THIRD
DIVISION
|
EDUARDO J. MARIÑO, JR., MA. MELVYN P.
ALAMIS, NORMA P. COLLANTES, and FERNANDO PEDROSA,
Petitioners, - versus
- GIL Y. GAMILLA, RENE LUIS TADLE, NORMA
S. CALAGUAS, MA. Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 149763 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: July 7, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Assailed in
this Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, are (1) the Decision[2]
dated
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. Mariño, Jr., Ma. Melvyn P. Alamis, Norma P. Collantes, and
Fernando Pedrosa were among the executive officers and directors (collectively
called the Mariño Group) of the
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
Accordingly,
on
MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT
x
x x x
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
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
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[:]
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.
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
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 the right
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.
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.
x x x
x
BY: BY:
(signed) (signed)
FR. TERESO M. CAMPILLO, JR., O.P. ATTY. EDUARDO J.
Treasurer MARINO,
JR.
President
Attested by[:]
(signed)
REV. FR. ROLANDO DELA
On
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.
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
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. Mariño, wrote a letter[8]
dated 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
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
On 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 Mariño 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 Mariño group be expelled as USTFU officers and directors.
(2) Case
No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028
On
Respondents[12]
filed with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, on
(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,
Thus, on
On
(4) Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-016
Also on
In a Decision dated
While G.R. No. 131235 was
pending, the term of office of the Gamilla Group as USTFU officers expired
on
On
(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
Mariño 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 officers, having been
elected on
DOLE Department
Order No. 9 took effect on
On
In Case No. NCR-OD-M-9412-022 and Case No. NCR-OD-M-9510-028, the DOLE-NCR Regional
Director adjudged the Mariño 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 Mariño 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 Mariño Group, as negotiation fees, was invalid. According to the MOA executed on 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 Mariño
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 Mariño Group from their positions as USTFU officers, practically
extinguished Case No.
NCR-OD-M-9611-009.
The decretal
portion of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:
a)
Expelling [the
Mariño 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
Mariño 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
Mariño Group] to account for:
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 Mariño 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
On the same
day,
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.
The BLR found no basis for the order
of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director to the Mariño 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 Mariño Group. Hence, the P5 million legally belonged
to the Mariño 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 Mariño
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
The
BLR, however, agreed in the finding of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director that the P42
million economic benefits package was sourced from the faculty members’ share
in the tuition fee increases under Republic Act No. 6728. Under said law, 70% of tuition fee increases
shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of
teaching and non-teaching personnel. As was
held in the decision[31]
and subsequent resolution[32] of
the Supreme Court in Cebu Institute of
Technology v. Ople, the law has already provided for the minimum percentage
of tuition fee
increases to be allotted for teachers and other school personnel. This allotment is mandatory and cannot be
diminished, although it may be increased by collective bargaining. It follows
that only the amount beyond that mandated by law shall be subject to
negotiation fees and attorney's fees for the simple reason that it was only
this amount that the school employees had to bargain for.
The
BLR further reasoned that the P4.2 million collected by the Mariño Group
was in the nature of attorney’s fees or negotiation fees and, therefore, fell
under the general prohibition against such fees in Article 222(b)[33]
of the Labor Code, as amended. Also, the
exception to charging against union funds was not applicable because the P42
million economic benefits package under the 10 September 1992 MOA was not union
fund, as the same was intended not for the union coffers, but for the members
of the entire bargaining unit. The fact
that the P4.2 million check-off was approved by the majority of USTFU
members was immaterial in view of the clear command of Article 222(b) that any
contract, agreement, or arrangement of any sort, contrary to the prohibition
contained therein, shall be null and void.
Lastly,
as to the alleged failure of the Mariño Group to perform some of its duties, the
BLR held that the change of USTFU officers can best be decided, not by outright
expulsion, but by the general membership through the actual conduct of
elections.
