101
Relations to declare the convention and election of officers held by the Oca group as
G.R. No. 76189 August 8, 1991
ROBERTO M. OCA, JR., ET AL.* and PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO-OCA GROUP), petitioners,
vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, Director of the BLR-MOLE ANDRES, L. DINGLASAN, JR.,
ET AL.** and PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION
(PTGWO-DINGLASAN GROUP) and CARLOS T. RULLAMAS (PTGWO-III) respondents.
FACTS: During the 11th Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(PTGWO) national convention held on April 22, 1979, herein private respondent
Andres L. Dinglasan, Jr. was elected National President while herein petitioner
Roberto M. Oca, Jr. was elected National Executive Vice President. Their terms of
office were both for three (3) years.
On February 26, 1982, Dinglasan convened an executive board meeting to thresh out
the mechanics of the national convention of PTGWO for that year. Of the thirty three
(33) voting members of the board, thirty one (31) were present. However, before
the body could agree on the date of the convention, a number of participants
questioned the qualifications of some members to sit on the board. To cut the
heated argument then ensuing, the meeting was adjourned. Thereafter, Oca and
some members of the board left the conference hall.
Nonetheless, the nineteen (19) members who remained asked Dinglasan to
reconvene the meeting, which he did. This body passed, among others, a resolution
to hold the national convention on April 18, 1982. On the other hand, Oca and his
group, in a special board meeting on March 19, 1982, decided to hold their
convention on April 4, 1982; thereby prompting Dinglasan and his group in their
board meeting of April 1, 1982 to advance their convention date also to April 4,
1982.
Hence, on April 4, 1982, the groups of Dinglasan and Oca held their respective
conventions at different venues and elected their own set of officers.
On April 15, 1982, PTGWO and Dinglasan filed a petition with the Bureau of Labor
illegal, null and void.
Pending resolution of the dispute, PTGWO-III a group of fifteen (15) local unions
headed by Carlos T. Rullamas and identified with the Dinglasan faction, moved to
intervene for the reason that its members had allegedly already "seceded" from the
camp of Dinglasan. Intervenor prayed that it be permitted to use the name PTGWO
or, in the alternative, to allow the three factions to operate independently of each
other.
On May 15, 1986, herein respondent Director Cresenciano B. Trajano rendered a
decision, declaring both conventions of doubtful validity. Finding that the rift
between the two (2) factions had become unbridgeable so that a convention to unify
them might not be a workable solution, respondent Director concluded that there
was no other alternative but to recognize the "sad fact that the PTGWO, once a
monolithic labor confederation, has to be split into two: PTGWO-Oca and PTGWO-
Dinglasan". He went further to say that "with the division of PTGWO into Dinglasan
and Oca wings on 4 April 1982, PTGWO ceased to exist as PTGWO." On this basis, he
disposed thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition and motion above-referred to should be, as they
are hereby dismissed. The groups of Roberto M. Oca, Jr. and Andres L.
Dinglasan, Jr. are hereby ordered to secure new registration certificates as
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization PTGWO-Oca and
Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization PTGWO-Dinglasan
respectively, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Decision.
Intervenor PTGWO-III is allowed to register as a separate labor federation
under a different name, but after compliance with the requirements of
registration under the Labor Code.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision, all the parties filed their respective motions for
reconsideration.
Petitioners and private respondents both assail the conclusion reached by
respondent BLR Director that PTGWO has ceased to exist as PTGWO.
The crux of the petition hinges on the validity of either group's convention and
election of officers. On the other hand, the latter depends upon the validity of the
respective Executive Board Meetings and National Conventions called.
Elementary is the rule that the Constitution and By-laws of an organization serve as a
contract that binds its members.
The presence of a quorum during petitioner Oca's and respondent Dinglasan's
respective Board meetings is questionable. As found by the public respondent
Director, in both meetings the quorum requirement has not been met.
Moreover, petitioner Oca's Board Meeting and subsequent Convention were tainted
with invalidity. The call for "a special Board meeting to fix the special convention"
made by the National Secretary, Johnny Oca, was anomalous since only the National
President of the Union was empowered to call a special Board Meeting, "at his own
initiative or upon petition of at least one fourth (¼) of the Board members."
