You are on page 1of 13

San Beda LAw

casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS


ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LEGITIMATE LABOR


ORGANIZATION

1. Manalad vs. Trajano (174 CSRA 322)


2. Ferrer vs. NLRC (224 SCRA 410)a
3. Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment (327 SCRA 283)
4. Radio Communications of the Philippines vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.
77959, Jan. 9, 1989
5. Palacol vs. Ferrer-Calleja (132 SCRA 741)
6. ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation (304 SCRA 489) 


3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 1 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

RICARDO R. MANALAD v. DIRECTOR CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO


G.R. No. 72772-73, June 28, 1989
Regalado, J.
TOPIC: Art. 250

Doctrine:
The mere fact that one obtained the second highest number of votes does not
mean that he will thereby be considered as the elected officers if the true winners
are disqualified.

Facts:
The parties are employees of United Dockhandlers, Inc, rival groups in the
Associated Port Checkers and Workers' Union (APCWU) Petitioner led by Ricardo
R. Manalad, with respondent Pablo B. Babula heading the group of private
respondents.

Although qualifications have been earlier questioned, Manalad et. al. won the
elections for APCWU officers on November 26, 1984. Babula et. al. filed petition
for review and on July 3, 1985, the court promulgated a resolution to dismiss
petition for lack of merit and have petitioner Babula et. al. vacant APCWU offices
and turnover management to Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, all for
immediate execution, to be followed by a special election to be held on July 20,
1985 (to be held under the personal supervision of Director Trajano and his staff).
Babula et. al. were alleged to refuse compliance with the above resolution as
documented in the petition filed by Manalad et. al. The July 20 1985 special
election was held having Babula et. al. as winners and duly elected officials of
APCWU.

Manalad et. al. filed petition to disqualify Babula et. al. as winners due to their
non-compliance to the July 3 1985 resolution, but Director Trajano dismissed their
petition and proclaimed Babula et. al. as the winners of the July 20, 1985 special
elections. Manalad et. al., then, filed petition to SC to reverse resolution of
Trajano, have Babula et. al. disqualified and annul the July 20 1985 elections/
conduct re-elections. In 1988, when 3-year term for the disputed 1985 election
expired, a new set of officers for ACPWU has been elected despite motion for
RTO. Manalad et. al. prayed for the annulment of 1988 elections.

Issue:
Whether or not motion for annulment of 1988 elections is moot and academic

Ruling of the SC:


Yes. The court found the motion for annulment of the 1988 ACPWU elections
moot and academic for the ff reasons:
First, It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers
whose terms had already expired. We must consequently abide by our
consistent ruling that where certain events or circumstances have taken
3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 2 of 13
San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

place during the pendency of the case which would render the case moot and
academic, the petition should be dismissed.

Second, The court respects the will of the majority of the workers who voted in
the November 28, 1988 elections. Where 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 his faults or misconduct, if he had been
guilty of any.

Third, before the alleged disobedient party may be cited for contempt, the
allegations against him should be clearly established. The contentions of
petitioners, even disregarding some evidential deficiencies, do not adequately
establish the basis for contempt. On the contrary, respondents have satisfactorily
answered the averments thereon.

Lastly, even if the disqualification of private respondents could be justified, the


candidates of petitioners certainly cannot be declared as the winners in the
disputed election. The mere fact that they obtained the second highest number of
votes does not mean that they will thereby be considered as the elected officers if
the true winners are disqualified.


3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 3 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

ALEX FERRER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


G.R. No. 100898. July 5, 1993
Melo, J.
TOPIC: Art. 250

Doctrine:
A CBA provision for a closed shop is a valid form of union security and it is not a
restriction on the right or freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.

Facts:
Petitioner Ferrer and other employees were regular and permanent employee of
the Occidental Foundry Corporation (OFC) in Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro Manila
under the management of Hui Kam Chang. They had been in the employ of OFC
for about ten years at the time of their dismissal in 1989.On January 5, 1989 the
SAMAHAN and OFC entered into a CBA which would be effective for the period of
3 years. Article 2 of the CBA provides for a Union Security Clause. On May 16
1989, petitioner Ferrer and the SAMAHAN, filed in the Department of Labor and
Employment a complaint for the expulsion of its officers headed by Genaro Capitle
(President). The complaint was founded on the ground that the officers alleged
inattentiveness to the economic demands of the workers. However Ferrer and
company withdrew their petition. The petitioners also conducted an election of
officers of the union. On September 11, 1989 the union –SAMAHAN expelled
Ferrer’s group from the Union. Ferrer and his group filed a complaint sent a letter
to Federation of Democratic Labor Unions (FEDLU) and volunteered to be
admitted as members of the FEDLU and requested that they be represented
("katawanin") by said federation before the DOLE in the complaint which they
intended to file against the union (SAMAHAN), the FFW and the company for
illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and other benefits in accordance with law.
Thereafter, on various dates, petitioners sent individual letters to Hui Kam Chang
professing innocence of the charges leveled against them by the SAMAHAN and
the FFW and pleading that they be reinstated. Their letters appear to have elicited
no response. Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter
disregard of their right to due process of law, petitioners through the FEDLU, filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the Labor Arbiter
against Hui Kam Chang, OFC, M.S. Velasco (as representative of the FFW), the
FFW, and the SAMAHAN officers headed by Capitle. The Labor Arbiter dismissed
the Petition and ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was an exercise of
legitimate management prerogative which cannot be considered as an unfair
labor practice. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition.

