Villar vs.

Inciong

L-50283-84

April 20, 1983

FACTS:

(Amigo Employees Union)AEU under (Federation of Unions of Rizal)FUR attempted to have a certification election but due to the
opposition of AEU-PAFLU, the petition was denied by the Med-Arbiter.

AEU-PAFLU then called a special meeting among members and it was 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 and one Felipe Manlapao, for "continuously
maligning, libelling and slandering not only the incumbent officers but even the union itself and the federation;" spreading 'false
propaganda' that the union officers were 'merely appointees of the management', and for causing divisiveness in the union.

A Trial Committee was then formed to investigate the local union's charges against the petitioners for acts of disloyalty. AEU-PAFLU
and the Company concluded a new CBA which, besides granting additional benefits to the workers, also reincorporated the same
provisions of the existing CBA, including the union security clause reading, to wit:

All members of the UNION as of the signing of this Agreement shall remain members thereof in good standing. Therefore, any
members who shall resign, be expelled, or shall in any manner cease to be a member of the UNION, shall be dismissed from his
employment upon written request of the UNION to the Company.

The petitioners were summoned to appear before the (Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions)PAFLU Trial Committee for the
aforestated investigation of the charges filed against them but they did not attend and instead requested for a "Bill of Particulars" of
the charges which had been formalized by the AEU-PAFLU officers; they contend that their actions were merely exercise of the right
to freedom of association.

Not recognizing PAFLU's jurisdiction over their case, petitioners again refused to participate in the investigation rescheduled and
conducted. Instead, they merely appeared to file their Answer to the charges and moved for a dismissal.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the PAFLU trial committee, the PAFLU President found the petitioners guilty of the
charges against them and it was requested that they be terminated in conformity with the security clause in the CBA. Meanwhile,
they were placed under preventive suspension and denied access to the workplace.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Minister acted with grave abuse of discretion when he affirmed the decision of the RO4-Officer-in-Charge allowing
the preventive suspension and subsequent dismissal of petitioners by reason of the exercise of their right to freedom of association.

HELD:

It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association ordained by the
Constitution. However, a closed shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of
freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.

Here, the Company and the AEU-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union security clause and the stipulation for closed-shop is clear
and unequivocal and it leaves no room for doubt that the employer is bound, under the collective bargaining agreement, to dismiss
the employees, herein petitioners, for non-union membership.

Petitioners became non-union members upon their expulsion from the general membership of the AEU-PAFLU pursuant to the
Decision of the PAFLU national president.

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 charged, to expel them from the roll of membership under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was
affiliated.

According to the OIC: stripped of non-essentials, the basic and fundamental issue in this case tapers down to the determination of
WHETHER OR NOT PAFLU HAD THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE OPPOSITORS AND, THEREAFTER, EXPEL THEM FROM
THE ROLL OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE AMIGOEMPLOYEES UNION-PAFLU.

Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound by the laws and
regulations of the parent organization.

When a labor union affiliates with a parent organization or mother union, or accepts a charter from a superior body, it becomes
subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the
parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable contract between
the parent body and the subordinate union, and between the members of the subordinate union inter se.
'Due process' simply means that the parties were given the opportunity to be heard. In the instant case, ample and unmistakable
evidence exists to show that the oppositors were afforded the opportunity to present their evidence, but they themselves disdained or
spurned the said opportunity given to them.

Inherent in every labor union, or any organization, 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.

We, therefore, hold and rule that petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of their own,
must, however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA.

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW VS. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET, INC.

Facts:

The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market Incorporated (respondent company) organized a local union called the
Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and immediately sought affiliation with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU).
The NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation.

The CBA between respondent company and THEU-NATU contains a union security clause:

xx

Union Membership and Union Check-off

Sec. 1 —. . . Employees who are already members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this Agreement or who become so
thereafter shall be required to maintain their membership therein as a condition of continued employment.

Xx

Attached to the Agreement is a check-off Authorization Form, the terms of which are as follows:
We, the undersigned, hereby designate the NATU, of which the THEU is an affiliate as sole collective bargaining agent in all matters
relating to salary rates, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in the Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc…xx

Later on, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of the local union informing the NATU that THEU was
disaffiliating from the NATU federation. The employees were dismissed because, as respondent company contended, they violated
the union security clause.

ISSUE:

Whether or not disaffiliation is a violation of union security clause and be the basis of the

dismissal of the employees.

HELD:

No. The union security clause embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement cannot be

used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the circumstances obtaining in this case. The CBA impo
ses dismissal only in case an employee is expelled

from the union for joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or

refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of

merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. Clearly, since there is no violation of the unio
n security provision in the CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of said employees.

The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the Department of Labor is merely to
stress that the THEU is NATU’s affiliate at the time of the registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its
own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue its own interests independently of the federation. A local union owes
its creation and continued existence to the will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs. When the local union
withdrew from the old federation to join a new federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to labor organization for the
effective enhancement and protection of common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation’s constitution
preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may sever its relationship with its parent. Nothing in the constitution and by laws of
THEU NATU, prohibits the disaffiliation from NATU. Besides NATU is not even recognized as a national federation.

The alleged non-compliance of the local union with the provision in the NATU Constitution requiring the service of three months
notice of intention to withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation for the following grounds: firstly, NATU was not
even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not registered at that time with the Department of Labor, and therefore
did not possess and acquire, in the first place, the legal personality to enforce its constitution and laws, much less the right and
privilege under the Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its group, and secondly, the act of non-compliance
with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-
organization.

Progressive Development Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor

G.R. No. 96425 February 4, 1992

Facts:

Respondent Pambansang Kilusan ng Paggawa (KILUSAN) - TUCP fiiled with the DOLE a petition for certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner alleging that it is a legitimate labor federation and its local chapter, Progressive
Development Employees Union, was issued charter certificate, Kilusan claimed that there was no existing collective bargaining
agreement and that no other legitimate labor organization existed in the bargaining unit, Petitioner PDC filed its motion to dismiss
contending that the local union failed to comply with Rule II Section 3 Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as
amended, which requires the submission of: (a) the constitution and by-laws, (b) names, addresses and list of officers and/or
members, and (c) books of accounts,

The Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondent, avers that there was a substantial compliance with the requirements
for the formation of a chapter, Moreover, he invokes Article 257 of the Labor Code which mandates the automatic conduct by the
Med Arbiter of a certification election in any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agreement.
Issue:

When does a branch, local or affiliate of a federation become a labor organisation

Held:

a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon registration with the BLR. Under Article 234 (Requirements of
Registration):

Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the
rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the
following requirements:

(a) Fifty-pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational
meeting and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty 20% percent of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seek to
operate;

(d) If the applicant has been in existence for one or more years, copies , of its annual financial reports; and

(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, the minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the
members who participated in it.

