duyag vs inciong

5/28/2018 Duyag vs Inciong

1/3

Duyag vs. Inciong (1980)

J. Aquino

Facts:

Petitioners are arrestre checkers of E. Razon, Inc as well as bona fide members of the Associated Port Checkand Workers Union

They filed with the DOLE regional Office a complaint containing several charges against the four respondewho are the president (for more than 20 years), treasurer, vice president and auditor of the union. The followare the charges:

o Unauthorized increase in union dues According to the unions constitution and by-laws, the monthly union dues is Php10.00 Subsequently, there were numerous increases to said monthly dues (increased by Php2.00

Sept. 1, 1970; by Php 5 on March 14, 1972; due was Php18 in 1973, and Php 19 in 1975).

However, those two increases were backed by resolutions which are void because they were approved by of all the members of the board of directors, as required by the unio

constitution and by-laws.

Also, a deduction of Php 8.50 was made from their mid-year bonus. Such was done without board resolution authorizing said deduction.

o Withholding of union members share in the profits amounting to Php 18, 640.09 E. Razon, Inc. the arrestre operator, paid to the union, several times, sums of money as its sh

of the profits (profit-share). Such sums of money were supposed to be wholly distributed amo

the union members. However, it was discovered that respondents withheld certain amounts f

numerous profit-shares.

Example: In 1973, E. Razon gave the union Php 25, 684.61 but the respondedistributed to the union members only a total of Php 19,974.

Also, there was a time when a profit-share amounting to Php 22,559.50 was depositedthe account of Cooperative Credit Union, another union where respondent Manalad

also the president. Subsequently, only Php 20,848 was distributed. The responde

appropriated the balance.

During the pendency of the case, however, respondents submitted a resolution wherein 90%union members ratified the deductions from the mid-year bonus and profit-shares. Nonethelethe Court still pointed out that at the time the deductions were made, no resolution exist

Hence, such deductions were illegal at the time they were made.

o Disbursements exceeding Php 500 which were not authorized by the board of directors The board of directors are only allowed to authorize and approve disbursements from union fu

on amounts not exceeding Php500

Documents prove that respondent Manalad made numerous disbursements of union fundsamounts exceeding Php500 without the requisite authorization of the board of directors.

o Maladministration of welfare funds Manalad allowed the application of the finds of the unions Welfare Plan for numerous extraneo

purposes, and such were not authorized by the board of directors.

Also, the complainants allege that the 3 employees did not deserve the retirement benebecause they had been dismissed for prolonged absences and had ceased to be members of

Welfare Plan.

o Membership in another union Respondents Manalad, Amparo and Puerto are also members of the Philippine Technical Cler

Commercial Employees Association, another labor union

Said membership to another union is violative of the arrestre checkers union constitution. Pieces of evidence also lead to the conclusion that respondents improperly used the arres

checkers union funds to fund the other union

o Conflict of interest on the part of Manalad Manalad organized a family corporation (Comet Integrated Stevedoring Services, Inc.) wh

rank-and-file employees are also members of the arrestre checkers union


2/3

In effect, Manalad is a labor leader while also being an employer. As head of the union, he issued customs passes for the checkers of his family corporation

order to facilitate their services to some shipping companies

Med-arbiter decisiono Increases in union dues and deduction from mid-year bonus are voido That the respondents had the modus operandi of withholding certain amounts from the profit-shares,

that they already have deducted a considerable amount given that they started such practice in 1966

o Ordered the removal of respondents as officers of the union and directed them to reimburse the amouillegally collected

On appeal, the Director of Labor Relations reversed the med-arbiter decision on the following grounds:o Resort to intra-union remedies is not necessaryo Power to remove union officers rests in the memberso The Bureau of Labor Relations has nothing to do with the tenure of union officers which is a polit

question

o However, the Director ruled that his office has jurisdiction to look into the charge of illegal disbursemeof union funds

MR filed to the SOLE, who denied the same stating that the expulsion of union officers is the prerogative of union members. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE + RULING: WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has jurisdiction to expel the union officersYes, by virtue of

242 of the Labor Code

Respondents argument: the Bureau of Labor Relations may remove guilty union officers only when membcould not do so under the unions constitution and by-laws and that the removal should be subject to review

the SOLE.

Opinion of the Director of Labor Relations: power of removal belongs to union members since they were the owho elected them; the med-arbiter and the Director are only tasked to assist the union members in enforcing

constitution and by-laws

SC opinion:o The membership of Manalad and Puerto in another union is a sufficient ground for their removal un

the constitution and by-laws of the union

o Respondents violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within the meaning of Art242 Labor Code. Hence, their expulsion is justified.

Effects of violation of the rights and conditions of union membership: either ground cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officer from office, whichever is appropriate

Said violation may be reported to be Bureau of Labor Relations by at least 30% of all the unmembers or any member or members specially concerned. In effect, the Bureau shall have

power to hear & decide any reported violation in order to impose the appropriate penalty.

o After hearing and even without submitting the matter to the union members, erring union officials mayremoved by the Director of Labor Relationsas clearly provided in Art. 242

Thus, the Director erred in holding that since the issue of expulsion is a political one, only union members can resolve it.

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

In the case at bar, the Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the books arecords of the unionalso in order to verify the charge against respondents.

DISPOSITION:

1. Med-Arbiters decision removing respondents as officers affirmed2. Director of Labor relations decision instructing the Labor Organization Division to examine books of account

the unionaffirmed

3. Petitioners entitled to refund of union dues


3/3