Petitioners’ Motion for Partial
Reconsideration[34] of
the foregoing Decision was denied by the BLR in a Resolution[35]
dated
Aggrieved
once again, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari[36]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60657. In a
Resolution dated
On
According
to the Court of Appeals, the BLR did not commit grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in ruling that the P42 million
economic benefits package was merely the share of the faculty members in the
tuition fee increases pursuant to Republic Act No. 6728. The appellate court explained:
It is too plain to see that the 60% of the proceeds is to be allocated specifically for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned. Under Section 5(2) of Republic Act 6728, the amount had been increased to 70% of the tuition fee increases which was specifically allocated to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel of the school[,] except administrators who are principal stockholders of the school and to cover increases as provided for in the collective bargaining agreements existing or in force at the time the law became effective[.]
x x x x
It is too plain to see, too, that under the “Memorandum
of Agreement” between UST and the Union, x x x, the P42,000,000.00 economic
package granted by the UST to the Union was in compliance with the mandates of
the law and pertinent Department of Education, Culture and Sports regulation
(sic) required to be allotted following the payment of salaries, wages,
allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel of the
University[.]
x x x x
Whether or not UST implemented the mandate of Republic
Act 6728 voluntarily or through the efforts and prodding of the Union does not
and cannot change or alter a whit the nature of the economic package or the
purpose or purposes of the allocation of the said amount. For, if we acquiesced to and sustained
Petitioners’ stance, we will thereby be leaving the compliance by the private
educational institutions of the mandate of Republic Act 6728 at the will,
mercy, whims and caprices of the
With our foregoing findings and disquisitions, We thus
agree with the [BLR] that the aforesaid amount of P42,000,000.00 should
not answer for any attorney’s fees claimed by the Petitioners. x x x.
x x x x
Moreover,
[Section 5 of Rule X of] the CBL of the
Section 5.
Special assessments or other extraordinary fees such as for payment of attorney’s
fees shall be made only upon such a resolution duly ratified by the general
membership by secret balloting. x x x.
Also,
Article 241(n)[37]
of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that no special assessment shall be
levied upon the members of the union unless authorized by a written resolution
of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called
for the purpose[.]
x
x x x
In
“ABS-CBN Supervisors-Employees Union Members versus ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, 304 SCRA 489”, our Supreme Court declared that Article 241(n)
of the Labor Code, as amended, speaks of three (3) requisites, to wit: (1)
authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all members at the
general membership meeting called for the purpose; (2) secretary’s record of
the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written authorization for
check-off duly signed by the employee concerned.
Contrary
to the provisions of Articles 222(b) and 241(n) of the Labor Code, as amended,
and Section 5, Rule X of [the] CBL of the Union, no resolution ratified by the
general membership of [the] USTFU through secret balloting which embodied the
award of attorney’s fees was submitted.
Instead, the Petitioners submitted copies of the form for the
ratification of the MOA and the check-off for attorney’s fees.
x
x x x
The
aforementioned “ratification with check-off” form embodied the: (a)
ratification of the MOA; (b) check-off of union dues; and (c) check-off of a
special assessment, i.e., attorney’s fees and labor education fund. x x x. Patently, the CBL was not complied with.
Worse,
the check-off for union dues and attorney’s fees were included in the
ratification of the MOA. The members
were thus placed in a situation where, upon ratification of the MOA, not only
the check-off of union dues and special assessment for labor education fund but
also the payment of attorney’s fees were (sic) authorized.[38]
In
like manner, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the BLR in ordering the
conduct of elections under the control and supervision of the DOLE-NCR. Said the appellate court:
We agree with the Petitioners that the elections of
officers of the
x x x
x
Under
Article IX of the CBL, the Board of Officers of the Union shall create a
Committee on Elections, Comelec for brevity, composed of a chairman and
two (2) members appointed by the Board of Officers[.]
x x x
x
It,
however, appears that the term of office of the Petitioners had already expired
in September of 1996. In fact, an
election of officers was scheduled on
x x x
x
We
are thus faced with a situation where one set of officers claim to be the
legitimate and incumbent officers of the Union, pursuant to the CBL of the
Union, and another set of officers who claim to have been elected by the
members of the faculty of the Union thru an election alleged to have been
supervised by the DOLE which situation partakes of and is akin to the nature of
an intra-union dispute[.] x x x.