And under Article 235 (Action on Application)

The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case
may be, and attested to by its president.

Moreover, section 4 of Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules requires that the application should be signed by at least twenty
percent (20%) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and be accompanied by a sworn statement of the applicant union
that there is no certified bargaining agent or, where there is an existing collective bargaining agreement duly submitted to the DOLE,
that the application is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the agreement.

But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for
registration are no longer required. The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the
Implementing Rules, the relevant portions of which are cited below:

Sec. 3. Union affiliation; direct membership with national union. ? An affiliate of a labor federation or national union may be a local or
chapter thereof or an independently registered union.

a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue a charter certificate indicating the creation or establishment of a local
or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations within thirty (30) days from issuance of such charter
certificate.

b) An independently registered union shall be considered an affiliate of a labor federation or national union after submission to the
Bureau of the contract or agreement of affiliation within thirty (30) days after its execution.

xxx xxx xxx

e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of officers and
books and accounts. For reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered unions, federations
or national unions shall be observed.

Thus, several requirements that are otherwise required for union registration are omitted, to wit:

(1) The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at least 20% of the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit;
2) The submission of officers' addresses, principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

3) The submission of the minutes of the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by the laws and the list of the members who
participated in it.

Undoubtedly, the intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of the branch or local of a registered federation or
national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with the federation or national union in order to increase the local union's
bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.

n the case at bar, the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted in the BLR, while attested to by the chapter's president,
were not certified under oath by the secretary

A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate labor organization only upon submission of the following to the BLR:

1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the labor federation or national union, and

2) The constitution and by-laws, a statement on the set of officers, and the books of accounts all of which are certified under oath by
the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of such local or chapter, and attested to by its president.

Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization.

In the case at bar, the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition
of a legitimate status.

LAKAS vs Marcelo Enterprise

Several Unions coming from a different branch of Marcelo Companies are negotiating with Marcelo Companies regarding the CBA.
The management deemed it necessary to ask for a proof of authority from the unions as they were informed of conflicting claims
among several unions.
Marcelo Companies then compelled all concerned labor unions to file a certification of election to resolve the conflicting claims
among them as the certification and to determine who shall be the bargaining agent or representative of the employer.
Strike

One of the union refused the suggestion of the management and said that they will file ULP for refusing to bargain with them. All of
the unions subsequently filed a Notice of Strike.
The MUEWA filed a petition for direct certification before the industrial court. There being no other union or interested person
appearing before the court except the MUEWA, and finding that MUEWA represented more than the majority of the workers in
respondent Marcelo Tire and Rubber Corporation, the court granted the petition and by Order of July 5, 1967, certified MUEWA of
Paulino Lazaro as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular workers in said respondent.

Notices of Strike were withdrawn and the management agreed to sit down in a conference for the bargaining. On the fourth
conference, Lakas declared a strike against Marcelo Companies. Acts of violence and vandalism attended by picketing, the premises
were blocked, windows of the plants were badly damaged.

Cases were filed against the strikers and a Return to Work order was agreed upon. Marcelo Companies resumed its operations and
strikers went back to work.Marcelo Companies and Lakas resumed their bargaining negotiations.On Oct. 13, 1967 the negotiations
reached its final stage. Then Lakas declared another strike without filing a notice of strike resulting to complete paralyzation of the
business.
Notices to return to work were posted and some of the strikers started working again. The management required the workers to fill up
forms so that they may be given a schedule. However, the workers refused and insisted that they be admitted without complying to
the said requirement.
Lakas then filed a ULP case based on the alleged fact of non readmission of striking members.

Issue:
WON the complaint filed by LAKAS against the Marcelo Companies can be sustained, in view of the alleged fact that its authority to
file and prosecute the same has been squarely raised in issue at the first instance before the respondent court

HELD:
The SC ruled in favor of Marcelo Companies. Lakas was not the bargaining representative, yet the management did not ignore the
demand for collective bargaining neither it was refused.
Marcelo Companies may rightfully demand for reasonable proof of majority representation on the part of the supposed or putative
bargaining agent as it is a natural consequence of the employer’s duty to bargain with the bargaining agent who represents the
majority of the workers. It is, however, necessary that such demand is made in good faith and not as a pretext of delay or evasion.

NUBE vs. Minister of Labor

G. R. No. L-53406 December 14, 1981

Facts:

0n August 17, 1979, petitioner Union filed a petition to be directly certified as collective bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees of private Respondent Corporation. Respondent employer through counsel agreed that as soon as the registration
certificate of the local union was issued by the Ministry of Labor and that it was shown that the local union represents the majority of
the rank and file, the Bank would recognize the said union and would negotiate accordingly. Thereafter a certificate of union
registration was secured and petitioner filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Decide and submitted a copy of the Registration
Certificate of the local union and union membership application of 183 members out of more or less 259 rank and file employees of
employer Bank, authorizing the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) [herein petitioner] to represent them "as their sole and
exclusive collective bargaining agent in all matters relating to salary rates, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment in the Producers Bank of the Philippines. The Med- Arbiter ordered to have an immediate Certification of Election but
the Respondent filed a motion to suspend because of the pending proceeding regarding the Cancellation of the Union Registration
because of the alleged participation and violation of the Strike Ban. The Deputy of the Ministry of Labor took cognizance of the issue
of the Certification election case and the termination of those alleged employees violated the strike ban. Thereafter, the Med- Arbiter
ordered the immediate Certificate of Election with the exclusion employees verbally manifested by the Respondent’s counsel. The
petitioners filed a partial appeal before the Director of Labor relations who eventually affirmed and modified the decision of the Med-
Arbiter to wit; those that were excluded be included in the Certification of Election. The respondent contended that the decision of the
BLR is premature because there is a pending proceeding for the cancellation of the Union registration, and that it poses a prejudicial
question. The decision was forwarded to the Ministry of Labor for its execution but to no avail, failed to. Hence the petitioner filed a
petition for mandamus before the Court to compel the Public respondent to conduct a certificate of election based on the decision of
the BLR.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged violation of Strike ban is a valid ground for the cancellation of Union Certificate Registration?

