779 Phil.

96 the union dues, petitioner and several others violated Section 1(g), Article IX of the
MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws.[7] In turn, Borela referred the charge to the MWEU
grievance committee for investigation.
SECOND DIVISION
On May 21, 2007, a notice of hearing was sent to petitioner, who attended the
scheduled hearing. On June 6, 2007, the MWEU grievance committee recommended
[ G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016 ] that petitioner be suspended for 30 days.

ALLAN M. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICERS OF MANILA In a June 20, 2007 letter,[8] Borela informed petitioner and his corespondents of the
WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU), NAMELY, EDUARDO B.
MWEU Executive Board's "unanimous approval"[9] of the grievance committee's
BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, ELIZABETH COMETA,
recommendation and imposition upon them of a penalty of 30 days suspension,
ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA, SOLEDAD YEBAN, LUIS
effective June 25, 2007.
RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO, TERESITA BOLO, ROGELIO
BARBERO, JOSE CASAÑAS, ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO FERNANDEZ,
ROSITA BUENAVENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO, ADELA IMANA, In a June 26, 2007 letter[10] to Borela, petitioner and Ms co-respondents took
MARIO MANCENIDO, WILFREDO MANDILAG, ROLANDO MANLAPAZ, exception to the imposition and indicated their intention to appeal the same to the
EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON PAGULAYAN, CARLOS VILLA, RIC General Membership Assembly in accordance with Section 2(g), Article V of the union's
BRIONES, AND CHITO BERNARDO, RESPONDENTS. Constitution and By-Laws,[11] which grants them the right to appeal any arbitrary
resolution, policy and rule promulgated by the Executive Board to the General
DECISION Membership Assembly. In a June 28, 2007 reply,[12] Borela denied petitioner's appeal,
stating that the prescribed period for appeal had expired.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the April 24, 2012 Decision[2] of the Petitioner and his co-respondents sent another letter[13] on July 4, 2007, reiterating
their arguments and demanding that the General Membership Assembly be convened in
Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari[3] in CA-G.R.SP No.
order that their appeal could be taken up. The letter was not acted upon.
115639.

Petitioner was once more charged with non-payment of union dues, and was required
Factual Antecedents
to attend an August 3, 2007 hearing.[14] Thereafter, petitioner was again penalized
Petitioner was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU), a Department with a 30-day suspension through an August 21, 2007 letter[15] by Borela informing
of Labor and Employment (DOLE)-registered labor organization consisting of rank-and- petitioner of the Executive Board's "unanimous approval"[16] of the grievance
file employees within Manila Water Company (MWC). The respondents herein named - committee recommendation to suspend him effective August 24, 2007, to which he
Eduardo B. Borela (Borela), Buenaventura Quebral (Quebral), Elizabeth Cometa submitted a written reply,[17] invoking his right to appeal through the convening of the
(Cometa), Alejandro Torres (Torres), Amorsolo Tierra (Tierra), Soledad Yeban (Yeban), General Membership Assembly. However, the respondents did not act on petitioner's
Luis Rendon (Rendon), Virginia Apilado (Apilado), Teresita Bob (Bolo), Rogelio Barbero plea.
(Barbero), Jose Casañas (Casañas), Alfredo Maga (Maga), Emilio Fernandez
(Fernandez), Rosita Buenaventura (Buenaventura), Almenio Cancino (Cancino), Adela Meanwhile, MWEU scheduled an election of officers on September 14, 2007. Petitioner
Imana, Mario Mancenido (Mancenido), Wilfredo Mandilag (Mandilag), Rolando Manlapaz filed his certificate of candidacy for Vice-President, but he was disqualified for not being
(Manlapaz), Efren Montemayor (Montemayor), Nelson Pagulayan, Carlos Villa, Ric a member in good standing on account of his suspension.
Briones, and Chito Bernardo - were MWEU officers during the period material to this
Petition, with Borela as President and Chairman of the MWEU Executive Board, Quebral On October 2, 2007, petitioner was charged with non-payment of union dues for the
as First Vice-President and Treasurer, and Cometa as Secretary.[4] third time. He did not attend the scheduled hearing. This time, he was meted the
penalty of expulsion from the union, per "unanimous approval"[18] of the members of
In an April 11, 2007 letter,[5] MWEU through Cometa informed petitioner that the union the Executive Board. His pleas for an appeal to the General Membership Assembly were
was unable to fully deduct the increased P200.00 union dues from his salary due to lack once more unheeded.[19]
of the required December 2006 check-off authorization from him. Petitioner was
warned that his failure to pay the union dues would result in sanctions upon him. In 2008, during the freedom period and negotiations for a new collective bargaining
Quebral informed Borela, through a May 2,2007 letter,[6] that for such failure to pay agreement (CBA) with MWC, petitioner joined another union, the Workers Association
for Transparency, Empowerment and Reform, All-Filipino Workers Confederation On the basis of the foregoing, the parties shall exhaust first all the
(WATER-AFWC). He was elected union President. Other MWEU members were inclined administrative remedies before resorting to compulsory arbitration. Thus,
to join WATER-AFWC, but MWEU director Torres threatened that they would not get instant case is referred back to the Union for the General Assembly to act or
benefits from the new CBA.[20] deliberate complainant's appeal on the decision of the Executive Board.

