1

30% assent of union membership not mandatory to file complaint

[G.R. No. 152322. February 15, 2005.]

ERNESTO C. VERCELES, DIOSDADO F. TRINIDAD, SALVADOR G. BLANCIA, ROSEMARIE DE

LUMBAN, FELICITAS F. RAMOS, MIGUEL TEAO, JAIME BAUTISTA and FIDEL ACERO, as Officers of

the University of the East Employees' Association, petitioners, vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS-

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT-

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, RODEL E. DALUPAN, EFREN J. DE OCAMPO, PROCESO TOTTO, JR.,

ELIZABETH ALARCA, ELVIRA S. MANALO, and RICARDO UY, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J p:

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the

Decision 1 and Resolution 2 rendered by the Court of Appeals, dated 24 October 2001 and 15 February 2002,

respectively.

The Facts

Private respondents Rodel E. Dalupan, Efren J. De Ocampo, Proceso Totto, Jr., Elizabeth Alarca, and Elvira S.

Manalo are members of the University of the East Employees' Association (UEEA). On 15 September 1997, they

each received a Memorandum from the UEEA charging them with spreading false rumors and creating

disinformation among the members of the said association. They were given seventy-two hours from receipt of

the Memorandum to submit their Answer. 3

The acts of the respondents allegedly fall under General Assembly Resolution No. 4, Series of 1979, to wit:

1. Circulating false rumors about the progress of the negotiations for collective bargaining; cAaDHT

2. Creating distrust or loss of trust and confidence of members in the Association;

3. Creating dissension among the members;

4. Circulating false rumors about the work of the Association or sabotaging the same;

5. Withholding from the Association and/or members material information as to their rightful entitlement to

benefits and/or money claims;

6. Acting as a spy against the Association or divulging confidential matters to persons not entitled thereto;

7. Such other offenses, which may injure or disrupt the functions of the Association. 4

Through a collective reply dated 19 September 1997, private respondents denied the allegations. Thereafter, on

23 September 1997, they sent a letter dated 22 September 1997 to the Chairman and Members of UEEA's

Disciplinary Committee, informing them that the Memorandum of 15 September 1997 was vague and without

legal basis, therefore, no intelligent answer may be made by them. They likewise stated that any sanction that

will be imposed by the committee would be violative of their right to due process. 5

The Disciplinary Committee issued another Memorandum, dated 24 September 1997, giving the respondents

another seventy-two hours from receipt within which to properly reply, explaining that the collective reply letter

and supplemental answer which were earlier submitted were not responsive to the first Memorandum. Their

failure would be construed as an admission of the truthfulness and veracity of the charges. 6

On 01 October 1997, the respondents issued a denial for the second time, and inquired from the Disciplinary

Committee as to whether they were being formally charged. 7

2

On 09 October 1997, Ernesto Verceles, in his capacity as president of the association, through a Memorandum,

informed Rodel Dalupan, et al., that their membership in the association has been suspended and shall take

effect immediately upon receipt thereof. Verceles said he was acting upon the disciplinary committee's finding of

aprima facie case against them. 8 Respondent Ricardo Uy also received a similar memorandum on 03 November

1997. 9

On 01 December 1997, a complaint 10 for illegal suspension, willful and unlawful violation of UEEA constitution

and by-laws, refusal to render financial and other reports, deliberate refusal to call general and special meetings,

illegal holdover of terms and damages was filed by the respondents against herein petitioners Ernesto C.

Verceles, Diosdado F. Trinidad, Salvador G. Blancia, Rosemarie De Lumban, Felicitas Ramos, Miguel Teao,

Jaime Bautista and Fidel Acero before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region (DOLE-

NCR). IHaECA

A few days after the filing of the complaint, i.e., on 10 December 1997, a resolution 11 was passed by UEEA

which reads as follows:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Association has gone thru a most arduous, difficult, and trying times in working to obtain the

best terms and conditions of employment for its members, specifically for the period 1992 to 1996;

WHEREAS, said difficulties are in the form of near strikes, cases with the Department of Labor and Employment

and its agencies, as well as with the Supreme Court;

WHEREAS, the general membership (has) shown exceptional patience and perseverance and generally (had)

demonstrated full trust and confidence in the Association officers and accordingly approved the manner and/or

actions undertaken in pursuing said difficult task of arriving at a most beneficial agreement for the general

membership;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved that:

xxx xxx xxx

b) the general membership reiterate its loyalty to the Association and commends the Association officers for

their effort expended in working for the benefit of the whole membership. cEATSI

APPROVED.

Manila. 10 December 1997.

On 22 November 1999, a decision 12 was rendered by Regional Director Maximo B. Lim, adverse to petitioners,

the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent[s] [are] hereby ordered:

1. to immediately lift suspension imposed upon the complainants;

2. to hold a general membership meeting wherein they (respondents) make open and available the

union's/association's books of accounts and other documents pertaining to the union funds [and] thereby explain

the financial status of the union;

3. to regularly conduct special and general membership meetings in accordance with the union's constitution and

by-laws;

4. to immediately hold/conduct an election of officers in accordance with the union's constitution and by-laws.

Accordingly, the claims of complainants for damages [are] hereby ordered dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. IaSCTE

3

However, within ten (10) days upon receipt of this Order, the complainants are hereby directed to submit a

written report whether or not the respondents had complied with this Order.

The petitioners appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor and Employment (BLR-

DOLE). During the pendency of this appeal, or on 07 April 2000, an election of officers was held by the UEEA.

The appeal, eventually, was dismissed for lack of merit in a Resolution 13 dated 22 September 2000, the

decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision dated 22 (November) 1999 of

Regional Director Maximo B. Lim, DOLE-NCR, is AFFIRMED.

Meanwhile, Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, was passed by the UEEA, wherein the members allegedly reiterated

their support and approval of the acts and collateral actions of the officers. 14

A Motion for Reconsideration 15 was filed by the petitioners with the BLR-DOLE, but was denied in a

Resolution 16 dated 15 January 2001.

A special civil action for certiorari 17 was thereafter filed before the Court of Appeals citing grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In a Resolution 18 dated 22 February 2001, the Court of

Appeals dismissed the petition outright for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 1, Rule 65 in relation

to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A Motion for Reconsideration 19 was filed which was

granted in a Resolution 20 dated 24 April 2001, thus, reinstating the petition.

On 24 October 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 21 dismissing the petition, the dispositive portion

of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of

merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

A Motion for Reconsideration 22 was thereafter filed by the petitioners. In a Resolution 23 dated 15 February

2002, the Court of Appeals modified its earlier decision. The decretal portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of this court is MODIFIED. The 22 September 2000 and 15 January 2001

resolutions of the BLR insofar as they affirmed the part of the 22 November 1999 decision of the Regional

Director of DOLE-NCR ordering the immediate holding of election are HEREBY ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. All

the other aspects of the assailed Resolutions are AFFIRMED.

Not satisfied, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari 24 before this Court.