Undeniably,
the CBL gives the Board of Officers the right to create and appoint members of
the Comelec. However, the CBL has no
application to a situation where there are two (2) sets of officers, one set
claiming to be the legitimate incumbent officers holding over to their
positions who have not exercised their powers and functions therefor and
another claiming to have been elected in an election supervised by the DOLE
and, at the same time, exercising the powers and functions appended to their
positions. In such a case, the BLR,
which has jurisdiction over the intra-union dispute, can validly order the
immediate conduct of election of officers, otherwise, internecine disputes and
blame-throwing will derail an orderly and fair election. Indeed, Section 1(b), [Rule XV], Book V of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, as amended, by
Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997,[39]
provides that, in the absence of any agreement among the members or any
provision in the constitution and by-laws of the labor organization, in an election
ordered by the Regional Director, the chairman of the committee shall be a
representative of the Labor Relations Division of the Regional Office[.][40]
Ultimately,
the Court of Appeals decreed:
IN THE LIGHT
OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is
denied due course and is hereby DISMISSED.[41]
Petitioners
moved for reconsideration[42]
of the Decision dated
Petitioners
elevated the case to this Court via
the instant Petition, invoking the following assignment of errors:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT UPHELD THE
APPLICATION BY THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS OF THE
PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6728 TO THE P42 MILLION CBA PACKAGE OF ECONOMIC
BENEFITS OBTAINED BY THE UST FACULTY
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISALLOWED
THE LUMP-SUM CHECK-OFF AMOUNTING TO P4.2 MILLION BY RULING THAT THE P42 MILLION
CBA ECONOMIC PACKAGE OBTAINED BY THE UST FACULTY UNION WAS MERELY AN ALLOCATION
OF THE SEVENTY PER CENT (70%) OF THE TUITION INCREASES AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISREGARDED
THE PROVISIONS ON ELECTION OF UNION OFFICERS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF
THE UST FACULTY UNION AND INSTEAD UPHELD THE DIRECTIVE OF THE HONORABLE
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION OF UNION
OFFICERS UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT.
Essentially,
in order to arrive at a final disposition of the instant case, this Court is
tasked to determine the following: (1) the nature of the P42 million
economic benefits package granted by UST to USTFU; (2) the legality of the 10%
check-off collected by the Mariño Group from the P42 million economic benefits
package; and (3) the validity of the BLR order for USTFU to conduct election of
union officers under the control and supervision of the DOLE-NCR Regional
Director.
II
RULING
(1) The P42 million economic benefits
package
Petitioners
argue that the P42 million economic benefits package granted to the
covered faculty members were additional benefits, which resulted from a long and arduous process of
negotiations between the Mariño Group and UST. The BLR and
the Court of Appeals were in error for considering the said amount as purely
sourced from the allocation by UST of 70% percent of the incremental proceeds
of tuition fee increases, in accordance with Republic Act No. 6728. Said law was improperly applied as a general
law that decrees the allocation by all private schools of 70% of their tuition
fee increases to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits
of their teaching & non-teaching personnel.
It is clear from the title of the law itself that it only covers
government assistance to students and teachers in private education. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6728 unequivocally
limits the scope of the law to tuition fee supplements and subsidies extended
by the Government to students in private high schools. Thus, the petitioners maintain that Republic
Act No. 6728 has no application to the MOA executed on
The Court disagrees with petitioners’
stance.
The provisions of Republic Act No.
6728 were not arbitrarily applied by the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, the BLR, or
the Court of Appeals to the P42 million economic benefits package
granted by UST to USTFU, considering that the parties themselves stipulated in
Section 7 of the MOA they signed on 10 September 1992 that:
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 which 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.[44] (Emphases supplied.)