Petitioner has apparently misread section 40. An analysis of the cited section shows
that what alternates are the instances when the Board shall meet, not the authority
as to who can call for such meeting. It would seem that petitioner has confused this
discretionary power properly lodged in the President with that of the Secretary's
ministerial duty to "call" or inform the Board members of a forthcoming meeting.
Considering the anomalous "call" for a special meeting made by the National
Secretary, matters taken up during said special meeting, such as the calling of a
national convention, are likewise tainted.
Still further, both Conventions were in violation of the sixty-day requirement
imposed by section 24 of the By-Laws. Said section clearly provides that the National
Convention's dates, time and place shall be fixed by the National Executive Board
which shall be at least sixty (60) days before the holding.
ISSUE: Whether the Conventions/Board Meetings of both petitioners and private
respondents are valid
RULING: From the foregoing, it is apparent that respondent Labor Director's refusal
to declare the validity of the election of officers of either parties is not tainted with
abuse of discretion. However, that part of the decision which ordered the parties to
"secure new registration certificates as Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization PTGWO-Oca and Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization PTGWO-Dinglasan within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision"
is without basis. No provision in the Labor Code sanctions such an act. For the
cancellation of a labor union's certificate of authority under Article 239 of the Labor
Code, the causes provided therein must be substantially proved, with the requisite
notices given and hearings held. In this case, such elementary elements of due
process were not observed.
In lieu thereof, reliance should have been made on the Union Constitution and By-
laws.
Sections 38 and 4712 provide:
Section 38. INTERIM AUTHORITY — Between conventions supreme
authority, subject to the general policies down (sic) by the Convention,
shall be exercised by the National Executive Board.
Section 47. TERMS OF OFFICE — The elective officers shall be installed at
the Convention at which they were elected and shall serve until their
successors shall have been elected and qualified and duly installed at the
next National Convention. The tenure of office of appointive officers shall
expire with each national convention and may be removed only under the
provisions of Section 41, Article VIII of its Constitution.
Since we have ruled that the Conventions/Board Meetings of both petitioners and
private respondents are tainted, then it necessarily follows that the incumbent
officers constituting the National Executive Board are entitled to remain in office,
until their successors have been elected, qualified and duly installed at a National
Convention.
It appears from the manifestations filed by the parties that pending resolution of this
case, the two (2) factions had been able to negotiate collective bargaining
agreements with various companies. Considering that these CBA's were entered into
in good faith, each faction acting in the honest belief that it is entitled to operate as
the legitimate PTGWO and so as not to disturb the rights, benefits and privileges
accorded by the CBA's to the parties therein, the CBA's entered into by PTGWO-
Dinglasan and PTGWO-Oca are recognized as valid and binding until their respective
expiry dates.
The Bureau of Labor Relations is directed to supervise the election of officers of the
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization within sixty (60) days from
finality of this decision, without prejudice to the right of any group of workers or
unions to secede and to form their own or to affiliate with another federation. The
collective bargaining agreements entered into by PTGWO-Dinglasan and PTGWO-
Oca are recognized as valid and binding until their respective expiry dates.
102
G.R. No. 100898 July 5, 1993
ALEX FERRER, RAFAEL FERRER HENRY DIAZ, DOMINGO BANCOLITA, GIL DE
GUZMAN, and FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC LABOR UNIONS, (FEDLU), petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HUI KAM CHANG
(In his capacity as General Manager of Occidental Foundry Corporation),
OCCIDENTAL FOUNDRY CORPORATION, MACEDONIO S. VELASCO (In his capacity as
representative of the Federation of Free Workers), GENARO CAPITLE, JESUS
TUMAGAN, ERNESTO BARROGA, PEDRO LLENA, GODOFREDO PACHECO,
MARCELINO CASTILLO, GEORGE IGNAS, PIO DOMINGO, and JAIME BAYNADO,
respondents.