RULING:

The Court answered negatively. Citing Section 8, Rule II, Book V of the Labor Code, cancellation of registration certificate may be
imposed on the following instances:

(a) Violation of Articles 234, 238, 239 and 240 of the Code;

(b) Failure to comply with Article 237 of the Code;

(c) Violation of any of the provisions of Article 242 of the Code; and

(d) Any violation of the provisions of this Book.

The aforementioned provisions should be read in relation to Article 273, Chapter IV, Title VIII which explicitly provides:

Art. 273. Penalties. — (a) Violation of any provision of this Title shall be punished by a fine of One Thousand Pesos [P
l, 000.00] to Ten Thousand Pesos [P 10, 000.00] and/or imprisonment of one (1) year to five (5) years.

(b) Any person violating any provision of this Title shall be dealt with in accordance with General Order No. 2-A and
General Order No. 49.

(c) Violation of this Title by any legitimate labor organization shall be grounds for disciplinary action including, but not
limited to, the cancellation of its registration permit.
Cancellation of the registration certificate is not the only resultant penalty in case of any violation of the Labor Code. Certainly, the
penalty imposable should be commensurate to the nature or gravity of the Legal activities conducted and to the number of members
and leaders of the union staging the illegal strike. A healthy respect for the freedom of association demands that acts imputable to
officers or members be not easily visited with capital punishments against the association itself.

Tablante-Tungol Enterprise vs. Hon. Carmelo Noriel

G.R. No. L-47848
August 23, 1978

FACTS: Petitioner filed a certiorari proceeding against respondents to nullify a certification election wherein private respondent was
unanimously chosen as the collective bargaining representative. It was alleged that public respondents should have cancelled the
registration and permit of private respondent labor organization as private respondent labor union had engaged in an illegal strike.

ISSUE: Whether or not illegal strike is a ground for cancellation of registration.

RULING: No. Article 239 of the labor code provides for cancellation of union registration on the ground of:‘(e) Acting as a labor
contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law.’Suppletory to the above
provision is Section 6 (c) of Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, which reads as follows: 'Section 6. Denial of Registration of local unions-The Regional Office may deny the application for
registration on any of the following grounds: ... (c) Engaging in the "cabo " system or other illegal practices.' It is a fact that
Association of Democratic Labor Organization is not a labor contractor or is it engaged in the 'cabo' system or is it otherwise engaged
in any activity of such nature which is prohibited by law.

The above-quoted article should not be interpreted or construed to include an illegal strike engaged into by any union. This is
so because the phrase 'or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law' should be construed to mean such activity engaged
into by a union that partakes of the nature of a labor contractor or 'cabo' system. The law does not intend to include in the said
phrase illegally declared strike simply because strike per se is legal. Also, if the law intends to include illegally declared strike, the
same could have been expressly placed therein as had been previously done in Presidential Decree No. 823. Clearly, an awareness
of the relevance of the maxims noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis ought to have cautioned counsel for petitioner to shy away
from this approach.
UST Faculty Union (USTFLU) et. al. vs. Dir. Benedicto Ernesto Bitonio, Jr. of Bureau of Labor Relations, et. al.

Facts:

Marino, et. Al (respondents) are duly elected officers of the University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFLU). The union has a
subsisting 5-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employer, the University of Santo Tomas. The Collective Bargaining
Agreement was registered with the Industrial Relations Division.

Collantes (petitioner), in her capacity as Secretary General of USTFLU, posted a notice addressed to all USTFLU members
announcing a general assembly which was called to elect USTFLU’s next set of officers. The members were also informed of the
Constitution of a Committee on elections (COMELEC) to oversee the elections. Some of the respondents filed a separate petition
with the med-arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed against the petitioner and the members of the COMELEC. The petition alleged that the
COMELEC was not constituted in accordance with USTFLU’s constitution and by-laws (CBL) and that no rules had been issued to
govern the conduct of the election. The secretary general of UST issued notices allowing all faculty members to hold a convocation.
The general assembly was attended by the members of the USTFLU and also by non-USTFLU members to discuss the state of the
unratified UST-USTFLU CBA and status and elections of USTFLU officers. Petitioner were elected as USTFLU’s new set of officers
by proclamation. The respondents filed a petition to nullify the results of the election, as such, it is violative of USTFLU’s CBL,
specifically the general assembly which resulted in the election of the petitioners as not had been called by the Board of directors of
the USTFLU. There was no compliance with the ten-day notice rule rrequired by Section 1, Article VIII of the CBL, the supposed
elections were conducted without a COMELEC being constituted by the Board of Officers in accordance with Section 1, Article IX of
the CBL; the elections were not by secret balloting as required by Section 1, Article V and Section 6, Article IX of the CBL, and the
general assembly was conveyed by faculty members some of whomo were not members of USTFLU, non-USTFLU members were
even allowed to vote in violation of Section 1, article V of the CBL. The med-arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, this
petition.
Issues:

(1) Whether the Collective Barganinig Unit of all the faculty members in the general faculty assembly has the right in that general
assembly to suspend the provisions of the Constitution and By-laws of the USTFLU regarding the elections of officers of the union.

(2) Whether the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution and By-laws of the USTFLU in that General Faculty Assembly is
valid pursuant to the constitutional right of the Collective Bargaining Unit to engage in “Peaceful concented activities” for the purpose
of ousting the corrupt regime of the respondents

Ruling: NO. The PETITION is DISMISSED. Petitioners fail to convince that Bitonio gravely abused his discretion in affirming thee
med-arbiter and refusing to recognize that binding effect of the October 4, 1996 general assembly called by the UST administration.

