Sie sind auf Seite 1von 42

1.

Admission and Discipline of members an employee for purposes of membership in any labor
union. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715)
Labor Code 260 (a)
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, RA No. 7636 (Sept. 22 1992)
agents or representatives: AN ACT REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED ONE
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED, AS AMENDED,
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-SUBVERSION ACT
right to self-organization. However, a labor organization Section 1. Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Seven
shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect Hundred (R.A. No. 1700), otherwise known as the Anti-
to the acquisition or retention of membership; Subversion Act, as revived by Executive Order Numbered One
Hundred Sixty-Seven (E.O. No. 167) and subsequently
amended by Executive Order Numbered Two Hundred
Labor Code 250 (a) Seventy-Six (E.O. No. 276) is hereby repealed.
Rights and conditions of membership in a labor Section 2. This Act does not in any manner repeal, amend or
organization. The following are the rights and conditions of modify the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
membership in a labor organization: Section 3. Presidential Decrees Nos. 885, 1736, 1835 and
No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of 1975 remain repealed, and all other laws, presidential
the members of a legitimate labor organization nor shall decrees, letters of instruction, and other issuances, orders,
arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby
imposed; likewise repealed.

Labor Code 250 (e) G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983
No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or
continue in membership any individual who belongs to a DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS,
subversive organization or who is engaged directly or BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO ACOSTA, RECITACION
indirectly in any subversive activity; BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA
LLAGAS, petitioners,
Labor Code 292 (a) vs.
All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the
fees, union dues, assessments and fines and other Ministry of Labor, AMIGO MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED
contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS
and hospitalization benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and (PAFLU), respondents.
credit and cooperative undertakings. (As amended by Section
33, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) Facts:

Labor Code 292 (c) Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-
Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization which, was the
shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as existing bargaining agent of the employees in private
respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (Company). The rendered a decision finding the petitioners guilty of the
Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA charges.
governing their labor relations, which agreement was then
about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last 60 days PAFLU demanded the Company to terminate the employment
of the CBA, upon written authority of at least 30% of the of the petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the CBA.
employees in the company, including the petitioners, the Acting on PAFLU's demand, the Company informed PAFLU
Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for that it will first secure the necessary clearances to terminate
certification election with MOLE. The petition was opposed by petitioners. PAFLU requested the Company to put petitioners
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) with under preventive suspension pending the application for said
whom the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated. clearances to terminate the petitioners. The Company filed
The same employees who had signed the petition filed by the request for clearance to terminate the petitioners before
FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU. DOLE which was granted. DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the
appeal, hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the
authorized representative of the Amigo Employees Union, Issue: WON DOLE Secretary erred in affirming the grant of
filed a petition for certification election in the Company. The clearance of termination of petitioners.
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU intervened and moved for the
dismissal of the petition for certification election filed by Ruling:
Dolores Villar, on the ground, among others that Dolores
Villar had no legal personality to sign the petition since she It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to
was not an officer of the union nor is there factual or legal legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of association
basis for her claim that she was the authorized ordained by the Constitution. But the Court has laid down the
representative of the local union. Med-Arbiter dismissed the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form of union security, and
petition filed by Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a
before BLR. restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed
by the Constitution.
Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special meeting of its
general membership. A Resolution was thereby unanimously In the case at bench, the Company and the Amigo Employees
approved which called for the investigation by the PAFLU Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union security clause
national president, of all of the petitioners and one Felipe which is a reiteration of the old CBA. The quoted stipulation
Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading for closed-shop is clear and unequivocal. Petitioners theory
false propaganda that the union officers were merely that their expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is
appointees of the management; and for causing divisiveness untenable. PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners
in the union. PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union
the local union's charges against the petitioners for acts of and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from
disloyalty. PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
which also reincorporated the same provisions of the existing is clear under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local
CBA, including the union security clause. PAFLU President union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of
the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, and remedial measures, in keeping with its laws and
PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. regulations, for its preservation and continued existence; lest
by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor
union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound by the Decision appealed from is affirmed.
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 a. Due Process
union functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the
parent body, together with the charter it issues pursuant PAULINO BUGAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. KAPISANAN NG
thereto to the subordinate union, constitute an enforceable MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD
contract between the parent body and the subordinate union, COMPANY, defendant-appellee (1962; J. Bautista-Angelo;
and between the members of the subordinate union inter se. GR No. L-13093)

'Due process' simply means that the parties were given the **Doctrine (A2016 Reviewer): The union may discipline its
opportunity to be heard. In the instant case, ample and members for acts or omissions contrary to its CBL. However,
unmistakable evidence exists to show that the oppositors it must also follow the rules and procedures outlines in the
were afforded the opportunity to present their evidence, but CBL in enforcing a penalty to a member.
they themselves disdained or spurned the said opportunity
given to them. FACTS: Bugay was formerly an auditor of Kapisanan. He was
at the same time payroll clerk of the Manila Railroad Co.
We, therefore, hold and rule that petitioners, although Sometime in March 1953, he was requested by the secretary-
entitled to disaffiliate from their union and form a new treasurer of the company to deliver certain documents which
organization of their own, must, however, suffer the were in his possession belonging to the union and in
consequences of their separation from the union under the compliance therewith he delivered them without consulting
security clause of the CBA. the officers of the union. Making use of these documents, the
management of the company filed with the City Fiscal of
It is undisputable that oppositors were members of the Amigo Manila against Vicente Olazo, president of the union, a
Employees Union at the time that said union affiliated with charge for falsification of commercial document. The City
PAFLU; hence, oppositors are bound by the laws and fiscal dismissed the charge.
regulations of PAFLU. Inherent in every labor union, or any
organization for that matter, is the right of self -preservation. Subsequently, charges for disloyalty and conduct
When members of a labor union seek the disintegration and unbecoming a union member were preferred against Bugay.
destruction of the very union to which they belong; they After the investigation, he was expelled from the union. As a
thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union result, Bugay filed a ULP charge against Kapisanan before the
which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as CIR.
the dictates of law and justice, therefore, compelling
mandate the adoption by the labor union of such corrective
CIR: Bugay's expulsion was illegal it appearing that the same to the chapters on June 17, 1953. To make it effective,
has not been approved by the majority of the chapters of the the resolution had to be affirmed by the chapters on
union as required by its CBL. Hence, the court ordered his July 1, 1953, at the latest. The additional time of four
reinstatement as union member and the restoration to him of days is allowed for transmittals made by mail. Only
all his rights and privileges. the two abovenamed chapters, however, acted on the
resolution within the prescribed period. For this reason,
Excerpts from CIRs decision: Both in the investigation held even under the assumption that the proceedings against
by the investigation committee of the Kapisanan and in the Bugay were not irregular, the resolution in question never
board meeting where the committee's report recommending had any valid effect on his union membership. In short, his
expulsion was approved, Bugay was not present. The reason affiliation with the Kapisanan was never terminated.
for Bugay's failure to attend the investigation does not That being the case, Bugay is entitled to all the rights
appear of record. On the other hand, during the board and obligations appertaining to every member of the
meeting, the committee of three board members assigned to Kapisanan. Considering that he has been unduly and
summon Bugay failed to serve notice upon him because he discriminatorily deprived of such rights and
was then in Lucena, Quezon. Why all these proceedings were obligations, the Court finds, and so holds, that the
continued by the respondents inspite of Bugay's absence respondents, by their act and conduct, have engaged
remains unexplained in the record. But one thing is in and are engaging in ULP in violation of Sec. 4(b) (2)
certain, whatever might be the merits of the charge of RA 872.
filed by respondent Olazo against him, Bugay did not
have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Such This decision was affirmed by the SC with some modification.
proceedings, being violative of the elementary rule of
justice and fair play, can not give validity to any act Subsequently, Bugay filed an action for moral damages
done pursuant thereto. (amounting to P20K) having become the victim of an ULP
act by the officers of Kapisanan under RA 875 as found by the
IMPT!: Besides, the contention that majority of the chapters CIR and SC before the CFI of Manila.
voted in favor of Bugay's expulsion is not borne by the o Bugay claims that he has suffered moral damages for
evidence. An examination of the chapters to the Kapisanan mental anguish, anxiety, social humiliation and
board of directors shows that all of the votes, except those of besmirched reputation specially among the thousands
the Hondagua Chapters and Engineering Manila Yard Chapter of employees of the Manila Railroad Co.
were not validly cast. Under the Kapisanan's CBL, before
a resolution of general application may be enforced, Kapisanan filed a motion to dismiss.
and a resolution terminating union membership is o Ground: The complaint does not state facts sufficient
one, it must receive the sanction of majority of the to constitute a cause of action in that neither the
chapters within 10 days (Sec. 4, Art. VII, Kapisanan's decision of the CIR nor that of the SC contain any
Saligang Batas). In other words, action thereon, whether statement that the ULP act imputed to Kapisanan was
favorable or otherwise, must be taken by the chapters within false or fabricated as in fact the decision of the SC
a period of 10 days from the time they receive the resolution. ordering Bugay's reinstatement was merely based on
According to respondent Olazo's testimony, the "the regularity and validity of the proceedings and the
resolution passed on June 14, 1953, was transmitted means adopted by the union and its officers in
effecting his expulsion." Thus, Bugay cannot ask moral expulsion was illegal because of the irregularities
damages inasmuch as there is no showing that to committed in his investigation. In effect, it was found
effect his expulsion the officers of the union have that not only has he not been given an opportunity to
acted in bad faith. As a matter of fact, he did not lose defend himself but his expulsion was not submitted to
his employment as payroll clerk in the Manila Railroad the different chapters of the union as required by its
Co. as a result of his expulsion, nor did he suffer any CBL. The result was that because of his expulsion he was
change in his status as a consequence thereof. In subjected to humiliation and mental anguish with the
effect, he was not awarded any damages by the consequent loss of his good name and reputation. This is
industrial court. especially so considering that the members of the union from
which he was expelled amounted to around 20,000 more or
This contention having been sustained, the CFI dismissed the less. It is, therefore, an error for the lower court to hold that
complaint. Hence, the present appeal. the complaint does not state sufficient cause of action for the
relief claimed by appellant.
ISSUE: WON Bugay should be awarded moral damages
===
RULING: YES. Order appealed from is set aside. The case is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Others: With regard to the contention that this claim for
moral damages should have been included by appellant in
1. The main basis of Bugay's action is his claim that because his charge for ULP filed against the union with the CIR, suffice
of the ULP committed by the officers of Kapisanan as found it to state that the same does not come within the jurisdiction
by the CIR and the SC, he has suffered moral damages of that court. This is a matter that has to be looked into by
because of the mental anguish, anxiety, social humiliation the regular courts.
and besmirched reputation he has been subjected among the
thousands of employees of the Manila Railroad Co. This claim
finds support in our NCC. 2. Election of Officers
o NCC. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched Labor Code 250 (c)
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social The members shall directly elect their officers, including
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of those of the national union or federation, to which they or
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
recovered if they are the proximate result of the years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
defendant's wrongful act or omission. position shall be imposed other than membership in good
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
2. It is true that the decisions both of the CIR and the SC do other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
not contain any statement that the charges preferred by the Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected
officers of the union against him which resulted in his officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
expulsion were "trumped up" or fabricated, or that said are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30)
officers acted maliciously or in bad faith, but the fact calendar days after the election of officers or from the
remains that the two courts have found that his occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. The Court held that the BLR was wrong, and that the CA was
6715, March 21, 1989) partly wrong; it upheld the FFW COMELECs decision to
disqualify Montao, not because of Article 26, but because of
Labor Code 250 (f) Article 76 (which was used by FFW COMELEC and Verceles),
No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral because the Constitution and By-Laws clearly state that
turpitude shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for federation employees are barred from sitting in the FFW
appointment to any position in the union; governing board.