The “law” in the aforequoted Section
7 of the MOA can only refer to Republic Act No. 6728, otherwise known as the “Government
Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act." Republic Act No. 6728 was enacted in view of
the declared policy of the State, in conformity with the mandate of the
Constitution, to promote and make quality education accessible to all Filipino
citizens, as well as the recognition of the State of the complementary roles of
public and private educational institutions in the educational system and the
invaluable contribution that the private schools have made and will make to
education.[45] The said statute primarily grants various
forms of financial aid to private educational institutions such as tuition fee
supplements, assistance funds, and scholarship grants.[46]
One such form of financial aid is
provided under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6728, which states:
SEC. 5. Tuition Fee Supplement for Student in
(1) Financial assistance for tuition for
students in private high schools shall be provided by the government through a
voucher system in the following manner:
(a) For students enrolled in schools
charging less than one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500) per year in
tuition and other fees during school year 1988-89 or such amount in subsequent
years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance Council: The Government shall provide them with a
voucher equal to two hundred ninety pesos P290.00: Provided,
That the student pays in the 1989-1990 school year, tuition and other fees
equal to the tuition and other fees paid during the preceding academic year: Provided,
further, That the Government shall reimburse the vouchers from the
schools concerned within sixty (60) days from the close of the registration
period: Provided, furthermore, That the student's family resides
in the same city or province in which the high school is located unless the
student has been enrolled in that school during the previous academic year.
(b) For students enrolled in schools
charging above one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500) per year in
tuition and other fees during the school year 1988-1989 or such amount in
subsequent years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance
Council, no assistance for tuition fees
shall be granted by the Government: Provided, however, That the schools concerned may raise their
tuition fee subject to Section 10 hereof.
(2) Assistance
under paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be granted and tuition fees
under subparagraph (c) may be increased, on the condition that seventy percent
(70%) of the amount subsidized, allotted for tuition fee or of the tuition fee
increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other
benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel except administrators who
are principal stockholders of the school, and
may be used to cover increases as provided for in the collective bargaining
agreements existing or in force at the time when this Act is approved and made
effective: Provided, That government subsidies are not used directly
for salaries of teachers of nonsecular subjects. At least twenty percent (20%)
shall go to the improvement or modernization of buildings, equipment,
libraries, laboratories, gymnasia and similar facilities and to the payment of
other costs of operation. For this purpose, schools shall maintain a separate
record of accounts for all assistance received from the government, any tuition
fee increase, and the detailed disposition and use thereof, which record shall
be made available for periodic inspection as may be determined by the State
Assistance Council, during business hours, by the faculty, the non-teaching
personnel, students of the school concerned, and Department of Education,
Culture and Sports and other concerned government agencies. (Emphases ours.)
Although Section 5 of Republic Act
No. 6728 does speak of government assistance to students in private high
schools, it is not limited to the same.
Contrary to petitioners’ puerile claim, Section 5 likewise grants an unmistakable
authority to private high schools to increase their tuition fees, subject to the condition that seventy (70%) percent of the
tuition fee increases shall go to the payment of the salaries, wages,
allowances, and other benefits of their teaching and non-teaching personnel. The said allocation may also be used to cover
increases in the salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of school employees as provided for in the CBAs existing
or in force at the time when Republic Act No. 6728 was approved and made effective.
Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the
right of private schools to increase their tuition fee -- with their corresponding
obligation to allocate 70% of said increase to the payment
of the salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of their employees --
is not limited to private high schools.
Section 9[47] of
Republic Act No. 6728, on “Further Assistance to Students in
d) Government assistance and tuition
increases as described in this Section shall be governed by the same conditions
as provided under Section 5 (2).