(1) Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right
to form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of CBA or for their protection and mutual aid. Whether employed for a
definite period or not, any employee shall be considered as such, beginning on his first day of service, for purposes of membership in
a labor union. To become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also take
some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union’s constitution and
by-laws. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this new status
and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations. Petitioners claim that the numberous anomalies alllegedly committed by
the respondents during the latter’s incumbency impelled the election of the new set of USTFLU officers. They assert that such
exercise was pursuant to their right to self-organization. Their frustration over the performance of respondents, as well as their focus
of a “fraudulent election to be held under the latter’s supervision, could not justify the method they chose to impose their will on the
union. The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood in the context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom Association
and Protection Right to Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers’
organizations shall have the right to draw up their consitution and rules and to elect their representatives in full freedom, free from
any interference from public authorities. The union’s CBL is the fundamental law that governs the relationship between and among
the members of the union. It is where the rights, duties, obligations, powers, functions and authority of the officers as well as the
members are defined. It is the organic law that determines the validitty of acts done by any officer or member of the union. Without
respect fot the CBL, a union as a democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob
rule.
Thus, the October 4, 1996 election cannot properly be called a union election, because the procedure laid down in the USTFLU CBL
for the election of officers was not followed. The participation of non-union members in the election aggravated its irregularity.

(2) The importance of a union’s constitution and by-laws cannot be over emphasized. They embody a covenant between a union and
its members and constitute the fundamental law governing the members’ rights and obligations. As such, the union’s constitution and
by-laws should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to laww, good morals or public policy. The October 4, 1996 election was
tainted with irregularities due to three reasons. First, the October 4, 1996 election was not called by the USTFLU. It was merely
convocation of faculty clubs, as indicated in the memorandum sent to all faculty members by the secretary general of the UST. It was
not convened in accordance with the provision on general membership meeting as found in the USTFLU’s CBL. Second, there was
no commission on elections to oversee the election, as mandated by Sections 1 and 2 of Articble IX of the USTFLU’s CBL. Third, the
purported election was not done by secret balloting, in violation of Section 6, Article IX of the USTFLU’s CBL, as well as Article 241
(c) of the Labor Code. As such, the court cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to Director Bitonio’s finding and conclusion.

HEIRS OF TEODOLO M. CRUZ, (represented by ARSENIA, FREDESWINDA, TEODOLO, JR., ERLINDA, EDGARDO and
MYRNA, all surnamed CRUZ). MARY CONCEPCION and EDGARDO CRUZ,

Petitioners

vs.

COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELALATIONS, SANTIAGO RICE MILL and KING HONG AND Company, respondents.
FACTS:

June 21, 1952, the Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the Santiago Rice Mill, a business enterprises engaged in
the, buying and milling of palay at Santiago, Isabela, and owned and operated by King Hong Co., Inc., filed before the respondent
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) cases for petition for overtime pay, premium pay for night, Sunday and holiday work, and for
reinstatement of workers illegally laid off. CIR favored the union by a split decision of 3-2 vote. The case reached the Supreme Court
but the SC still favored the union. The SC remanded the records for enforcement by respondent CIR. In examination of books, said
CIR’s Chief Examiner filed his Partial Report regarding the computation of the benefits rendered in the case in favor of the Union.

Petitioners claim that in this computation of the Examiner did not, include the claims of 70 other laborers whose total claims (for back
wages), at the rate of P6, 300.00 each and would be P441,000.00. Therefore, the correct grand total amount due the laborers would
be 864,756.74.

The trial judge took no action on the latest Urgent Motion of the union, wherein it emphasized that respondent, with Court’s action
rejecting its appeal, no longer had any excuse for refusing to comply with the deposit Order. Instead, an unscheduled conference
was called and held on October 31, 1963 in the chambers of the trial judge, and attended by representatives of respondent firm,
including their counsels of record and the President of the union and 8 directors of the union. Four of these nine union
representatives, including the union president himself, had no claims or awards whatever under the judgment. Said union officials
were not assisted by counsel, as petitioner Mary Concepcion, counsel of record of the union, was not present, not having been
notified of the conference.

In this conference respondent firm made again the same offer to settle and quitclaim the judgment in favor of the union members for
the same amount of P110,000.00, which offer had already been ‘rejected by the union at the earlier conference held on June 25,
1963. But this time, respondent and the directors of the union decided to settle the case amicably with the payment by the firm of the
same amount of P110, 000.00 which was deposited with the Court’s disbursing officer “immediately upon the signing of the
settlement which will be prepared by the respondent firm through its counsel.”
One of the union directors together with 49 of its members questioned the amicable settlement that took place. They claim that the
Board of Directors did not have any express authority of the members of the Santiago Labor Union to enter into any compromise for
the sum of P110, 000.00, that it was tainted by apparent bad faith on the part of the President of the Union, that the amount of P110,
000.00 is unconscionable, considering, that the total claims of the members of the union is more than P400,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether the amicable settlement is valid.

RULING:

No.

Where, for reasons unexplained in the record, the conference set for November 8, 1963 at 2:30 p.m. to take up formally the proposed
settlement was cancelled and never held, and instead the settlement as unilaterally drafted by respondent employer's counsel was
executed ahead of the scheduled hour of the conference that turned out to be a non-conference, by the union president with nine
other members of the union's board of directors, without the knowledge, advice and conformity of the union counsel, and by 1:45
p.m. of the same date, the settlement had been approved by the trial judge as "not contrary to law, morals and public policy," due
process of law was not accorded petitioners herein who are the affected members of the union.
The lack of due deliberation and caution in the trial judge's instant approval of the settlement is seen from the stipulations therein that
the union thereby waived and quitclaimed any and all claims which it may have against the respondent, as well as the claim of each
and every one of the members of the union against respondent, when precisely the authority of the union board members to enter
into any such compromise or settlement was under express challenge by petitioner Magalpo, a board member herself in her
Objection and Urgent Motion to shelve the settlement filed on November 5, 1963, which the trial judge completely disregarded.

Francisco Salunga vs. CIR and San Miguel Brewery Inc.

Facts:

Petitioner Francisco Salunga entered with the union into a collective bargaining agreement. One of the agreed conditions is that the
members shall not voluntarily resign from the union earlier than 30 days before the expiration of the agreement. Petitioner resigned
from the union, which was accepted by the latter and transferred such into the company. The company informed Salunga that his
resignation would result in the termination of his employment. So he revoked his resignation. However, the union did not reinstate
Salunga and insisted that he be terminated from his employment..

Issue: whether or not the refusal of the union to reinstate Salunga constitutes an unfair labor practice

Ruling: Yes, the court ruled that denying petitioner’s reinstatement as a member of the union and having been dismissed from the
service is an unfair labor practice on the part of the union. Such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for
membership and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging or union insisting upon the discharge of an
employee without reasonable ground.

