, the Director held that resort to intra-union remedies is not necessary and that the five
complainants have the rights and personality to institute the proceedings for the removal of the
respondents, to recover the amount illegally collected or withheld from them and to question illegal
disbursements and expenditure of union funds.
However, the Director ruled that the power to remove the union officers rests in the members and
that the Bureau of Labor Relations generally has nothing to do with the tenure of union officers which
"is a political question".
The Director further ruled that his office has jurisdiction to look into the charge of illegal
disbursements of union funds. He directed the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau to examine
the books of account and financial records of the union and to submit a report on such examination.
Hence, this case

ISSUE: Whether the director of labor relations can order the examination
of the books
HELD: Yes, the Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the books and records of
the union. The examination should include a verification of the charge that the petty loans extended
by the union to its members were usurious and that the fee for the issuance of cheeks is
unwarranted since the loans were made in cash.

355 member withdraw or disauthorize the special assessment which turns the tide unfavorable to such. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. However. ART. as the collective bargaining agent of all regular salesmen. granted under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)..: On October 12. J. which must be followed to the letter. GANCAYCO. and COCACOLA BOTTLERS (PHILIPPINES)... while 173 opposed the same.G. petitioners. 1990 CARMELITO L. 85333 February 26. Med-Arbiter Manases T. vs. consultants and others. MANILA CCBPI SALES FORCE UNION. the order of the Med-Arbiter was reversed and set aside by the respondent-Director in a resolution dated August 19. Resulting to disauthorization of the special assessment. and relief helpers of the Manila Plant and Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines). the purpose of the special assessment sought to be levied is "to put up a cooperative and credit union. NO. The total membership of the Union was about 800. As embodied in the Board Resolution of the Union dated September 29. Inc. INC." This "Authorization and CBA Ratification" was obtained by the Union through a secret referendum held in separate local membership meetings on various dates. Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of the union members. and that the Union has complied with the requirements therein. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) concluded a new collective bargaining agreement with the latter. ISSUE: Can a special assessment be validly deducted by a labor union from the lump-sum pay of its members. Cruz ruled in favor of whereby he directed the Company to remit the amount it had kept in trust directly to the rank-and-file personnel without delay.. and for the payment for services rendered by union officers. On appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations. 672 members originally authorized the 10% special assessment. 1987.R. No shortcuts are allowed. ET AL. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA. PALACOL. Of this number. the failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidates the questioned special assessment. 1987. notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization of the same by a majority of the union members? HELD. 241. the respondent Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union). shall be at the discretion of our incumbent Union President. purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit of the officers and the general membership. Petitioners assailed the 10% special assessment as a violation of Article 241(o) in relation to Article 222(b) of the Labor Code. regular helpers. 1988 upholding the claim of the Union that the special assessment is authorized under Article 241 (n) of the Labor Code. the instant petition. respondents. however. — xxx xxx xxx (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 . Among the compensation benefits granted to the employees was a general salary increase to be given in lump sum including recomputation of actual commissions earned based on the new rates of increase. Their express consent is required. Hence. No." There was also an additional proviso stating that the "matter of allocation .

This decision is immediately executory. 1988 is reinstated.39 to the respective union members from whom the said amount was withheld. 1999] ABS – CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEE UNION MEMBERS. Inc. while the order of the Med-Arbiter dated February 17.267. No. and the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines).R. The record shall be attested to by the president. [G. CELSO JAMBALOS. vs. ALBERTO BERBON. is hereby ordered to immediately remit the amount of P1. March 11. No pronouncement as to costs. petitioner. The instant petition is GRANTED. The Order of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations is SET ASIDE. CINDY MUNOZ. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees.majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.863. the votes cast. HERBERT RIVERA.. . 106518. The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present. ABS – CBN BROADCASTING CORP.

the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the Union and only indirectly. and (o). as amended. particularly Article 241. The legal basis of check-off is found in statutes or in contracts. and further alleged that the formalities mandated by Art. They argued that the check-off provision is in accordance with law as majority of the Union members individually executed a written authorization giving the Union officers and the Company a blanket authority to deduct subject amount. JAKE MADERAZO. Abdula ruled in favor of the petitioners herein. (n).” On September 19. but later on set aside its decision. DOLE-NCR. praying that (1) the special assessment of ten percent (10%) of the sum total of all salary increases and signing bonuses granted by respondent Company to the members of the Union be declared illegal for failure to comply with the labor Code. PURISIMA. (2) respondent Company be ordered to suspend further deductions from petitioners’ salaries for their shares thereof. deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits them directly to the union. In their Answers. were not complied with. Book Five of the Labor Code . CESAR LOPEZ and RUBEN BARRAMEDA. the ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union (“the Union”). Petitioners filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations. Quezon City. respondents. FRED GARCIA. to wit: “Article XII – The company agrees to advance to the Union a sum equivalent to 10% of the sum total of all the salary increases and signing bonuses granted to the Supervisors under this collective Bargaining Agreement and upon signing hereof to cover the Union’s incidental expenses.: On December 7. and such advance shall be deducted from the benefits granted herein as they accrue. or on prior authorization from its employees. Title IV. paragraphs (g). As this Court has acknowledged. dismissing the case for lack of merit. including attorney’s fees and representation expenses for its organization and (sic) preparation and conduct hereof. It is assured thereby of continuous funding. recognized as the proper bargaining representative.SALVADOR DE VERA. represented by respondent Union Officers. a Complaint against the Union Officers and ABS-CBN Broadcasting corporation. Petitioners argued that the check-off provision in question is illegal because it was never submitted for consideration and approval to "all the members at a general membership meeting called for the purpose". on agreement with the Union. 1989. 1990. for the individual employees. OSCAR LANDRITO. Chapter II. ARNULFO ALCAZAR. On January 21. and in utter violation of the Constitution and By-Laws of the ABSCBN Supervisors Employees Union. Laguesma handed down a decision affirming in toto the decision of the med-arbiter. 241. The statutory limitations on check-offs are found in Article 241. GON CARPIO. 1991. as amended. on appeal. ISSUE: whether the check-off is valid? HELD: YES. respondent Union Officers and Company prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit. and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (“the Company”) signed and concluded a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the following checkoff provision. J. Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. respondent DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido E. paragraphs (n) and (o) of the Labor Code. A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer.

Article 241 speaks of three (3) requisites that must be complied with in order that the special assessment for Union's incidental expenses. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Union's Secretary. Munoz. (2) secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting. Herbert Rivera.00.Noticeably." Eighty-five (85) members of the same Union executed individual written authorizations for check-off. Carminda M. the same must be shared by all the members until this is fully liquidated. ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union held its general meeting. attorney's fees and representation expenses were met. Pascual the amount of P500. Ma. attorney's fees and representation expenses. other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's fees. said Union held its General Membership Meeting. be valid and upheld namely: 1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. it is determinable. and (3) individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned.000. and noted by its President. 1991. we find that the three (3) requisites for the validity of the ten percent (10%) special assessment for Union's incidental expenses. . wherein majority of the members agreed that "in as much as the Union had already paid Atty. On May 24. P. whereat it was agreed that a ten percent (10%) special assessment from the total economic package due to every member would be checked-off to cover expenses for negotiation. After a thorough review of the records on hand. Records do not indicate that the aforesaid check-off authorizations were executed under the influence of force or compulsion and the amount is not fixed. as stipulated in Article XII of the CBA.