Indeed, a
private educational institution under Republic Act No. 6728 still has the
discretion on the disposition of 70% of the tuition fee increase. It enjoys the privilege of determining how
much increase in salaries to grant and the kind and amount of allowances and
other benefits to give. The only
precondition is that 70% percent of the incremental tuition fee increase goes
to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching
and non-teaching personnel.[48]
In this case, UST and USTFU
stipulated in their 10 September 1992 MOA that the P42 million economic
benefits package granted by UST to the members of the collective bargaining unit
represented by USTFU, was chargeable against the 70% allotment from the
proceeds of the tuition fee increases collected and still to be collected by
UST. As observed by the DOLE-NCR
Regional Director, and affirmed by both the BLR and the Court of Appeals, there
is no showing that any portion of the P42 million economic benefits
package was derived from sources other than the 70% allotment from tuition fee
increases of UST.
Given the lack of evidence to the
contrary, it can be conclusively presumed that the entire P42 million
economic benefits package extended to USTFU came from the 70% allotment from
tuition fee increases of UST. Preceding
from this presumption, any deduction from the P42 million economic
benefits package, such as the P4.2 million claimed by the Mariño Group
as attorney’s/agency fees, should not be allowed, because it would ultimately
result in the reduction of the statutorily mandated 70% allotment from the
tuition fee increases of UST.
The other reasons for disallowing the
P4.2 million attorney’s/agency fees collected by the Mariño Group from
the P42 million economic benefits package are discussed in the
immediately succeeding paragraphs.
(2) The
P4.2 Million Check-off
Petitioners
contend that the P4.2 million check-off, from the P42 million
economic benefits package, was lawfully made since the requirements of Article
222(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, were complied with by the Mariño Group. The individual paychecks of the covered
faculty employees were not reduced and the P4.2 million deducted from
the P42 million economic benefits package became union funds, which were
then used to pay attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, and similar charges arising
from the CBA. In addition, the P4.2
million constituted a special assessment upon the USTFU members, the requirements
for which were properly observed. The special
assessment was authorized in writing by the general membership of USTFU during a
meeting in which it was included as an item in the agenda. Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for disregarding
the authorization of the special assessment by USTFU members. There is no law that prohibits the insertion
of a written authorization for the special assessment in the same instrument for
the ratification of the
Again, the Court is not persuaded.
The pertinent legal provisions on a check-off
are found in Articles 222(b) and 241(n) and (o) of the Labor Code, as amended.
Article
222(b) states:
(b) No attorney's fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising
from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective
agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting
union: Provided, however,
that attorney's fees may be charged against unions funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any
contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null
and void.
Article
241(n) reads:
(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary
fees may be levied upon the members of a labor organization unless authorized
by a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general
membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the
organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all
members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees
and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to
by the president.
And Article
241(o) provides:
(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction.
Article 222(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, prohibits the
payment of attorney's fees only when it is effected through forced
contributions from the employees from their own funds as distinguished from union funds.[49] Hence, the general rule is that attorney’s
fees, negotiation fees, and other similar charges may only be collected from
union funds, not from the amounts that pertain to individual union
members. As an exception to the general
rule, special assessments or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon or checked
off from any amount due an employee for as long as there is proper
authorization by the employee.
A check-off is
a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the Union,
recognized as the proper bargaining representative, or on prior authorization
from the employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages
and remits them directly to the Union.
Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. The
The Court finds that, in the instant case, the P42 million
economic benefits package granted by UST did not constitute union funds from
whence the P4.2 million could have been validly deducted as attorney’s
fees. The P42 million economic benefits
package was not intended for the USTFU coffers, but for all the members of the
bargaining unit USTFU represented, whether members or non-members of the union. A close reading of the terms of the MOA
reveals that after the satisfaction of the outstanding obligations of UST under
the 1986 CBA, the balance of the P42 million was to be distributed to
the covered faculty members of the collective bargaining unit in the form of
salary increases, returns on paycheck deductions; and increases in hospitalization,
educational, and retirement benefits, and other economic benefits. The
deduction of the P4.2 million, as alleged attorney’s/agency fees, from
the P42 million economic benefits package effectively decreased the
share from said package accruing to each member of the collective bargaining
unit.