BUGAY VS. Kapisanan ngManggagawang Manila Railroad

FACTS:

Paulino Bugay was formerly an auditor of the defendant union. He was at the same time payroll clerk of the Manila Railroad
Company. The secretary-treasurer of the company requested him to deliver certain documents which were in his possession
belonging to the union and in compliance therewith he delivered them without consulting the officers of the union.
Making use of these documents, the management of the company filed with the City Fiscal of Manila against Vicente K. Olazo,
president of the union, a charge for falsification of commercial document. The City fiscal, after proper investigation, dismissed the
charge.Subsequently, charges for disloyalty and conduct unbecoming a union member were preferred against appellant Bugay, and
after the corresponding investigation,he was expelled from the union.

As a result, Bugay filed a charge for unfair labor practice against the union before the Court of Industrial Relations. After due hearing,
rendered decision holding that Bugay’s expulsion was illegal, it appearing that the same has not been approved by the majority of the
chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws.

It is to be noted that both in the investigation held by the investigation committee of the Kapisanan and in the board meeting, where
the committee's report recommending expulsion was approved, Bugay was not present. As has been pointed out earlier, the reason
for Bugay's failure to attend the investigation does not appear of record. All these proceedings were continued by the respondents
inspite of Bugay’s absence.

ISSUE/S: WON Bugay’s expulsion was illegal

RULING: YES, there is unfair labor practice because expulsion was illegal.

It was found that not only has he not been given an opportunity to defend himself but his expulsion was not submitted to the different
chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws.

DOCTRINE: Expulsion of a member is illegal if he is not given due process it appearing that the same has not been approved by the
majority of the chapters of the union as required by its constitution and by-laws. Hence, the court CAN ORDER the reinstatement of
appellant as union member and the restoration to him of all his rights and privileges.

TANCINCO vs. PURA FERER-CALLEJA

FACTS:
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the Resolution and the Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations setting aside
the order which decreed the inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes for the determination of the results of the election of
officers of Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA).

Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-MEA. While said respondents were preparing to file a petition for direct
certification of the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of ITM’s bargaining unit, the union’s Vice-President, Carlos
Dalmacio was promoted to the position of Department Head, thereby disqualifying him for union membership. Said incident, among
others led to a strike spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents herein. Another group however, led by herein petitioners staged
a strike inside the company premises. After four (4) days the strike was settled. An agreement was entered into by the
representatives of the management, Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group the relevant terms of which are as follows:

“1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be United under one union, the ITM Monthly Employees Association (ITM-MEA), to be
affiliated with ANGLO;

2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the monthly-paid employees;

3. That an election of union officers shall be held on 26 May l986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;

4. That the last day of filing of candidacy shall be on l9 May l986 at 4:00 p.m.;

5. That a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of qualified voters shall be held on 19 May 1986, at 5:00 p.m.;”

A pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree on the list of voters. During the pre-election conference Mr.
Cornelio A. Sy made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees consisting of the Manila office employees, members of Iglesia
ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of Mrs. Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar. Prior to the holding of the
election of union officers petitioners, through a letter addressed to the Election Supervisor, protested said ruling but no action was
taken. The election of officers was conducted under the supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question participated but
whose votes were segregated without being counted. Lacanilao’s group won. Lacanilao garnered 119 votes with a margin of three
(3) votes over Tancinco prompting petitioners to make a protest. Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the Ministry of
Labor Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga 3 claiming that the determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the
competence of ANGLO. Private respondents maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of union’s membership is solely
within their jurisdiction.

On the basis of the position papers submitted by the parties MOLE’s Med Arbiter 4 issued an order dated July 25, 1986 directing the
opening and counting of the segregated votes. 5 From the said order private respondents appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) justifying the disenfranchisement of the 56 votes. Private respondents categorized the challenged voters into four groups
namely, the Manila Employees, that they are personal employees of Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo, that allowing them to vote will be
anomalous since it is their policy not to participate in any form of union activities; the non-time card employees, that they are
managerial employees; and the employees of the cooperative as non-ITM employees. 6 On December 10, 1986, BLR rendered a
decision 7 holding the exclusion of the 56 employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis 8 but set aside the
challenged order of July 26, 1986 on the ground that 51 ** of 56 challenged voters were not yet union members at the time of the
election per April 24, 1986 list submitted before the Bureau. 9 The decision directed among others the proclamation of Lacanilao’s
group as the duly elected officers and for ITM-MEA to absorb in the bargaining unit the challenged voters unless proven to be
managerial employees. 10 Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Dissatisfied with the turn of events narrated above petitioners elevated the case to this Court by way of the instant petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners allege that public respondent director of Labor Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Med-Arbiter
to disregard the 56 segregated votes and proclaim private respondents as the duly elected officers of ITM-MEA whereas said
respondent ruled that the grounds relied upon by ANGLO for the exclusion of voters are arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis.

ISSUE:
Whether the order of segregation (exclusion) of 56 votes of the petitioner’s union by the respondent is tantamount to grave abuse of
discretion.

HELD:
The petition is impressed with merit. The record of the case shows that public respondent categorically declared as arbitrary,
whimsical and without legal basis the grounds 11 relied upon by ANGLO in disenfranchising the 56 voters in question. However,
despite said finding public respondent ruled to set aside the Resolution of July 25, 1986 of the Med-Arbiter based on its own findings
12 that 51 of the 56 disenfranchised voters were not yet union members at the time of the election of union officers on May 26, 1986
on the ground that their names do not appear in the records of the Union submitted to the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau
of Labor on April 24, 1986.

The finding does not have a leg to stand on. Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is
not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union’s officers. It finds no support in fact and in law.
Per public respondent’s findings, the April 24, 1986 list consists of 158 union members only 13 wherein 51 of the 56 challenged
voters’ names do not appear. Adopting however a rough estimate of a total number of union members who cast their votes of some
333 14 and excluding there from the 56 challenged votes, if the list is to be the basis as to who the union members are then public
respondent should have also disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters. It is true that under article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as
amended, only members of the union can participate in the election of union officers. The question however of eligibility to vote may
be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable payroll period. The
payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular employees 15 and the payroll period at or near the peak of
operations in case of employees in seasonal industries.