Labor Code 250 (k) DOCTRINE: The Federation/Unions Constitution and ByLaws
The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any govern the relationship between and among its members.
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to They are akin to ordinary contracts in that their provisions
their positions as specifically provided for in its constitution have obligatory force upon the federation/union and its
and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a member. What has been expressly stipulated therein shall be
majority of all the members at a general membership strictly binding on both.
meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be
subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly FACTS:
authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval Atty. Montao worked as legal assistant of FFW Legal
of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or Center. Subsequently, he joined the union of rankandfile
expulsion from the organization; employees, the FFW Staff Association, and eventually
became the employees union president. Later, he was
likewise designated officerincharge of FFW Legal Center.
Book V Rule XIII During the 21st National Convention and Election of
National Officers of FFW, Atty. Montao was nominated for
the position of National VicePresident.
ALLAN S. MONTAO v. ERNESTO C. VERCELES However, the Commission on Election (FFW COMELEC),
July 6, 2010 | Del Castillo, J. | Election of Officers: informed him that he is not qualified for the position as his
Qualifications; Manner; Tenure and Compensation candidacy violates the 1998 FFW Constitution and By-
Digester: Fausto, Jaime Manuel A. Laws, particularly Section 76 of Article XIX and Section 25
SUMMARY: Montao, a member of FFW Staff Association, (a) of Article VIII, both in Chapter II thereof. Montao filed
which is a federation, was nominated as FFWs national Vice an MR.
President. The FFW COMELEC disqualified him, citing the FFW
Despite this, the election ensued. It was opposed by Atty.
Constitution and By-Laws, prohibiting federation employees
Ernesto C. Verceles (Atty. Verceles), a delegate to the
from sitting in the governing board. The election nonetheless
convention and president of University of the East
took place and Montao won. Verceles, another governing
Employees Association (UEEAFFW), which is an affiliate
board officer opposed this citing the same rules. The BLR
union of FFW.
dismissed this citing another FFW rule, which is substantial
Montao was victorious.
compliance with the requirements. The CA held that the BLR-
cited rule applied, but Montao was nonetheless disqualified.
Verceles protested Montaos candidacy before the FFW Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides that the
COMELEC. The latter did not act on this. BLR and the Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent
Thus, Verceles, as President of UEEA FFW and officer of jurisdiction over interunion and intraunion disputes. Such
the Governing Board of FFW, filed before the BLR a disputes include the conduct or nullification of election of
petition for the nullification of the election of Montao as union and workers association officers.
FFW National VicePresident. The matter of venue becomes problematic when the intra-
He alleged that, as already ruled by the FFW union dispute involves a federation, because the
COMELEC, Atty. Montao is not qualified to run for the geographical presence of a federation may encompass
position because Section 76 of Article XIX of the FFW more than one administrative region.
Constitution and ByLaws prohibits federation Thus, the BLR maintains exclusive jurisdiction over
employees from sitting in its Governing Board. disputes arising from any violation of or disagreement
Montao claimed that the Regional Director of DOLE, and over any provision of the constitution and by-laws.
not the BLR, had jurisdiction, and that the filing of the
case was premature because of the pending protest Whether the petition to annul Montaos election was
before the FFW COMELEC by Verceles. prematurely filed - NO.
FFW COMELEC sent a letter, which was later used by Redress must first be sought within the organization itself,
Verceles in his argument, saying that they actually in accordance with the Constitution and by-laws. However
disqualified Montano, based on the provisions of the FFW this is open to exceptions.
Constitution. Their decision was final, but the delegates The rules provide that the committee on election shall
still proceeded with the election. The body/ delegates endeavor to settle or resolve all protests during or
were not a Constitutional Convention and had no power to immediately after the close of election proceedings and
amend the FFW Constitution. any protest left unresolved shall be resolved by the
BLR - dismissed the petition. It held that the applicable is committee within five days after the close of the election
not Section 76 of Article XIX but Section 26 of Article VIII, proceedings.
and that Montao sufficiently complied with the Verceles protested a day after the election. He thus
requirements and that the delegates unanimously decided exhausted the proper remedies. Still, FFW COMELEC failed
that Montao was qualified to run. to timely act thereon. Thus, Verceles had no other
CA - set aside the BLR decision. It held that while Sec. 26 recourse but to seek redress from the BLR.
did apply, Montao was not able to comply with this as he
was not an officer or member of a legitimate labor Whether the allegation regarding forum shopping was
organization. The CA held that he was a legal assistant, belatedly raised - YES.
thus considered a confidential employee, and is this Montao only raised this issue in his MR before the CA.
ineligible to join FFWs rank-and-file union. New issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or
on MR.
RULING: Petition denied. Montaos election is null and void.
Whether the case must be resolved despite its issues
Whether the BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union having become moot - YES.
disputes involving a federation - YES.
Montaos challenged term already expired during the eligibility to run in the election and to adopt and
pendency of this case. promulgate rules concerning the conduct of elections. It
Furhter, Verceles appointment as NLRC Commissioner has the power to prescribe rules on the qualification and
divested him of any interest in and affiliation with the eligibility of candidates and such other rules as may
federation in accordance with Art. 213, LC. facilitate the orderly conduct of elections.
It must be stated at this juncture that the legitimacy of Thus, it has sufficient authority to adopt its own
Atty. Montaos leadership as National President is beyond interpretation of the explicit provisions of the federations
our jurisdiction and is not in issue in the instant case. The constitution and bylaws and unless it is shown to have
only issue for our resolution is petitioners qualification to committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision and
run as FFW National VicePresident. ruling will not be interfered with.
It is necessary and imperative to resolve this issue not The FFW Constitution and ByLaws are clear that no
only to prevent further repetition but also to clear any member of the Governing Board shall at the same time
doubtful interpretation and application of the provisions of perform functions of the rankandfile staff. The BLR erred
FFW Constitution & Bylaws in order to ensure credible in disregarding this clear provision.
future elections in the interest and welfare of affiliate The CA is therefore correct for holding that Atty. Montao
unions of FFW. is not qualified to run for the position but not for failure
to meet the requirement specified under Section 26 (d) of
[MAIN ISSUE] Article VIII of FFW Constitution and ByLaws.
Whether Montao was qualified to run as FFW The Court nonetheless affirms the CAs finding that
National Vice-President in view of the prohibition Montao is disqualified to run for the position of National
established in Section 76, Article XIX of the 1998 FFW Vice President in view of the proscription in the FFW
Constitution and ByLaws - NO. Constitution and ByLaws on federation employees from
The pertinent provision provides that that no member of sitting in its Governing Board. Thus, Monaos election is
the Governing Board shall at the same time be an null and void.
employee in the staff of the federation.
There is no dispute that Atty. Montao, at the time of his Decision: election of Atty. Montao as FFW Vice-President is
nomination and election for the position in the Governing null and void.
Board, is the head of FFW Legal Center and the President
of FFW Staff Association. Even after he was elected, albeit
challenged, he continued to perform his functions as staff a. Qualifications/Disqualification
member of FFW and no evidence was presented to show
that he tendered his resignation. Labor Code 250 (c)
Thus the FFW COMELEC disqualified Montao. The BLR The members shall directly elect their officers, including
and CA erred in reversing this in applying Art. 26 of the those of the national union or federation, to which they or
Constitution and By-Laws. their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
The FFW COMELEC is vested with authority and power,
position shall be imposed other than membership in good
under the FFW Constitution and ByLaws, to screen
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
candidates and determine their qualifications and
other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No.
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected 6715, March 21, 1989)
officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30) i. Direct election
calendar days after the election of officers or from the ii. Secret ballot
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. c. Tenure
6715, March 21, 1989) Labor Code 250 (c)
The members shall directly elect their officers, including
Labor Code 250 (f) those of the national union or federation, to which they or
The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5)
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any
their positions as specifically provided for in its constitution position shall be imposed other than membership in good
and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
majority of all the members at a general membership other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who
subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30)
authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval calendar days after the election of officers or from the
of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
expulsion from the organization; organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989)