The Issues

The petitioners raise the following issues:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS' UPHOLDING THE DOLE-NCR

AND BLR-DOLE DECISIONS BASED ONLY ON THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER;

2. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD THE ELECTION OF

APRIL 7, 2000 AS INVALID AND A NULLITY; AaCcST

3. WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO UPHOLD BLR-DOLE'S FINDING THAT THE SUSPENSION

WAS ILLEGAL; and

4. WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED NON-HOLDING OF MEETINGS AND ALLEGED NON-SUBMISSION OF

REPORTS ARE MOOT AND ACADEMIC, AND WHETHER THE DECISION TO HOLD MEETINGS AND SUBMIT

REPORTS CONTRADICT AND OVERRIDE THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE MAJORITY. 25

The Court's Rulings

4

We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.

First Issue: was the court a quo correct in upholding the DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based only on the

complaint and answer?

Petitioners contend that the complaint filed by the private respondents in DOLE-NCR was a mere recital of bare,

self serving and unsubstantiated allegations. Both parties did not submit position papers, and the DOLE-NCR

resolved the case based only on the complaint and answer. Also, by failing to submit a reply to the answer,

private respondents, in effect admitted the petitioners' controversion of the charges. 26 They further argue that

the private respondents did not exhaust administrative remedies and that the requirement of support by at least

30% of the members of the association for the filing of a complaint for any violation of the constitution and by-

laws and rights and conditions of membership, pursuant to Section 1, Rule XIV, Article I, Department Order No.

9 of DOLE, was not complied with. 27

Private respondents, on the other hand, assert that the records show that despite their failure to submit their

position papers, they nonetheless moved that the case be resolved by DOLE-NCR based on the complaint,

answer and available exhibits or annexes integrated with the aforesaid pleadings. 28 The principle of non-

exhaustion of administrative remedies that would warrant the dismissal of the case should not operate against

them because they were deprived of their right to due process when they were indefinitely suspended without

the benefit of a formal charge which is sufficient in form and substance. 29 The respondents also point out that

the thirty percent (30%) support requirement pursuant to Section 1, Rule XIV, Article I, Department Order No.

9, is not applicable to them because their complaint was primordially predicated on their suspension while the

rest of the causes of action were mere collateral consequences of the principal cause of action. 30

It is worthy to note that the BLR-DOLE, in its Resolution dated 22 September 2000, underscored the negligence

of herein petitioners not only in the submission of their pleadings but also in attending the hearings called for

the purpose. 31 Even the Court of Appeals, in its decision, made this observation, thus: DACaTI

It is apparent, however, that petitioners were to blame for their predicament. They repeatedly failed to appear in

a series of conferences scheduled by the DOLE-NCR, asked for resetting of hearings, and requested for

extension of time to file its answer. Hence, when they again did not attend a hearing on a date they themselves

asked for, private respondents (complainants therein) moved for the submission of the case based on their

complaint, position paper and annexes attached thereto.

When DOLE-NCR directed the parties to submit their respective position papers, petitioners again moved for

extension of time to file the same. When another notice was given to the parties to comply with the directive,

petitioners prayed for another extension of time. (Private respondents, however, reiterated their earlier motion

to have the case resolved based on available pleadings.) After six (6) months or so, petitioners finally filed not

their position paper but their answer. 32

The Court of Appeals was justified in upholding the DOLE-NCR and BLR-DOLE decisions based on the complaint

and answer. We cannot accept petitioners' line of reasoning that since no position papers were submitted, no

decision may be made by the adjudicating body. As ruled by Regional Director Maximo B. Lim in his decision, the

complaint and the answer thereto were adopted as the parties' position papers. Thereafter, the case shall be

deemed submitted for resolution. 33

Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of cases, with the least attention to technicalities but without

sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process. 34 The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to

be heard. 35 In this case, it cannot be said that there was a denial of due process on the part of the petitioners

because they were given all the chances to refute the allegations of the private respondents, and the delay in

the proceedings before the DOLE-NCR was clearly attributable to them.

5

The argument that there was failure to exhaust administrative remedies cannot be sustained. One of the

instances when the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be disregarded is when there is a violation

of due process. 36 In this case, the respondents have chronicled from the very beginning that they were

indefinitely suspended without the benefit of a formal charge sufficient in form and substance. Therefore, the

rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot squarely apply to them.

On the matter concerning the 30% support requirement needed to report violations of rights and conditions of

union membership, as found in the last paragraph of Article 241 of the Labor Code, 37 must be strictly

observed. We have already made our pronouncement in the case of Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor

Relations 38that the 30% requirement is not mandatory. In this case, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice

Andres R. Narvasa, 39 held in part:

The respondent Director's ruling, however, that the assent of 30% of the union membership, mentioned in

Article 242 of the Labor Code, was mandatory and essential to the filing of a complaint for any violation of rights

and conditions of membership in a labor organization (such as the arbitrary and oppressive increase of union

dues here complained of), cannot be affirmed and will be reversed. The very article relied upon militates against

the proposition. It states that a report of a violation of rights and conditions of membership in a labor

organization may be made by "(a)t least thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or

members specially concerned." The use of the permissive "may" in the provision at once negates the notion that

the assent of 30% of all the members is mandatory. More decisive is the fact that the provision expressly

declares that the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or members specially concerned." And

further confirmation that the assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction

by the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which grants original and

exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department

of Labor, over "all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or

affecting labor management relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such 30%-support requirement.

Indeed, the officials mentioned are given the power to act "on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) "upon

request of either or both parties" as well as (2) "at their own initiative."

Second Issue: was the election held on 07 April 2000 valid or a nullity?

This issue arose from the fact that the original decision of the DOLE-NCR dated 22 November 1999, ordered

petitioners, among other things, to "immediately hold/conduct an election of officers . . ." Petitioners, it must be

recalled, appealed from the DOLE-NCR decision to the BLR-DOLE. During the pendency of the appeal, however,

an election of officers was held on 07 April 2000. Subsequently, the BLR-DOLE affirmed the decision of the

DOLE-NCR, but with the pronouncement that ". . . the supposed election conducted on (07) April 2000 is null

and void and cannot produce legal effects adverse to appellants." 40

The petitioners contend that since the election was held on 07 April 2000, and the original complaint before the

DOLE-NCR was filed on 01 December 1997, the former could not have been the subject of the complaint. There

was, according to petitioners, reversible error in the BLR-DOLE's adding to the DOLE-NCR's decision, the

nullification of the 07 April 2000 election. The BLRDOLE should have limited itself to affirming, modifying or

setting aside and canceling the provisions of the dispositive portion of the DOLE-NCR's decision which was

subject of the appeal. The election was held because the term of the petitioners (extended for five years

under Republic Act No. 6715 41 ) expired on 07 April 2000. As amended by Republic Act 6715, paragraph (c) of

Article 241 of the Labor Code now reads: cTACIa

(c) The members shall directly elect their officers in the local union, as well as their national officers in the

national union or federation to which they or their local union is affiliated, by secret ballots at intervals of five (5)

years.

