Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28812:g-r-nos-76579-82-august-31,-1988-benedicto-rodriguez,-v-dir-bureau-of-labor-relations,-et-al&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:46:36+00:00

Document:
BENEDICTO RODRIGUEZ, etc., Petitioner, v. HON. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, CARLOS GALVADORES and LIVI MARQUEZ, Respondents.
REY C. SUMANGIL, VIRGILIO V. HERNANDEZ, Et Al., Petitioners, v. MANOLITO PARAN, ROSALINDA DE GUZMAN, FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., and HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Respondents.
Conrado Leaño for petitioner in G.R No. 76579-82 and private respondent in G.R. No. 80504.
King and Adorio Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. No. L-80504. .
Potenciano Flores for private respondent Marquez in G.R. No. 76579-82.
1.	LABOR LAW; LABOR ORGANIZATION; ELECTION OF UNION OFFICERS HELD INVALID; CASE AT BAR. — The provincial elections for union officers were moved to a later date without prior notice to all voting members and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor. The elections in Metro Manila were conducted under no better circumstances, were held in defiance of the temporary restraining order issued on July 23, 1986 despite previous notice of said order to all parties concerned. Said elections must therefor be rendered void. The claim that a heavy voter turn-out of 73%, even if true cannot purge the elections of their grave defects. Besides, the protected right of workers to self-organization would be diluted if the election of the officers who will govern their affairs is not fairly and honestly conducted.
2.	ID.; ID.; FILING OF COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS; ASSENT OF 30% OF UNION MEMBERSHIP, NOT MANDATORY. — Art 242 of the Labor Code provides that a report of any violation of rights or conditions in union membership maybe made by at least 30% of all members concerned. The provision uses the permissive "may" which negates the notion that the 30% assent of all members is mandatory. Further, the 30% assent of union members is not a factor in determining the jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations.
3.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES BY THE LABOR RELATIONS DIRECTOR, PROPER. — The petition to nullify the 1986 union elections could not be deemed defective because it did not have the assent of 30% of the union membership. The petition clearly involved an intra-union conflict — one directly affecting the right of suffrage of more than 800 union members and the integrity of the union elections — over which, as the law explicitly provides, jurisdiction could be assumed by the Labor Relations Director or the Med-Arbiters "at their own initiative" or "upon request of either or both parties." The Med-Arbiter and the Labor Relations Director over the cases at bar was entirely proper. It was in fact their duty to do so, given the facts presented to them.
4.	ID.; ID.; RESOLUTION ALLOWING INCREASE IN UNION DUES, ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. — Concerning the increase of union dues, the respondent Director found that the resolution of the union’s Legislative Council to this effect does not bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council, contrary to the requirement of the union constitution and by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of the resolution by a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite called and conducted for that purpose, again in violation of the constitution and by-laws. The resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be struck down, as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. The collection of union dues at the increased rates must be discontinued; and the dues thus far improperly collected — refunded to the union members or held in trust for disposition by them in accordance with their charter and rules, in line with this Court’s ruling in a parallel situation (San Miguel Corporation v. Noriel, 103 SCRA 185).
Assailed by the petitioners in G.R. No. 76579-82 are (1) the decision dated October 10, 1986 of the Director of Labor Relations (BLR) annulling the elections of officers of the labor union above mentioned, FTWU, and (2) the resolution dated October 30, 1986, denying their motion for reconsideration of the decision.
The union’s by-laws provide for the election of officers every three (3) years, in the month of July. Pursuant thereto, the union’s Legislative Council set the provincial elections for its officers on July 14 to 18, 1986, and those for Metro Manila on July 25, 1986.
Although the increased fees were paid in due course by the candidates, no less than two complaints were filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations for their invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and arbitrary. One, docketed as Case No. LRD-M-7-503-86, was presented by Rey Sumangil, a candidate for president, and the members of his slate. The other, Case No. LRD-M-7-504-86, was filed by Carlos Galvadores, also a presidential candidate, and his group. Impleaded as respondents in both complaints were Benedicto Rodriguez, the Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the union, and the incumbent union officers, headed by the president, Manolito Paran. Acting on the complaints, the Med-Arbiter issued on July 8, 1986 a restraining order against the enforcement of the new rates of fees.