Petitioners’ line of argument – that the amount of P4.2 million
became union funds after its deduction from the P42 million economic benefits
package and, thus, could already be used to pay attorney’s fees, negotiation
fees, or similar charges from the CBA – is absurd. Petitioners’ reasoning is evidently flawed since the
attorney’s fees may only be paid from union funds; yet the amount to be used in
paying for the same does not become union funds until it is actually deducted as
attorney’s fees from the benefits awarded to the employees. It is just a roundabout argument. What the law requires is that the funds be already
deemed union funds even before the attorney’s fees are deducted or paid
therefrom; it does not become union funds after the deduction or payment. To rule otherwise will also render the
general prohibition stated in Article 222(b) nugatory, because all that the
union needs to do is to deduct from the total benefits awarded to the employees
the amount intended for attorney’s fees and, thus, “convert” the latter to
union funds, which could then be used to pay for the said attorney’s fees.
The Court further determines that the requisites for a valid levy
and check-off of special assessments, laid down by Article 241(n) and (o),
respectively, of the Labor Code, as amended, have not been complied with in the
case at bar. To recall, these requisites
are: (1) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the union
members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; (2)
secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and (3) individual written
authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concerned.[51]
Additionally, Section 5, Rule X of
the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws mandates that:
Section
5. Special assessments or other
extraordinary fees such as for payment of attorney’s fees shall be made only
upon a resolution duly ratified by the general membership by secret balloting.
In an attempt to comply with the
foregoing requirements, the Mariño Group caused the majority of the general
membership of USTFU to individually sign a document, which embodied the
ratification of the MOA between UST and USTFU, dated 10 September 1992, as well
as the authorization for the check-off of P4.2 million, from the P42
million economic benefits package, as payment for attorney’s fees. As held by the Court of Appeals, however, the
said documents constitute unsatisfactory compliance with the requisites set
forth in the Labor Code, as amended, and in the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws,
even though individually signed by a majority of USTFU members.
The inclusion of the authorization
for a check-off of union dues and special assessments for the Labor Education
Fund and attorney’s fees, in the same document for the ratification of the 10
September 1992 MOA granting the P42 million economic benefits package,
necessarily vitiated the consent of USTFU members. For sure, it is fairly reasonable to assume
that no individual member of USTFU would casually turn down the substantial and
lucrative award of P42 million in economic benefits under the MOA. However, there was no way for any individual
union member to separate his or her consent to the ratification of the MOA from
his or her authorization of the check-off of union dues and special
assessments. As it were, the
ratification of the MOA carried with it the automatic authorization of the
check-off of union dues and special assessments in favor of the union. Such a situation militated against the
legitimacy of the authorization for the P4.2 million check-off by a majority
of USTFU membership. Although the law
does not prescribe a particular form for the written authorization for the levy
or check-off of special assessments, the authorization must, at the very least,
embody the genuine consent of the union member.
The failure of the Mariño
Group to strictly comply with the requirements set forth by the Labor Code, as
amended, and the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws, invalidates the questioned
special assessment. Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact
that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of the union
members. Their express consent is
required, and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps
outlined by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed.[52]
Viewed in this light, the
Court does not hesitate to declare as illegal the check-off of P4.2 million,
from the P42 million economic benefits package, for union dues and
special assessments for the Labor Education Fund and attorney’s fees. Said amount rightfully belongs to and should
be returned by petitioners to the intended beneficiaries thereof, i.e., members of the collective
bargaining unit, whether or not members of USTFU. This directive is without prejudice to the
right of petitioners to seek reimbursement from the other USTFU officers and
directors, who were part of the Mariño Group, and who were equally responsible for the
illegal check-off of the aforesaid amount.
(3) Election
of new officers
Having been overtaken by subsequent
events, the Court need no longer pass upon the issue of the validity of the order
of BLR for USTFU to conduct its long overdue election of union officers, under
the control and supervision of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director.