It just so happened that the holding of the election coincided with the DOLE-NCR decision. 42

6

The private respondents, in answer to this, point out that the 07 April 2000 election, as appearing in the 22

September 2000 Resolution of the BLR-DOLE, was set aside not on the flimsy reason that there was no

complaint to invalidate it, but due to the appeal of the petitioners questioning the BLR-DOLE's order. The appeal

effectively suspended the effect of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director's order for the immediate holding of election

of officers in accordance with the union's constitution and by-laws. 43

On this matter, the Court of Appeals made the following observation:

Consequently, the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR erred in ordering the immediate holding of election of officers

of UEEA, and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)-Department of Labor and Employment, insofar as it affirmed

this particular order, committed an act amounting to grave abuse of discretion.

Nonetheless, despite of this finding, the election of UEEA officers on 7 April 2000 cannot acquire a semblance of

legality. First, it was conducted pursuant to the aforesaid (erroneous) order of the Regional Director as

manifested by the petitioners. Second, it was purposely done to pre-empt the resolution of the case by the BLR

and to deprive private respondents their substantial right to participate in the election. Third, petitioners cannot

be allowed to take an inconsistent position to later on claim that the election of 7 April 2000 was held because it

was already due while previously declaring that it was made in line with the order of the Regional Director, for

this would go against the principle of fair play.

Thus, while the BLR was wrong in affirming the order of the Regional Director for the immediate holding of

election, it was right in nullifying the 7 April 2000 UEEA election of officers. It was simply improper for the

petitioners to implement the said order which was then one of the subjects of their appeal in the BLR. To hold

otherwise would be to dispossess the BLR of its inherent power to control the conduct of the proceedings of

cases pending before it for resolution. 44

Based on the prevailing facts of this case, we affirm the foregoing findings of the court a quo. We cannot hold

the election of 07 April 2000 valid as this would make us condone an iniquitous act. Said election was perceptibly

done to hinder any resolution or decision that would be made by BLR-DOLE. The Regional Director indeed

ordered the immediate holding of an election in its Order dated 22 November 1999. The records show that the

petitioners questioned this order of the Regional Director before the BLR-DOLE by way of appeal, 45 and yet,

they conducted the election, allegedly because it was due under Republic Act No. 6715. Why this was done by

the petitioners escapes us. But as rightfully observed by the BLR-DOLE: SDHAEC

. . . Indeed, it is obvious that the general membership meeting and election of officers was done purposely to

pre-empt our resolution of this case and, more importantly, the participation of appellees in the election. This

cannot be tolerated. 46

Third Issue: was the indefinite suspension of the private respondents illegal?

We rule in the affirmative.

The petitioners posit the theory that the records do not support the findings of the BLR-DOLE that no

investigation was conducted making the suspension illegal because of lack of due process.

It is best to remind the petitioners that this Court, as we have held in a long line of decisions, is not a trier of

facts. 47 The instant case is a petition for review on certiorari48 where only questions of law may be raised.

The exceptions 49 to this rule find no application here. This being the case, the findings of fact of the DOLE-NCR

and the BLR-DOLE as affirmed by the Court of Appeals to the effect that no investigation was conducted, shall

not be disturbed. As properly held by the court a quo:

Petitioners have failed to show that the findings of facts and conclusions of law of both the DOLE-NCR and BLR-

DOLE were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion or without substantial evidence. A careful review of the

7

pleadings before Us reveals that the decision and resolutions of the concerned agencies were correctly anchored

in law and on substantial evidence. 50

Fourth Issue: is the non-holding of meetings and non-submission of reports by the petitioners moot and

academic, and whether the decision to hold meetings and submit reports contradict and override the sovereign

will of the majority? cETDIA

We do not believe so.

This issue was precipitated by the Court of Appeals decision affirming the order of DOLE Regional Director

Maximo B. Lim for the petitioners to hold a general membership meeting wherein they make open and available

the union's/association's books of accounts and other documents pertaining to the union funds, and to regularly

conduct special and general membership meetings in accordance with the union's constitution and by-

laws. 51 It is to be recalled that the private respondents, when they filed a complaint before the DOLE-NCR also

complained of petitioners' refusal to render financial and other reports, and deliberate refusal to call general and

special meetings.

Petitioners do not hide the fact that they belatedly submitted their financial reports and the minutes of their

meetings to the DOLE. The issue of belatedly submitting these reports, according to the petitioners, had been

rendered moot and academic by their eventual compliance. Besides, this has been the practice of the

association.52 Moreover, the petitioners likewise maintain that the passage of General Assembly Resolution No.

10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, following the application of the principle that

the sovereign majority rules, cured any liability that may have been brought about by their belated actions. 53

As found by the Court of Appeals, the financial statements for the years 1995 up to 1997 were submitted to

DOLE-NCR only on 06 February 1998 while that for the year 1998 was submitted only on 16 March

1999. 54 The last association's meeting was conducted on 21 April 1995, and the copy of the minutes thereon

was submitted to BLR-DOLE only on 24 February 1998. EATcHD

The passage of General Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of

2000, 55 which supposedly cured the lapses committed by the association's officers and reiterated the approval

of the general membership of the acts and collateral actions of the association's officers cannot redeem the

petitioners from their predicament. The obligation to hold meetings and render financial reports is mandated by

UEEA's constitution and by-laws. This fact was never denied by the petitioners. Their eventual compliance, as

what happened in this case, will not release them from the obligation to accomplish these things in the future.

Prompt compliance in rendering financial reports together with the holding of regular meetings with the

submission of the minutes thereon with the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR will negate any suspicion of dishonesty on

the part of UEEA's officers. This is not only true with UEEA, but likewise with other unions/associations, as this

matter is imbued with public interest. Undeniably, transparency in the official undertakings of union officers will

bolster genuine trade unionism in the country.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals subjects of the

instant case, are affirmed. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

||| (Verceles v. Bureau of Labor Relations-DOLE, G.R. No. 152322, [February 15, 2005], 491 PHIL 520-539)

20% assent of employees on registration of Independent Labor Organization/chartering by trade

union center

[G.R. No. 171153. September 12, 2007.]

8

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNIONPHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL

WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEUPTGWO), petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS

EMPLOYEES UNIONPAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU

PDMP), respondent. 1

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J p:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner SAN MIGUEL

CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION

(SMCEU-PTGWO) prays that this Court reverse and set aside the (a) Decision 2 dated 9 March 2005 of the Court

of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66200, affirming the Decision 3 dated 19 February 2001 of the Bureau of Labor

Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which upheld the Certificate of Registration

of respondent SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNIONPAMBANSANG DIWA NG

MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEUPDMP); and (b) the Resolution 4 dated 16 January 2006 of the Court of

Appeals in the same case, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.

The following are the antecedent facts:

Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank

and file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), namely, the San Miguel Corporate

Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP), in

all offices and plants of SMC, including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna. It had been the

certified bargaining agent for 20 years from 1987 to 1997.

Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). PDMP issued

Charter Certificate No. 112 to respondent on 15 June 1999.5 In compliance with registration requirements,

respondent submitted the requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal personality. 6 Upon

submission of its charter certificate and other documents, respondent was issued Certificate of Creation of Local

or Chapter PDMP-01 by the BLR on 6 July 1999. 7Thereafter, respondent filed with the Med-Arbiter of the DOLE

Regional Officer in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR), three separate petitions for certification election to

represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. 8 All three petitions were dismissed, on the ground that the separate

petitions fragmented a single bargaining unit. 9

On 17 August 1999, petitioner filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent's

registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. In its petition, petitioner accused

respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration requirements in obtaining

its certificate of registration. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239 (a), (b) and (c) 10 and

234 (c) 11 of the Labor Code. Moreover, petitioner claimed that PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but

a trade union center, hence, it cannot directly create a local or chapter. The petition was docketed as Case No.

