Atty. Marino et. al. vs. Dr. Gamilla et. al. G.R. No.

149763, July 7, 2009 FACTS: Petitioners are among the executive officers and directors of University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) while respondents are composed of UST faculty and USTFU members. The dispute arose when UST and USTFU, represented by petitioners herein, entered a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby UST faculty members belonging to the CBA unit were granted additional economic benefits and at the same time stipulated a 10% check-off over said benefits to cover union dues and special assessment for Labor Education Fund and attorneys fees. Respondents filed with the Med Arbiter a complaint assailing, among others, the check-off for union dues and attorneys fees collected under the MOA for being violative of the rights and conditions of membership in USTFU. DOLE Regional Director, by virtue of an order consolidating all the complaints by the respondents, rendered among others a decision in favor of the latter and ruled that the check-off collected as negotiation fees were invalid. Both the BLR and CA, on appeal, AFFIRMED said decision and ordered to return to the general membership the amount collected by way of attorneys fees; hence this petition. ISSUE: Is the check-off of union dues and special assessment of attorneys fees inserted in the written authorization ratifying the MOA benefits valid? LAW: Article 222(b) and 241(n) and (o) of the Labor Code, as amended RULING:

NO.

The economic benefits package granted under the MOA did

not constitute union funds from which attorneys fees could have been validly deducted. Under Article 222(b), attorneys 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 attorneys fees from the benefits awarded to the employees. What the law requires is that the funds be already deemed union funds even before the attorneys 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 attorneys fees and, thus, convert the latter to union funds, which could then be used to pay for the said attorneys fees. Furthermore, the inclusion of the authorization for a check-off of union dues and special assessments for the Labor Education Fund and attorneys fees in the same document for the ratification of the MOA granting the economic benefits package, necessarily vitiated the consent of USTFU members for 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. 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. OPINION: I concur with great conviction. . . The instant case is a pure demonstration of a finesse and intelligent attempt to circumvent the law; but not good enough under the watchful

eyes of our magistrate. A check-off provision is in effect an encumbrance over the wages/salaries of the worker, and under our laws, the salaries/wages of the labor should be left unencumbered except for legal purposes or as a consequence of benefits received. The very nature of a check-off warrants regulation from the State which is, among others, what is ought to be achieved by Article 222 and Article 241. An attempt to stale mate a worker by incorporating a check-off provision in an agreement for additional benefits cannot stand in the eyes of law. A separate consent is essential, to validate and authorize a stipulation for fees and cannot be incorporated in an agreement granting benefits for the very reason that the two are just not meant for each other and one cannot give and at the same time take what has been given.