b. Manner of Election d. Compensation


Labor Code 250 (k)
Labor Code 250 (c) The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any
The members shall directly elect their officers, including compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to
those of the national union or federation, to which they or their positions as specifically provided for in its constitution
their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a
years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any majority of all the members at a general membership
position shall be imposed other than membership in good meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be
other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval
officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or
are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30) expulsion from the organization;
calendar days after the election of officers or from the
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
e. Who may vote
Labor Code 250 (c) Association). While said respondents were preparing to
The members shall directly elect their officers, including file a petition for direct certification of the Union as the
those of the national union or federation, to which they or sole and exclusive bargaining agent of ITMs bargaining
their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) unit, the unions VicePresident, Carlos Dalmacio was
years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any promoted to the position of Department Head, thereby
position shall be imposed other than membership in good disqualifying him for union membership.
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any Said incident, among others led to a strike spearheaded
other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of by Lacanilao group, respondents herein. Another group
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected however, led by herein petitioners staged a strike inside
officers, together with the appointive officers or agents who the company premises. After four (4) days the strike was
are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30) settled.
calendar days after the election of officers or from the An agreement was entered into by the representatives of
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor the management that all monthlypaid employees shall be
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. united under one union (ITM); that ITM is affiliated with
6715, March 21, 1989) ANGLO and the latter will be the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all monthly-paid employees; that an
TANCINCO v. FERRER-CALLEJA election of new officers will be held; and that there will be
January 20, 1988 | Gancayco, J. | Elections of officers a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of
Digester: Magtanong, Patch qualified voters.
During the May 21, 1986 preelection conference attended
SUMMARY: ITM-MEA conducted an election for their union by MOLE officers, ANGLO through its National Secretary
officers. Fifty-six (56) employees were excluded from the made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees
counting of the votes because at the time of the election, consisting of the Manila office employees, members of
their names were not included in the list submitted before Iglesia ni Kristo, nontime card employees, drivers of Mrs.
the Bureau. The Court held that union membership or Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar.
eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the
On May 26, 1986, the election of officers was conducted
payroll-period list. Non-inclusion in the members list
under the supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees
submitted with the Bureau is not determinative of non-
in question participated but whose votes were segregated
membership, which precludes the right to vote in union
without being counted.
elections.
Lacanilaos group won. Lacanilao garnered 119 votes with
DOCTRINE: Submission of the employees names with the a margin of three (3) votes over Tancinco prompting
BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine petitioners to make a protest.
qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the
unions officers. Ministry of Labor Regional Office in San Fernando,
Pampanga claiming that the determination of the
FACTS: qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the competence of
Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM MEA ANGLO.
(Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. Monthly Employees
Private respondents categorized the challenged voters non to enable said members to vote in the election of
into four groups namely, the Manila Employees, that they unions officers.
are personal employees of Mr. Lee; the Iglesia ni Kristo, It is true that under Article 242(c) of the Labor Code, as
that allowing them to vote will be anomalous since it is amended, only members of the union can participate in
their policy not to participate in any form of union the election of union officers. The question however of
activities; the nontime card employees, that they are eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of
managerial employees; and6the employees of the the applicable payroll period and employees status
cooperative as non ITM employees. during the applicable payroll period.
BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 o The payroll of the month next preceding the labor
employees as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll
basis but set aside the challenged order of July 25, 1986 period at or near the peak of operations in case of
on the ground that 51 of 56 challenged voters were employees in seasonal industries.
not yet union members at the time of the election In the case before Us, considering that none of the parties
per April 24, 1986 list submitted before the Bureau. insisted on the use of the payroll periodlist as voting list
o The decision directed among others the proclamation and considering further that the 51 remaining employees
of Lacanilaos group as the duly elected officers and were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership, their
for ITMMEA to absorb in the bargaining unit the act of joining the election by casting their votes on May
challenged voters unless proven to be managerial 26, 1986 after the May 10, 1986 agreement is a clear
employees. manifestation of their intention to join the union.
They must therefore be considered ipso facto members
RULING: Petition granted. thereof. Said employees having exercised their right to
unionism by joining ITMMEA their decision is paramount.
Whether the 56 votes were improperly discounted Their names could not have been included in the list of
YES. employee submitted on April 24, 1986 to the Bureau of
The record of the case shows that public respondent Labor for the agreement to join the union was entered
categorically declared as arbitrary, whimsical and without into only on May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was
legal basis the grounds relied upon by ANGLO in supervised by the Department of Labor where said 56
disenfranchising the 56 voters in question. members were allowed to vote. Private respondents never
challenged their right to vote then.
Whether 51 of the 56 disenfranchised voters were not
yet union members at the time of the election of union NOTES:
officers on May 26, 1986 on the ground that their Existence of a CBA and cordial relationship developed
names do not appear in the records of the Union between the union and the management should not be a
submitted to the Labor Organization Division of the justification to frustrate the decision of the union
Bureau of Labor on April 24, 1986 NO. members as to who should properly represent them in the
Submission of the employees names with the BLR as bargaining unit. Neither may the inclusion and counting of
qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua the 56 segregated votes serve to disturb the existing
relationship with management as feared by herein private and academic, but nonetheless mentioned the relevant rule
respondents. to be used if the case were not moot and academic.
Respondents themselves pointed out that petitioners
joined the negotiating panel in the recently concluded DOCTRINE: Disqualification of winning candidates will not
CBA. This fact alone is conclusive against herein automatically result in the assumption of office of those who
petitioners and hence will estop them later if ever, from garnered the second highest number of votes.
questioning the CBA which petitioners concurred with.
FACTS:
o The parties herein are employees of United Dockhandlers,
MANALAD v. TRAJANO Inc. They are members of rival groups in the Associated
June 28, 1989| Regalado, J.| Election of Officers Port Checkers and Workers' Union (APCWU for short).
Digester: Melliza, F.S.L. o In 1982, the petitioners were disqualified from running as
candidates in the election of APCWU officers by the Med-
SUMMARY: Manalad and Babula are leaders of rival factions Arbiter, which election had theretofore been scheduled for
in a Union. Although qualifications have been earlier November 17, 1981 but was enjoined and ordered reset.
questioned, Manalad et al won the elections for Union o However, on appeal, said order was set aside by
officers. Babula filed petition for review and on July 3, 1985, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on
the court promulgated a resolution to dismiss petition for lack October 31, 1984. Thereafter, the election of
of merit and have petitioner Babula et al vacant APCWU officers and board members of the union was held
offices and turnover its management to Director of the on November 26, 1984, with the candidates of the
Bureau of Labor Relations, all for immediate execution, to be petitioners, that is, Manalad, Leano and Puerto,
followed by a special elections to be held on July 20, 1985 (to winning over those of the private respondents, who
be held under the personal supervision of Director Trajano were Babula, Mijares and Navarro, for the positions
and his staff). Babula et al were alleged to refuse compliance of president, treasurer and auditor, respectively.
with the above resolution as documented in the petition filed As a consequence, the latter group filed a
by Manalad et al. The July 20 1985 special election for Union petition for review with this Court assailing
Officers was held, where Babula et al as won. Manalad et al the aforesaid order of October 31, 1984 of
filed petition to disqualify Babula et al as winners due to their the Bureau of Labor Relations which had
non-compliance to the July 3 1985 resolution, but Director declared the aforesaid petitioners eligible to
Trajano dismissed their petition and proclaimed Babula et al run for said union offices.
as the winners of the July 20, 1985 special elections. o On July 3, 1985, the Court promulgated a resolution
Manalad et al, then, filed petition to SC to reverse resolution therein, which was immediately executory, which
of Trajano, have Babula et al disqualified and annul the July dismissed petition for lack of merit and ordered
20 1985 elections/conduct re-elections. In 1988, when 3-year petitioner Babula et al vacant APCWU offices and
term for the disputed 1985 election expired, a new set of turnover its management to Director of the Bureau
officers for ACPWU has been elected despite motion for RTO. of Labor Relations, all for immediate execution, to
Manalad et al prayed for the annulment of 1988 elections. be followed by a special elections to be held on July
The Court, however, dismissed the petition for being moot 20, 1985 (to be held under the personal supervision
of Director Trajano and his staff).
o Meanwhile, on July 13, 1985, a motion was filed by the o That respondents Pablo B. Babula and his group be
petitioners with this Court in G.R. No. 69684-85 asking disqualified for not complying with the Resolution
that the private respondents be cited in contempt and for dated July 3, 1985 (Annex 'D') of this Honorable
their disqualification from running in the projected special Court and the votes cast in their favor in the July
election due to their alleged refusal to comply with the 20, 1985 election be invalidated and the
resolution above quoted. The petitioner also wrote a candidates who received the next highest
letter to the Director on July 18, 1985 objecting to the number of votes in said election be declared
candidacy of private respondents. the winner thereof;
o Nevertheless, the scheduled special election was held o Or in the alternative, that the election held in (sic)
resulting in the victory of the candidates of the private July 20, 1985 be annulled and a new election
respondents. Petitioner then filed a motion with the Court be called three weeks after respondents
for the annulment of the special election, repeating their Pablo Babula, et al. have complied with the
allegation that there was non-compliance with the Court's conditions imposed by the Resolution dated July 3,
resolution of July 3, 1985 by private respondents. 1985 of this Honorable Court and an audit has been
o On July 26, 1985, respondent Director issued a resolution made of the different funds of the Union for the
proclaiming private respondents as the winners in the year 1985; 12
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 RULING: ACCORDINGLY, this case is DISMISSED for being
union to the undersigned is within the competence and moot and academic.
authority of the Supreme Court to pass upon considering
that the mandate for such a turn-over came from the
Court. WON the petition is moot and academic.Yes.
o Petitioners filed with respondent director a motion After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We
for reconsideration on August 2, 1985 seeking the are of the considered view that the expiration of the terms
reversal of said resolution of July 26, 1985. This of office of the union officers and the election of officers
motion having been denied, petitioner filed a on November 28, 1988 have rendered the issues raised by
second motion for reconsideration on August 28, petitioners in this case moot and academic. It is pointless
1985 but the same was likewise denied on October and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers
14, 1985. whose terms had already expired.
o In the meantime, this Court in a resolution dated o We would have thereby a judgment on a matter
September 1, 1985 denied the motion of the which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a
petitioner to annul the special election of July 20, controversy, even if existing, and which, in the
1985, but without prejudice to the filing of a proper nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must
petition with the Bureau of Labor Relations. consequently abide by our consistent ruling that
o The instant petition was thereafter filed, principally where certain events or circumstances have taken
praying: 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 SUMMARY: Members of the KMP requested for accounts
pragmatic solutions in cases of this nature, absent examination of the financial status of the union. The Ministry
overriding considerations to the contrary, to respect the of Labor and Employments investigation revealed that KMP
will of the majority of the workers who voted in the Officers failed to submit records of union accounts and to
November 28, 1988 elections. Although decreed under a maintain segregated disbursements receipts. The members
different setting, it is apropos to recall in this case Our filed a petition for expulsion of the union officers on that
ruling that where the people have elected a man to office, ground of falsification and misrepresentation. Pending trial, a
it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of general election was held and all of the petitioners (except
his life and character, and that they disregarded or for two of them) were re-elected. Private respondents
forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of Silvestre and Alfaro lost in the same elections. The Court held
any. that the officers are not guilty of the said imputed acts due to
We agree with the petitioners that disobedience to a lack of evidence and that the re-election of the officers is a
resolution of this Court should not be left unpunished. demonstration of the union memberships faith in the
However, before the alleged disobedient party may be officers leadership on one hand and a clear condonation of
cited for contempt, the allegations against him should be an act they had allegedly committed.
clearly established. The contentions of petitioners, even
disregarding some evidential deficiencies, do not DOCTRINE: The Court should never remove a public officer
adequately establish the basis for contempt. On the for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
contrary, respondents have satisfactorily answered the otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to
averments thereon. elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to
At this juncture, it would further be appropriate to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge
remind petitioners that even if the disqualification of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave
of private respondents could be justified, the his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not
candidates of petitioners certainly cannot be for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to
declared as the winners in the disputed election. practically overrule the will of the people. (Pascual v
The mere fact that they obtained the second Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija)
highest number of votes does not mean that they
will thereby be considered as the elected officers if FACTS:
the true winners are disqualified. Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP) Labor
Union is the existing labor union at Franklin Baker
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP (KMP), Company in San Pablo City.
ISAGANI GUTIERREZ, et al. v. HON. CRESENCIO A written request for accounts examination of the
TRAJANO, Director of BLR, CATALINO SILVESTRE and financial status of KMP was filed by private respondent
CESAR ALFARO Catalino Silvestre and 13 other members of the said
January 21, 1985| Relova, J. | Union-Member Relations; Union.
Election of Officers Acting on said request, Union Account Examiner Florencio
Digester: Anna Mickaella Lingat R. Vicedo of the Ministry of Labor and Employment
conducted the necessary investigation and submitted a
report, with the ff. findings: (See notes for other details of decide on the issue of whether to expel or suspend the
report) Union officers.
o Disallowed expenditures P1,278
o KMP Officers failed to keep, maintain and submit for Bureau of Labor Relations Director Cresencio Trajano
verification the records of union accounts from 1977 to Both KMP and the private respondents appealed
1979. Petitioners claimed that the order of Med-Arbiter is not in
o KMP Officers failed to maintain segregated accordance with the facts in record and is contrary to law.
disbursement receipts in accordance with 5 They prayed that the resolution be held in abeyance.
segregated union funds (general fund, educational o In addition to their previous arguments, they assert
funds, mutual aid fund, burial assistance fund and that they demonstrated that there would be a general
union building fund) for which they maintained a election on Oct 4, 1982, at which time, both the
distinct and separate bank accounts for each. election and the desired referendum could be
o KMPs constitution and by-laws is not ratified by the undertaken to determine the membership at minimum
general membership; hence, illegal. expense.
Silvestre and other union members filed with RO Ministry Private respondents claimed that the Med-Arbiter erred in
of Labor and Employment a petition for expulsion of the calling a referendum because the appropriate action
union officers on the ground that they committed gross should be the expulsion of the union officers.
violation of the Labor Code (Article 242 (a), (b), (g), (h), (j) TRAJANO dismissed both appeals and affirmed order of
and (k); and the constitution and the by-laws of the union Med-Arbiter.
(sec 5 and 7).
KMPs answer: BLR MR
o The disallowed expenditures were made in good faith KMP filed an MR, reiterating their arguments and further
and it conduced to the benefit of the members; and clarifying:
that they are willing to reimburse the same from their o The amount of P1,278 was not supported by official
own personal funds. receipts and therefore should not be allowed as
o They should not be held accountable for the non- disbursement from the union funds; and that they did
production of the books of accounts of the Union not say that the amount was converted by them for
because they were not the officers then and not one of their own personal benefit.
the former officers of the Union has turned over to o In the general election held on October 4, 1982, all of
them the records in question them, except petitioners Ambrocio dela Cruz (VP) and
o The non-ratification of the constitution and by-laws of Eliseo Celerio (Board of Director), were reelected by
the Union and the non-segregation of the Union funds the overwhelming majority of the members. On the
occurred before they became officers and that they other hand, respondents Silvestre and Alfaro who also
have already been correcting the same. ran for the position of Auditor, lost.
o They moved for the dismissal of the appeal for having
Med-Arbiter Antonio Cabibihan been rendered moot and academic by their re-election.
Med-Arbiter Antonio Cabibihan ordered the holding of a Trajano denied the MR.
referendum, to be conducted under supervision of BLR, to
RULING: Petition granted. Resolution and order of BLR are officers leadership on one hand and a clear condonation
set aside. of an act they had allegedly committed.

Whether Med-Arbiter erred in calling for a NOTES:


referendum? - YES
If Union Officers were guilty of the alleged acts, Med- Disallowed expenditures P1,278.00, as reflected in the
Arbiter should have meted out the appropriate penalty on following breakdown:
them in light of the ruling in Duyag v Inciong and pursuant 1. January 9, 1980 Excess claim for refund P1.00
to Art 242. 2. March 13, 1980 Payment for sound system P90.00
3. March 12, 1980 Picture taking, entrance fee in Manila
Whether the KMP officers are guilty of falsification and Zoo with Atty. Delos Santos P75.00
misrepresentation? NO 4. March 24, 1980 Payment for sound System P90.00
The alleged acts were not supported by substantial 5. July 16, 1980 Jeep hired P264.00
evidence. 6. August 30, 1980 Partial payment of traveling expenses
The fact that they disbursed the amount of P1,278.00 disallowed P68.00
from Union funds and later on was disallowed for 7. October 30, 1980 Representation expenses P180.00
failure to attach supporting papers thereon did not of 8. May 31, 1981 Payment for long distance call P10.00
itself constitute falsification and/or misrepresentation. 9. May 31, 1981 Payment for legal expenses P500.00
The expenditures appeared to have been made in TOTAL............................................................. P1,278.00
good faith and the amount spent for the purpose
mentioned in the report, if concurred in or accepted by
the members, are reasonable.
f. Shop Steward
Whether the re-election of the officers rendered the
issue moot and academic? - YES MIRANDA v. ASIAN TERMINALS (ATI) and CA
Pascual v Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija: The Court [G.R. No. 174316 | June 23, 2009 | Puno]
should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to
his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to Petitioner Teodorico S. Miranda, Jr. was employed by
deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. respondent ATI in 1991 as Checker I. He also became a
When the people have elected a man to office, it must be member of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers
assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and Union (APCWU or the union).
character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults On April 10, 1992, the petitioner, who was then
or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the the Vice President of the union, was appointed
court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to to the position of Shop Steward which is a union
practically overrule the will of the people. position under the payroll of the company.
The repudiation of both private respondents to the highly o The CBA between the union and ATI provided for
sensitive position of auditor is a convincing manifestation the appointment of a Shop Steward from
and demonstration of the union memberships faith in the among the union members, upon the
recommendation of the union manner in which the APCWU leadership handled the
president. The Shop Steward is a field affairs of the union.
representative of both the company and This led to the formation of a grievance committee to
the union and acts as an independent investigate the complaints against the union officers,
arbiter of all complaints brought to his including the petitioner.
attention o The petitioner, however, refused to participate
Roger P. Silva, the President of APCWU, wrote a in the investigation
letter to the petitioner regarding the recall of o grievance committee issued its report
his designation as the union Shop Steward. recommending to ATI the recall of the petitioner
o The union president explained that the as Shop Steward and for his reversion to his
petitioner was recalled as union Shop Steward former position of Checker I, in accordance with
due to loss of trust and confidence in him, the CBA.
pursuant to the Agreement Amending the MPSI The petitioner questioned his recall as union Shop
(Marina Port Services, Inc.) - APCWU CBA. Steward, and the union president, Roger P. Silva,
o The letter further stated that the petitioner issued a letter which reasoned that the petitioners
refused to heed the union presidents reminders recall as Shop Steward was pursuant to Section 13 of
concerning his chronic absenteeism that is the Agreement Amending the MPSI-APCWU CBA,
hurting the interest of the Union members as amending Section 2, Article V of the MPSI-APCWU CBA
they are left with no responsible union officer which required that the term of office of the Shop
when summoned for investigation concerning Steward shall be based on trust and confidence
alleged infractions of company rules and favorable recommendation of the duly
o The union president further wrote that the elected president of the Union.
decision to dismiss the petitioner came only Respondent ATI issued a Memorandum to petitioner
after a series of personal dialogues and after the regarding his transfer:
petitioner had been given ample opportunity to
efficiently perform the duties and obligations of SECTION 13. - Article V, Section 2 is
a Shop Steward assigned to the night shift. hereby amended to read as follows:
o The union president then gave the petitioner
five days from receipt of the letter to explain Section 2. The Shop Steward
why he should not be recalled as Shop Steward shall be an independent arbiter of
for chronic absenteeism which started from the all complaints and grievances
second week of September 1993 until December brought before him as a field
28, 1993. representative both of the
A rift then developed between the union leadership COMPANY and the UNION.Only
and certain union members, including the petitioner. bonafide [sic] members of the
In June 1994, the petitioner and some of the members UNION shall be designated as
of APCWU sent an undated letter to ATI protesting the Shop Steward whose
designation and term of office
shall be based on trust and o Order issued by the Med-Arbiter on August 1,
confidence and upon the 1994, the petitioner was ordered reinstated to
favorable recommendation of the position of Shop Steward.
the duly elected president of found that the union president did not
the UNION. In like manner shall have the authority to recall the petitioner
the designation of the Union as Shop Steward for lack of approval of
rotation representative posted in the Board of Directors of the union.
the hiring shall be based. The Order of the Med-Arbiter was affirmed by the
Secretary of Labor
Section 2-A. Upon the o that Article 5, Sec. 2 of CBA would reveal that
recall of the designation as the designation of a shop steward and union
Shop Steward, or union rotation representative is only upon the
representative, as the case maybe favorable recommendation of the union
[sic], the party concerned shall president. In other words, it is not the union
revert back to his position president who makes the appointment.
occupied prior to the The union president merely recommends.
designation and shall receive the o Conclusion: that appointments or
salary that corresponds to that recommendations made by the union president
particular office/position. [emphasis needs the approval of the Board for validity.
supplied] Consequently, recall of appointments
likewise requires the imprimatur of the
[T]he management EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Board.
hereby recalls the designation of Mr. Teodorico o In the present case, the recall of appointment
Miranda as Shop Steward and Mr. Rolando de was made by the union president. It was not
Luna as Union Rotation Representative and shown to be approved by the Board. Hence, it is
designate[s] Mr. Hipolito Cruz as Shop Steward clear that the recall is invalid, having been made
vice Teodorico Miranda, Jr. and Mr. Elpidio Valdez by one unauthorized to do so.
as Union Rotation Representative vice Mr. o Teodorico Miranda, Jr. was removed due to
Rolando de Luna.
loss of trust and confidence primarily
arising from alleged absenteeism. Except
As per amendment quoted above, Messrs.
for such general allegation, no evidence
Miranda and de Luna shall revert back to their
was presented to substantiate the same.
position as Checker I and shall receive the salary
Petitioner filed another complaint w/ Med-Arbiter re:
that corresponds therefor.
money claims. This was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter
b/c the Mediation Office of the DOLE has NO
The petitioner first filed a complaint against Roger
Jurisdiction over money claims
Silva as the President of APCWU, Marina Local Chapter
The petitioner also filed a series of complaints before
with the DOLE NCR praying for his reinstatement as
Shop Steward. the NLRC for unfair labor practice, which was later
amended to illegal demotion with a claim for reduction discrimination, amounting to constructive
or diminution in pay, against respondent ATI and/or dismissal.
Richard Barclay, the President of the respondent, and o The complaint was dismissed by Labor Arbiter
APCWU and/or Roger Silva, Felipe T. Garduque II on the ground that the
o Labor Arbiter Quinto issued a Decision which claim is barred by prior judgment since the
dismissed the case against ATI for lack of cause decision of Labor Arbiter Quinto and the order of
of action reasoning that the petitioner should Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco were not appealed
institute the appropriate charges/complaint and have become final.
against the erring union official/leadership. And Upon remand of the case to the Arbitration Office of
since the petitioner has already obtained a the NLRC, the case was re-raffled to Labor Arbiter
favorable decision from the Secretary of Labor, Arthur L. Amansec
then he should have the said judgment enforced o Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a Decision
and should compel the union president to have which ruled that the demotion from union Shop
him designated as Shop Steward, under pain of Steward to Checker 1 was for cause but was
contempt. effected without observance of procedural due
While the cases filed by the petitioner were pending, process. He ordered the respondent to pay the
on July 10, 1995, the petitioner was re-assigned petitioner indemnity in consonance with the
from the position of Checker I to Checker I Wenphil Doctrine, which was then the prevailing
Mobile, which is lower in rank than Checker I. He doctrine with respect to separation for a valid
was further re-assigned to Vessel Operation Checker, cause but through an invalid procedure. The
which is designated only to Checker Grades II and III dispositive portion of the decision made matters
and which positions were only assigned to casual confusing for the parties since it declared the
Checkers petitioner to be constructively dismissed and
The petitioner then filed a second complaint in the ordered the petitioner to be reinstated.
NLRC against the respondent for unfair labor practice, o Amansecs decision:
illegal demotion and reduction and diminution of pay, That there was no constructive dismissal
o Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco issued an b/c when complainant was recalled as
Order and dismissed the complaint as the case Shop Steward, he was immediately
pending before Labor Arbiter Quinto involved reverted to Checker 1, his original
the same parties and the same cause of action. position.
a third complaint for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal While complainant cannot validly say
Demotion was filed by the petitioner against union that the Union President had no
president Roger Silva, the President of ATI, Richard authority to recall him since under
Barclay, and the Operations Manager, Bonifacio the CBA, the Union President was
Lomotan, clearly so authorized, the manner of
o complaint was later amended on January 23, his recall and termination as Shop
1997 to illegal demotion in rank and Steward did not meet the stringent
requirements of due process.
It seems clear that the company Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
approved his recall without providing the and/or Writ of Permanent Injunction with the
complainant an opportunity to explain Third Division of the NLRC. The NLRC issued a
why he should not be recalled. It is true Resolution restraining Labor Arbiter Reyes, the
that the union, through its Union Sheriff and the petitioner from further
President, sent him a show-cause implementing the reinstatement aspect of the
letter prior to his recall, a due order.
process compliance no doubt, but respondent appealed Labor Arbiter Reyes Order of
the company was not empowered to garnishment and prayed for the issuance of a
skirt due process by automatically Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of
affirming said recall. Preliminary Injunction. The Third Division of the NLRC
Confusion followed the decision of Labor Arbiter issued the Temporary Restraining Order on October 23,
Amansec when the petitioner filed a motion to 2002, and declared the Break Open Order as null and
be reinstated to the position of union Shop void. While the respondents appeal of the decision of
Steward. This was resolved by Labor Arbiter Labor Arbiter Amansec was pending before the NLRC,
Ramon Valentin C. Reyes (Reyes) in the the petitioner was retrenched by ATI from his
petitioners favor; denying the motion to quash position then as a Vessel Operation Checker.
of the respondent and directing the Sheriff to Consequently, the petitioner filed a separate
proceed with the process of execution. case questioning the validity of his
The respondent appealed the decision of Labor Arbiter retrenchment. The case was terminated upon the
Amansec to the NLRC arguing that the controversy execution of a Quit Claim and Release which was duly
between the petitioner and the other officers executed by the parties before the Second Division of
and members of the union is an intra-union the NLRC
dispute that must be resolved within the union Special Third Division of the NLRC issued a Decision
itself. The respondent company argued that all it has resolving the consolidated appeals of the respondent
to do is to RESPECT the decision arrived at by the on the issues of whether Labor Arbiter Reyes had
union that is, to effect the recall of the complainant IN correctly computed the awards and, thereafter
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBA. Otherwise, respondent proceeded with the execution of the dispositive portion
ATI runs the risk of being accused of violating the CBA of Labor Arbiter Amansecs decision which is pending
Pending the respondents appeal before the Court of appeal in the NLRC.
Appeals, the petitioner then sought the execution of o that there is no need to execute the
the reinstatement aspect of the decision of Labor reinstatement aspect of the decision of Labor
Arbiter Amansec, praying to be reinstated to the Arbiter Amansec since it has been rendered
position of union Shop Steward. moot and academic by the petitioners re-
o He also filed a Motion for Issuance of a Break employment as Checker I prior to the rendition
Open Order, which was granted on June 26, of Labor Arbiter Amansecs decision up to the
2002 by Labor Arbiter Reyes. On the same day, time of his admitted retrenchment
the respondent filed an Appeal with a Prayer for CA:
o petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under The premise that the union Shop Steward is a position
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner within the respondent company provides a faulty
contends that the NLRC erred when it declared foundation to an already convoluted case.
that he is not entitled to be reinstated to the A shop steward is appointed by the union in a
position of Shop Steward, despite its order to shop, department, or plant and serves as
remand the case for clarification of the arbiters representative of the union, charged with
decision. The petitioner further asserts that the negotiating and adjustment of grievances of
NLRC abused its discretion in issuing a employees with the supervisor of the employer.
Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining Labor He is the representative of the union members in a
Arbiter Reyes from further proceeding with the building or other workplace.
execution of the reinstatement order Black's Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as a
o CA ruled that the reinstatement aspect of union official elected to represent members in a plant
the labor arbiters decision is immediately or particular department. His duties include collection
executory and not even the filing of an of dues, recruitment of new members and initial
appeal or the posting of a bond could negotiations for the settlement of grievances.
forestall the same. However, the confusion
The position of the shop steward has been
remained as to which position the
acknowledged to be a position within the union;
petitioner should be reinstated.
Section 2 of Rule XIX of the Implementing Rules of
MR filed by ATI praying that the petitions be
Book V of the Labor Code, as amended by DOLE Order
dismissed for having been rendered moot and
40-03, the shop steward is understood to be a union
academic since the petitioner was already reinstated
officer who plays an important role in the grievance
to the position of Checker I.
procedure. The shop steward is responsible for
CA issued an Amended Decision which vacated its receiving complaints and grievances of the
earlier decision rendered on June 27, 2005, and ruled employees and for bringing these complaints to
that the petitions at bar had been rendered the immediate supervisor of the employee
moot and academic. It took note of the concerned. If the grievance is not settled
reinstatement of the petitioner to the position of through the efforts of the shop steward, it is
Checker I referred to the grievance committee.
Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union:
ISSUES:
o a shop steward is appointed by the Union in a
(1) whether the petitioner should be reinstated to the
shop, department, or plant serves as
position of Shop Steward NO
representative of the Union, charged with
(2) whether the case has been rendered moot and
negotiating and adjustment of grievances of
academic. YES
employees with the supervisor of the
employer. He is the representative of the Union
Union Shop
members in a building or other workplace.
Steward: A position
o His duties include the conduct of initial
within the union
negotiations for settlement of grievances. He is
to help other members when they have Since the Shop Steward is a union position, the
concerns with the employer or other work- controversy surrounding his recall from his position as
related issues. He is the first person that Shop Steward becomes a dispute within the union.
workers turn to for assistance or information. If An "Internal Union Dispute" or intra-union conflict
someone has a problem at work, the steward refers to a conflict within or inside a labor union. It
will help them sort it out or, if necessary, help includes all disputes or grievances arising from any
them file a complaint. In the performance of his violation of or disagreement over any provision of the
duties, he has to take cognizance of and resolve, constitution and by-laws of a union, including any
in the first instance, the grievances of the violation of the rights and conditions of union
members of the Union. He is empowered to membership provided for in the Code Article 226 of the
decide for himself whether the grievance or Labor Code of the Philippines vests on the Bureau of
complaint of a member of the petitioner Union is Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Division
valid, and if valid, to resolve the same with the jurisdiction to act on all inter-union or intra-union
supervisor failing which, the matter would be conflicts.
elevated to the Grievance Committee. The records show that sometime after the appointment
o It is quite clear that the jurisdiction of shop of the petitioner to union Shop Steward, the petitioner,
stewards and the supervisors includes the along with other union members, had complaints with
determination of the issues arising from the the manner in which the union leadership was
interpretation or even implementation of a handling the affairs of the union. At the same time,
provision of the CBA, or from any order or there were also complaints about the petitioners
memorandum, circular or assignments issued by habitual absenteeism and his inability to perform his
the appropriate authority in the establishment. duties as union Shop Steward. When a grievance
In fine, they are part and parcel of the committee was created to investigate these
continuous process of grievance resolution complaints, the petitioner refused to participate. This
designed to preserve and maintain peace led to the recall of petitioner as the union Shop
among the employees and their employer. They Steward.
occupy positions of trust and laden with o The actions of the petitioner bolster the
awesome responsibilities conclusion that his grievances were
In the case at bar, the duties and responsibilities directed against the union and not the
of the Shop Steward stated in the CBA between respondent company, making the dispute
the union and the respondent company, as well an intra-union dispute.
as the manner of the appointment and The first Complaints filed by the petitioner were
designation of the Shop Steward show that the against the union and the Union President for illegal
shop steward is a union position and not a recall of his designation as Shop Steward. A Complaint
position within the company. was then filed before the DOLE Med-Arbiter praying for
reinstatement to union Shop Steward and for the
Intra-union Dispute award of the salary differential while he was allegedly
illegally demoted. But the money claims could not be
brought before the union since the salaries of the supposed demotion of the petitioner from union Shop
petitioner were paid by the respondent company; thus, Steward to Checker I, cannot be upheld.
a Complaint for illegal demotion amounting to The Labor Arbiter held that the respondent company
constructive dismissal was filed before the Labor should not have merely affirmed the recommendation
Arbiter, against the union, union president and this of the union to recall the petitioner and return him to
time including respondent company and the president Checker I, his previous position. He reasons that the
of the company. respondent should have conducted its own
investigation before it supposedly demoted petitioner
Ruling of the Med- from union Shop Steward to Checker I. The
Arbiter Prevails: requirements imposed on an employer for the valid
Invalid Recall demotion of an employee do not apply to the reversion
of petitioner from union Shop Steward to Checker I
The Med-Arbiter, as affirmed by the Secretary of Labor, because the decision to recall the petitioner from
ruled that there was neither cause nor due process in union Shop Steward to Checker I is for the union, not
the recall of the petitioner from the position of union the respondent company, to make. The respondent
Shop Steward. He found that the claim of loss of trust cannot and should not conduct its own investigation to
and confidence due to the petitioners alleged determine whether the union had cause to recall the
absenteeism was not substantiated and that the recall petitioner from union Shop Steward because the
was not approved by the Board of Directors of the dispute is an intra-union dispute.
union, as required by the APCWU Constitution and By-
Laws. Petitioner cannot be
The facts and findings of the Med-Arbiter and the reinstated to Shop
Secretary of Labor are generally conclusive on appeal. Steward due to his valid
This Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function retrenchment
to examine and evaluate the probative value of all the petitioner could not be reinstated to the position of
evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which Shop Steward because his eventual separation
formed the basis of its impugned decision, resolution from respondent ATI made reinstatement
or order. unfeasible.
Employment with respondent ATI and membership in
The Labor Arbiters decision is void for want of the union are required in order to occupy the position
jurisdiction of Shop Steward. But the petitioner is neither a
member of the union nor employed with
The Labor Arbiter incorrectly assumed jurisdiction over respondent ATI.
the case due to his confused understanding of the He was already retrenched from respondent ATI
relationship between and among the petitioner, since October 21, 2001, and his retrenchment
respondent company and the union and his decision on was finally settled through the execution of a
the merits of the case is void for lack of jurisdiction. Quit Claim and Release which was executed
His disposition of the case, ordering the respondent to before the Second Division of the
pay indemnity for failure to observe due process in the
The Quit Claim and Release provides that in had already expired. We would have thereby a
consideration of the receipt of P367,500.00, the judgment on a matter which cannot have any
petitioner discharges respondent ATI and its officers practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if
from any claims arising from his retrenchment, without existing, and which, in the nature of things,
prejudice to the present labor case filed by the cannot be enforced. We must consequently
petitioner. abide by our consistent ruling that where certain
The present labor case proceeded despite the events or circumstances have taken place
execution of the Quit Claim and Release. However, the during the pendency of the case which would
resolution of this petition is inevitably affected by the render the case moot and academic, the petition
retrenchment of the petitioner from respondent ATI should be dismissed.[68]
any order for the reinstatement of the petitioner to the
position of union Shop Steward can no longer be So also in the case at bar, a judgment of reinstatement
executed by the union since the petitioner had been of the petitioner to the position of union Shop Steward
retrenched by the company. would have no practical legal effect since it cannot be
The petitioner cannot also be reinstated to the enforced. Based on the requirements imposed by law
position of Checker I, since he was already retrenched and the APCWU-ATI CBA, and in the nature of things,
by the respondent from such position and he released the subsequent separation of the petitioner from
the company from any and all claims with respect to employment with respondent ATI has made his
his retrenchment. reinstatement to union Shop Steward incapable of
being enforced.
Petitioner was already compensated for his
retrenchment from ATI, and he released respondent ATI IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED for being
from any and all claims or liability with respect to his MOOT and ACADEMIC. No costs.
separation from employment due to retrenchment. To
order the respondent company to reinstate the
petitioner to his employment in ATI would render the
Quit Claim and Release nugatory. SANTA ROSA COCA COLA PLAINT EMPLOYEES UNION v.
The events which have taken place during the COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.
pendency of the case have rendered the present January 24, 2007 | Callejo, Sr., J. | Definition, nature, purpose
petition moot and academic. So also in the case of picket line
of Honesto B. Villarosa v. Hon. Cresenciano B. Digester: Valena, Maria Patricia
Trajano[66] it was held that the case to determine who
won in an election of union officers was rendered moot SUMMARY: The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union
and academic by the expiration of the term of the staged a picket after their CBA negotiations with Coca-Cola
private respondents by operation of law. Citing the came to a deadlock. Due to this picket, the operations of the
case of Manalad v. Trajano,[67] this Court ruled that: plant were compromised. The Company filed a petition to