In the case before Us, considering that none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering
further that the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their act of joining the election by
casting their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May 10, 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union.
They must therefore be considered ipso facto members thereof Said employees having exercised their right to unionism by joining
ITM-MEA their decision is paramount. Their names could not have been included in the list of employee submitted on April 24, 1986
to the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join the union was entered into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was
supervised by the Department of Labor where said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private respondents never challenged their
right to vote then.

The Solicitor General in his manifestation agreed with petitioners that public respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion in
deciding the issue on the basis of the records of membership of the union as of April 24, 1986 when this issue was not put forward in
the appeal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is
hereby made permanent. The questioned Resolution and the Decision are hereby set aside for being null and void and the Order of
the Mediator Arbiter is hereby declared immediately executory.

MANALAD v. TRAJANO

FACTS:

The parties herein are employees of United Dockhandlers, Inc. They are members of rival groups in the Associated Port Checkers
and Workers' Union (APCWU for short).

In 1982, the petitioners were disqualified from running as candidates in the election of APCWU officers by the Med-Arbiter, which
election had theretofore been scheduled for November 17, 1981 but was enjoined and ordered reset.

However, on appeal, said order was set aside by the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on October 31, 1984. Thereafter, the
election of officers and board members of the union was held on November 26, 1984, with the candidates of the petitioners, that is,
Manalad, Leano and Puerto, winning over those of the private respondents, who were Babula, Mijares and Navarro, for the positions
of president, treasurer and auditor, respectively.

As a consequence, the latter group filed a petition for review with this Court assailing the aforesaid order of October 31, 1984 of the
Bureau of Labor Relations which had declared the aforesaid petitioners eligible to run for said union offices.

On July 3, 1985, the Court promulgated a resolution therein, which was immediately executory, which dismissed petition for lack of
merit and ordered petitioner Babula et al vacant APCWU offices and turnover its management to Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, all for immediate execution, to be followed by a special elections to be held on July 20, 1985 (to be held under the
personal supervision of Director Trajano and his staff).

Meanwhile, on July 13, 1985, a motion was filed by the petitioners with this Court in G.R. No. 69684-85 asking that the private
respondents be cited in contempt and for their disqualification from running in the projected special election due to their alleged
refusal to comply with the resolution above quoted. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the Director on July 18, 1985 objecting to the
candidacy of private respondents.
Nevertheless, the scheduled special election was held resulting in the victory of the candidates of the private respondents. Petitioner
then filed a motion with the Court for the annulment of the special election, repeating their allegation that there was non-compliance
with the Court's resolution of July 3, 1985 by private respondents.

On July 26, 1985, respondent Director issued a resolution proclaiming private respondents as the winners in the special election and
duly elected officers of APCWU, with the following observation: "The submission that Mr. Babula failed to completely turn over
management of the union to the undersigned is within the competence and authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon considering
that the mandate for such a turn-over came from the Court.

Petitioners filed with respondent director a motion for reconsideration on August 2, 1985 seeking the reversal of said resolution of
July 26, 1985. This motion having been denied, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration on August 28, 1985 but the same
was likewise denied on October 14, 1985.

In the meantime, this Court in a resolution dated September 1, 1985 denied the motion of the petitioner to annul the special election
of July 20, 1985, but without prejudice to the filing of a proper petition with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

The instant petition was thereafter filed, principally praying:

That respondents Pablo B. Babula and his group be disqualified for not complying with the Resolution dated July 3, 1985 (Annex 'D')
of this Honorable Court and the votes cast in their favor in the July 20, 1985 election be invalidated and the candidates who received
the next highest number of votes in said election be declared the winner thereof;

Or in the alternative, that the election held in (sic) July 20, 1985 be annulled and a new election be called three weeks after
respondents Pablo Babula, et al. have complied with the conditions imposed by the Resolution dated July 3, 1985 of this Honorable
Court and an audit has been made of the different funds of the Union for the year 1985;

Issue: WON the petition is moot and academic.

Held:
Yes. After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We are of the considered view that the expiration of the terms of office of
the union officers and the election of officers on November 28, 1988 have rendered the issues raised by petitioners in this case moot
and academic. It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers whose terms had already expired.

We would have thereby a judgment on a matter which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if existing, and
which, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must consequently abide by our consistent ruling that where certain events or
circumstances have taken place during the pendency of the case which would render the case moot and academic, the petition
should be dismissed.

Moreover, it is the better part of conventional or pragmatic solutions in cases of this nature, absent overriding considerations to the
contrary, to respect the will of the majority of the workers who voted in the November 28, 1988 elections. Although decreed under a
different setting, it is apropos to recall in this case Our ruling that 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.

We agree with the petitioners that disobedience to a resolution of this Court should not be left unpunished. However, 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.

At this juncture, it would further be appropriate to remind petitioners that 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.

Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP) vs. Trajano

G.R. No. L-62306

FACTS:
On June 30, 1981, a written request for accounts examination of the financial status of KMP Labor Union, the existing labor union at
Franklin Baker Company in San Pablo City, was filed by private respondent Silvestre and 13 other employees, who are members of
the union

Acting on said request, Union Account Examiner Vicedo of the MOLE conducted the investigation and thereafter submitted a report

Based on the revelations, private respondents filed with the Regional Office QC, MOLE, a petition for the expulsion of the union
officers

They committed gross violation of the Labor Code, specifically pars. (a), (b), (g), (h), (j), and (k) of Article 242; and, the constitution
and by-laws of the union, Sections 6 and 7

Union Officers:
- Denied imputation and argued that the disallowed expenditures were made in good faith; that the same conduced the benefit of
members
- They are willing to reimburse the same from their own personal funds
- They should not be held accountable for the non-production of books of accounts of the Union for years 1977, 1978, and 1979
because they were not the officers then and not one of the former officers of the Union had turned over to them the records
- Non-ratification of the constitution and by-laws of the Union and the non-segregation of the Union funds occurred before they
became officers and that they have already been correcting the same

Med-Arbiter Cabibihan ordered the holding of a referendum, to be conducted under the supervision of BLR

Petitioners appealed the order to respondent Trajano of BLR the disallowed expenditures of P1,278.00 were made in good faith and
not used for the personal benefit of herein union officers but, instead, contributed to the benefit of the members they were elected in
1980 only and, therefore, they could not be made responsible for the omissions of their predecessors who failed to turn over union
records for the questioned period there would be a general election on Oct. 4, 1982, at which time, both the election and the desired
referendum could be undertaken to determine the membership at minimum expense they prayed that resolution on the issue be held
in abeyance

Respondents claimed that Med-Arbiter erred in calling a referendum to decide issue; the appropriate action should be the expulsion
of union officers

Trajano dismissed both appeals and affirmed in toto the order of Med-Arbiter
ISSUE: Whether or not union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them thus expulsion was proper
HELD: NO

RATIO:

If herein union officers (also petitioners) were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them, said public respondent pursuant to
Article 242 of the New Labor Code and in the light of Our ruling in Duyag vs. Inciong, 98 SCRA 522, should have meted out the
appropriate penalty on them, i.e., to expel them from the Union, as prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the issue;

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; and

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.