It appears that notwithstanding the cases questioning the candidates’ fees, the elections for the provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain areas of Luzon were nevertheless held on July 21 and 22, 1986, which are dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council (i.e., July 14 to 18, 1986). The validity of the elections was very shortly challenged on the ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2) adequate ground rules. Carlos Galvadores and his fellow candidates filed on July 22, 1986 a petition with the BLR, docketed as Case No. LRD-M-7557-86, praying that the Union’s COMELEC be directed to promulgate ground rules for the conduct of the provincial elections. On the day following, Livi Marquez, a candidate for vice-president, together with other candidates in his ticket, filed another petition against the same Union COMELEC and Manolito Paran, the union president - docketed as Case No. LRD-M-7-559-86 - seeking to restrain the holding of the elections scheduled on July 25, 1986 in the Metro Manila are until (1) ground rules therefor had been formulated and made known to all members of the labor organization, and (2) the issue of the filing fees had been finally decided. In connection with these complaints, a temporary restraining order was issued on July 23, 1986 prohibiting the holding of elections on July 25, 1986.
Livi Marquez and Carlos Galvadores, and their respective groups, forthwith filed separate motions praying that the COMELEC be declared guilty of contempt for defying the temporary restraining order, and for the nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections of July 25, 1986 but also the provincial elections of July 21 and 22, 1986.
The four (4) cases were jointly decided by Med-Arbiter Rasidali Abdullah on August 28, 1986. His judgment denied the petitions to nullify the elections, as well as the motion for contempt, but invalidated the increase in rates of filing fees for certificates of candidacies. The judgment accorded credence to the Union COMELEC’s averment that it had not received the restraining order on time. It took account, too, of the fact that the turn-out of voters was 73%, much higher than the turn-out of 62% to 63% in prior elections, which fact, in the Med-Arbiter’s view was a clear manifestation of the union members’ desire to go ahead with the elections and express their will therein.
"The undue haste with which the questioned general elections were held raises doubts as to its validity. In its desire to conduct the elections as scheduled, the respondents unwittingly disregarded mandatory procedural requirements. The respondents’ pretensions that the appellants were duly furnished with the ground rules/guidelines of the general elections and that the same were properly disseminated to the qualified voters of the union are not supported by the records.
"Moreover, the Union’s Comelec did not follow the schedule of election outlined in the guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines fixed the elections in Visayas-Mindanao on July 14, 16 and 18, 1986, in Northern Luzon, on July 16, 17, 18 and 21, 1986 and in Southern Luzon on July 16,17 and 18,1986 (records, pp. 67-70). Surprisingly, however, the Union’s Comelec conducted the elections in Northern and Southern Luzon on July 21, and 22, 1986 and in Visayas-Mindanao on July 25, 1986 without proper notice to the appellants.
"Accordingly, the unwarranted failure of the Union’s Comelec to duly furnish the appellants the guidelines and properly disseminate the same to the voters, and the holding of the elections not in accordance with the schedule set by the guidelines and in open defiance of the July 23, 1986 Restraining Order, precipitated an uncalled for confusion among the appellants’ supporters and unduly prevented them from adopting the appropriate electoral safeguards to protect their interests. Under the circumstances, this Office is constrained to invalidate the general elections held on July 21, 22 and 25, 1986 and declare the results thereof null and void.
"Furthermore, only 6,903 out of the 9,426 qualified voters trooped to the polls during the July 21, 22 and 25, 1986 general elections. Considering the closeness of the result of the elections, the 2,056 qualified voters, if they were able to cast their votes, could have drastically altered the results of the elections. But more important, the disenfranchisement of the remaining 27% qualified voters is a curtailment of Trade Unionism implicitly ordained in the worker’s right to self-organization explicitly protected by the Constitution.
It is this decision of the BLR Officer-in-Charge which is the subject of the certiorari actions filed in this Court by Benedicto Rodriguez, the chairman of the Union COMELEC, and docketed as G.R. Nos. 76579-82. He claims the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion considering that (a) the Med-Arbiter had found no fraud or irregularity in the elections; (b) the election was participated in by more than 73% of the entire union membership; and (c) the petition for nullity was not supported by 30% of the general membership.
The terms of office of the old officers (Manolito Paran, Et. Al.) ended in August, 1986. However, the new set of officers (headed by the same Manolito Paran) apparently could not assume office under a new term because of the proceedings assailing the validity of the elections pending before the Bureau of Labor Relations. What happened was that the old officers continued to exercise the functions of their respective offices under the leadership of Manolito Paran.
On January 17, 1987, the Legislative Council of the union passed a resolution which generated another controversy. That resolution increased the amount of the union dues from P21.00 to P50.00 a month. It was then presented to the general membership for ratification at a referendum called for the purpose. Rey Sumangil and his followers objected to the holding of the referendum. When their objection went unheeded, they and their supporters, all together numbering 829 or so, boycotted the referendum and formally reiterated their protest against it. Subsequently the union officers announced that the referendum has resulted in a ratification of the increased union dues.