declare the strike illegal. The Union, in its defense, claimed
x x x x It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on that it staged a picket and not a strike, in the exercise of their
annulling an election of officers whose terms right to free speech. The Court held that the denomination
given to the action is not controlling, and in this case, all the The Company filed a MTD alleging that the reasons cited
elements of a strike were present and the concerted mass by the Union were not valid grounds for a strike. The
action was not simply a picket. For failure of the union to Union then filed an Amended Notice of Strike
comply with the procedural requirements for a valid strike, on September 17, 1999 on the following grounds: (a)
the union officers were dismissed from employment. unfair labor practice for the companys refusal to bargain
in good faith; and (b) interference with the exercise of
DOCTRINE: Picketing involves merely the marching to and their right to self-organization.
fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by On September 15, 1999, the Union decided to participate
the display of placards and other signs making known the in a mass action organized by the Alyansa ng mga Unyon
facts involved in a labor dispute. As applied to a labor sa Coca-Cola in front of the Companys premises set
dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more for September 21, 1999. 106 Union members, officers and
persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose of members of the Board of Directors, and shop stewards,
pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion. individually filed applications for leave of absence
for September 21, 1999. The Company disapproved all
FACTS: leave applications and notified the applicants accordingly.
The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union (Union) is A day before the mass action, some Union members wore
the SEBA of the regular daily paid workers and the gears, red tag cloths stating YES KAMI SA STRIKE as
monthly paid non-commission-earning employees of the headgears and on the different parts of their uniform,
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Company) in its Sta. shoulders and chests.
Rosa, Laguna plant. The individual petitioners are Union The Office of the Mayor issued a permit to the Union. The
officers, directors, and shop stewards. Union officers and members held a picket along the front
Upon the expiration of their CBA, the Union informed the perimeter of the plant on September 21, 1999. All of the
Company of its desire to renegotiate its terms. The CBA 14 personnel of the Engineering Section of the Company
meetings commenced on July 26, 1999, where did not report for work, and 71 production personnel were
the Union and the Company discussed the ground rules of also absent. As a result, only one of the three bottling
the negotiations. They had a disagreement leading to an lines operated during the day shift. All the three lines
impasse, with the Union insisting that representatives were operated during the night shift with cumulative
from the Alyansa ng mga Unyon sa Coca-Cola be allowed downtime of five (5) hours due to lack of manning,
to sit down as observers in the meetings and that their complement and skills requirement. The volume of
wages be based on their work shift rates, and the production for the day was short by 60,000 physical cases
Company insisting that the members of the Alyansa were versus budget.
not members of the bargaining unit and just a mere The Company filed a Petition to Declare Strike Illegal . The
aggregate of employees of the Company in its various Union filed an Answer with a MTD and/or to Suspend
plants; and is not a registered labor organization. Proceedings alleging therein that the mass action
On August 30, 1999, the Union, its officers, directors and conducted by its officers and members on September 21,
six shop stewards filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB 1999 was not a strike but just a valid exercise of their
Regional Office, on two grounds: (a) deadlock on CBA right to picket, which is part of the right of free expression
ground rules; and (b) unfair labor practice arising from the as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Union insisted that
companys refusal to bargain.
officers and members filed their applications for leave Whether the September 21, 1999 mass action staged
for September 21, 1999 knowing that there were no by the Union was a strike YES
bottling operations scheduled on September 21 and 22, Whether it was legal NO
1999; they even secured a Mayors permit for the Whether the individual officers and shop stewards of
purpose. The workers, including the petitioners, merely petitioner Union should be dismissed from their
marched to and fro at the side of the highway near one of employment YES.
the gates of the Sta. Rosa Plant, the loading bay for public The Labor Code defines strike as a temporary stoppage of
vehicles. After 3 hours, everyone returned to work work by the concerted action of employees as a result of
according to their respective shifting schedules. an industrial or labor dispute. The fact that the
NCMB: the real issue between the parties was not the conventional term strike was not used by the striking
proper subject of a strike, and should be the subject of employees to describe their common course of action is
peaceful and reasonable dialogue. Recommended that the inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and
Notice of Strike of the Union be converted into a not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling. The
preventive mediation case. term strike encompasses not only concerted work
Conciliation proceedings failed. In the meantime, the stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
officers and directors of the Union remained absent attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant
without the requisite approved leaves. On October 11, equipment and facilities, and similar activities.
1999, they were required to submit their explanations Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the
why they should not be declared AWOL. premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the
LABOR ARBITER: the September 21, 1999 mass leave display of placards and other signs making known the
was actually a strike for the following reasons: there was a facts involved in a labor dispute. As applied to a labor
temporary work stoppage/slowdown in the company; out dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more
of the usual 3 lines for production for the day shift, only persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose
one line operated by probationary employees was of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion.
functional and there was a cumulative downtime of 5 The basic elements of a strike are present in this case:
hours attributed to the lack of manning complement and 106 members of petitioner Union, whose respective
skills requirement. It was illegal since there was no applications for leave of absence on September 21,
showing that the Union conducted a strike vote, observed 1999 were disapproved, opted not to report for work on
the prescribed cooling-off period, or submitted the said date, and gathered in front of the company premises
required strike vote to the DOLE. For knowingly to hold a mass protest action. Petitioners deliberately
participating in the illegal strike, the individual petitioners absented themselves and instead wore red ribbons,
were considered to have lost their employment status carried placards with slogans such as: YES KAMI SA
NLRC: affirmed except as to one employee who was on STRIKE, PROTESTA KAMI, SAHOD, KARAPATAN NG
bereavement leave at the time. MANGGAGAWA IPAGLABAN, CBA-WAG BABOYIN, STOP
CA: dismissed Rule 65 petition. UNION BUSTING. They marched to and fro in front of the
companys premises during working hours. Thus,
RULING: Petition denied. petitioners engaged in a concerted activity which already
affected the companys operations. The mass concerted
activity constituted a strike.
The bare fact that petitioners were given a Mayors permit stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-
is not conclusive evidence that their action/activity did not downs, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant
amount to a strike. The Mayors description of what equipment and facilities, and similar activities. [33]
activities petitioners were allowed to conduct is Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at
inconsequential. the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by
The decision to declare a strike must rest on a rational the display of placards and other signs making known
basis, free from emotionalism, envisaged by the tempers the facts involved in a labor dispute. [34] As applied to a
and tantrums of a few hot heads, and finally focused on labor dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or
the legitimate interests of the Union which should not, more persons to observe and attempt to observe. The
however, be antithetical to the public welfare, and, to be purpose of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable
valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. The persuasion.[35]
right to strike as a means of attainment of social justice is A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter
never meant to oppress or destroy the employer. concerning terms or conditions of employment or the
The union completely disregarded the procedural association or representation of persons in negotiating,
requirements for a valid strike. The officers knowingly led fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms
the union in staging an illegal strike and thus should be and conditions of employment, regardless of whether
dismissed. the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employer and employee.
RE: DISMISSAL OF SHOP STEWARDS On the second and third issues, the ruling of the CA
On the third issue, petitioners aver that even assuming affirming the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor
that they had indeed staged a strike, the penalty of Arbiter ordering the dismissal of the petitioners-
dismissal is too harsh. They insist that they acted in officers, directors and shop stewards of
good faith. Besides, under Article 264 of the Labor petitioner Union is correct.
Code, the dismissal of the Union officers who It bears stressing, however, that the law makes a
participated in an illegal strike is discretionary on the distinction between union members and union officers.
employer. Moreover, six (6) of the petitioners o A worker merely participating in an illegal strike
were shop stewards who were mere members of may not be terminated from employment. It is
the Union and not officers thereof. only when he commits illegal acts during a strike
Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a that he may be declared to have
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of lost employment status.
employees as a result of an industrial or labor o For knowingly participating in an illegal strike or
dispute. In Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals,[31] the Court participates in the commission of illegal acts
ruled that the fact that the conventional term strike during a strike, the law provides that a union
was not used by the striking employees to describe officer may be terminated from employment
their common course of action is inconsequential, o The law grants the employer the option of
since the substance of the situation, and not its declaring a union officer who participated in an
appearance, will be deemed to be controlling. [32] The illegal strike as having lost his employment. It
term strike encompasses not only concerted work
possesses the right and prerogative to terminate of such organization, and to account to
the union officers from service. the organization for any profit received by
Union officers are duty-bound to guide their members him in whatever capacity in connection
to respect the law. If instead of doing so, the officers with transactions conducted by him or
urge the members to violate the law and defy the duly under his direction on behalf of the
constituted authorities, their dismissal from the service organization. A general exculpatory
is just penalty or sanction for their unlawful acts. The resolution of a governing body purporting
officers responsibility is greater than that of the to relieve any such person of liability for
members. breach of the duties declared by this
Finally, the contention of petitioners Elenette section shall be void as against public
Moises, Almira Romo, Louie Labayani, Ricky policy.
Ganarial, Efren Galan and Jun Carmelito Santos (b) When any officer, agent, shop
who were appointed as shop stewards of steward, or representative of any labor
the Union that they were mere members and not organization is alleged to have
the officers of petitioner Union is barren of violated the duties declared in
merit. subsection (a) of this section and the
o under Section 501(a) and (b) of the Landrum labor organization or its governing
Griffin Act of 1959, shop stewards are officers of board or officers refuse or fail to sue
the Union: or recover damages or secure an
Sec. 501 (a) The officers, agents, shop accounting or other appropriate
stewards, and other representatives of a relief within a reasonable time after
labor organization occupy positions of being requested to do so by any
trust in relation to such organization member of the labor organization,
and its members as a group. It is, such member may sue such officer,
therefore, the duty of each such person, agent, shop steward, or representative
taking into account the special problems in any district court of the United States
and functions of a labor organization, to or in any State court of competent
hold its money and property solely for the jurisdiction to recover damages or secure
benefit of the organization and its an accounting or other appropriate relief
members and to manage, invest, and for the benefit of the labor organization
expend the same in accordance with its o Section 3(q) thereof provides, as follows: (q)
constitution and bylaws and any Officer, agent, shop steward, or other
resolutions of the governing bodies representative, when used with respect to a
adopted thereunder, to refrain from labor organization, includes elected officials and
dealing with such organization as an key administrative personnel, whether elected
adverse party in any matter connected or appointed (such as business agents, heads of
with his duties and from holding or departments or major units, and organizers who
acquiring any pecuniary or personal exercise substantial independent authority), but
interest which conflicts with the interest does not include salaried non-supervisory
professional staff, stenographic, and service petitioners-shop stewards participated in the
personnel strike. Thus, like the officers and directors of
Admittedly, there is no similar provision in the Labor petitioner Union who joined the strike,
Code of the Philippines; nonetheless, petitioners who petitioners-shop stewards also deserve the
are shop stewards are considered union officers. penalty of dismissal from their employment.
a shop steward is appointed by the Union in a shop,
department, or plant serves as representative of the
Union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of
grievances of employees with the supervisor of the 3. Major Policy Matter
employer.
o He is the representative of the Union members Labor Code 250 (d)
in a building or other workplace. The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due
o Blacks Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as deliberation, any question of major policy affecting the entire
a union official who represents members in a membership of the organization, unless the nature of the
particular department. organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot
o His duties include the conduct of initial impractical, in which case, the board of directors of the
negotiations for settlement of grievances organization may make the decision in behalf of the general
o He is to help other members when they have membership;
concerns with the employer or other work-
HALILI v. CIR
related issues.
April 30, 1985 | Makasiar, J. | Major Policy Matter
o He is the first person that workers turn to for
Digester: Santiago, Angelo
assistance or information. If someone has a
problem at work, the steward will help them sort
SUMMARY: The mother of this case is the claims for
it out or, if necessary, help them file a complaint
overtime of more than 500 bus drivers and conductors of
It is quite clear that the jurisdiction of shop Halili Transit. The case was initially handled by the law firm of
stewards and the supervisors includes the Atty. Espinas, who originally had agreed with the Union and
determination of the issues arising from the charged a 20% contingent fee. Atty. Pineda was once a
interpretation or even implementation of a member of the law firm but left. But when he joined the law
provision of the CBA, or from any order or firm, he was made senior partner. At this time, however, he
memorandum, circular or assignments issued by had already entered into a contract with the Union officers,
the appropriate authority in the establishment. which was chosen by about 14% of the total membership.
In fine, they are part and parcel of the continuous Said contract raised the contingency fee to 35%. In
process of grievance resolution designed to preserve settlement of the mother of this case, land was given to the
and maintain peace among the employees and their employees, which was then sought to be sold. Atty. Pineda,
employer. They occupy positions of trust and laden however, hurriedly sold the land, notwithstanding a law
with awesome responsibilities. mandating that a competent court grant authority to sell land
In this case, instead of playing the role of held in trust. Atty. Espinas, discovering Atty. Pinedas
peacemakers and grievance solvers, the anomalous transactions, intervened and sought temporary
mandatory restraining order, unearthing irregularities in the But Sec. 66, PD 1529 requires an order from a court of
latters actuations. The court cites him in contempt for competent jurisdiction as authority to sell property in
refusing to return the money to the Union. trust.
o Thus, Atty. Pineda filed a motion with the
As to the contract, the court held that it was not a contract Supreme Court.
with the general membership, thus contravening Art. 242(d). However, even without SC authority, Atty. Pineda sold the
land to Manila Memorial Park Cemetery by virtue of the
DOCTRINE: Article 242 (d), LC: The members shall order issued by the LA.
determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any Atty. Jose C. Espinas learns of the sale and apportionment
question of major policy affecting the entire membership of of the proceeds from the past Union president. He files an
the organization, unless the nature of the organization or urgent motion with prayer for a TRO.
force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical, in which
It questions the legality of the LA order which
case the board of directors of the organization may make the
authorized the sale of the awarded property and the
decision in behalf of the general membership.
distribution of the proceeds from such purchase.
*The case is mostly about citing Atty. Pineda in contempt. 1983. Sept. 1: SC issues a temporary mandatory
The topic in class, major policy matter, is but a paragraph or restraining order.
two in this taxing read of a case. More or less good recit na if It enjoins Atty. Pineda to deposit with the NLRC
you got a grasp of the story from the summary above. Just representing 35% attys fees.
remember na yung unconscionable raise in contingency fees Sept. 7: Atty. Pedro Lopez, an original associate of Atty.
was not approved by the general membership.* Espinas, filed his motion for leave to intervene, with the
submission that the lawyers involved should only divide
ACTION: This is an urgent motion to cite Atty. Benjamin C. 20% fees as per the workers contract and the rest
Pineda in contempt. refunded by Atty. Pineda for redistribution to the
members.
FACTS: Petitioner filed a stating that its liability to the Union
This initially involved disputes regarding claims for had been completely extinguished with the approval of
overtime of more than 500 bus drivers and conductors of the Memorandum of Agreement with Release and
Halili Transit. Quitclaim.
1974. Dec. 23: To settle the disputes, the title to October 18: SC nullifies the LAs order, and in the process
33,952 sq. meters of land was transferred to the directed the Manila Bank (where the money was
employees from the estate of the employer Fortunato deposited in the name of Atty. Pineda and/or the Union),
F. Halili Atty. Pineda, and the Union to comply with the temporary
1982. August 9: The Halili Drivers and Conductors Union., mandatory restraining order.
through Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda filed an urgent motion The day before, Oct. 17: Sergio de Pedro, workers
with the Ministry of Labor and Employment requesting for representative and assisted by Atty. Espinas, filed the
authority to sell and dispose of the property. urgent motion to cite in contempt, claiming that no
MOLE granted. deposits were yet made to the NLRC.
In a pleading, de Pedro alleges that out of the violates Article 242 (d) of the Labor Code which
P2,037,120.00 purchase price, only P1,940,127.29 was provides:
deposited with the Manila Bank; Atty. Pineda had yet to The members shall determine by secret ballot, after
return P710,969.30. due deliberation, any question of major policy
affecting the entire membership of the organization,
BACKTRACK. Eto yung facts that led to the Court nullifying unless the nature of the organization or force majeure
the LA order allowing the sale. (Magulo yung kaso. -_-) renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case
Then Union President Amado Lopez, in a letter dated the board of directors of the organization may make
August 21, 1958, informed J.C. Espinas and Associates the decision in behalf of the general membership
that the general membership of the said Union had (emphasis supplied).
authorized a 20% contingent fee for the law firm based There was a contingent fee of 30% for those who
on whatever amount would be awarded the Union. were still working with Halili Transit and the 45%
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, the original counsel, established the fee for those who were no longer working.
award of 897 workers claim in the main cases before the o When the alleged retainers contract was
defunct CIR and the Supreme Court. In the cases here, the executed in 1967, the Halili Transit had already
Notices of Judgment were delivered to J.C. Espinas & stopped operations in Metro Manila. By then,
Associates. In others, to Atty. B.C. Pineda & Associates. Atty. Pineda knew that all the workers would be
Both had the exact same address. out of work which would mean that the 45%
When Atty. Pineda appeared for the Union in these cases, contingent fee would apply to all.
still an associate of the law firm, his appearance carried The contract which retroactively took effect on January
the firm name B.C. Pineda and Associates, giving the 1, 1966, was executed when Atty. Espinas was still
impression that he was the principal lawyer in these handling the appeal of Halili Transit in the main case
cases. before the Supreme Court. Atty. Pineda would have but
Atty. Pineda joined the law firm of Atty. Espinas in 1965 did not substitute himself in place of Atty. Espinas or
but later on left. the law firm on the basis of such contract.
When Atty. Pineda rejoined the Espinas firm in 1968, he Though Manila Memorial Park Cemetery initially expressed
did not reveal to his partners (he was made the most its misgivings to buy the property by virtue of Sec. 66 of
senior partner) that he had a RETAINERS CONTRACT entered PD 1529, its decision to stop questioning the Unions
into on January 1, 1967 which allegedly took effect in authority to sell and the expeditious manner by the LA
1966. He stayed with the law firm until 1974 and still did granted Atty. Pinedas motion for such authority to sell the
not divulge the 1967 retainers contract. Only the officers property made the entire transaction dubious and
of the Union knew of the contract. irregular.
The contract was executed only between Atty. There was even no notice to the other lawyers and
Pineda and the officers of the Union chosen by parties.
about 125 members only. It was not a contract Just over a month, the LA granted Pineda authority to
with the general membership. Only 14% of the sell. Only Pineda and the lawyers of the purchaser
total membership of 897 was represented. This were informed.
For the second time, again without notice to the other A deeper scrutiny of the pleadings in one of the cases
Union lawyers, Atty. Pineda filed a motion with the same notably indicates a fraudulent or deceitful pattern in the
LA wherein he asked for authority to distribute the actuations of Atty. Pineda.
proceeds of the sale of the property. This distribution Here, in an earlier pleading, he signed for and in behalf
would include his attorneys fee which was of J.C. Espinas & Associates but in a later pleading,
allegedly the subject of a retainers contract he signed as B.C. Pineda, the lone counsel for
entered into between him and the alleged Union petitioner, even though the office address was the
officers. same.
Barely five days from the day the motion was filed, the The Manila Banking Corp. has manifested that it turned
LA, without informing the other lawyers and relying over to the NLRC the amount of P417,380.64 for the
exclusively on the unverified motion of Atty. Pineda Unions account, which appears to be the balance of
(the records of the case were not on hand), approved P950,021.76 corresponding to the net proceeds for
the said motion which authorized the apportionment. distribution to the workers after deducting P525,480.40,
the total payments to claimants.
RULING: Atty. Pineda guilty of Indirect Contempt of Court (The amount of P417,380.64 appears lacking, since
and to show cause why he should not be disbarred. accurately computed, the balance should be
P424,541.36.)
Whether the 45% attorneys lien on the award of However, the Union has yet to account for
those union members who were no longer working and P101,856.00, the 5% donation or share from Atty.
the 30% lien on the benefits of those who were still Pinedas attorneys fee of 35%.
working is justNO.
For the account of Atty. Pineda, the bank has remitted
It is very exorbitant and unconscionable. to the NLRC the amount of P2,022.70 only.
Sec. 11. Attorneys fees.Attorneys fees on any o This means that Atty. Pineda is still
judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery accountable for the amount of
of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount P710,969.30. He is directed to return the
awarded. The fees may be deducted from the total amount of P712,992.00 representing the 35%
amount due the winning party. attorneys fees he unlawfully received.
The amount of P101,856.00 which Atty. Pineda donated to
the Union and which actually corresponds to 5% of the Whether Atty. Pineda should be cited in contempt
total 35% attorneys fees taken from the proceeds YES.
appears improper since it amounts to a rebate or The Court goes through a lot of discussion about
commission. contempt and how Atty. Pineda should be cited in
This amount was subsequently treated as union contempt. Pero sobrang hahaba na yung digest with that
miscellaneous operating expenses without the irrelevant matter. Read the case na lang if you want to be
consent of the general membership. enlightened. :D