By and large, the holding of the referendum in question has become moot and academic. This is in line with Our ruling in Pascual vs.
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, 106 Phil. 471, which We quote:

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 misfaults 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.

DISPOSITIVE: Petitioners WON.

DOCTRINE: 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 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.
Rodriquez vs DIR

Facts:
The elections for the provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain areas of Luzon were nevertheless held on July 21 and 22,
1986, which are dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council (July 14 to 18, 1986). The validity of the elections was
very shortly challenged on the ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2) adequate ground rules. Carlos Galvadores and his fellow
candidates filed on July 22, 1986 a petition with the BLR,, praying that the Union's COMELEC be directed to promulgate ground rules
for the conduct of the provincial elections. On the day following, Livi Marquez, a candidate for vice-president, together with other
candidates in his ticket, filed another petition against the same Union COMELEC and Manolito Paran, the union presidentseeking to
restrain the holding of the elections scheduled on July 25, 1986 in the Metro Manila are until (1) ground rules therefor had been
formulated and made known to all members of the labor organization, and (2) the issue of the filing fees had been finally decided. In
connection with these complaints, a temporary restraining order was issued on July 23, 1986 prohibiting the holding of elections on
July 25, 1986.

The restraining order notwithstanding, the Union COMELEC proceeded with the general elections in all the PLDT branches in Metro
Manila on July 25, 1986. It then reported that as of July 15, 1986 the number of qualified voters was 9,429 of which 6,903 actually
voted, the percentage of turn-out being 73%.

Livi Marquez and Carlos Galvadores, and their respective groups, forthwith filed separate motions praying that the COMELEC be
declared guilty of contempt for defying the temporary restraining order, and for the nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections
of July 25, 1986 but also the provincial elections of July 21 and 22, 1986.

Med-Arbiter Rasidali Abdullah on August 28,1986, judgment's denied the petitions to nullify the elections, as well as the motion for
contempt, but invalidated the increase in rates of filing fees for certificates of candidacies. The judgment accorded credence to the
Union COMELEC's averment that it had not received the restraining order on time. It took account, too, of the fact that the turn-out of
voters was 73%, much higher than the turn-out of 62% to 63% in prior elections, which fact, in the Med-Arbiter's view was a clear
manifestation of the union members' desire to go ahead with the elections and express their will therein.

This judgment was however overturned by the Officer-in-Charge of Labor Relations, on appeal seasonably taken. The OIC's
decision, dated October 10, 1986 nullified the general elections in the provinces and Metro Manila on the ground of (1) lack of notice
to the candidates and voters, (2) failure to disseminate the election ground rules to all parties concerned, and (3) disregard of the
temporary restraining order of the Med-Arbiter. The decision stressed the following points: 1

The undue haste with which the questioned general elections were held raises doubts as to its validity. In its desire to conduct the
elections as scheduled, the respondents unwittingly disregarded mandatory procedural requirements. The respondents' pretensions
that the appellants were duly furnished with the ground rules/guidelines of the general elections and that the same were properly
disseminated to the qualified voters of the union are not supported by the records.

Moreover, the Union's Comelec did not follow the schedule of election outlined in the guidelines and conducted the elections without
proper notice to the appellants.Accordingly, the unwarranted failure of the Union's Comelec to duly furnish the appellants the
guidelines and properly disseminate the same to the voters, and the holding of the elections not in accordance with the schedule set
by the guidelines and ill open defiance of the July 23, 1986 Restraining Order, precipitated an uncalled for confusion among the
appellants' supporters and unduly prevented them from adopting the appropriate electoral safeguards to protect their interests. Under
the circumstances, this Office is constrained to invalidate the general elections held on July 21, 22 and 25, 1986 and declare the
results thereof null and void.

It is this decision of the BLR Officer-in-Charge claims the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion considering that (a)
the Med-Arbiter had found no fraud or irregularity in the elections; (b) the election was participated in by more than 73% of the entire
union membership; and (e) the petition for nullity was not supported by 30% of the general membership.

Issue:

WON the elections was valid

Held

Yes, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, no grave abuse of discretion or other serious error having been shown in the decision
of the respondent Director of Labor Relations, said decision — ordering the holding of new elections for officers of the Free
Telephone Worker Union — being on the contrary in accord with the facts and the law

In the cases at bar, the petition to nullify the 1986 union elections could not be deemed defective because it did not have the assent
of 30% of the union membership. The petition clearly involved an intra-union conflict — one directly affecting the right of suffrage of
more than 800 union members and the integrity of the union elections — over which, as the law explicitly provides, jurisdiction could
be assumed by the Labor Relations Director or the Med-Arbiters "at their own initiative" or "upon request of either or both parties."

The assumption of jurisdiction by the Med-Arbiter and the Labor Relations Director over the cases at bar was entirely proper. It was
in fact their duty to do so, given the facts presented to them. So this Court has had occasion to rule: 5
The labor officials should not hesitate to enforce strictly the law and regulations governing trade unions even if that course of action
would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference.

For the protection of union members and in order that the affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor officials should be
vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs.

Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and regulating the activities of union officials would result in corruption and
oppression. Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored or swept aside by abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union
officials to the prejudice of the members.

It is necessary and desirable that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Ministry of Labor should exercise close and constant
supervision over labor unions, particularly the handling of their funds, so as to forestall abuses and penalties.

Pacific Banking Corp. Vs. Clave

[G.R. No. 56965. March 7, 1984.]