FACTS: The petition for certiorari before us seeks to annul and set aside: (a) the
decision dated June 20, 1991 of the Second Division of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) (Penned by Commissioner Rustico L. Diokno and concurred in by
Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez and Commissioner Domingo H. Zapanta)
which affirmed in toto the decision of April 5, 1990 of Labor Arbiter Eduardo J.
Carpio dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice on the
ground that both the company and the union merely complied with the collective
bargaining agreement provision sanctioning the termination of any employee who
fails to retain membership in good standing with the union; and (b) the NLRC
resolution denying the motion for the reconsideration of said decision (NLRC NCR
Case No. 00-10-04855-89).
Petitioners were regular and permanent employees of the Occidental Foundry
Corporation (OFC) in Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro Manila which was under the
management of Hui Kam Chang. As piece workers, petitioners' earnings ranged from
P110 to P140 a day. They had been in the employ of OFC for about ten years at the
time of their dismissal in 1989.
On January 5, 1989, the Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry Corporation-
FFW (SAMAHAN) and the OFC entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
which would be effective for the three-year period between October 1, 1988 and
September 30, 1991.
On May 6, 1989, petitioner Alex Ferrer and the SAMAHAN, filed in the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE), a complaint for the expulsion from SAMAHAN of
the following officers: Genaro Capitle (president), Jesus Tumagan (vice-president),
Godofredo Pacheco (auditor), and Marcelino Pacheco (board member). The
complaint was founded on said officers' alleged inattentiveness to the economic
demands of the workers and failure to retain membership in good standing.
However, on September 4, 1989, petitioners Diaz and Alex Ferrer withdrew the
petition.
On September 10, 1989, petitioners conducted a special election of officers of the
SAMAHAN. Said election was, however, later questioned by the FFW. Nonetheless,
the elected set of officers tried to dissuade the OFC from remitting union dues to the
officers led by Capitle who were allied with the FFW. Later, however, Romulo Erlano,
one of the officers elected at the special election, manifested to the DOLE that he
was no longer objecting to the remittance of union dues to the officers led by
Capitle. Petitioners' move to stage a strike based on economic demands was also
later disowned by members of the SAMAHAN.
The intraunion squabble came to a head when, on September 11, 1989, a resolution
expelling petitioners from the SAMAHAN was issued by the aforesaid union officials
headed by Capitle, together with board members George Ignas, Pio Domingo, and
Jaime Baynado.
Upon knowledge of their dismissal, petitioners volunteered to be admitted as
members of the Federation of Democratic Labor Unions (FEDLU) who represented
them before the DOLE in the complaint for illegal dismissal against the company,
SAMAHAN and FFW.
Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter disregard of
their right to due process of law, petitioners, through the FEDLU, filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the NLRC against Hui Kam Chang,
OFC, Macedonio S. Velasco (as representative of the FFW) the FFW, and the
SAMAHAN officers headed by Capitle.
In due course, after the case was ventilated through position papers and other
documents, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dismissing petitioners' complaint.
He found that in dismissing petitioners, OFC was "merely complying with the
mandatory provisions of the CBA — the law between it and the union." Hence, the
labor arbiter concluded, the dismissal of petitioners was an exercise of legitimate
management prerogative which cannot be considered as an unfair labor practice. On
whether the SAMAHAN and the FFW could be held liable for illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice, the arbiter opined that since there was no employer-employee
relationship between petitioners and respondent unions, the complaint against the
latter has no factual and legal bases, because petitioners "should not have confused
expulsion from membership in the union as one and the same incident to their
subsequent employment termination."
ISSUE: Whether the respondent Commision gravely abused its discretion in
affirming the decision of the labor arbiter which is allegedly in defiance of the
elementary principles of procedural due process as the petitioners were summarily
dismissed from employment without an investigation having been conducted by the
OFC on the veracity of the allegation of the SAMAHAN-FFW that they violated the
CBA .