NCR-OD-9908-007-IRD. 12

On 14 July 2000, DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. Lim issued an Order dismissing the allegations of fraud

and misrepresentation, and irregularity in the submission of documents by respondent. Regional Director Lim

further ruled that respondent is allowed to directly create a local or chapter. However, he found that respondent

did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation of its certificate of

registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. 13 Respondent appealed to the BLR. In

a Decision dated 19 February 2001, it declared:

As a chartered local union, appellant is not required to submit the number of employees and names of all its

members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Thus, the

revocation of its registration based on non-compliance with the 20% membership requirement does not have

any basis in the rules.

9

Further, although PDMP is considered as a trade union center, it is a holder of Registration Certificate No. FED-

11558-LC issued by the BLR on 14 February 1991, which bestowed upon it the status of a legitimate labor

organization with all the rights and privileges to act as representative of its members for purposes of collective

bargaining agreement. On this basis, PDMP can charter or create a local, in accordance with the provisions of

Department Order No. 9. IEHScT

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the Regional Director dated July 14,

2000, canceling the registration of appellant San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa

ng Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant shall hereby remain in the

roster of legitimate labor organizations. 14

While the BLR agreed with the findings of the DOLE Regional Director dismissing the allegations of fraud and

misrepresentation, and in upholding that PDMP can directly create a local or a chapter, it reversed the Regional

Director's ruling that the 20% membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal personality as a labor

organization. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the BLR. In a Resolution rendered on

19 June 2001 in BLR-A-C-64-05-9-00 (NCR-OD-9908-007-IRD), the BLR denied the Motion for Reconsideration

and affirmed its Decision dated 19 February 2001. 15

Invoking the power of the appellate court to review decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, petitioner filed with the

Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure docketed as CA-G.R.

SP No. 66200. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 9 March 2005, dismissed the petition and affirmed the

Decision of the BLR, ruling as follows:

In Department Order No. 9, a registered federation or national union may directly create a local by submitting to

the BLR copies of the charter certificate, the local's constitution and by-laws, the principal office address of the

local, and the names of its officers and their addresses. Upon complying with the documentary requirements, the

local shall be issued a certificate and included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. The [herein

respondent] is an affiliate of a registered federation PDMP, having been issued a charter certificate. Under the

rules we have reviewed, there is no need for SMPPEU to show a membership of 20% of the employees of the

bargaining unit in order to be recognized as a legitimate labor union.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the foregoing, the assailed decision and resolution of the BLR are AFFIRMED, and the petition is

DISMISSED. 16 DHECac

Subsequently, in a Resolution dated 16 January 2006, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.

Hence, this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where petitioner raises the sole

issue of: DHaECI

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN

RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AND NAMES OF ALL ITS MEMBERS COMPRISING AT LEAST 20% OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE

BARGAINING UNIT WHERE IT SEEKS TO OPERATE.

The present petition questions the legal personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization. aICHEc

Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the

employees in the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234 (c) of the Labor Code which

stipulates that any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal

personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations

upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: aCTHEA

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

10

b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the

organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

c. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining

unit where it seeks to operate;

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

e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification

and the list of the members who participated in it. 17

Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of respondent must be based not on the number

of employees of a single division, but in all three divisions of the company in all the offices and plants of SMC

since they are all part of one bargaining unit. Petitioner refers to Section 1, Article 1 of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA), 18 quoted hereunder:

ARTICLE 1

SCOPE

Section 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit. The appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists of all

regular rank and file employees paid on the basis of fixed salary per month and employed by the COMPANY in its

Corporate Staff Units (CSU), San Miguel Brewing Products (SMBP) and San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP)

and in different operations existing in the City of Manila and suburbs, including Metal Closure and Lithography

Plant located at Canlubang, Laguna subject to the provisions of Article XV of this Agreement provided however,

that if during the term of this Agreement, a plant within the territory covered by this Agreement is transferred

outside but within a radius of fifty (50) kilometers from the Rizal Monument, Rizal Park, Metro Manila, the

employees in the transferred plant shall remain in the bargaining unit covered by this Agreement. (Emphasis

supplied.)

Petitioner thus maintains that respondent, in any case, failed to meet this 20% membership requirement since it

based its membership on the number of employees of a single division only, namely, the SMPP. HSDIaC

There is merit in petitioner's contentions.

A legitimate labor organization 19 is defined as "any labor organization duly registered with the Department of

Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof." 20 The mandate of the Labor Code is to

ensure strict compliance with the requirements on registration because a legitimate labor organization is entitled

to specific rights under the Labor Code, 21 and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public

interest. Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees

who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds

or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. 22 Legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under

the law which cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the

exclusive representative 23 of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of

collective bargaining. 24 The acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the right to file

a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends on whether or not the labor organization has

attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. 25 aAHISE

A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a "local" or "chapter" of PDMP and

was issued Charter Certificate No. 112 on 15 June 1999. Hence, respondent was directly chartered by PDMP.

The procedure for registration of a local or chapter of a labor organization is provided in Book V of the

Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9 which took effect on 21 June

1997, and again by Department Order No. 40 dated 17 February 2003. The Implementing Rules as amended by

11

D.O. No. 9 should govern the resolution of the petition at bar since respondent's petition for certification election

was filed with the BLR in 1999; and that of petitioner on 17 August 1999. 26 DSAICa

The applicable Implementing Rules enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. The

first involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The

second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the

process of chartering. 27 cEDaTS

A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local or chapter by submitting to the DOLE

Regional Office or to the BLR two copies of the following:

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the

local/chapter;

(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and

(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; Provided, That where the local/chapter's constitution and by-

laws is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly. SACTIH

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the

local/chapter and attested to by its President. 28 DTEHIA

The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by a federation or national

union. A duly constituted local or chapter created in accordance with the foregoing shall acquire legal personality

from the date of filing of the complete documents with the BLR. 29 The issuance of the certificate of registration

by the BLR or the DOLE Regional Office is not the operative act that vests legal personality upon a local or a

chapter under Department Order No. 9. Such legal personality is acquired from the filing of the complete

documentary requirements enumerated in Section 1, Rule VI. 30 CAIHTE

Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, violated

Article 234 of the Labor Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a chapter or

local. This Court disagrees.

Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an independent labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon

its registration with the BLR: TaCIDS

Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and

shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the

certificate of registration based on the following requirements:

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

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the

organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the

bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

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

(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification,

and the list of the members who participated in it. (Italics supplied.)

It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association

or group of unions or workers.