The
BLR issued such an order since USTFU then had two groups, namely, the Mariño Group
and the Gamilla Group, each
claiming to be the legitimate officers of USTFU.
The
DOLE-NCR Regional Director, in his Decision dated
The
Court points out, however, that neither the Decision of the BLR nor of the
Court of Appeals took into account the fact that an election of USTFU officers
was already conducted on
The
election of the Gamilla Group as union officers in 2000 should have already
been recognized by the BLR and the Court of Appeals. The order for USTFU to conduct another
election was only a superfluity. The
issue of who between the officers of the Mariño Group and of the Gamilla Group
are the legitimate USTFU officers has been rendered moot by the succeeding
events in the case.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated P4.2 million checked-off as union dues
and special assessments for the Labor Education Fund and attorney’s fees, with
legal interest of 6% per annum from
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Eduardo M. Peralta per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-68.
[2] Penned
by the then Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. with Associate Justices
Renato C. Dacudao and Perlita J. Tria Tirona, concurring; rollo, pp. 69-92.
[3] Rollo, p. 93.
[4] As
alleged by herein respondents in their complaints before the Med-Arbiter and
admitted by herein petitioners in their responsive pleadings, the following
were the then Executive Officers and Directors of the USTFU:
EDUARDO J. MARIÑO, JR. - President
MA. MELVYN P. ALAMIS - Executive Vice-President
MYRNA
P. HILARIO -
Internal Vice-President
URBANO
F. AGALABIA - External
Vice-President
LILY
B. MATIAS -
Vice-President For Labor Education And Research
ANTHONY
D. CURA -
Vice-President For Grievance And Complaints
NORMA P. COLLANTES - Secretary-General
PORFIRIO
JOSE B. GUICO - Treasurer
ZENAIDA
C. BURGOS - Public
Relations Officer
MILAGROSA
G. NINO - Auditor
RENE
V. SISON -
Sergeant-At-Arms
RONALDO
G. ASUNCION - Director
ROSY
ATIENZA - Director
NOEL
FIEDACAN -
Director
FULVIO
MA. L. GUERRERO - Director
TERESITA
MEER -
Director
FERNANDO PEDROSA - Director
ZENAIDA
REALUYO - Director
NILDA
REDOBLADO - Director
EVELYN
[5] ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. - Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar
as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. x x
x. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. x x x. (As
amended by Section 21, Republic Act No. 6715, 21 March 1989).
[6] Rollo, pp. 142-144.
[7] Rollo, p. 145; CA rollo, pp. 159-165.
[8] Records,
Folder II, p. 80.
[9]
[10] Except for respondent Gil Y. Gamilla.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 90-97.
[12] Except for respondents Gil Y. Gamilla and Edna B. Sanchez.
[13] Rollo, pp. 146-150.
[14] Records, Folder VI, pp. 77-80.
[15] Except for respondents Gil Y. Gamilla and Edna B. Sanchez.
[16] Rollo, pp. 151-169.
[17] UST
Faculty
[18] With the exceptions of respondents Rene Luis Tagle, Edna B. Sanchez, Zenaida Gamilla and Aurora Domingo. Additional complainants were: Irma Potenciano, Editha Ocampo, Luz De Guzman, Gliceria Baldres, Ferdinand Limos, Hidelita Gabo, Corazon Cui, Rene Arnejo, Cesar Reyes, Natividad Santos, Celso Niera, Zenaida Famorca, Philip Aguilnaldo, Benedicta Alava, Laura Abara, Leoncio Casal and Carmelita Espina.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 266-276.
[20] Section
1, Rule XIV (INTRA-UNION DISPUTES) of the Rules Implementing Book V provides:
Section 1. Complaint; who may file. –
Any member of a union may file with the Regional Director a complaint for any
violation of the constitution and by-laws and the rights and conditions of
membership under Article 241 of the Code.