The MWEU leadership submitted a proposed CBA which contained provisions to the WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, instant case is referred back to the;
effect that in the event of retrenchment, non-MWEU members shall be removed first, Union level for the General Assembly to act on complainant's appeal.
and that upon the signing of the CBA, only MWEU members shall receive a signing
bonus.[21] SO ORDERED.[28]

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

Petitioner appealed before the NLRC, where the case was docketed as NLRC LAC No.
On October 13,2008, petitioner filed a Complaint[22] against respondents for unfair
07-001913-09. On March 15, 2010, the NLRC issued its Decision,[29] declaring as
labor practices, damages, and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations
follows:
Commission (NLRC), Quezon City, docketed as NLRC Case No. NCR-10-14255-08. In his
Position Paper and other written submissions,[23] petitioner accused the respondents of Complainant[30] imputes serious error to the Labor Arbiter when she decided
illegal termination from MWEU in connection with the events relative to his non- as follows:
payment of union dues; unlawful interference, coercion, and violation of the rights of
MWC employees to self-organization - in connection with the proposed CBA submitted a. Referring back the subject case to the Union level for the
by MWEU leadership, which petitioner claims contained provisions that discriminated General Assembly to act on bis appeal.
against non-MWEU members. Petitioner prayed in his Supplemental Position Paper that
respondents be held guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered to indemnify him moral b. Not ruling that respondents are guilty of ULP as charged.
damages in the amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages amounting to
P50,000.00, and 10% attorney's fees. c. Not granting to complainant moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees.
In their joint Position Paper and other pleadings,[24] respondents claimed that the
Complainant, in support of his charges, claims that respondents restrained
Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the dispute, which is intra-union in nature; that
or coerced him in the exercise of his right as a union member in violation of
the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) was the proper venue, in accordance with Article
paragraph "a", Article 249 of the Labor Code,[31] particularly, in denying him
226 of the Labor Code[25] and Section 1, Rule XI of Department Order 40-03, series of
the explanation as to whether there was observance of the proper procedure
2003, of the DOLE;[26] and that they were not guilty of unfair labor practices, in the increase of the membership dues from P100.00 to P200.00 per
discrimination, coercion or restraint. month. Further, complainant avers that he was denied the right to appeal his
suspension and expulsion in accordance with the provisions of the Union's
On May 29, 2009, Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga issued her Decision[27] Constitution and By-Laws. In addition, complainant claims that respondents
which decreed as follows: attempted to cause the management to discriminate against the members of
WATER-AFWC thru the proposed CBA.
Indeed the filing of the instant case is still premature. Section 5, Article X-
Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process of the Union Constitution and
Pertinent to the issue then on hand, the Labor Arbiter ordered that the case
By-Laws provides that:
be referred back to the Union level for the General Assembly to act on
Section 5. Any dismissed and/or expelled member shall have the complainant's appeal. Hence, these appeals.
rights to appeal to the Executive Board within seven (7) days
from the date of notice of the said dismissal and/or expulsion, After a careful look at all the documents submitted and a meticulous review
which in [turn] shall be referred to the General Membership of the facts, We find that this Commission lacks the jurisdictional
Assembly. In case of an appeal, a simple majority of the decision competence to act on this case.
of the Executive Board is imperative. The same shall be
approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the general Article 217 of the Labor Code,[32] as amended, specifically enumerates the
membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the purpose. cases over which the Labor Arbiters and the Commission have original and
exclusive jurisdiction. A perusal of the record reveals that the causes of
 action invoked by complainant do not fall under any of the enumerations
therein. Clearly, We have no jurisdiction over the same. On April 24, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision containing the following
pronouncement:
Moreover, pursuant to Section 1, Rule XI, as amended, DOLE Department
Order No. 40-03 in particular, Item A, paragraphs (h) and (j) and Item B, The petition lacks merit.
paragraph (a)(3), respectively, provide:
Petitioner's causes of action against MWEU are inter/intra-union disputes
"A. Inter-Intra-Union disputes shall include: cognizable by the BLR whose functions and jurisdiction are largely confined
to union matters, collective bargaining registry, and labor education. Section
"(h) violation of or disagreements over any provision of the 1, Rule XI of Department Order (D.O.) No. 40-03, Series of 2003, of the
Constitution and By-Laws of a Union or workers' association. Department of Labor and Employment enumerates instances of inter/intra-
union disputes, viz:
"(j) violation of the rights and conditions of membership in a
Union or workers' association. Section 1. Coverage. - Inter/intra-union disputes shall include:

"B. Other Labor Relations disputes, not otherwise covered by xxxx

Article 217 of the Labor Code, shall include -
(b) conduct of election of union and workers' association
"3. a labor union and an individual who is not a member of said officers/nullification of election of union and workers' association
union." officers;

Clearly, the above-mentioned disputes and conflict fall under the jurisdiction (c) audit/accounts examination of union or workers' association
of the Bureau of Labor Relations, as these are inter/intra-union disputes. funds;

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter a quo dated May 29, 2009 is xxxx
hereby declared NULL and VOID for being rendered without jurisdiction and
the instant complaint is DISMISSED. (g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union and
workers' association officers and members;
SO ORDERED.[33]
xxxx
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[34] but in a June 16, 2010 Resolution,[35] the
motion was denied and the NLRC sustained its Decision. (j) violations of or disagreements over any provision in a union or
workers' association constitution and by-laws;
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
xxxx
In a Petition for Certiorari[36] filed with the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
115639, petitioner sought to reverse the NLRC Decision and be awarded his claim for (l) violations of the rights and conditions of union or workers'
damages and attorney's fees on account of respondents' unfair labor practices, arguing association membership;
among others that his charge of unfair labor practices is cognizable by the Labor
Arbiter; that the fact that the dispute is inter- or intra-union in nature cannot erase the xxxx
fact that respondents were guilty of unfair labor practices in interfering and restraining
him in the exercise of his right to self-organization as member of both MWEU and (n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-
WATER-AFWC, and in discriminating against him and other members through the organization, union membership and collective bargaining -
provisions of the proposed 2008 CBA which they drafted; that his failure to pay the
increased union dues was proper since the approval of said increase was arrived at (1)between and among legitimate labor organizations;
without observing the prescribed voting procedure laid down in the Labor Code; that he (2)between and among members of a union or workers'
is entitled to an award of damages and attorney's fees as a result of respondents' association.
illegal acts in discriminating against him; and that in ruling the way it did, the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion.
In brief, "Inter-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and among meting out the penalty of expulsion against him alone, and attempt to cause
legitimate labor unions involving representation questions for purposes of the employer, MWC, to discriminate against non-MWEU members in terms of
collective bargaining or to any other conflict or dispute between legitimate retrenchment or reduction of personnel, and signing bonus, while We may
labor unions. "Intra-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and consider them as falling within the concept of ULP under Article 249(a) and
among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of (b), still, petitioner's complaint cannot prosper for lack of substantial
the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over evidence. Other than his bare allegation, petitioner offered no proof that
any provision of the union's constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising MWEU did not penalize some union members who failed to pay the increased
from chartering or affiliation of union. On the other hand, the circumstances dues. On the proposed discriminatory CBA provisions, petitioner merely
of unfair labor practices (ULP) of a labor organization are stated in Article attached the pages containing the questioned provisions without bothering
249 of the Labor Code, to wit: to reveal the MWEU representatives responsible for the said proposal. Article
