Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TRAJANO
173 S 155 / MAY 5, 1989 / MEDIALDEA, J. / LABOR Mandatory Activity
Nature
Petition for certiorari to review orders of BLR
Petitioners Ambrocio Vengco, Ramon Moises, Eugenia Reyes, Rafael Wagas and 80 others
per attached list
Respondents Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano, in his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor
Relations and Emmanuel Timbungco
Case Brief.
Union President Timbungco deducted 10% attorneys fees from P150k received as amicable
settlement in a dispute for unpaid ECOLA and other benefits without the written consent of the
employees concerned. The SC ruled that this violated Art 240(o)1, LC.
Case Doctrine.
Attorneys fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due an employee without
his written consent except for mandatory activities under the Code. Mandatory activity a
judicial process of settling dispute laid down by the law.
Facts.
1 Art 241(o): Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. (o) Other than for
mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or
any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due an employee without an
individual written authorization duly signed by an employee. The authorization should specifically
state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction
Issue.
1. WoN the deduction of 10% attorneys fees was legal - NO
Ratio.
1. WoN the deduction of 10% attorneys fees was legal NO
Clearly, attorneys fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount
due an employee without his written consent except for mandatory activities
under the Code. A mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of
settling dispute laid down by the law.
The Kapisayahan or resolution did not confer upon Timbungco the power to
deduct 10% of the P150k despite the alleged approval of the majority of the union
members. An examination of the resolution shows it was defective. It was undated,
not captioned save for the first page, and did not state the purpose for which it
was prepared. Thus, the alleged signatories were not properly apprised thereof.
Moreover, the law explicitly requires the individual written authorization of each
employee concerned to make deduction of attorneys fees valid.
Moreover, the statement in the Kapisayahan indicated merely the workers intention to
receive their claim on the first week of Dec 1981 and to inform Timbungco of the
same. It did not confer upon Timbungco the authority to receive the workers fringe
benefits. Absent such authority, Timbungco should have turned the money to the
Union Treasurer, and thus exceeded his authority as president.
Finally, Bk III, Rule VIII, Sec II of the IRLC which dispenses with the required written
authorization from the employees concerned is inapplicable. This provision applies
where there is a judicial or administrative proceeding for recovery of wages; upon
termination of the same, the law allows at 10% deduction from the total amount due to
a winning party as attorneys fees. In this case, the fringe benefits were back
payments of unpaid ECOLA, which are totally distinct from their wages, and these
were effected through amicable settlement, not in administrative proceedings.
Decision.
Petition granted. O-I-C Calalays Orders reversed and set aside. Dir. Trajanos decision
reinstated.