However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently. This Court, in the landmark case

of Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, 31 declared that

12

when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for

registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent

union is mandated to submit, among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members

comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as provided under

Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer

required of a branch, local or chapter. 32 The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a

branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a

federation or national union in order to increase the local union's bargaining powers respecting terms and

conditions of labor. 33

Subsequently, in Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Trajano 34 where the validity of Department Order No. 9 was

directly put in issue, this Court was unequivocal in finding that there is no inconsistency between the Labor

Code and Department Order No. 9. IEaHSD

As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of Registration through fraud and

misrepresentation, this Court finds that the imputations are not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof

to declare that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting. This Court had, indeed, on

several occasions, pronounced that registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer

no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized, which, at best, holds on to a mere scrap of paper.

Under such circumstances, the labor organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no

rights. 35

This Court emphasizes, however, that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud

and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful

scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of

the case are devoid of such evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies

with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as

the BLR, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally

accorded not only great respect but even finality. 36

Still, petitioner postulates that respondent was not validly and legitimately created, for PDMP cannot create a

local or chapter as it is not a legitimate labor organization, it being a trade union center.

Petitioner's argument creates a predicament as it hinges on the legitimacy of PDMP as a labor organization.

Firstly, this line of reasoning attempts to predicate that a trade union center is not a legitimate labor

organization. In the process, the legitimacy of PDMP is being impugned, albeit indirectly. Secondly, the same

contention premises that a trade union center cannot directly create a local or chapter through the process of

chartering.

Anent the foregoing, as has been held in a long line of cases, the legal personality of a legitimate labor

organization, such as PDMP, cannot be subject to a collateral attack. The law is very clear on this matter. Article

212 (h) of the Labor Code, as amended, defines a legitimate labor organization 37 as "any labor organization

duly registered with the DOLE, and includes any branch or local thereof." 38 On the other hand, a trade union

center is any group of registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its

members; for assisting such members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social

and employment policies, standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with

Rule III, Section 2 of the Implementing Rules. 39

The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested with legal

personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of registration is issued to a

union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. 40 It may be questioned only in an

independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.

The aforementioned provision is enunciated in the following: DaTISc

13

Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor organization or workers' association shall be deemed registered and

vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality

cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent petition for

cancellation in accordance with these Rules. SCEHaD

PDMP was registered as a trade union center and issued Registration Certificate No. FED-11558-LC by the BLR

on 14 February 1991. Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a legitimate

labor organization subsists. Once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor organization, it continues to be

recognized as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for

cancellation. 41 It bears to emphasize that what is being directly challenged is the personality of respondent as

a legitimate labor organization and not that of PDMP. This being a collateral attack, this Court is without

jurisdiction to entertain questions indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.

Corollarily, PDMP is granted all the rights and privileges appurtenant to a legitimate labor organization, 42 and

continues to be recognized as such until its certificate of registration is successfully impugned and thereafter

cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.

We now proceed to the contention that PDMP cannot directly create a local or a chapter, it being a trade union

center.

This Court reverses the finding of the appellate court and BLR on this ground, and rules that PDMP cannot

directly create a local or chapter.

After an exhaustive study of the governing labor law provisions, both statutory and regulatory, 43 we find no

legal justification to support the conclusion that a trade union center is allowed to directly create a local or

chapter through chartering. Apropos, we take this occasion to reiterate the first and fundamental duty of this

Court, which is to apply the law. The solemn power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does

not include the power to correct by reading into the law what is not written therein. 44

Presidential Decree No. 442, better known as the Labor Code, was enacted in 1972. Being a legislation on social

justice, 45 the provisions of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules have been subject to several

amendments, and they continue to evolve, considering that labor plays a major role as a socio-economic force.

TheLabor Code was first amended by Republic Act No. 6715, and recently, by Republic Act No. 9481.

Incidentally, the term trade union center was never mentioned underPresidential Decree No. 442, even as it was

amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The term trade union center was first adopted in the Implementing Rules,

under Department Order No. 9.

Culling from its definition as provided by Department Order No. 9, a trade union center is any group of

registered national unions or federations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members; for

assisting such members in collective bargaining; or for participating in the formulation of social and employment

policies, standards, and programs, and is duly registered with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of

the Implementing Rules. 46 The same rule provides that the application for registration of an industry or trade

union center shall be supported by the following:

(a) The list of its member organizations and their respective presidents and, in the case of an industry union, the

industry where the union seeks to operate;

(b) The resolution of membership of each member organization, approved by the Board of Directors of such

union;

(c) The name and principal address of the applicant, the names of its officers and their addresses, the minutes

of its organizational meeting/s, and the list of member organizations and their representatives who attended

such meeting/s; and

14

(d) A copy of its constitution and by-laws and minutes of its ratification by a majority of the presidents of the

member organizations, provided that where the ratification was done simultaneously with the organizational

meeting, it shall be sufficient that the fact of ratification be included in the minutes of the organizational

meeting. 47

Evidently, while a "national union" or "federation" is a labor organization with at least ten locals or chapters or

affiliates, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized collective bargaining agent; 48 a trade union

center, on the other hand, is composed of a group of registered national unions or federations. 49

The Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, provide that "a duly registered federation or

national union" may directly create a local or chapter. The provision reads: HScCEa

Section 1. Chartering and creation of a local/chapter. A duly registered federation or national union may

directly create a local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two (2) copies of the

following:

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the

local/chapter;

(b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the local/chapter; and

(c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; provided that where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws

is the same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.

All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the

local/chapter and attested to by its President. 50

Department Order No. 9 mentions two labor organizations either of which is allowed to directly create a local or

chapter through chartering a duly registeredfederation or a national union. Department Order No. 9 defines a

"chartered local" as a labor organization in the private sector operating at the enterprise level that acquired legal

personality through a charter certificate, issued by a duly registered federation or national union and reported to

the Regional Office in accordance with Rule III, Section 2-E of these Rules. 51

Republic Act No. 9481 or "An Act Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional Right to Self-Organization, Amending

for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the

Philippines" lapsed 52 into law on 25 May 2007 and became effective on 14 June 2007. 53 This law further

amends the Labor Code provisions on Labor Relations.

Pertinent amendments read as follows:

SEC. 1. Article 234 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the

Philippines, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. A federation, national union or industry or trade union center or an

independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law

to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following

requirements:

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

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the

organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least twenty

percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

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

15

(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and

the list of the members who participated in it.

SEC. 2. A new provision is hereby inserted into the Labor Code as Article 234-A to read as follows:

ART. 234-A. Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. A duly registered federation or national union may

directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter.

The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election from the

date it was issued a charter certificate.

The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization only upon the

submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate:

(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the chapter; and TAacHE

(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's constitution and by-laws are the

same as that of the federation or the national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.