249 mandates that "x x x only the officers, members of the governing
Article 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or
be unlawful for labor organization, its officers, agents, or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair
representatives to commit any of the following unfair labor labor practices shall be held criminally liable." Plain accusations against all
practices: MWEU officers, without specifying their actual participation, do not suffice.
Thus, the ULP charges must necessarily fail.
(a)To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization; Provided, That the labor In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is
organization shall have the right to prescribe its own necessary to establish the case for or against a party. Substantial evidence
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
membership;
as adequate to justify a conclusion. Petitioner failed to discharge the burden
(b)To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations of ULP in his complaint.
discriminate against an employee, including
The NLRC, therefore, properly dismissed the case.
discrimination against an employee with respect to
whom membership in such organization has been
denied or terminated on any ground other than the FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED.
usual terms and conditions under which membership or
continuation of membership is made available to other SO ORDERED.[39]
members;
Thus, the instant Petition.
xxxx
Issue
Applying the aforementioned rules, We find that the issues arising from
petitioner's right to information on the increased membership dues, right to In an August 28, 2013 Resolution,[40] this Court resolved to give due course to the
appeal his suspension and expulsion according to CBL provisions, and right Petition, which claims that the CA erred:
to vote and be voted on are essentially intra-union disputes; these involve
violations of rights ;and conditions of union membership. But his claim that A. IN DECLARING THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTER/INTRA-UNION
a director of MWEU warned that non-MWEU members would not receive CBA CONFLICTS NEGATES THE COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
benefits is an inter-union dispute. It is more of an "interference" by a rival AGAINST A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS OFFICERS, AND IN
union to ensure the loyalty of its members and to persuade non-members to AFFIRMING THAT THE NLRC PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CASE FOR
join their union. This is not an actionable wrong because interfering in the ALLEGED LACK OF JURISDICTION.
exercise of the right to organize is itself a function of self-organizing.[37] As
long as it does not amount to restraint or coercion, a labor organization may B. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR
interfere in the employees' right to self-organization.[38] Consequently, a PRACTICES UNDER ARTICLE 249(a) AND (b) OF THE LABOR CODE.
determination of validity or illegality of the alleged acts necessarily touches
on union matters, not ULPs, and are outside the scope of the labor arbiter's C. IN DECLARING THAT THE THREATS MADE BY A UNION OFFICER
jurisdiction. AGAINST MEMBERS OF A RIVAL UNION IS (sic) MERELY AN
"INTERFERENCE" AND DO NOT AMOUNT TO "RESTRAINT' OR
As regards petitioner's other accusations, i.e., discrimination in terms of "COERCION".
 D. IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL membership in good standing pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(a) of MWEU's
EVIDENCE IN PROVING RESPONDENTS' SPECIFIC ACTS OF UNFAIR Constitution and By-Laws or by a petition of the majority of the general membership in
LABOR PRACTICES. good standing under Article VI, Section 3; and that for his failure to resort to said
remedies, petitioner can no longer question his suspension or expulsion and avail of his
E. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE TO right to appeal.
PETITIONER FOR MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES.[41] Our Ruling

Petitioner's Arguments The Court partly grants the Petition.

Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that respondents be declared In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals and the CA to resolve, as this
guilty of unfair labor practices under Article 249(a) and (b) and adjudged liable for Court is not a trier of facts. However, when the conclusion arrived at by them is
damages and attorney's fees as prayed for in bis complaint, petitioner maintains in his erroneous in certain respects, and would result in injustice as to the parties, this Court
Petition and Reply[42] that respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices which he must intervene to correct the error. While the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in
clearly enumerated and laid out in his pleadings below; that these unfair labor practices their conclusion in this case, they erred in failing to resolve petitioner's charge of unfair
committed by respondents fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter; that the labor practices against respondents.
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA failed to rule on his accusation of unfair labor
practices and simply dismissed his complaint on the ground that his causes of action It is true that some of petitioner's causes of action constitute intra-union cases
are intra- or inter-union in nature; that admittedly, some of his causes of action cognizable by the BLR under Article 226 of the Labor Code.
involved intra- or inter-union disputes, but other acts of respondents constitute unfair
An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union
labor practices; that he presented substantial evidence to prove that respondents are
members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
guilty of unfair labor practices by failing to observe the proper procedure in the
conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of
imposition of the increased monthly union dues, and in unduly imposing the penalties
the union's constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or
of suspension and expulsion against him; that under the union's constitution and by-
disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order
laws, he is given the right to appeal his suspension and expulsion to the general
No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the following
membership assembly; that in denying him his rights as a union member and expelling
him, respondents are guilty of malice and evident bad faith; that respondents are circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes x x x.[44]
equally guilty for violating and curtailing his rights to vote and be voted to a position
However, petitioner's charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and
within the union, and for discriminating against non-MWEU members; and that the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code.
totality of respondents' conduct shows that they are guilty of unfair labor practices.
In addition, Article 247 of the same Code provides that "the civil aspects of all cases
involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary
Respondent's Arguments
and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters."
In their joint Comment,[43] respondents maintain that petitioner raises issues of fact
which are beyond the purview of a petition for review on certiorari; that the findings of Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer under Article 248 and
fact of the CA are final and conclusive; that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in
by labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor Code,[45] which provides as
declaring that there is no unfair labor practices committed against petitioner; that
follows:
petitioner's other allegations fall within the jurisdiction of the BLR, as they refer to
intra- or inter-union disputes between the parties; that the issues arising from ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair
petitioner's right to information on the increased dues, right to appeal his suspension labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or
and expulsion, and right to vote and be voted upon are essentially intra-union in representatives:
nature; that his allegations regarding supposed coercion and restraint relative to
benefits in the proposed CBA do not constitute an actionable wrong; that all of the acts (a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
questioned by petitioner are covered by Section 1, Rule XI of Department Order 40-03, organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe
series of 2003 as intra-/inter-union disputes which do not fall within the jurisdiction of its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;
the Labor Arbiter; that in not paying his union dues, petitioner is guilty of
insubordination and deserved the penalty of expulsion; that petitioner failed to petition (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
to convene the general assembly through the required signature of 30% of the union employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to
 whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an appeal to the Executive Board within seven days from notice of said dismissal and/or
employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under expulsion which, in [turn] shall be referred to the General membership assembly. In
which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other case of an appeal, a simple majority of the decision of the Executive Board is
members; imperative. The same shall be approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the general
membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the purpose."[49]
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer,
provided it is the representative of the employees; In regard to suspension of a union member, MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws provides
under Article X, Section 4 thereof that "[a]ny suspended member shall have the right to
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to appeal within three (3) working days from the date of notice of said suspension. In
pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an case of an appeal a simple majority of vote of the Executive Board shall be necessary to
exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, nullify the suspension."
including the demand for fee for union negotiations;
Thus, when an MWEU member is suspended, he is given the right to appeal such
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney's fees from employers as suspension within three working days from the date of notice of said suspension, which
part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other appeal the MWEU Executive Board is obligated to act upon by a simple majority vote.
dispute; or When the penalty imposed is expulsion, the expelled member is given seven days from