RULING: While the law recognizes the right of an employer to dismiss employees in
warranted cases, it frowns upon arbitrariness as when employees are not accorded
due process. Thus, the prerogatives of the OFC to dismiss petitioners should not
have been whimsically done for it unduly exposed itself to a charge of unfair labor
practice for dismissing petitioners in line with the closed shop provision of the CBA,
without a proper hearing. Neither can the manner of dismissal be considered within
the ambit of managerial prerogatives, for while termination of employment is
traditionally considered a management prerogative, it is not an absolute prerogative
subject as it is to limitations founded in law, the CBA, or general principles of fair
play and justice.
Petitioners' alleged act of sowing disunity among the members of the SAMAHAN
could have been ventilated and threshed out through a grievance procedure within
the union itself. But resort to such procedure was not pursued.
union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting
disloyalty to the union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried to
remove as officials, it was but a natural act of self-preservation that petitioners fled
to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and the OFC had tried to terminate their
employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act.
Inasmuch as we have ascertained in the text of this discourse that the OFC
whimsically dismissed petitioners without proper hearing and has thus opened OFC
to a charge of unfair labor practice, it ineluctably follows that petitioners can receive
their back wages computed from the moment their compensation was withheld
after their dismissal in 1989 up to the date of actual reinstatement. In such a
scenario, the award of back wages can extend beyond the 3-year period fixed by the
Mercury Drug Rule depending, of course, on when the employer will reinstate the
employees.
It may appear that Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
6715, has made the employer bear a heavier burden than that pronounced in the
Mercury Drug Rule, but perhaps Republic Act No. 6715 was enacted precisely for the
employer to realize that the employee must be immediately restored to his former
position, and to impress the idea that immediate reinstatement is tantamount to a
cost-saving measure in terms of overhead expense plus incremental productivity to
the company which lies in the hands of the employer.

Petitioners sought the help of the FEDLU only after they had learned of the
termination of their employment upon the recommendation of Capitle. Their alleged
application with federations other than the FFW can hardly be considered as
disloyalty to the SAMAHAN, nor may the filing of such applications denote that
petitioners failed to maintain in good standing their membership in the SAMAHAN.
The SAMAHAN is a different entity from FFW, the federation to which it belonged.
Neither may it, be inferred that petitioners sought disaffiliation from the FFW for
petitioners had not formed a union distinct from that of the SAMAHAN.
Parenthetically, the right of a local union to disaffiliate from a federation in the
absence of any provision in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a
local union is legal. Such right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of association.

Hence, while petitioners' act of holding a special election to oust Capitle, et al. may
be considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members, and,
perhaps, disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt with by the
103
G.R. No. 78131 January 20, 1988
EDUARDO TANCINCO, OSCAR E. BARTOLO, DANIEL DE LEON, EDDIE POE, VIRGILIO
SAN PEDRO, MA. LUISA QUIBIN, FE MUDLONG and HENRY MADRIAGA, petitioners,
vs.
DIRECTOR PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, EDWIN LACANILAO, BOYET DALMACIO,
JOSEFINO ESGUERRA, TESSIE GATCHALIAN, LITO CUDIA and DING PAGAYON,
respondents.
FACTS: This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the Resolution of
February 12, 1987 and the Decision of December 10, 1986 of the Bureau of Labor
Relations in BLR Case No. A922186, setting aside the order of July 25, 1986 which
decreed the inclusion and counting of the 56 segregated votes for the determination
of the results of the election of officers of Imperial Textile Mills Inc. Monthly
Employees Association (ITM-MEA).