The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the chapter

and attested by its president. (Emphasis ours.)ICTaEH

Article 234 now includes the term trade union center, but interestingly, the provision indicating the procedure for

chartering or creating a local or chapter, namely Article 234-A, still makes no mention of a "trade union

center." IDaEHC

Also worth emphasizing is that even in the most recent amendment of the implementing rules, 54 there was no

mention of a trade union center as being among the labor organizations allowed to charter. ISaCTE

This Court deems it proper to apply the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Under this maxim of

statutory interpretation, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. When certain persons or things

are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. If a

statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other

exceptions or effects are excluded. 55 Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by

interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. 56 Such is the case here. If its intent were

otherwise, the law could have so easily and conveniently included "trade union centers" in identifying the labor

organizations allowed to charter a chapter or local. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded

therefrom, and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute

cannot be placed therein. 57 The rule is restrictive in the sense that it proceeds from the premise that the

legislating body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its

meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. 58 Expressium facit cessare tacitum. 59 What is

expressed puts an end to what is implied. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object or thing

omitted must have been omitted intentionally. aSTcCE

Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor

organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union,

then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly. DAEaTS

The ruling of this Court in the instant case is not a departure from the policy of the law to foster the free and

voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement, 60 and thus assure the rights of workers to self-

organization. 61 The mandate of the Labor Code in ensuring strict compliance with the procedural requirements

for registration is not without reason. It has been observed that the formation of a local or chapter becomes a

handy tool for the circumvention of union registration requirements. Absent the institution of safeguards, it

becomes a convenient device for a small group of employees to foist a not-so-desirable federation or union on

unsuspecting co-workers and pare the need for wholehearted voluntariness, which is basic to free

16

unionism. 62 As a legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor Code and involved in

activities directly affecting public interest, it is necessary that the law afford utmost protection to the parties

affected. 63 However, as this Court has enunciated in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary of

Department of Labor and Employment, it is not this Court's function to augment the requirements prescribed by

law. Our only recourse, as previously discussed, is to exact strict compliance with what the law provides as

requisites for local or chapter formation. 64

In sum, although PDMP as a trade union center is a legitimate labor organization, it has no power to directly

create a local or chapter. Thus, SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created under the more lenient requirements for

chartering, but must have complied with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an independent

union, including the 20% membership requirement.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 09 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-

GR SP No. 66200 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Certificate of Registration of San Miguel Packaging Products

Employees UnionPambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino is ORDERED CANCELLED, and SMPPEU-PDMP

DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

||| (San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-PDMP, G.R.

No. 171153, [September 12, 2007], 559 PHIL 549-576)

Individual authorization of employee mandatory/Payment of Attorneys fees

[G.R. No. 149763. July 7, 2009.]

EDUARDO J. MARIO, JR., MA. MELVYN P. ALAMIS, NORMA P. COLLANTES, and FERNANDO

PEDROSA, petitioners, vs. GIL Y. GAMILLA, RENE LUIS TADLE, NORMA S. CALAGUAS, MA. LOURDES

C. MEDINA, EDNA B. SANCHEZ, REMEDIOS GARCIA, MAFEL YSRAEL, ZAIDA GAMILLA, and AURORA

DOMINGO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J p:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, are (1) the

Decision 2 dated 16 March 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60657, dismissing petitioners' Petition

for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and (2) the Resolution 3 dated 30 August 2001 of the

appellate court in the same case denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

I

FACTS

The Petition at bar arose from the following factual and procedural antecedents.

(1)Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022

At the time when the numerous controversies in the instant case first came about, petitioners Atty. Eduardo J.

Mario, Jr., Ma. Melvyn P. Alamis, Norma P. Collantes, and Fernando Pedrosa were among the executive officers

and directors (collectively called the Mario Group) of the University of Sto. Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU), a

labor union duly organized and registered under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and the bargaining

representative of the faculty members of the University of Santo Tomas (UST). 4

17

Respondents Gil Y. Gamilla, Rene Luis Tadle, Norma S. Calaguas, Ma. Lourdes C. Medina, Edna B. Sanchez,

Remedios Garcia, Mafel Ysrael, Zaida Gamilla, and Aurora Domingo were UST professors and USTFU members.

The 1986 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between UST and USTFU expired on 31 May 1988. Thereafter,

bargaining negotiations ensued between UST and the Mario Group, which represented USTFU. As the parties

were not able to reach an agreement despite their earnest efforts, a bargaining deadlock was declared and

USTFU filed a notice of strike. Subsequently, then Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment

(DOLE) Franklin Drilon assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, which was docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-02-117-89.

The DOLE Secretary issued an Order on 19 October 1990, laying the terms and conditions for a new CBA

between the UST and USTFU. In accordance with said Order, the UST and USTFU entered into a CBA in 1991,

which was to be effective for the period of 1 June 1988 to 31 May 1993 (hereinafter 1988-1993 CBA). In keeping

with Article 253-A 5 of the Labor Code, as amended, the economic provisions of the 1988-1993 CBA were

subject to renegotiation for the fourth and fifth years.

Accordingly, on 10 September 1992, UST and USTFU executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), 6 whereby

UST faculty members belonging to the collective bargaining unit were granted additional economic benefits for

the fourth and fifth years of the 1988-1993 CBA, specifically, the period from 1 June 1992 up to 31 May 1993.

The relevant portions of the MOA read:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

xxx xxx xxx

1.0.The University hereby grants additional benefits to Faculty Members belonging to the collective bargaining

unit as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the parties

herein over and above the benefits now enjoyed by the said faculty members, which additional benefits shall

amount in the aggregate to P42,000,000.00[.]

2.0.Under this Agreement the University shall grant salary increases, to wit:

2.1.THIRTY (P30.00) PESOS per lecture unit per month to covered faculty members retroactive to June 1,

1991;

2.2.Additional THIRTY (P30.00) PESOS per lecture unit per month on top of the salary increase granted in

[paragraph] 2.1 hereof to the said faculty members effective June 1, 1992;

2.3.In the case of a covered faculty member whose compensation is computed on a basis other than lecture

unit per month, he shall receive salary increases that are equivalent to those provided in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2

hereof, with the amount of salary increases being arrived at by using the usual method of computing the said

faculty member's basic pay;

3.0.The UNIVERSITY shall likewise restore to the faculty members the amounts corresponding to the

deductions in salary that were taken from the pay checks in the second half of June, 1989 and in the first half of

July, 1989, provided that said deductions in salary relate to the union activities that were held in the aforestated

payroll periods, and provided further that the amounts involved shall be taken from the P42 Million (sic)

economic package.

4.0.A portion of the P42,000,000.00 economic package amounting to P2,000,000.00 shall be used to satisfy all

obligations that remained outstanding and unpaid in the May 17, 1986 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

5.0.Any unspent balance of the aggregate of P42,000,000.00 as of October 15, 1992, shall, within two weeks, be

remitted to the Union[:] CSTDIE

5.1.The unspent balance mentioned in paragraph 5.0 inclusive of earnings but exclusive of check-offs, shall be

used for the salary increases herein granted up to May 31, 1993, for increases in hospitalization, educational and

retirement benefits, and for other economic benefits.

18

6.0.The benefits herein granted constitute the entire and complete package of economic benefits granted by the

UNIVERSITY to the covered faculty members for the balance of the term of the existing collective bargaining

agreement.

7.0.It is clearly understood and agreed upon that the aggregate sum of P42 million is chargeable

against the share of the faculty members in the incremental proceeds of tuition fees collected and

still to be collected; Provided, however, that he (sic) commitment of the UNIVERSITY to pay the aggregate

sum of P42 million shall subsist even if the said amount exceeds the proportionate share that may accrue to the

faculty members in the tuition fee increases that the UNIVERSITY may be authorized to collect in School-Year

1992-1993, and, Provided, finally, that the covered faculty members shall still be entitled to their proportionate

share in any undistributed portion of the incremental proceeds of the tuition fee increases in School-Year 1992-

1993, and incremental proceeds are, by law and pertinent Department of Education Culture and

Sports (DECS) regulations, required to be allotted for the payment of salaries, wages, allowances

and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel for the UNIVERSITY.