On March 1, 1987 Manolito Paran requested the PLDT to deduct the union dues at the new, increased rates, from the salaries of all union members and dispense with their individual written authorizations therefor. PLDT acceded to the request and effected the check-off of the increased dues for the payroll period from March 1 to March 15, 1987.
Again Sumangil and his group went up on appeal to the Director of Labor Relations, before whom they raised the issue of whether or not the petition in fact had the support of at least 30% of the members, and said 30%-support was indeed a condition sine qua non for acquisition by the Med-Arbiters (in the Labor Relations Division in a Regional Office of the MOLE) of jurisdiction over the case. Again Sumangil and his followers were successful in their appeal.
As regards Article 242 of the Labor Code, relied upon by the Med-Arbiter, the Director expressed the new that the 30%-support therein provided is not mandatory, and is not a condition precedent to the valid presentation of a grievance before the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Director ruled, finally, that Sumangil and the other union members had a valid grievance calling for redress, since the record disclosed no compliance with the requirement that the resolution for the increase of union dues be passed by at least 2/3 vote of the members of the Legislative Council and be ratified by a majority of the entire membership at a plebiscite.
"The rationale for such requirement is not difficult to discern. It is to make certain that there is a prima facie case against prospective respondents whether it be the union/or its officers and thus forestall nuisance or harassment petitions complaints. The requirement was intended to shield the union from destabilization and paralyzation coming from adventurous and ambitious members or non-members engaged in union politics under the guise of working for the union welfare.
In an effort to set aside this reversing resolution of the Labor Relations Director, Rey Sumangil and his group have come to this Court via the instant special civil action of certiorari. In their petition they insist that the support of 30% of the union membership is not a jurisdictional requirement for the ventilation of their grievance before the BLR, and assuming the contrary, they have proven that 3,501 workers had in fact joined in the petition, constituting 33% of the total membership. They also emphasize the validity of their grievance, drawing attention to the absence of the requisite 2/3 vote essential for validity of any resolution increasing the rates of union dues, and the doubtful result of the referendum at which the resolution had allegedly been ratified.
Three issues are thus presented to the Court in these cases. The first involves the validity of the 1986 general elections for union officers; the second, whether or not 30%-membership support is indispensable for acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations of a complaint for alleged violation of rights and conditions of union members; and third, the validity of the increase in union dues.
A review of the record fails to disclose any grave abuse of discretion tainting the adjudgment of respondent Director of Labor Relations that the general elections for union officers held in 1986 were attended by grave irregularities, rendering the elections invalid. That finding must thus be sustained.
The dates for provincial elections were set for July 14 to 18, 1986. But they were in fact held on July 21 to 22, 1986, without prior notice to all voting members, and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor. The elections in Metro Manila were conducted under no better circumstances. It was held on July 25, 1986 in disregard and in defiance of the temporary restraining order properly issued by the Med-Arbiter on July 23, 1986, notice of which restraining order had been regularly served on the same date, as the proofs adequately show, on both the Union, President, Manolito Paran, and the Chairman of the Union COMELEC, Benedicto Rodriguez. Moreover, as in the case of the provincial elections, there were no ground rules or guidelines set for the Metro Manila elections. Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and absence of notice of the dates of balloting, thus attended the elections in the provinces and in Metro Manila. They cannot but render the proceedings void.
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." 4 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." There can thus be no question about the capacity of Rey Sumangil and his group of more than eight hundred, to report and seek redress in an intra-union conflict involving a matter they are specially concerned, i.e., the rates of union dues being imposed on them.
"The labor officials should not hesitate to enforce strictly the law and regulations governing trade unions even if that course of action would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference.
"For the protection of union members and in order that the affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor officials should be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs.
"Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and regulating the activities of union officials would result in corruption and oppression. Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored or swept aside by abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union officials to the prejudice of the members.
WHEREFORE, in G.R. Nos. 76579-82, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, no grave abuse of discretion or other serious error having been shown in the decision of the respondent Director of Labor Relations, said decision — ordering the holding of new elections for officers of the Free Telephone Workers Union — being on the contrary in accord with the facts and the law, but in the G.R. No. 80504, the petition for certiorari is granted, the challenged order dated October 1, 1987 is set aside, and the decision of July 1, 1987 of the Labor Relations Director reinstated, modified only as to the treatment of the excess collections which shall be disposed of in the manner herein indicated. Costs against petitioner in G.R. Nos. 7657982 and private respondents (except the PLDT) in G.R. No. 80504.
3.	Pasudeco v. BLR, 101 SCRA 732.
5.	Duyag v. Inciong, 98 SCRA 522, 533.
6.	Resolution No. 87-02, January 17, 1987.
7.	San Miguel Corporation v. Noriel, 103 SCRA 185.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 Art 242
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.