Issue:

WON termination of employment pursuant to union security clause is valid


without due process of laws.

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 4 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

Ruling of the SC:


NO.Dismissal under union security clause must be effected after prior notice and
hearing.

In the case at bar, it is true that the CBA between OFC and the SAMAHAN
provided for the dismissal of employees who have not maintained their
membership in the union but the manner in which the dismissal was enforced left
much to be desired in terms of respect for the right of petitioners to procedural
due process. The union has a specific provision for the permanent or temporary
"expulsion" of its erring members in its constitution and by-laws ("saligang batas
at alituntunin") but no hearing ("pandinig") was ever conducted by the SAMAHAN
to explain their side for the ousting Capile. The petitioner’s actions might have
caused divisiveness, disloyalty to the union but still they should have the
opportunity to explain their grievance and side.
What aggravated the situation in this case is the fact that OFC itself took for
granted that the SAMAHAN had actually conducted an inquiry and considered the
CBA provision for the closed shop as self-operating that, upon receipt of a notice
that some members of the SAMAHAN had failed to maintain their membership in
good standing in accordance with the CBA, it summarily dismissed petitioners. To
make matters worse, the labor arbiter and the NLRC shared the same view in
holding that "the matter or question, therefore, of determining why and how did
complainants fail to retain Membership in good standing is not for the company to
inquire via formal investigation."

The need for the company investigation is founded on the consistent ruling of this
court that the twin requirements of notice and hearing which are essential
elements of due process must be met in employment-termination cases.

The Decision appealed from is hereby set aside and private respondents are
hereby ordered to reinstate petitioners to their former or equivalent position
without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages, inclusive of allowances
and other benefits.

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 5 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

JESUS DIAMONON v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


G.R. No. 108951. March 7, 2000
De Leon, JR., J.
TOPIC: Exhaustion of Administrative remedies provided in the
Constitution and By Laws

Doctrine:
A party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention.

Facts:
In a resolution approved during the meeting of the National Executive Boards of
the National Congress in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP) and
Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU),
petitioner Jesus B. Diamonon was removed as the National Executive Vice
President of NACUSIP and Vice President for Luzon of PACIWU. Petitioner then
filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
questioning the validity of his removal from the said positions. While the case was
still pending, he filed a second complaint against private respondents Atty. Zoilo
V. dela Cruz, Jr., and the National Treasurer of NACUSIP and PACIWU, Sofia P.
Mana-ay, for wanton violation of the Constitution and by-laws of both
organizations, unauthorized and illegal disbursements of union funds and abuse
of authority as national officers of both organizations. In an order dated August 2,
1991, it was held that petitioner's removal from the said positions was null and
void. However, in an order dated November 5, 1991, the Med-Arbiter dismissed
the second case on the ground of lack of personality of petitioner to file the
complaint in view of his removal from the offices he held. Petitioner appealed the
decision in the second case. Public respondent Undersecretary Bienvenido E.
Laguesma dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies as provided for in the Constitution and by-laws of both unions. In this
petition, petitioner emphatically stressed that the only issue on appeal before the
DOLE was the petitioner's alleged lack of personality to file the complaint.

Issue:
Is Public Respondent Usec. Laguesma correct in dismissing the case for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies?

Ruling of the SC:


YES. The Court ruled that generally, an appellate court may only pass upon errors
assigned. However, this rule is not without exceptions. When the Constitution and
by-laws of both unions dictated the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as
petitioner's complaint against private respondents for unauthorized or illegal
disbursement of union funds, this should be resorted to before recourse can be
made to the appropriate administrative or judicial body, not only to give the
grievance machinery or appeals' body of the union the opportunity to decide the
3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 6 of 13
San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to


administrative or judicial bodies. Thus, a party with an administrative remedy
must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief,
but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention. The rule clearly applies to the instant case. Evidently, when
petitioner brought before the DOLE his complaint charging private respondents
with unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds, he overlooked or
deliberately ignored the fact that the same was clearly dismissible for non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, public respondent Bienvenido E.
Laguesma, in dismissing petitioner's complaint, committed no grave abuse of
discretion.