Private respondents are the prime organizers of ITM-MEA. While said respondents
were preparing to file a petition for direct certification of the Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of ITM's bargaining unit, the union's Vice-President,
Carlos Dalmacio was promoted to the position of Department Head, thereby
disqualifying him for union membership. Said incident, among others led to a strike
spearheaded by Lacanilao group, respondents herein. Another group however, led
by herein petitioners staged a strike inside the company premises. After four (4) days
the strike was settled. On May 10, 1986 an agreement was entered into by the
representatives of the management, Lacanilao group and the Tancinco group the
relevant terms of which are as follows:
"1. That all monthly-paid employees shall be United under
one union, the ITM Monthly Employees Association (ITM-
MEA), to be affiliated with ANGLO;
2. That the management of ITM recognizes ANGLO as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all the monthly-paid
employees;
3. That an election of union officers shall be held on 26 May
l986, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
4. That the last day of filing of candidacy shall be on l9 May l986
at 4:00 p.m.;
5. That a final pre-election conference to finalize the list of
qualified voters shall be held on 19 May 1986, at 5:00 p.m.;"
On May 19, 1986, a pre-election conference was held, but the parties failed to agree
on the list of voters. During the May 21, 1986 pre-election conference attended by
MOLE officers, ANGLO through its National Secretary, a certain Mr. Cornelio A. Sy
made a unilateral ruling excluding some 56 employees consisting of the Manila office
employees, members of Iglesia ni Kristo, non-time card employees, drivers of Mrs.
Salazar and the cooperative employees of Mrs. Salazar. Prior to the holding of the
election of union officers petitioners, through a letter addressed to the Election
Supervisor, MOLE San Fernando Pampanga, protested said ruling but no action was
taken. On May 26, 1986, the election of officers was conducted under the
supervision of MOLE wherein the 56 employees in question participated but whose
votes were segregated without being counted. Lacanilao's group won. Lacanilao
garnered 119 votes with a margin of three (3) votes over Tancinco prompting
petitioners to make a protest. Thereafter, petitioners filed a formal protest with the
Ministry of Labor Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga claiming that the
determination of the qualification of the 56 votes is beyond the competence of
ANGLO. Private respondents maintain the contrary on the premise that definition of
union's membership is solely within their jurisdiction.
On the basis of the position papers submitted by the parties MOLE's Med Arbiter
issued an order dated July 25, 1986 directing the opening and counting of the
segregated votes. BLR rendered a decision holding the exclusion of the 56 employees
as arbitrary, whimsical, and wanting in legal basis but set aside the challenged order
of July 26, 1986 on the ground that 51 of 56 challenged voters were not yet union
members at the time of the election per April 24, 1986 list submitted before the
Bureau.
Dissatisfied with the turn of events narrated above petitioners elevated the case to
this Court by way of the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. Petitioners allege that public respondent director of Labor Relations
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the Med-Arbiter to disregard the 56
segregated votes and proclaim private respondents as the duly elected officers of
ITM-MEA whereas said respondent ruled that the grounds relied upon by ANGLO for
the exclusion of voters are arbitrary, whimsical and without legal basis.
ISSUE: Whether the 56 employees have the right to vote even though some of
them are not included in the list of union members submitted to the Bureau

RULING: YES. Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified
members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to
vote in the election of union's officers. It finds no support in fact and in law. Per
public respondent's findings, the April 24, 1986 list consists of 158 union members
only wherein 51 of the 56 challenged voters' names do not appear. Adopting
however a rough estimate of a total number of union members who cast their votes
of some 333 and excluding therefrom the 56 challenged votes, if the list is to be the
basis as to who the union members are then public respondent should have also
disqualified some 175 of the 333 voters. It is true that under article 242(c) of the
Labor Code, as amended, only members of the union can participate in the election
of union officers. The question however of eligibility to vote may be determined
through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee's status during the
applicable payroll period. The payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute
in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of operations
in case of employees in seasonal industries.

Their act of joining the election by casting their votes on May 26, 1986 after the May
10, 1986 agreement is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union. They
must therefore be considered ipso facto members. Said employees having exercised
their right to unionism by joining ITM-MEA their decision is paramount. Their names
could not have been included in the list of employee submitted on April 24, 1986 to
the Bureau of Labor for the agreement to join the union was entered into only on
May 10, 1986. Indeed the election was supervised by the Department of Labor
where said 56 members were allowed to vote. Private respondents never challenged
their right to vote then.

Respondents themselves pointed out that petitioners joined the negotiating panel in
the recently concluded CBA. This fact alone is conclusive against herein petitioners
and hence will estop them later if ever, from questioning the CBA which petitioners
concurred with.