Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor and Employment (2000) Quisumbing, J.

FACTS: Petitioners are members of the Executive Board of the Solidbank Union (Union). The Union is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of Solidbanks rank-and-file employees. Private respondents are union members. Since the Unions CBA was up for renewal, petitioners decided to retain the services of Atty. Ignacio Lacsina. A general membership meeting for the purpose was called. A majority of the union members signed a resolution expressing their conformity with the decision to retain Atty. Lacsina as union counsel. The Resolution provided: o That 10% of the total economic benefits that may be secured through the negotiations shall be given to Atty. Lacsina; and o That Solidbank was authorized to check-off the amount of attorneys fees from the first lump sum payment of benefits to the employees under the new CBA. After the signing of the new CBA, the Bank, on the request of the Union, made payroll deduction s for attorneys fees from the CBA benefits paid to the union members. Herein respondents filed a complaint against petitioners and the union counsel before the DOLE for illegal deduction of attorneys fees. Petitioners moved for dismissal. Med-Arbiter: Granted the petition in part. o Ordered the Union to refund the illegally deducted amount to complainants (herein respondents); and o Directed complainants to pay 5% of the total amount to be refunded as attorneys fees in favor of union counsel Armando Morales. SOLE: Appeal granted in part. o Refund limited to those union members who have not signified their conformity to the check-off; o Deleted the directive on the award of 5% attorneys fees for lack of basis. MR: Affirmed with modification. o Unions counsel should be dropped as party litigant; o The workers through their union should be made to shoulder the expenses incurred for attorneys fees charged to the unions general fund/account. ISSUE + RULING: Did the respondent Secretary commit grave abuse of discret ion in ruling that the attorneys fees should be charged to the Unions general fund? NO. In check-off, the employer, on agreement with the Union, or on prior authorization from employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latters wages and remits them directly to the union. o Primarily for the benefit of the union and only indirectly for the individual employees. Art. 222 (now 228) provides:
No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any colle ctive bargaining negotiations or conclusions of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, however, that attorneys fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the pa rties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void.

Art. 241 (now 247) states:

Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessment, attorneys 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.

Three requisites for the validity of the special assessment of unions incidental expenses, attorneys fees, and representation expenses: 1. Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all members at the general membership meeting called for the purpose; 2. Secretarys record of the minutes of the meeting; and 3. Individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned. In this case, there were no individual written check-off authorizations by the employees concerned. Thus, the assessment cannot be legally deducted by their employer. Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja: The express consent of the employees 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. Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC: Written individual authorization duly signed by the employee concerned is a condition sine qua non for such deduction.

ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et al.: Premises studiedly considered, we are of the irresistible conclusion and, so find that the ruling in BPIEU-ALU vs. NLRC that (1) the prohibition against attorneys fees in Article 222 paragraph (b) of the Labor Code applies only when the payment of attorneys fees is effected through forced contributions from the workers; and (2) that no deduction must be taken from the workers who did not sign the check-off authorization, applies to the case under consideration. BPIEU-ALU v. NLRC: x x x The obligation to pay the attorneys fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as their direct responsibility. Neither the lawyer nor the union itself may require the individual worker to assume the obligation to pay attorneys fees from their o wn pockets. x x x

DISPOSITION: Petition denied, judgment affirmed.