Union Deprived Member’s Right to Appeal

Petitioner was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU).

On 11 April 2007, MWEU informed petitioner that it was unable to fully deduct the increased union dues from his salary because the latter failed to issue a check-off authorization. It warned petitioner that his failure to pay the union dues would result in sanctions upon him.

MWEU, through its executive board, soon charged petitioner because he failed to pay his union dues. After hearing, the board imposed a penalty of suspension.

Following the provisions of the MWEU constitution and by-laws, petitioner appealed the decision of the executive board to MWEU’s general membership assembly. The assembly denied the appeal, stating that the prescribed period for appeal had expired. Petitioner wrote the assembly demanding that it should entertain his appeal, but the latter did not act on the same.

Thereafter, petitioner was charged again in connection with his failure to pay union dues. After hearing, the board penalized him with suspension.

Petitioner invoked his right to appeal to the assembly. However, the board did not act on the same.

Meanwhile, MWEU scheduled an election of officers, to which petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for Vice-President. MWEU disqualified him for not being a member in good standing on account of his suspension.

MWEU charged petitioner with non-payment of union dues for the third time, but the latter did not attend the scheduled hearing. This time, the board imposed the penalty of expulsion from MWEU.

Petitioner’s plea for an appeal to the assembly were once more unheeded.

Petitioner filed a complaint against MWEU and its officers for unfair labor practices, damages, and attorney’s fees before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner accused the respondents of illegal termination from MWEU in connection with the events relative to his non-payment of union dues.

Respondents countered:

  • the Office of the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the dispute, it being intra-union in nature;
  • the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) was the proper venue, in accordance with law1Article 232 (Formerly Article 226) of the Labor Code of the Philippines and prevailing rules;2Section 1, Rule XI of Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Order 40-03, Series of 2003; and
  • they were not guilty of unfair labor practices, discrimination, coercion, or restraint.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that some of petitioner’s causes of action constitute intra-union cases cognizable by the BLR under the Labor Code of the Philippines:

“An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the following circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes.”

However, the Court ruled that petitioner’s charge of unfair labor practices fell within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the Labor Arbiter under law.3Article 224 (Formerly Article 217) of the Labor Code of the Philippines In addition, the law4Article 258 (Formerly Article 247) of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that:

“the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.”

Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer5Under Article 259 (Formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code of the Philippines and by labor organizations6Under Article 260 (Formerly Article 249) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. With regard to labor organizations, the law provides:

“ART. 260 (Formerly 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 self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;

“(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members;” x x x

Petitioner contended that the respondents committed unfair labor practices when he was illegally suspended and expelled with the denial of his right to appeal his case to the assembly.

On the other hand, respondents argued that such charge was intra-union in nature, and that petitioner lost his right to appeal when he failed to petition to convene the assembly in accordance with MWEU’s constitution and by-laws.

The Supreme Court interpreted said constitution and by-laws and noted that:

  • When an MWEU member is suspended, he is given the right to appeal such suspension within three working days from the date of notice of said suspension, which appeal the board is obligated to act upon by a simple majority vote.
  • When the member is expelled, said member is given seven days from notice of said dismissal and/or expulsion to appeal to the board, which is 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 assembly in a meeting duly called for the purpose.

The Court found that when the petitioner received the decision to suspend him for the second time, he immediately and timely filed a written appeal. However, the board did not act thereon. Then again, when petitioner was charged for the third time and meted the penalty of expulsion from MWEU, the board did not act on his timely appeal.

Thus, the Court did not agree with respondents’ argument that petitioner lost his right to appeal when he failed to petition to convene the assembly under MWEU’s constitution and by-laws. The Court ruled that the petitioner was illegally suspended for the second time and thereafter unlawfully expelled from MWEU due to respondents’ failure to act on his appeals.

According to the Court, the required petition to convene the assembly does not apply in petitioner’s case because the board must first act on his two appeals before the matter could properly be referred to the assembly.

Because respondents did not act on the two (2) appeals, petitioner was:

  • unceremoniously suspended;
  • disqualified and deprived of his right to run for the position of MWEU Vice-President;
  • expelled from MWEU; and
  • forced to join another union.

For these, the Court concluded that the respondents were guilty of unfair labor practices under law7Article 260 (Formerly Article 249) (a) and (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines through the:

  • violation of petitioner’s right to self-organization;
  • his unlawful discrimination; and
  • illegal termination of his union membership.

According to the court, petitioner’s case falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the Labor Arbiter.8In accordance with Article 224 (Formerly Article 217) of the Labor Code of the Philippines

Further reading:

  • Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016.

Check Out My Latest YouTube Video:

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/embed?listType=playlist&list=UUA0qsY28UIiqNcY45Ez2rjg&layout=gallery[/embedyt]