8.0.With this Agreement, the parties confirm that[:]

8.1.the University has complied with the requirements of the law relative to the release and distribution of the

incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases as these incremental proceeds pertain to the faculty share in the

tuition fee increase collected during the School-Year 1991-1992; and,

8.2.the economic benefits herein granted constitute the full and complete financial obligation of the UNIVERSITY

to the members of its faculty for the period June 1, 1991 to May 31, 1993, pursuant to the provisions of the

existing Collective Bargaining Agreement.

9.0.Subject to the provisions of law, and without reducing the amounts of salary increases granted under

paragraphs 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3[,] the UNION shall have theright to a pro-rata lump sum check-off of all

sums of money due and payable to it from the package of economic benefits granted under this Agreement,

provided that there is an authorization of a majority of the members of the UNION and provided, further, that

the P42 million economic package herein granted shall not in any way be exceeded. IEAacS

10.0.This Agreement shall be effective for a period of two (2) years, starting June 1, 1991 and ending on May

31, 1993, provided, however, that if for any reason no new collective bargaining agreement is entered into at

the expiration date hereof, this Agreement, together with the March 18, 1991 Collective Bargaining Agreement,

shall remain in full force and effect until such time as a new collective bargaining agreement shall have been

executed by the parties.

xxx xxx xxx

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASUST FACULTY UNION

BY:BY:

(signed)(signed)

FR. TERESO M. CAMPILLO, JR., O.P.ATTY. EDUARDO J.

TreasurerMARINO, JR.

President

Attested by[:]

(signed)

REV. FR. ROLANDO DELA ROSA, O.P. (Emphasis ours.)

On 12 September 1992, the majority of USTFU members signed individual instruments of ratification, 7 which

purportedly signified their consent to the economic benefits granted under the MOA. Said instruments uniformly

recited:

19

RATIFICATION OF THE UST-USTFU MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 GRANTING A

PACKAGE OF THE P42 MILLION FACULTY BENEFITS WITH PROVISION FOR CHECK-OFF.

September 12, 1992

Date

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I, the undersigned UST faculty member, aware that the law requires ratification and that without ratification by

majority of all faculty members belonging to the collective bargaining unit, the Memorandum of Agreement

between the University of Santo Tomas and the UST Faculty Union (or USTFU) dated September 10, 1992 may

be questioned and all the faculty benefits granted therein may be cancelled, do hereby ratify the said

agreement.

Under the Agreement, the University shall pay P42 million over a period of two (2) years from June 1, 1991 up

to May 31, 1992. ITDSAE

In consideration of the efforts of the UST Faculty Union as the faculty members' sole and exclusive collective

bargaining representative in obtaining the said P42 million package of economic benefits, a check-off of ten

percent thereof covering union dues, and special assessment for Labor Education Fund and

attorney's fees from USTFU members and agency fee from non-members for the period of the

Agreement is hereby authorized to be made in one lump sum effective immediately, provided that two per cent

(sic) shall be for [the] administration of the Agreement and the balance of eight per cent (sic) shall be for

attorney's fees to be donated, as pledged by the USTFU lawyer to the Philippine Foundation for the

Advancement of the Teaching Profession, Inc. whose principal purpose is the advancement of the teaching

profession and teacher's welfare, and provided further that the deductions shall not be taken from my individual

monthly salary but from the total package of P42 million due under the Agreement.

_________________________

Signature of Faculty Member (Emphasis ours.)

USTFU, through its President, petitioner Atty. Mario, wrote a letter 8 dated 1 October 1992 to the UST

Treasurer requesting the release to the union of the sum of P4.2 million, which was 10% of the P42 million

economic benefits package granted by the MOA to faculty members belonging to the collective bargaining unit.

The P4.2 million was sought by USTFU in consideration of its efforts in obtaining the said P42 million economic

benefits package. UST remitted the sum of P4.2 million to USTFU on 9 October 1992. 9

After deducting from the P42 million economic benefits package the P4.2 million check-off to USTFU, the

amounts owed to UST, and the salary increases and bonuses of the covered faculty members, a net amount of

P6,389,145.04 remained. The remaining amount was distributed to the faculty members on 18 November 1994.

On 15 December 1994, respondents 10 filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR), a

Complaint for the expulsion of the Mario Group as USTFU officers and directors, which was docketed as Case

No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022. 11 Respondents alleged in their Complaint that the Mario Group violated the

rights and conditions of membership in USTFU, particularly by: 1) investing the unspent balance of the P42

million economic benefits package given by UST without prior approval of the general membership; 2)

simultaneously holding elections viva voce; 3) ratifying the CBA involving the P42 million economic benefits

package; and 4) approving the attorney's/agency fees worth P4.2 million in the form of check-off. Respondents

prayed that the Mario Group be declared jointly and severally liable for refunding all collected attorney's/agency

fees from individual members of USTFU and the collective bargaining unit; and that, after due hearing, the

Mario group be expelled as USTFU officers and directors. SCHIac

(2)Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028

20

On 16 December 1994, UST and USTFU, represented by the Mario Group, entered into a new CBA, effective 1

June 1993 to 31 May 1998 (1993-1998 CBA). This new CBA was registered with the DOLE on 20 February 1995.

Respondents 12 filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, on 18 October 1995, another Complaint against the

Mario Group for violation of the rights and conditions of union membership, which was docketed as Case No.

NCR-OD-M-9510-028. 13 The Complaint primarily sought to invalidate certain provisions of the 1993-1998

CBA negotiated by the Mario Group for USTFU and the registration of said CBA with the DOLE.

(3)Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001

On 24 September 1996, petitioner Norma Collantes, as USTFU Secretary-General, posted notices in some faculty

rooms at UST, informing the union members of a general assembly to be held on 5 October 1996. Part of the

agenda for said date was the election of new USTFU officers. The following day, 25 September 1996,

respondents wrote a letter 14 to the USTFU Committee on Elections, urging the latter to re-schedule the

elections to ensure a free, clean, honest, and orderly election and to afford the union members the time to

prepare themselves for the same. The USTFU Committee on Elections failed to act positively on respondents'

letter, and neither did they adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations for the conduct of the scheduled

election.

Thus, on 1 October 1996, respondents 15 filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, an Urgent Ex-

Parte Petition/Complaint, which was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001. 16 Respondents alleged in

their Petition/Complaint that the general membership meeting called by the USTFU Board of Directors on 5

October 1996, the agenda of which included the election of union officers, was in violation of the provisions of

the Constitution and By-Laws of USTFU. Respondents prayed that the DOLE supervise the conduct of the USTFU

elections, and that they be awarded attorney's fees.

On 4 October 1996, the Med-Arbiter DOLE-NCR, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the

holding of the USTFU elections scheduled the next day.