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 7 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. THE SECRETARY


OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

G.R No. 77959; January 9, 1989

Regalado, J.
TOPIC: Art. 250

Doctrine:
Union has the right to "union service fee" inspite of lack of express provision in
the order of the national wage council, but unqualifiedly admitted in a subsequent
compromise agreement by employee-obligor.

Facts:
RCPI filed with the National Wages Council an application for exemption from the
coverage of Wage Order No. 1. The application was opposed by respondent
URCPICLAFUR, a labor organization affiliated with the Federation of Unions of
Rizal (FUR). The National Wages Council decision disapproving said application
and ordering the petitioner to pay its covered employees the mandatory living
allowance of P2.00 daily. Said letter decision was affirmed by the Office of the
President and subsequently by this Court.

"On November 22, 1985, respondent Union filed an Urgent Motion for Lien (15%
Union Service Fee) calling attention to a Resolution passed and approved by the
URCPICLA-FUR Legislative Board on June 4, 1984 declaring respondent Union
entitled to a sum equivalent to 15% of the total backpay received by each RCPI
employee from RCPI as union service fee and reimbursement of expenses
incurred in successfully handling the instant case. Respondent Union prayed that
RCPI be required to deposit with the Cashier of the National Capital Region,
Ministry of Labor and Employment an amount equivalent to 15% of the total
amount due to the covered employees as union service fee.

Issue:
Is the URCPICLA-FUR entitled to the “union service fee” although the decision of
the National Wages Council did not categorically require payment of the 15%
service fee directly to URCPICLA-FUR?

Ruling of the SC:


YES. While it is true that the original decision of said Council; did not expressly
provide for payment of attorney's fees, that particular aspect or deficiency is
deemed to have been supplied, if not modified pro tanto, by the compromise
agreement subsequently executed between the parties. A cursory perusal of said
agreement shows an unqualified admission by petitioner that"from the aforesaid
total amount due every employee, 10% thereof shall be considered as attorney's
fee, although, as hereinafter discussed, it sought to withhold it from respondent
union. Considering, however, that respondent union was categorically found by
the Labor Secretary to have been responsible for the successful prosecution of
the case to its ultimate conclusion in behalf of its member, employees of herein
3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 8 of 13
San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

petitioner, its right to fees for services rendered, or what it termed as "union
service fee," is indubitable.

Petitioner’s argument that the respondent union is not entitled to attorney’s fee or
union service fee because it is not a member of the bar is untenable and in
disregard of the liberalized scheme and theory of representation for labor adopted
in the Labor Code. The appearance of labor federations and local unions as
counsel in labor proceedings has been given legal sanction and we need only cite
Art. 222 of the Labor Code which allows nonlawyers to represent their
organization or members thereof.

Article 222: Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter
only: If they represent themselves; or If they represent their organization or
members thereof.

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.

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 9 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

CARMELITO L. PALACOL v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA


G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990
Gancayco, J.
TOPIC: Art. 250

Doctrine:
Check-off requires an individual written authorization duly signed by every
employee; withdrawal of individual authorizations equivalent to no authorization
at all.

Facts:
On October 12, 1987, the respondent Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union
(hereinafter referred to as the Union), as the collective bargaining agent of all
regular salesmen, regular helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant and
Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers (Philippines), Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the Company) concluded a new collective bargaining
agreement with the latter. 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.
On the same day, the president of the Union submitted to the Company the
ratification by the union members of the new CBA and authorization for the
Company to deduct union dues equivalent to P10.00 every payday or P20.00
every month and, in addition, 10% by way of special assessment, from the CBA
lump-sum pay granted to the union members.
As embodied in the Board Resolution of the Union dated September 29, 1987, the
purpose of the special assessment sought to be levied is "to put up a cooperative
and credit union; purchase vehicles and other items needed for the benefit of the
officers and the general membership; and for the payment for services rendered
by union officers, consultants and others."
This "Authorization and CBA Ratification" was obtained by the Union through a
secret referendum held in separate local membership meetings on various dates.
3 The total membership of the Union was about 800. Of this number, 672
members originally authorized the 10% special assessment, while 173 opposed
the same. 4
Subsequently however, one hundred seventy (170) members of the Union
submitted documents to the Company stating that although they have ratified the
new CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction of any amount
from their CBA lump sum. Later, 185 other union members submitted similar
documents expressing the same intent. These members, numbering 355 in all
(170 + 185), added to the original oppositors of 173, turned the tide in favor of
disauthorization for the special assessment, with a total of 528 objectors and a
remainder of 272 supporters.
Petitioners assailed the 10% special assessment as a violation of Article 241in
relation to Article 222(b) of the Labor Code. The Union however contended that
the deductions not only have the popular indorsement and approval of the

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 10 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

general membership, but likewise complied with the legal requirements of Article
241.