Atty. Pineda is a fraudulent and deceitful lawyer.


EDEN GLADYS ABARIA, ETAL v. NLRC, METRO CEBU However, MCCHI returned the CBA proposal for NAVA
COMM. HOSPITAL, THE UCCP ET AL to secure first the endorsement of the legal counsel of
[GR NO. 154113; 187778; 187861; 196156] | [DECEMBER 7, NFL as the official bargaining representative of MCCHI
2011] | [J. VILLARAMA, JR.] employees.
Atty. Alforque of the NFL (National federation)
FACTS informed MCCHI that the proposed CBA
The 4 consolidated petitions before us involve the submitted by NAVA was never referred to NFL
legality of mass termination of hospital employees who and that NFL has not authorized any other legal
participated in strike and picketing activities. counsel or any person for collective bargaining
Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI), negotiations.
presently known as the Visayas Community Medical By January 1996, the collection of union fees
Center (VCMC), is a non-stock, non-profit corporation (check-off) was temporarily suspended by MCCHI
organized under the laws of the Philippines. It operates in view of the existing conflict between the federation
the Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH), a tertiary and its local affiliate.
medical institution located at Osmea Boulevard, Cebu Thereafter, MCCHI attempted to take over the
City. room being used as union office but was
MCCH is owned by the United Church of Christ in the prevented to do so by NAVA and her group who
Philippines (UCCP) and Rev. Gregorio P. Iyoy (REV. IYOY) protested these actions and insisted that management
is the Hospital Administrator. directly negotiate with them for a new CBA.
The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the MCCHI referred the matter to Atty. Alforque, NFLs
exclusive bargaining representative of the rank- Regional Director, and advised NAVA that their group is
and-file employees of MCCHI. not recognized by NFL.
The 1987, 1991 Collective Bargaining Agreements Thereafter, Atty. Alforque suspended the union
(CBAs) were negotiated by NFL, with Atty. Armando membership of the following UNION officers for
Alforque as NFL Legal Counsel and Lumapguid as serious violation of the Constitution and By-Laws
President of NFL-MCCH Chapter. of NFL:
In the CBA effective from January 1994 until December
31, 1995, this was again negotiated by NFL together NAVA, Canen, Jr., Gerona, Bongcaras,
with Perla NAVA (NAVA), President of Remocaldo, Alsado and Baez.
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-
NFL) signed the Proof of Posting. SALIENT points of the letter:
December 6, 1995: Since the CBA was about to expire,
NAVA (as President of the local chapter) wrote REV. It appears that the abovementioned UNION
IYOY as administrator of MCCHI expressing the UNIONs officers openly declared during the General
desire to renew the CBA, attaching to her letter a Membership Meeting of the Union that said the
statement of proposals signed/endorsed by 153 union former (UNON officers)