(4)Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016

Also on 4 October 1996, the UST Secretary General headed a general faculty assembly attended by USTFU

members, as well as USTFU non-members, but who were members of the collective bargaining unit. During said

assembly, respondents were among the elected officers of USTFU (collectively referred to as the Gamilla Group).

Petitioners filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, a Petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the

results of the 4 October 1994 election. The Petition was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016. ITCHSa

In a Decision dated 11 February 1997 in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016, the Med-Arbiter DOLE-NCR, nullified the

election of the Gamilla Group as USTFU officers on 4 October 1996 for having been conducted in violation of the

Constitution and By-Laws of the union. This ruling of the Med-Arbiter was affirmed on appeal by the Bureau of

Labor Relations (BLR) in a Resolution issued on 15 August 1997. Respondents were, thus, prompted to file a

Petition for Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 131235.

While G.R. No. 131235 was pending, the term of office of the Gamilla Group as USTFU officers expired on 4

October 1999. The Gamilla Group then scheduled the next election of USTFU officers on 14 January 2000.

On 16 November 1999, the Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 131235, affirming the BLR Resolution

dated 15 August 1997 which ruled that the purported election of USTFU officers held on 4 October 1996 was

void for violating the Constitution and By-Laws of the union. 17

(5)Case No. NCR-OD-M-9611-009

On 15 November 1996, respondents 18 filed before the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, a fourth Complaint/Petition

against the Mario Group, as well as the Philippine Foundation for the Advancement of the Teaching Profession,

Inc., Security Bank Corporation, and Bank of the Philippine Islands, which was docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-

M-9611-009. 19 Respondents claimed in their latest Complaint/Petition that they were the legitimate USTFU

21

officers, having been elected on 4 October 1996. They prayed for an order directing the Mario Group to cease

and desist from using the name of USTFU and from performing acts for and on behalf of the USTFU and the rest

of the members of the collective bargaining unit. THIAaD

DOLE Department Order No. 9 took effect on 21 June 1997, amending the Rules Implementing Book V of the

Labor Code, as amended. Thereunder, jurisdiction over the complaints for any violation of the union constitution

and by-laws and the conditions of union membership was vested in the Regional Director of the

DOLE. 20 Pursuant to said Department Order, all four Petitions/Complaints filed by respondents against the

Mario Group, particularly, Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022, Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028, Case No. NCR-OD-M-

9610-001, and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9611-009 were consolidated and indorsed to the Office of the Regional

Director of the DOLE-NCR.

On 27 May 1999, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director rendered a Decision 21 in the consolidated cases in

respondents' favor.

In Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022 and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director adjudged

the Mario Group, as the executive officers of USTFU, guilty of violating the provisions of the USTFU Constitution

and By-laws by failing to collect union dues and to conduct a general assembly every three months. The DOLE-

NCR Regional Director also ruled that the Mario Group violated Article 241 (c) 22 and (l) 23 of the Labor Code

when they did not submit a list of union officers to the DOLE; when they did not submit/provide DOLE and the

USTFU members with copies of the audited financial statements of the union; and when they invested in a bank,

without prior consent of USTFU members, the sum of P9,766,570.01, which formed part of the P42 million

economic benefits package.

Additionally, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director declared that the check-off of P4.2 million collected by the Mario

Group, as negotiation fees, was invalid. According to the MOA executed on 10 September 1992 by UST and

USTFU, the P42 million economic benefits package was chargeable against the share of the faculty members in

the incremental proceeds of tuition fees collected and still to be collected. Under Republic Act No. 6728, 24 70%

of the tuition fee increases should be allotted to academic and non-academic personnel. Given that the records

were silent as to how much of the P42 million economic benefits package was obtained through negotiations and

how much was from the statutory allotment of 70% of the tuition fee increases, the DOLE-NCR Regional Director

held that the entire amount was within the statutory allotment, which could not be the subject of negotiation

and, thus, could not be burdened by negotiation fees.

The DOLE-NCR Regional Director further found that the principal subject of Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001

(i.e., violation by the Mario Group of the provisions on election of officers in the Labor Code and the USTFU

Constitution and By-Laws) had been superseded by the central event in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9611-009 (i.e., the

subsequent election of another set of USTFU officers consisting of the Gamilla Group). While there were two sets

of USTFU officers vying for legitimacy, the eventual ruling of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, for the expulsion

of the Mario Group from their positions as USTFU officers, practically extinguished Case No. NCR-OD-M-9611-

009. EacHSA

The decretal portion of the 27 May 1999 Decision of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

a)Expelling [the Mario Group] from their positions as officers of USTFU, and hereby order them under pain of

contempt, to cease and desist from performing acts as such officers;

b)Ordering [the Mario Group] to jointly and severally refund to USTFU the amount of P4.2 M checked-off as

attorney's fees from the P42 M economic package;

c)Ordering [the Mario Group] to account for:

22

c.1.P2.0 M paid to USTFU in satisfaction of the remaining obligation of the University under the 1986 CBA;

c.2.P7.0 M as consideration of the Compromise Agreement entered into by USTFU involving certain labor cases;

c.3.Interest/earnings of the P9,766,570.01 balance of the P42 M invested/deposited by [the Mario Group] with

the PCI Capital Corporation.

d)Ordering conduct of election of Union officers under the supervision of this Department. 25

Petitioners interposed an appeal 26 before the BLR, which was docketed as BLR-A-TR-52-25-10-99.

In the meantime, the election of USTFU officers was held as scheduled on 14 January 2000, 27 in which the

Gamilla Group claimed victory. 28 On 3 March 2000, the Gamilla group, as the new USTFU officers, entered into

a Memorandum of Agreement 29 with the UST, which provided for the economic benefits to be granted to the

faculty members of the UST for the years 1999-2001. Said Agreement was ratified by the USTFU members on 9

March 2000.

On the same day, 9 March 2000, the BLR promulgated its Decision 30 in BLR-A-TR-52-25-10-99, the fallo of

which provides:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, the decision appealed from is

hereby MODIFIED to the effect that appellant USTFU officers are hereby ordered to return to the general

membership the amount of P4.2 million they have collected by way of attorney's fees.

Let the entire records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of

election of officers of USTFU. The election shall be held under the control and supervision of the Regional Office,

in accordance with Section 1 (b), Rule XV of Department Order No. 9, unless the parties mutually agree to a

different procedure consistent with ensuring integrity and fairness in the electoral exercise. TSEHcA

The BLR found no basis for the order of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director to the Mario Group to account for the

amounts of P2 million and P7 million supposedly paid by UST to USTFU. The BLR clarified that UST paid USTFU a

lump sum of P7 million. The P2 million of this lump sum was the payment by UST of its outstanding obligations

to USTFU under the 1986 CBA. This amount was subsequently donated by USTFU members to the Philippine

Foundation for the Advancement of the Teaching Profession, Inc. The remaining P5 million of the lump sum was

the consideration for the settlement of an illegal dismissal case between UST and the Mario Group. Hence, the

P5 million legally belonged to the Mario Group, and there was no need to make it account for the same. As to

the interest earnings of the sum of P9,766,570.01 that was invested by the Mario Group in a bank, the BLR

ruled that the same was included in the amount of P6,389,145.04 that was distributed to the faculty members

on 18 November 1994.

The BLR, however, agreed in t