Facts:

Since January, 1979, there had been negotiations between the Pacific Banking Corporation and the Pacific Banking Corporation
Employees Organization (PABECO) for a collective bargaining agreement for 1979 to 1981. Because of a deadlock, the Minister of
Labor assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. On July 10, 1979, the Deputy Minister rendered a decision directing the parties to
execute a CBA in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in his decision. The Union was assisted by lawyer Juanito
Saavedra. A CBA was then perfected with monetary benefits amounting to 14 million pesos. Thereafter the counsel filed for
attorney’s lien.
The union officials requested the bank to withhold around P345,000 out of the total benefits as ten percent attorney’s fees of
Saavedra. For nearly a year, the Office of the President in four resolutions wrestled with the propriety of Saavedra’s ten percent
attorney’s fees. In a resolution dated May 29, 1980, Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave refused to intervene in the
matter. He ruled that the payment of attorney’s fees was a question that should be settled by the union and its lawyer themselves.

Succeeding resolutions were issued by Clave which directed the bank to pay 10% as lawyer’s fee to Saavedra, until finally a fourth
resolution was issued by Deputy Presidential Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr. ordered the bank to pay the union treasurer
the said attorney’s fees less the amounts corresponding to the protesting employees. The bank assailed in this Court the said
resolutions by means of certiorari. On February 5, 1982, the NUBE and thirteen employees of the bank, members of the PABECO,
intervened in this case and prayed that the said resolutions be declared void and that said sum of P345,000 be paid directly to the
employees or union members.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lawyer’s fee shall be charged to the monetary Benefits of employees as provided by the CBA?

RULING:

NO.

The case is covered squarely by the mandatory and explicit prescription of article 222 which is another guarantee intended to
protect the employee against unwarranted practices that would diminish his compensation without his knowledge and consent, to wit;
ART. 222. Appearances and Fees. — . . . (b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any
collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective 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. There is no doubt that lawyer
Saavedra is entitled to the payment of his fees but article 222 ordains that union funds should be used for that purpose. The amount
of P345,000 does not constitute union funds. It is money of the employees. The union, not the employees, is obligated to Saavedra.

Duyag vs Inciong
G.R. No. L-47775
July 5, 1980

FACTS: 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 Department of Labor a
complaint containing several charges against the four private respondents, who, respectively, are the president, treasurer, vice-
president and auditor of the union.

The grounds are as follows: Unauthorized increases in union dues of ten pesos, as fixed in section 2(b), article VI of the union's
constitution and bylaws, to 19 pesos by mere resolutions not approved by three-fourths of all the members of the board of directors,
as required in article VII of the union's constitution and by-laws, dealing with amendments and in one case without any board
resolution at al.

Withholding of union members' share in the profits amounting to P18,640.09. — E. Razon, Inc., the arrastre operator, paid to the
union on December 18. 1973 the sum of P25,684.61 as its share of the profits (profit-share) for the period from May to October,
1973. Instead of distributing the whole amount to the union members, the dents paid to them only P19,974 and retained the of
P5,710.61 which had not been accounted for.

Disbursements exceeding P500 which were not authorized by the board of directors. — Section 4(d), article IV of the union's
constitution and by-laws provides that the board of directors may "authorize and approve all disbursements from union fund where
the amount involved is more than P500 and without that authorization or approval in due form, no such disbursements will be allowed
by the Treasurer
Maladministration of welfare fund. — Respondent Manalad allowed the application of the funds of the union's Welfare Plan to some
extraneous purposes:

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. The private respondents
appealed to the Director of Labor Relations who in his decision 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.

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.

ISSUE: WON the Director of Labor Relations has the power to order an examination of the books and records of the union

HELD: Yes. The labor officials should not hesitate to enforcement strictly the law and regulations governing trade unions even if that
course of action would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference.

For the protection of union members and in order that the affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor officials should be
vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs.

Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and regulating the activities of union officials would result in corruption and
oppression. Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored or swept aside by abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union
officials to the prejudice of the members.

It is necessary and desirable that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Ministry of Labor should exercise close and constant
supervision over labor unions, particularly the handling of their funds, so as to forestall abuses and venalities.
Hence, 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.

GABRIEL VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS:

Petitioners Evangeline Gabriel and five (5) others comprise the Executive Board of the Solid Bank Union, the duly recognized
collective bargaining agent for the rank and file employees of Solid Bank Corporation. Private respondents are members of said
union. On October 1991, the union’s Executive Board decided to retain anew the service of Atty. Ignacio P. Lacsina as union counsel
in connection with the negotiations for a new CBA. The board then called a general membership meeting for the purpose. At the said
meeting, the majority of all union members approved and signed a resolution confirming the decision of the executive board
to engage the services of Atty. Lacsina as union counsel. As approved, the resolution provided that 10% of the total economic
benefits that may be secured through the negotiations be given to Atty. Lacsina as attorney’s fees. It also contained an authorization
for SolidBank Corporation to check-off said attorney’s fees from the first lump sum payment of benefits to the employees under the
new CBA and to turn over said amount to Atty. Lacsina and/or his duly authorized representative. The new CBA was signed on
February 1992. The bank then, on request of the union, made payroll deductions for attorney’s fees from the CBA benefits paid to the
union members in accordance with the Board resolution. On October 1992, private respondents instituted a complaint against the
petitioners and the union counsel before the DOLE for illegal deduction of attorney’s fees as well as for quantification of the benefits
in the 1992 CBA.

Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint citing litis pendentia, forum shopping and failure to state a cause of action as
their ground.
ISSUE AND HOLDING:

Whether or not the Secretary of Labor erred in ruling that the workers through their union should be made to shoulder the expenses
incurred for the professional services of a lawyer in connection with the collective bargaining negotiations and that the reimbursement
for the deductions from the workers should be charged to the union’s general fund or account.

HELD

No.

IN CHECK-OFF, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior authorization from employees,

deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages and remits them directly to the union. It assures continuous funding for
the labor organization. As the Court has acknowledged, the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the union and only
indirectly for the individual employees. The pertinent legal provisions on check-offs are found in Article 222 (b) and Article 241 (o) of
the Labor Code.

Article 241 has three (3) requisites for the validity of the special assessment for union’s incidental expenses, attorney’s fees and
representation 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) Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting; and
3) Individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the employees concerned.
The Court finds that the General Membership Resolution of the Solid Bank Union did not satisfy the requirements laid down by law
and jurisprudence for the validity of the ten percent (10%) special assessment for union’s incidental expenses, attorney’s fees and
representation expenses. There were no individual written for the check off authorizations by the employees concerned and so the
assessment cannot be legally deducted by their employer.