members. recognized the officers of the KMU not
those of the NFL

submit to the authority of the KMU not of wearing black and red armbands/headbands, marching
the NFL around the hospital premises and putting up placards,

and that they are loyal only to the KMU posters and streamers.
not to the NFL. Atty. Alforque immediately disowned the
Said UNION officers appear to have sent a letter to concerted activities being carried out by union
REV. IYOY saying that they do not need any members which are not sanctioned by NFL.
endorsement from NFL to negotiate their CBA with MCCHI directed the union officers led by NAVA to
MCCHI submit within 48 hours a written explanation why they
Such actuations constitute the following offenses in the should not be terminated for having engaged in illegal
UNIONS Constitution and By-Laws (CBL): concerted activities amounting to strike, and placed
1. Willful violation of the CBL of the them under immediate preventive suspension.
Federation Responding to this directive, NAVA and her group
a) Defying NFL in the latters denied there was a temporary stoppage of work,
instruction for NAVA to disaffiliate from explaining that employees wore their armbands only
the KMU; and as a sign of protest and reiterating their demand for
b) disregarding the powers of the MCCHI to comply with its duty to bargain collectively.
Regional Director to negotiate and REV. IYOY, having been informed that NAVA and her
sign the CBA together with the local group have also been suspended by NFL, directed said
negotiating panel subject to prior officers to appear before his office for investigation in
ratification by the general connection with the illegal strike wherein they
membership; reportedly uttered slanderous and scurrilous words
2. Joining or assisting another labor against the officers of the hospital, threatening other
organization (KMU is deemed an workers and forcing them to join the strike. Said union
organization that seeks to defeat the officers, however, invoked the grievance procedure
objective of establishing independent and provided in the CBA to settle the dispute between
democratic unions and seeks to replace management and the union.
the Federation as exclusive On March 13 and 19, 1996, the Department of Labor
representative of its members) and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 7
UNION officers were directed to submit issued certifications stating that there is nothing
written explanation on the above charges in their records which shows that NAMA-MCCH-
within 5 days BUT considering the gravity NFL is a registered labor organization, and that
of the charges the UNION officers were said union submitted only a copy of its Charter
placed under temporary suspension from Certificate on January 31, 1995.
their office and membership in the union MCCHI then sent individual notices to all union
immediately pending investigation and members asking them to submit within 72 hours
final disposition of their case in a written explanation why they should not be
accordance with the unions CBL. terminated for having supported the illegal
The next day, several union members led by NAVA and
her group launched a series of mass actions such as
concerted activities of NAMA-MCCH-NFL which and patients reported acts of intimidation and
has no legal personality as per DOLE records. harassment perpetrated by union leaders and
On March 13, 1996, NAMA-MCCH-NFL (Local members.
Chapter) filed a Notice of Strike with the National With the intensified atmosphere of violence and
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Region animosity within the hospital premises as a
7 but the same was deemed not filed for want of result of continued protest activities by union
legal personality on the part of the filer. members, MCCHI suffered heavy losses due to
NCMB likewise denied their motion for reconsideration low patient admission rates. The hospitals
on March 25, 1996. suppliers also refused to make further deliveries on
Despite such denial, NAVA and her group still credit.
conducted a strike vote on April 2, 1996 during With the volatile situation adversely affecting hospital
which an overwhelming majority of union operations and the condition of confined patients,
members approved the strike. MCCHI filed a petition for injunction in the NLRC
Meanwhile, the scheduled investigations did not push (Cebu City) on July 9, 1996 (Injunction Case No.
through because the striking union members insisted V-0006-96).
on attending the same only as a group. A TRO was issued on July 16, 1996.
MCCHI again sent notices informing them that their MCCHI presented 12 witnesses (hospital employees
refusal to submit to investigation is deemed a waiver and patients), including a security guard who was
of their right to explain their side and management stabbed by an identified sympathizer while in the
shall proceed to impose proper disciplinary action company of NAVAs group.
under the circumstances. MCCHIs petition was granted and a permanent
On March 30, 1996, MCCHI sent termination injunction was issued on September 18, 1996
letters to union leaders and other members who enjoining the NAVA group from committing
participated in the strike and picketing illegal acts mentioned in Art. 264 of the Labor
activities. Code
On April 8, 1996, it also issued a cease-and-desist On August 27, 1996, the City Government of Cebu
order to the rest of the striking employees. ordered the demolition of the structures and
For their continued picketing activities despite obstructions put up by the picketing employees of
the said warning, more than 100 striking MCCHI along the sidewalk, having determined the
employees were dismissed effective April 12 and same as a public nuisance or nuisance per se.
19, 1996. Thereafter, several complaints for illegal
Unfazed, the striking union members held more dismissal and unfair labor practice were filed by
mass actions. The means of ingress to and egress the terminated employees against MCCHI, REV.
from the hospital were blocked so that vehicles IYOY, UCCP and members of the Board of
carrying patients and employees were barred from Trustees of MCCHI.
entering the premises. Placards were placed at the There were around 90 complainants/ dismissed
hospitals entrance gate stating: Please proceed to employees. 3 complaints were lodged with LA.
another hospital and we are on protest. Employees

CASE 1 RAB-VII-02-0309-98 - pertaining to NLRC: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS (about the
complainants Yballe, Ong, Angel and pay), declaring the dismissal of all the complainants in
Cortez CASE 2 & 3 valid and legal. NLRC denied complainants

CASE 2 RAB-VII-02-0394-98 MR. Hence appeal to CA.