Issue:
May a special assessment be validly deducted by a labor union from the lump-
sum pay of its members, granted under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA),
notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization of the same by a majority of the
union members.

Ruling of the SC:


NO. The deduction of the 10% special assessment by the Union was not made in
accordance with the requirements provided by law.
Under Article 241, the Union must submit to the Company a written resolution of
a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for
the purpose. In addition, the secretary of the organization must record the
minutes of the meeting which, in turn, must include, among others, the list of all
the members present as well as the votes cast.
The Union, however, failed to comply with the requirements of Article 241 of the
Labor Code. It held local membership meetings on separate occasions, on
different dates and at various venues, contrary to the express requirement that
there must be a general membership meeting. The contention of the Union that
"the local membership meetings are precisely the very general meetings required
by law" is untenable because the law would not have specified a general
membership meeting had the legislative intent been to allow local meetings in
lieu of the latter.
It submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is
required is a written resolution adopted at the general meeting. Worse still, the
minutes of three of those local meetings held were recorded by a union director
and not by the union secretary. The minutes submitted to the Company contained
no list of the members present and no record of the votes cast. Since it is quite
evident that the Union did not comply with the law at every turn, the only
conclusion that may be made therefrom is that there was no valid levy of the
special assessment
Even assuming that the special assessment was validly levied, and granting that
individual written authorizations were obtained by the Union, nevertheless there
can be no valid check-off considering that the majority of the union members had
already withdrawn their individual authorizations. A withdrawal of individual
authorizations is equivalent to no authorization at all. This is so even if the
withdrawal of authorization was done in collective form. There is nothing in the
law which requires that the disauthorization must be in individual form.


3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 11 of 13


San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

ABS CBN Supervisors Employee Union Members v. ABS CBN Broadcasting


Corp.
G.R. No. 106518, March 11, 1999
Purisima, J.
TOPIC: Check-Off

Doctrine:
Requisites for the validity of the ten percent (10%) special assessment are: a)
authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the
general membership meeting; b) secretary's record of the minutes of the
meeting; and 3) individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the
employee concerned.

Facts:
By virtue of a Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by the ABS-CBN
Supervisors Employees Union ("Union") and the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.,
("Company") the latter deducted from petitioners' salaries a special assessment
of ten (10%) percent of the sum total of all salary increases and signing bonuses
granted by the company to the members of the union. This amount is an advance
to the Union to cover the Union's incidental expenses, including attorney's fees
and representation expense for its organization and conduct. The petitioners
questioned the legality of said assessment and deductions before the Bureau of
Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. On
appeal, the judgment was affirmed in toto but subsequently reversed upon a
motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition wherein petitioner contended that the public respondent
acted with grave abuse of discretion because the judgment affirming the Med-
Arbiter's decision cannot be the subject of a motion for reconsideration because is
was already final and unappealable and that the only remedy of the respondent
union officers was to file a petition for certiorari with the Court.

Issue:
Is the check off provision in the CBA of the parties in compliance with the
requirements of the law?

Held:
YES.
Article 241 speaks of three (3) requisites that must be complied with in order that
the special assessment for Union's incidental expenses, attorney's fees and
representation expenses, as stipulated in Article XII of the CBA, 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; (2)
secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written
authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned.
3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 12 of 13
San Beda LAw
casE DIGEST IN LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. FLORENCIO MAMAUAG JR.

Moreover, the Court ruled in BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC that (1) the prohibition against
attorneys fees in Article 222, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code applies only when
the payment of attorneys fees is effected through forced contributions from the
workers; and (2) that no deductions must be taken from the workers who did not
sign the check-off authorization. In the case at bar, the three (3) requisites for
the validity of the ten percent (10%) special assessment for Union's incidental
expenses, attorney's fees and representation expenses were met.

On July 14, 1989, the ABS-CBN Supervisors Employee Union held its general
meeting, 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, other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's
fees. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Union's Secretary,
Ma. Carminda M. Munoz, and noted by its President, Herbert Rivera. On May 24,
1991, said Union held its General Membership Meeting, wherein majority of the
members agreed that "in as much as the Union had already paid Atty. P. Pascual
the amount of P500,000.00, the same must be shared by all the members until
this is fully liquidated. Eighty-five (85) members of the same Union executed
individual written authorizations for check-off. However, the deductions or
collection of the special assessment should NOT apply from those workers who
did not give their individual written check-off authorization. Thus, the check off
provision in the CBA of the parties is valid.

3G | CHRISTINE TAN UMALI RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LLO | Page 13 of 13