REGISTRATION, CANCELLATION AND DISAFFILIATION CASES

PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF PETROLEUUM WORKERS VS COURT OF INDUTRIAL

RELATIONS
GR NO. L-26346; FEBRUARY 27, 1971
TEEHANKEE, J.:

FACTS:

The predecessor of the respondent company was Standard Vacuum Co. In 1960, the
latter was split into the present company and Mobil Philippines. The respondent absorbed all the
working force in Luzon. The Pandacan terminal to which most of the employees involved in this
case were assigned is the main distribution center for bulk and package products both during
the time of Standard Vacuum Company and subsequently when the splitting of this company
took place afterwards. Because of this development plus improved and more efficient operating
conditions, respondent company realized that it has extra or excess personnel, which later on
were termed redundant employees.

On April 8, 1963, respondent company and the Citizens Labor Union (the majority
bargaining representative) executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement for a period of three
years. At the time of the signing of this Agreement, almost all if not all of the present members
of the petitioner MME were then members of the contracting union including its incumbent
president.

There appears to be no dispute as far as the validity of this Collective Bargaining

Agreement is concerned. What appears to be in controversy is the interpretation of the different
provisions of the same.

In the Memorandum, approximately five months after the above-mentioned Collective

Bargaining Agreement, respondent company offered a special separation payment due to
extensive redundancy existing at its Pandacan Terminal. The memorandum in question
indicated that the same is by application on a voluntary basis, and the deadline for the filing of
applications was set.

The MME demanded that the company turn over to it the union dues checked off under
the company's collective bargaining agreement with the CLU from employees who disaffiliated
from CLU and instead joined it (MME), respondent court had dismissed the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent court erred in dismissing the company to continue checking
off the union dues for the CLU despite the employees disaffiliation from said union and their
written individual revocation of their previous check-off authorizations?

RULING:

No. Respondent court committed no error in refusing MME's demand for the turnover to
it of the checked off dues, since its right thereto depended upon its officially replacing the CLU
as the certified bargaining representative of the employees.
 As stated by Justice Montemayor in Pagkakaisa (PAFLU) vs. Enriquez, the employees'
check off authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as long as they remain
members of the union concerned, because as such members they were obliged to pay the
corresponding dues and assessments to their union; " However, the moment that they
separated from and left the union and joined another labor organization, then they were no
longer obliged to pay said dues and assessments; naturally, there would be no longer any
reason or occasion for the company to continue making deductions."

However, since after the expiry of the CLU's bargaining agreement on December 31,
1966, respondent court had directed that all union dues checked off from all employees be
deposited in court pending the results of the new certification election (Case No. 1820-MC) and
the company duly complied therewith, has become moot.