notice of said dismissal and/or expulsion to appeal to the Executive Board, which is
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. required to act by a simple majority vote of its members. The Board's decision shall
then be approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the general membership assembly
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers, in a meeting duly called for the purpose.
members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of
labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, The documentary evidence is clear that when petitioner received Borela's August 21,
authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (As 2007 letter informing him of the Executive Board's unanimous approval of the
amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981). grievance committee recommendation to suspend him for the second time effective
August 24, 2007, he immediately and timely filed a written appeal. However, the
Petitioner contends that respondents committed acts constituting unfair labor practices
Executive Board - then consisting of respondents Borela, Tierra, Bolo, Casañas,
- which charge was particularly laid out in his pleadings, but that the Labor Arbiter, the
Fernandez, Rendon, Montemayor, Torres, Quebral, Pagulayan, Cancino, Maga, Cometa,
NLRC, and the CA ignored it and simply dismissed his complaint on the ground that his
Mancenido, and two others who are not respondents herein - did not act thereon. Then
causes of action were intra- or inter-union in nature. Specifically, petitioner claims that
again, when petitioner was charged for the third time and meted the penalty of
he was suspended and expelled from MWEU illegally as a result of the denial of his right
expulsion from MWEU by the unanimous vote of the Executive Board, his timely appeal
to appeal his case to the general membership assembly in accordance with the union's
was again not acted upon by said board - this time consisting of respondents Borela,
constitution and bylaws. On the other hand, respondents counter that such charge is
Quebral, Tierra, Imana, Rendon, Yeban, Cancino, Torres, Montemayor, Mancenido,
intra-union in nature, and that petitioner lost his right to appeal when he failed to
Mandilag, Fernandez, Buenaventura, Apilado, Maga, Barbero, Cometa, Bolo, and
petition to convene the general assembly through the required signature of 30% of the
Manlapaz.
union membership in good standing pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(a) of MWEU's
Constitution and By-Laws or by a petition of the majority of the general membership in
Thus, contrary to respondents' argument that petitioner lost his right to appeal when
good standing under Article VI, Section 3.
he failed to petition to convene the general assembly through the required signature of
30% of the union membership in good standing pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(a) of
Under Article VI, Section 2(a) of MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws, the general
MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws or by a petition of the majority of the general
membership assembly has the power to "review revise modify affirm repeal [sic]
membership in good standing under Article VI, Section 3, this Court finds that
resolution and decision of the Executive Board and/or committees upon petition of
petitioner was illegally suspended for the second time and thereafter unlawfully
thirty percent (30%) of the Union in good standing,"[46] and under Section 2(d), to expelled from MWEU due to respondents' failure to act on his written appeals. The
"revise, modify, affirm or reverse all expulsion cases."[47] Under Section 3 of the same required petition to convene the general assembly through the required signature of
Article, "[t]he decision of the Executive Board may be appealed to the General 30% (under Article VI, Section 2[a]) or majority (under Article VI, Section 3) of the
Membership which by a simple majority vote reverse the decision of said body. If the union membership does not apply in petitioner's case; the Executive Board must first
general Assembly is not in session the decision of the Executive Board may be reversed act on his two appeals before the matter could properly be referred to the general
by a petition of the majority of the general membership in good standing."[48] And, in membership. Because respondents did not act on his two appeals, petitioner was
Article X, Section 5, "[a]ny dismissed and/or expelled member shall have the right to unceremoniously suspended, disqualified and deprived of his right to run for the
position of MWEU Vice-President in the September 14, 2007 election of officers,
expelled from MWEU, and forced to join another union, WATER-AFWC. For these, The right of self-organization-includes the right to organize or affiliate with a
respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices under Article 249 (a) and (b) - that is, labor union or determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to
violation of petitioner's right to self-organization, unlawful discrimination, and illegal join, and to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of
termination of his union membership - which case falls within the original and exclusive collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, in accordance with Article 217 of the Labor Code. their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or
enhancement of their rights and interests.[53]
The primary concept of unfair labor practices is stated in Article 247 of the Labor Code,
which states: As members of the governing board of MWEU, respondents are presumed to know,
observe, and apply the union's constitution and by-laws. Thus, their repeated
Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution violations, thereof and their disregard of petitioner's rights as a union member - their
thereof. — Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers inaction on his two appeals which resulted in his suspension, disqualification from
and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of running as MWEU officer, and subsequent expulsion without being accorded the foil
both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and benefits of due process - connote willfulness and bad faith, a gross disregard of his
otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual rights thus causing untold suffering, oppression and, ultimately., ostracism from MWEU.
respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and "Bad faith implies breach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and well
stable labor-management relations.
understood obligation."[54] This warrants an award of moral damages in the amount of
"In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission' of acts that transgress P100,000.00. Moreover, the Civil Code provides:

the workers' right to organize."[50] "[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization."[51] "[T]he term directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes
unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be
at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self- liable to the latter for damages:
organization."[52]
xxxx
Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the 'right to self-organization and
to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes
purposes of collective bargaining.' This is made plain by no less than three not contrary to law;
provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Article 243 of the Code
provides as follows: In Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals,[55] this Court declared, as follows:

ART. 243. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. — Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational humiliation, and similar injury. They may be recovered if they are the
institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. The instances
right to serf-organization and to form, join, or assist labor when moral damages may be recovered are, inter alia, 'acts and actions
organizations of their own choosing for purposes or collective referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 of the Civil
bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self- Code,' which, in turn, are found in the Chapter on Human Relations of the
employed people, rural workers and those without any definite Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. x x x
employers may form labor organizations for their , mutual aid
and protection. Under the circumstances, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of
P50,000.00, as prayed for, is likewise proper. "Exemplary damages are designed to
Article 248 (a) declares it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer, permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and
among others, to 'interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the their imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the
exercise of their right to self-organization.' Similarly, Article 249 (a) makes it offender."[56] This should prevent respondents from repeating their mistakes, which
an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to 'restrain or coerce proved costly for petitioner.
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization...'
Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, '[e]xemplary or corrective damages are
xxxx imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
 the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.' As this court expulsion:
has stated in the past: 'Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to
permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its xxxx
consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such
behaviour.'[57] g. Non-payment of dues and other monetary obligation due the Union for a
reasonable period of time:
Finally, petitioner is also entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to 10per cent (10%) of
the total award. The unjustified acts of respondents clearly compelled him to institute 1st Offense - Letter reprimand
an action primarily to vindicate his rights and protect his interest. Indeed, when an
employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, he is
2nd Offense - Suspension of right benefit privileges for 30 days
entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[58]

3rd Offense - Expulsion from Union membership and recommendation for

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed April 24, 2012
termination of employment
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115639 is hereby MODIFIED, in
that all of the respondents - except for Carlos Villa, Ric Briones, and Chito Bernardo - [8] Rollo, p. 61.
are declared guilty of unfair labor practices and ORDERED TO INDEMNIFY petitioner
Allan M. Mendoza the amounts of P100,000.00 as and by way of moral damages, [9] Id. at 188-189; Board Resolution No. 1, series of 2007, approved by respondents
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10 per cent
Borela, Cancino, Maga, Montemayor, Fernandez, Torres, Mancenido, Bolo, Quebral,
(10%) of the total award.
Casañas, Pagulayan, Tierra, Cometa, Rendon, and two (2) others who are not
respondents herein.
SO ORDERED.

[10] Id. at 62.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

[11] Stating that:

[1] Rollo, pp. 7-42.
ARTICLE V
[2] Id. at 43-54; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS OF
UNION MEMBERSHIP
Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Socorro B. Inting.

xxxx
[3] Id. at 346-369.

Section 2. Rights and Privileges. All Union members in good standing shall
[4] Id. at 9, 44.
have the following rights and privileges:

[5] Id. at 55. xxxx

[6] Id. at 56-57. g. To appeal to the General Membership Assembly any arbitrary resolution,
policy and rule that may be promulgated by the Executive Board;
[7] Id. at 139-176, which provide, as follows:
[12] Rollo, p. 63.

ARTICLE IX
DISCIPLINARY GROUNDS/OFFENSES [13] Id. at 64.

Section 1. The following grounds for disciplinary action, suspension or [14] Id. at 66.
expulsion of members as acts or deeds inimical to the interests and welfare
of the Union and/or its officers and members. Any officer or member may be [15] Id. at 68.
penalized for committing any following offenses by fines, suspension, or
[16] Id. at 202-203; Board Resolution No. 4, series of 2007, approved by respondents (b) conduct of election of union and workers association officers/nullification of election
Borela, Tierra, Bolo, Casañas, Fernandez, Rendon, Montemayor, Torres, Quebral, of union and workers association officers;
Pagulayan, Cancino, Maga, Cometa, Mancenido, and two (2) others who are not
respondents herein. (c) audit/accounts examination of union or workers association funds;

[17] Id at 69. (d) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;

[18] Id. at 226-227; Board Resolution No. 7, series of 2007, approved by respondents
(e) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;

Borela, Quebral, Tierra, Imana, Rendon, Yeban, Cancino, Torres, Montemayor,

(f) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for union membership;
Mancenido, Mandilag, Fernandez, Buenaventura, Apilado, Maga, Barbero, Cometa, Bolo,
and Manlapaz.
(g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union and workers association
officers and members;
[19] Id. at 74-80, 226-227.

(h) validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition;

[20] Id. at 46.

(i) opposition to application for union and CBA registration;

[21] Id. at 47.
(j) violations of or disagreements over any provision in a union or workers association
[22] Id. at 87-88. constitution and by-laws;

[23] Id. at 89-96, 97-108, 231-238, 254-262.

(k) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations and collective
bargaining agreements;

[24] Id. at 109-137, 239-251, 272-277.

(1) violations of the rights and conditions of union or workers association membership;

[25] ART. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. - The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor (m) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except interpretation of
Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor, shall have original collective bargaining agreements;
and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or (n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-organization, union
problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, membership and collective bargaining
whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation
or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of (1) between and among legitimate labor organizations;
grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
(2) between and among members of a union or workers association.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before it, subject
[27] Rollo, pp. 279-281.
to extension by agreement of the parties. (Art. 226 and other specific provisions of the
Labor Code have since been renumbered as a result of the passage of Republic Act No.
[28] Id. at 280-281.
10151 [2011]).

[26] [29] Id. at 322-326; penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and

RULE XI - INTER/INTRA-UNION DISPUTES AND OTHER RELATED LABOR
RELATIONS DISPUTES concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Benedicto R. Palacol and Commissioner Nieves
Vivar-de Castro.
SECTION 1. Coverage. - Inter/intra-union disputes shall include:
[30] Herein petitioner.
(a) cancellation of registration of a labor organization filed by its members or by
another labor organization; [31] ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair labor

practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:

 (a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to [37] Citing Azucena, Jr., Cesario A., The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II,
self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the
2004 5th Edition, p. 256.
right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership;
[38] Id.
(b) x x x x
[32] ART. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. - (a) Except as [39] Rollo, pp. 50-54.
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of [40] Id. at 449-450.
the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of
stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or [41] Id. at 19.
non-agricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases; [42] Id. at 440-447.

2. Termination disputes; [43] Id. at 403-435.

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file [44] Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., 651 Phil. 190, 203
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
(2010), citing C. A. Azucena, Jr., Vol. II, THE LABOR CODE WITH COMMENTS AND
employment;
CASES, 2004 ed., p. 111.

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the [45] As earlier stated, provisions of the Labor Code, from Article 156 onward, have since
employer-employee relations;
been renumbered as a result of the passage of Republic Act No. 10151.
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions
[46] Rollo, p. 144.
involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and

6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and [47] Id.

maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations,

including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount [48] Id.
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement. [49] Id. at 158.

(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all [50] Baptista v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 48, 57.
cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective
[51] Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., 657 Phil. 342, 368 (2011).
bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by
the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery [52] Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, G.R. No. 175002, February 18,
and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements. 2013, 691 SCRA 113, 133.
[33] Rollo, pp. 323-325.
[53] Reyes v. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA 484, 488-489.

[34] Id. at 327-337.

[54] Sanchez v. Republic, 618 Phil. 228, 236 (2009).

[35] Id. at 343-345.

[55] 354 Phil. 128, 151 (1998).

[36] Id. at 346-369.

[56] U-Bix Corporation v. Bandiola, 552 Phil. 633, 651 (2007).
[57] Montinola v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 198656, September 8, 2014, 734 SCRA

439, 464.

[58] Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 180636, March 13,

2013, 693 SCRA 340, 356, citing Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani
sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc., 676 Phil. 262 (2011).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)