However, if the issue involves the entire membership of the union, the
complaint shall be supported by at least thirty percent (30%) of the members of
the federation, national union, local/chapter, affiliate or independent union,
as the case may be, at the time of the filing thereof. Such complaint shall be
filed in the Regional Office where the union is domiciled.
[21] Penned by
Regional Director Maximo B. Lim; rollo,
pp. 188-212.
[22] Article
241(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
(c) x x x. The
secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected officers, together with
the appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or from the
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor organization. [As
amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. 6715,
[23] Article
241 (l) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
(l) The treasurer of any labor organization and
every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such organization
for the collection, management, disbursement, custody or control of the funds,
moneys and other properties of the organization, shall render to the
organization and to its members a true and correct account of all moneys
received and paid by him since he assumed office or since the last day on which
he rendered such account, and of all bonds, securities and other properties of
the organization entrusted to his custody or under his control. x x x.
x x x x
The account shall
be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished
the Secretary of Labor.
[24] An act providing government assistance to
students and teachers in private education and appropriating funds therefor.
[25] CA rollo, pp. 300-301
[26]
[27] Records,
Folder IX, pp. 92-93.
[28] The
individuals elected on the
GIL Y. GAMILLA, M.D. - President
NORMA S.
CALAGUAS - Executive
Vice-President
EDITH B.
OCAMPO - Internal Vice-President
IRMA P.
E. POTENCIANO - External
Vice-President for President
ERNESTUS
C. PADILLA -
Vice-President For Labor Education And Research
GLICERIA
B. BALDRES -
Vice-President For Legal Affairs
MINERVA
B. RIVERA -
Vice-President For Grievance And Complaints
MA.
HIDELITA
R. GABO -
Treasurer
REMEDIOS
T. GARCIA - Public
Relations Officer
CORAZON
O. QUI -
Auditor
LEONCIO
R. CASAL -
Sergeant-At-Arms
RENE LUIS
M. TADLE - Director
AURORA L.
DOMINGO - Director
FERDINAND
E. LIMOS - Director
BENEDICTA
B. ALAVA - Director
CESAR M.
REYES, M.D. - Director
GIL Y.
GARCIA -
Director
CELSO M.
NIERRA -
Director
JIMMY T.
RICO, Ph.D. -
Director
[29] Records, Folder IX, pp. 87-91.
[30] Penned by
Director Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr.; rollo,
pp. 213-223.
[31] G.R. No.
L-58870,
[32] G.R. No.
L-58870,
[33] Article
222 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
Art. 222. Appearances
and Fees. – x x x.
(b) No attorney’s fees,
negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective
bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be
imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, however,
That attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be
agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort
to the contrary shall be null and void. (As amended by Presidential Decree No.
1691, 1 May 1980).
[34] CA rollo, pp. 384-401.
[35] Rollo, pp. 224-226.
[36]
[37] Article 241(n) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
(n) No special assessment
or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor
organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the
members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The
secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including
the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special
assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record
shall be attested to by the president.
[38] CA rollo, pp. 528-536.
[39] Section 1. Committee on election; constitution. – In the absence of any agreement among the members or of any provision in the constitution and by-laws of the labor organization or workers association, the following guidelines may be adopted in the election of officers:
x x x x
(b) x x x In case of an election the conduct of which was ordered by the Regional Director, the chairman of the committee shall be a representative of the Labor Relations Division of the Regional Office.
[40] CA rollo, pp. 536-538.
[41]
[42] Rollo, 324-336.
[43]
[44] CA rollo, p. 87.
[45] Republic Act No. 6728, Section 2.
[46]
[47] SEC. 9. Further Assistance to
Students in
[48] Cebu Institute of Medicine v. Cebu Institute of Medicine Employees' Union-National Federation of Labor, 413 Phil. 32, 38 (2001).
[49] Bank
of the Philippine
[50] ABS-CBN
Supervisors Employees
[51]
[52] Palacol
v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85333,