CASE 3 RAB-VII-03-0596-98 CA Dismissed on the ground of forum shopping
+ AFFIRMS NLRC decision but modifies as to the
CASE 1: awards of separation pay. Out of 88 petitioners only
47 have signed the certification against forum
LABOR ARBITER: NO basis for ULP charges. shopping. 18 Petitioners filed MR arguing that the 47
Termination valid. signatories more than constitute the principal parties
NLRC: DISMISSED the complaint for ULP and illegal as the petition involves a matter of common concern
dismissal and affirming LAs decision declaring all to all the petitioning employees.
complainants to have been validly dismissed. MR By resolution, the CA reinstated the case only insofar
denied. as the 47 petitioners who signed the petition are
CA REVERSED. Petition for certiorari is granted, concerned.
ordering Private respondent MCCHI to reinstate Petitioners challenged the validity of CA
petitioners Yballe, et al. without loss of seniority rights order/resolution before SC in a petition for review on
and other privileges; to pay them their full backwages certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 154113.
inclusive of their allowances and other benefits Petitioners Employees filed a MR, while private
computed from the time of their dismissal up to the respondents MCCH filed a motion for partial
time of their actual reinstatement. reconsideration questioning the award of separation
MCCHI, et al. filed MR but the CA denied. pay. CA denied both motions.
Both petitioners and private respondents in CA-G.R. SP All of the above cases were consolidated as they
No. 66540 appealed to this Court. Private respondent involve similar factual circumstances and identical or
MCCHI in CA-G.R. SP No. 84998, under its new name related issues.
Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), filed a
petition for certiorari in this Court. ISSUE
1. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
CASE 2&3 certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 66540) with respect to the
petitioners in G.R. No. 154113 for their failure to sign
LABOR ARBITER: NO basis for ULP charges. the certification against forum shopping;
Termination valid. Executive LA Belarmino rendered 2. WON MCCHI is guilty of unfair labor practice? NO
his decision dismissing the complaints for unfair labor ULP
practice in 3 NLRC Cases (CASES 1,2,3) filed by NAVA 3. WON petitioning employees were illegally dismissed?
and 90 other complainants. The charge of ULP and Union officers legal, Union members illegal
the strike and picketing activities were held 4. If their termination was illegal, WON petitioning
illegal having been conducted by NAMA-MCCH- employees are entitled to separation pay, backwages,
NFL which is not a legitimate labor organization. damages and attorneys fees? Dismissed union
Complainants appealed to NLRC.
members not entitled to backwages but should be
awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement NAMA-MCCH-NFL charged MCCHI with refusal to
RATIO bargain collectively when the latter refused to meet
1: Dropping of petitioners who did not sign the and convene for purposes of collective bargaining.
certification against forum shopping improper MCCHI, on its part, deferred any negotiations until the
local unions dispute with the national union federation
The certification against forum shopping must be signed by (NFL) is resolved considering that the latter is the
all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who exclusive bargaining agent which represented the
did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under rank-and-file hospital employees in CBA negotiations
reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all since 1987.
the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and Records of the NCMB and DOLE Region 7
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of confirmed that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had not
only one of them in the certification against forum shopping registered as a labor organization, having
substantially complies with the Rule. Clearly, the CA erred in submitted only its charter certificate as an
dropping as parties-petitioners those who did not sign the affiliate or local chapter of NFL.
certification against forum shopping. Not being a legitimate labor organization,
NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights
2: MCCHI not guilty of unfair labor practice granted to a legitimate labor organization under
Art. 242, specifically:
Art. 248 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended, makes it
an unfair labor practice for an employer [t]o violate (a) To act as the representative of its members
the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by the for the purpose of collective bargaining;
Code. (b) To be certified as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in an
The applicable provision in this case is Art. 253 which appropriate collective bargaining unit for
provides: purposes of collective bargaining;

ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there Aside from the registration requirement, is only
exists a CBA.When there is a CBA, the duty to the labor organization designated or selected by
bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party the majority of the employees in an appropriate
shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written representative of the employees in such unit for
notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be in Art. 255.
the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not the labor organization
continue in full force and effect the terms and certified or designated by the majority of the
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day rank-and-file hospital employees to represent
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the them in the CBA negotiations but the NFL, as
parties.
evidenced by CBAs concluded in 1987, 1991 and federations Constitution and By-Laws, and if found
1994. guilty to expel such members.
While it is true that a local union has the right to MCCHI therefore cannot be faulted for deferring
disaffiliate from the national federation, NAMA-MCCH- action on the CBA proposal submitted by NAMA-
NFL has not done so as there was no effort on its part MCCH-NFL in view of the union leaderships
to comply with the legal requisites for a valid conflict with the national federation. We have
disaffiliation during the freedom period or the last 60 held that the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union
days of the last year of the CBA, through a majority dispute2 which must be resolved in a different forum in
vote in a secret balloting in accordance with Art. 241 an action at the instance of either or both the
(d). federation and the local union or a rival labor
NAVA and her group simply demanded that organization, not the employer.
MCCHI directly negotiate with the local union Not being a legitimate labor organization nor the
which has not even registered as one. certified exclusive bargaining representative of
To prove majority support of the employees, MCCHIs rank-and-file employees, NAMA-MCCH-NFL
NAMA-MCCH-NFL presented the CBA proposal cannot demand from MCCHI the right to bargain
allegedly signed by 153 union members. collectively in their behalf. Hence, MCCHIs refusal to
However, the petition signed by said members bargain then with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot be
showed that the signatories endorsed the considered an unfair labor practice to justify the
proposed terms and conditions without stating staging of the strike.
that they were likewise voting for or designating
the NAMA-MCCH-NFL as their exclusive Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and
bargaining representative.1 workers participation in policy and decision-making.
In any case, NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of The labor organization designated or selected by the
submission of said proposals was not a duly registered majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
labor organization, hence it cannot legally represent bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of
MCCHIs rank-and-file employees for purposes of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining. collective bargaining. x x x
Hence, even assuming that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had Art. 243 An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict
validly disaffiliated from its mother union, NFL, between and among union members, including
it still did not possess the legal personality to grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
enter into CBA negotiations. conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement
A local union which is not independently over any provision of the unions constitution and by-
registered cannot, upon disaffiliation from the laws, or disputes arising from chartering or
federation, exercise the rights and privileges disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of
granted by law to legitimate labor organizations; Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the
thus, it cannot file a petition for certification election. DOLE enumerate the following circumstances as
Besides, the NFL as the mother union has the right to inter/intra-union disputes, viz.: x x x x (e)
investigate members of its local chapter under the validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
their vehicles from entering the hospital and
3: Strike and picketing activities conducted by union other employees from reporting to work, the
officers and members were illegal\ putting up of placards with a statement advising
incoming patients to proceed to another hospital
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts.x x x because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest.

(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxxx
concerted activities for purposes of collective c. In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and certified or recognized bargaining agent
protection. The right of legitimate labor may file a notice of strike or the employer may
organizations to strike and picket and of file a notice of lockout with the Department at
employers to lockout, consistent with the least 30 days before the intended date thereof.
national interest, shall continue to be recognized In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
and respected. However, no labor union may notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of
strike and no employer may declare a a duly certified or recognized bargaining
lockout on grounds involving inter-union agent, the notice of strike may be filed by
and intra-union disputes. any legitimate labor organization in behalf
of its members . However, in case of dismissal
As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a from employment of union officers duly elected
duly registered or an independently registered union at in accordance with the union constitution and
the time it filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 by-laws, which may constitute union busting,
and when it conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996. where the existence of the union is threatened,
It could not then legally represent the union members. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the the union may take action immediately. (As
conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for amended by Executive Order No. 111,
having been filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL December 24, 1986.)
which has no legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization, in violation of Art. 263 (c), (d) and (f) of d. The notice must be in accordance with such
the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus implementing rules and regulations as the
Rules Implementing the Labor Code.3 Department of Labor and Employment may
Furthermore, the strike was illegal due to the promulgate. x x x x
commission of the following prohibited activities: 4
f. A decision to declare a strike must be approved
(1) violence, coercion, intimidation and by a majority of the total union membership in the
harassment against non-participating bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret
employees; and ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be
(2) blocking of free ingress to and egress from approved by a majority of the board of directors of
the hospital, including preventing patients and the corporation or association or of the partners in
a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a makeshift structures that obstructed its use by the
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall public who were likewise barraged by the noise coming
be valid for the duration of the dispute based on from strikers using megaphones. On the other hand,
substantially the same grounds considered when the affidavits51 executed by several hospital
the strike or lockout vote was taken. The employees and patients narrated in detail the
Department may, at its own initiative or upon the incidents of harassment, intimidation, violence and
request of any affected party, supervise the coercion, some of these witnesses have positively
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the identified the perpetrators. The prolonged work
union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the stoppage and picketing activities of the striking
voting at least seven days before the intended employees severely disrupted hospital operations that
strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period MCCHI suffered heavy financial losses.
herein provided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa
Bilang 130, August 21, 1981 and further amended The findings of the Executive Labor Arbiter and
by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986.) NLRC, as sustained by the appellate court,
clearly established that the striking union
Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing members created so much noise, disturbance
the Labor Code reads: and obstruction that the local government
authorities eventually ordered their removal for
SEC. 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout.Any certified or being a public nuisance. This was followed by an
duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a injunction from the NCMB enjoining the union leaders
strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor from further blocking the free ingress to and egress
practices. The employer may declare a lockout in the same from the hospital, and from committing threats,
cases. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized coercion and intimidation against non-striking
bargaining representative, any legitimate labor employees and patients/vehicles desiring to enter for
organization in the establishment may declare a strike the purpose of seeking medical
but only on grounds of unfair labor practice. (Emphasis treatment/confinement. By then, the illegal strike had
supplied.) lasted for almost five months.

264 (e) of the Labor Code provides: No person engaged in 4: Consequences of illegal strike to union officers and
picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or members
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the
employers premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public Art. 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides
thoroughfares. for the consequences of an illegal strike to the
participating workers:

As shown by photographs submitted by MCCHI, as well x x x Any union officer who knowingly
as the findings of the NCMB and Cebu City participates in illegal strike and any worker or
Government, the hospital premises and sidewalk union officer who knowingly participates in the
within its vicinity were full of placards, streamers and
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be The termination of union officers NAVA, Alsado,
declared to have lost his employment status: Baez, Bongcaras, Canen, Gerona and
Remocaldo was valid and justified.
Provided, That mere participation of a With respect to the dismissed union members,
worker in a lawful strike shall not although MCCHI submitted photographs taken at
constitute sufficient ground for the picket line, it did not individually name those
termination of his employment, even if a striking employees and specify the illegal act
replacement had been hired by the employer committed by each of them. Hence, the
during such lawful strike. dismissal of union members who merely
participated in the illegal strike was illegal.
The above provision makes a distinction
between workers and union officers who 5: Dismissed union members not entitled to
participate in an illegal strike: backwages but should be awarded separation pay in
lieu of reinstatement
An ordinary striking worker cannot be
terminated for mere participation in an Since there is no clear proof that union members
illegal strike. There must be proof that he actually participated in the commission of illegal
or she committed illegal acts during a acts during the strike, they are not deemed to
strike. have lost their employment status as a
consequence of a declaration of illegality of the
A union officer, on the other hand, may be strike.
terminated from work when he knowingly
Petitioners assail the CA in not ordering their
participates in an illegal strike, and like
reinstatement with back wages. Invoking stare decisis,
other workers, when he commits an illegal
they cited the case of Bascon v. CA decided by this
act during a strike.
Court in 2004 and which involved two former hospital
employees who likewise sued MCCHI after the latter
Considering their persistence in holding picketing terminated their employment due to their participation
activities despite the declaration by the NCMB that in the same illegal strike led by NAMA-MCCH-NFL.
their union was not duly registered as a legitimate However, the SC said that the doctrine of stare decisis
labor organization and the letter from NFLs legal would not be applied in this case. Said doctrine is
counsel informing that their acts constitute disloyalty not cast in stone upon a showing that
to the national federation, and their filing of the notice circumstances attendant in a particular case
of strike and conducting a strike vote notwithstanding override the great benefits derived by our
that their union has no legal personality to negotiate judicial system from the doctrine of stare
with MCCHI for collective bargaining purposes, there is decisis. Thus, the Court, especially with a new
no question that NAMA-MCCH-NFL officers knowingly membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a
participated in the illegal strike. particular decision that it determines, after re-
examination, to call for a rectification.
Separation pay is made an alternative relief in (g) strained relations between the
lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, employer and employee.
like:
Considering that 15 years had lapsed from the onset
(a) when reinstatement can no longer be of this labor dispute, and in view of strained relations
effected in view of the passage of a long that ensued, in addition to the reality of replacements
period of time or because of the realities already hired by the hospital which had apparently
of the situation; recovered from its huge losses, and with many of the
(b) reinstatement is inimical to the petitioners either employed elsewhere, already old
employers interest; and sickly, or otherwise incapacitated, separation pay
(c) reinstatement is no longer feasible; without back wages is the appropriate relief.
(d) reinstatement does not serve the best
interests of the parties involved; DECISION
(e) the employer is prejudiced by the Petition denied
workers continued employment;
(f) facts that make execution unjust or
inequitable have supervened; or

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen