3.ust.bitonio

8/11/2019 3.UST.bitonio

1/13

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999

UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA, CORAON !UI, NORMACALAGUAS, IRMA "OT#NCIANO, LU $# GUMAN, R#M#$IOS GARCIA, R#N#ARN#%O, #$IT&A OCAM"O, C#SAR R#Y#S, C#LSO NI#RRA, GLIC#RIA'AL$R#S, MA. LOUR$#S M#$INA, &I$#LITA GA'O, MAF#L YSRA#L, LAURAA'ARA, NATII$A$ SANTOS, F#R$INAN$ LIMOS, CARM#LITA #S"INA,#NAI$A FAMORCA, "&ILI" AGUINAL$O, '#N#$ICTA ALAA *+ L#ONCIOCASAL, petitioners,vs.$r. '#N#$ICTO #RN#STO R. 'ITONIO %R. o- /e '0re0 o- Lbor Reo*,Me+Arber TOMAS F. FALCONITIN o- T/e No* C4 Reo*, $e4rme* o-Lbor *+ #m4ome* ($OL#), #$UAR$O %. MARI7O %R., MA. M#LYN ALAMIS,NORMA COLLANT#S, UR'ANO ALA'AGIA, RONAL$O ASUNCION, #NAI$A'URGOS, ANT&ONY CURA, FULIO M. GU#RR#RO, MYRNA &ILARIO, T#R#SITAM##R, F#RNAN$O "#$ROSA, NIL$A R#$O'LA$O, R#N# SISON, ##LYNTIROL *+ ROSI# ALCANTARA, respondents.

"ANGANI'AN, J.:

There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons, 1and inthe present case, in the right forum by the right parties. While grievances against unionleaders constitute legitimate complaints deserving appropriate redress, action thereonshould be made in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of properprocedures. Similarly, the election of union officers should be conducted in accordancewith the provisions of the union's constitution and bylaws, as well as the PhilippineConstitution and the Labor Code. Specifically, while all legitimate faculty members of theniversity of Santo Tomas !ST" belonging to a collective bargaining unit may ta#e partin a duly convened certification election, only bona fide members of the ST $aculty

nion !ST$" may participate and vote in a legally called election for union officers.%ob hysteria, however well&intentioned, is not a substitute for the rule of law.

The Case

The Petition for Certioraribefore us assails the ugust (), (**+ esolution 2of -irectorenedicto /rnesto . itonio 0r. of the ureau of Labor elations !L" in L Case


2/13

1o. &2&3*&*+, which affirmed the $ebruary ((, (**+ -ecision of %ed&rbiter Tomas $.$alconitin. The med&arbiters -ecision disposed as follows4

W5//$6/, premises considered, 7udgment is hereby rendered declaring the electionof ST$ officers conducted on 6ctober 3, (**8 and its election results as null and voidab initio.

ccordingly, respondents 9il 9amilla, et alare hereby ordered to cease and desist fromacting and performing the duties and functions of the legitimate officers of :the; niversityof Santo Tomas $aculty nion !ST$" pursuant to :the; union's constitution and by&laws!CL".

The Temporary estraining 6rder !T6" issued by this 6ffice on -ecember ((, (**8 inconnection with the instant petition, is hereby made and declared permanent. 3

Li#ewise challenged is the 6ctober


3/13

6n =3 6ctober (**8, the med&arbiter in Case 1o. 1C&6-&%&*8(=&==( issued atemporary restraining order against herein appellees en7oining them from conducting theelection scheduled on =) 6ctober (**8.

lso on =3 6ctober (**8, and as earlier announced by the ST secretary general, thegeneral faculty assembly was held as scheduled. The general assembly was attended by

members of the ST$ and, as admitted by the appellants, also by Bnon&ST$members :who; are members in good standing of the ST cademic CommunityCollective argaining nitB !See paragraph F?, espondents' Comment and %otion to-ismiss". 6n this occasion, appellants were elected as ST$'s new set of officers byacclamation and clapping of hands !See paragraphs 3= to )=, nneA B(@B, ppeal".

The election of the appellants came about upon a motion of one tty. Lope>, admittedlynot a member of ST$, that the ST$ CL and Bthe rules of the election besuspended and that the election be held :on; that dayB !See G paragraph


4/13

6n =< -ecember (**8, appellants and ST allegedly entered into another C coveringthe period from =( 0une (**8 to


5/13

from interfering with the employees in the latter' eAercise of their right to self&organi>ation.To allow appellants to become ST$ officers on the strength of management'srecognition of them is to concede to the employer the power of determining who shouldbe ST$'s leaders. This is a clear case of interference in the eAercise by ST$members of their right to self&organi>ation. :

5ence, this Petition.9

The Issues

The main issue in this case is whether the public respondent committed grave abuse ofdiscretion in refusing to recogni>e the officers BelectedB during the 6ctober 3, (**8general assembly. Specifically, petitioners in their %emorandum urge the Court toresolve the following uestions4 1;

!(" Whether the Collective argaining nit of all the faculty members in that 9eneral$aculty ssembly had the right in that 9eneral $aculty ssembly to suspend theprovisions of the Constitution and y&Laws of the ST$ regarding the elections of

officers of the union:.;

!@" Whether the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution and y&Laws of theST$ in that 9eneral $aculty ssembly is valid pursuant to the constitutional right ofthe Collective argaining nit to engage in Bpeaceful concerted activitiesB for the purposeof ousting the corrupt regime of the private respondents:.;

!


6/13

promulgation and finality of our -ecision in 1$L, we deem it proper to resolve thepresent controversy directly, instead of remanding it to the Court of ppeals. 5avingdisposed of the foregoing procedural matter, we now tac#le the issues in the presentcase seriati!.

Self&organi>ation is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution andthe Labor Code. /mployees have the right to form, 7oin or assist labor organi>ations forthe purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. 12Whetheremployed for a definite period or not, any employee shall be considered as such,beginning on his first day of service, for purposes of membership in a labor union. 13

Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to 7oin, affiliate with or assist a labor union. 18Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify theintent to become one, but also ta#e some positive steps to reali>e that intent. Theprocedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union's constitution andbylaws. 15n employee who becomes a union member acuires the rights and the

concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by the union'srules and regulations.

When a man 7oins a labor union !or almost any other democratically controlled group",necessarily a portion of his individual freedom is surrendered for the benefit of allmembers. 5e accepts the will of the ma7ority of the members in order that he may derivethe advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. 0ust as the enactments ofthe legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and by&laws of the union !unless contraryto good morals or public policy, or otherwise illegal", which are duly enacted throughdemocratic processes, bind all of the members. ?f a member of a union disli#es theprovisions of the by&laws, he may see# to have them amended or may withdraw from theunionE otherwise, he must abide by them. ?t is not the function of courts to decide thewisdom or propriety of legitimate by&laws of a trade union.

6n 7oining a labor union, the constitution and by&laws become a part of the member'scontract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by the constitution andgoverning rules of the union so far as it is not inconsistent with controlling principles oflaw. The constitution and by&laws of an unincorporated trade union eApress the terms of acontract, which define the privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, thosewho have become members. The agreement of a member on 7oining a union to abide byits laws and comply with the will of the lawfully constituted ma7ority does not reuire amember to submit to the determination of the union any uestion involving his personalrights. 16

Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly committed by the privaterespondents during the latter's incumbency impelled the 6ctober 3, (**8 election of thenew set of ST$ officers. They assert that such eAercise was pursuant to their right toself&organi>ation.

Petitioners' frustration over the performance of private respondents, as well as theirfears of a BfraudulentB election to be held under the latter's supervision, could not 7ustifythe method they chose to impose their will on the union. -irector itonio aptlyelucidated4 1


7/13

The constitutional right to self&organi>ation is better understood in the conteAt of ?L6Convention 1o. 2+ !$reedom of ssociation and Protection of ight to 6rgani>e", towhich the Philippines is signatory. rticle < of the Convention provides that wor#ers'organi>ations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect theirrepresentatives in full freedom, free from any interference from public authorities. Thefreedom conferred by the provision is eApansiveE the responsibility imposed on unionmembers to respect the constitution and rules they themselves draw up eually so. Thepoint to be stressed is that the union's CL is the fundamental law that governs therelationship between and among the members of the union. ?t is where the rights, dutiesand obligations, powers, functions and authority of the officers as well as the membersare defined. ?t is the organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any officer ormember of the union. Without respect for the CL, a union as a democratic institutiondegenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob rule.

Union 'lection &s.

Certification 'lection

union election is held pursuant to the union's constitution and bylaws, and the right tovote in it is en7oyed only by union !e!bers. union election should be distinguishedfrom a certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot,the sole and eAclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargainingunit, for purposes of collective bargaining. 1:Specifically, the purpose of a certificationelection is to ascertain whether or not a ma7ority of the employees wish to berepresented by a labor organi>ation and, in the affirmative case, by (hichparticularlabor organi>ation. 19

?n a certification election, allemployees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit canvote. 2;Therefore, a union member who li#ewise belongs to the appropriate bargainingunit is entitled to vote in said election. 5owever, the reverse is not always trueE anemployee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of theunion cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise authori>ed by the constitutionand bylaws of the union. Derily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non&union activity.

?n both elections, there are procedures to be followed. Thus, the 6ctober 3, (**8election cannot properly be called a union election, because the procedure laid down inthe ST$'s CL for the election of officers was not followed. ?t could not have been acertification election either, because representation was not the issue, and the properprocedure for such election was not followed. The participation of non&union membersin the election aggravated its irregularity.

Second Issue4

USTFU)s Constitution and

*+ #a(s ,iolated


8/13

The importance of a union's constitution and bylaws cannot be overemphasi>ed. Theyembody a covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamentallaw governing the members' rights and obligations. 21s such, the union's constitutionand bylaws should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to law, good morals orpublic policy.

We agree with the finding of -irector itonio and %ed&rbiter $alconitin that the 6ctober3, (**8 election was tainted with irregularities because of the following reasons.

First, the 6ctober 3, (**8 assembly was not called by the ST$. ?t was merely aconvocation of faculty clubs, as indicated in the memorandum sent to all facultymembers by $r. odel ligan, 6P, the secretary general of the niversity of SantoTomas. 22?t was not convened in accordance with the provision on general membershipmeetings as found in the ST$'s CL, which reads4

ARTIC#' ,III-''TI"S OF T.' U"IO"

Sec. (. The nion shall hold regular general membership meetings at least once everythree !


9/13

Sec. @. The C6%/L/C shall be composed of a chairman and twomembers all of whom shall be appointed by the oard of 6fficers.

AAA AAA AAA 28

Third, the purported election was not done by secret balloting, in violation of Section 8,

rticle ?F of the ST$'s CL, as well as rticle @3( !c" of the Labor Code.

The foregoing infirmities considered, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to-irector itonio's finding and conclusion. ?n Rodriguez &. 0irector1 *ureau of #aborRelations, 25we invalidated the local union elections held at the wrong date without priornotice to members and conducted without regard for duly prescribed ground rules. Weheld that the proceedings were rendered void by the lac# of due process G unduehaste, lac# of adeuate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and the absence ofthe notice of the dates of balloting.

Third Issue4

Suspension of USTFU)s C*#

Petitioners contend that the 6ctober 3, (**8 assembly BsuspendedB the union's CL.They aver that the suspension and the election that followed were in accordance withtheir Bconstituent and residual powers as members of the collective bargaining unit tochoose their representatives for purposes of collective bargaining.B gain they cite thenumerous anomalies allegedly committed by the private respondents as ST$officers. This argument does not persuade.

First, as has been discussed, the general faculty assembly was notthe proper forum to

conduct the election of ST$ officers. 1ot all who attended the assembly weremembers of the unionE some, apparently, were even disualified from becoming unionmembers, since they represented management. Thus, -irector itonio correctlyobserved4

$urther, appellants cannot be heard to say that the CL was effectively suspended duringthe =3 6ctober (**8 general assembly. union CL is a covenant between the unionand its members and among members !0ohnson and 0ohnson Labor nion&$$W, et al. v.-irector of Labor elations, (+= SC 38*". Where ?L6 Convention 1o. 2+ spea#s of aunion's full freedom to draw up its constitution and rules, it includes freedom frominterference by persons who are not members of the union. The democratic principle thatgovernance is a matter for the governed to decide upon applies to the labor movement

which, by law and constitutional mandate, must be assiduously insulated againstintrusions coming from both the employer and complete strangers if the Bprotection tolabor clauseB of the constitution is to be guaranteed. y appellant's own evidence, thegeneral faculty assembly of =3 6ctober (**8 was not a meeting of ST$. ?t wasattended by members and non&members ali#e, and therefore was not a forumappropriate for transacting union matters. The person who moved for the suspension ofST$'s CL was not a member of ST$. llowing a non&union member to initiate thesuspension of a union's CL, and non&union members to participate in a union electionon the premise that the union's CL had been suspended in the meantime, isincompatible with the freedom of association and protection of the right to organi>e.


10/13

?f there are members of the so&called Bacademic community collective bargaining unitBwho are not ST$ members but who would nevertheless want to have a hand inST$'s affairs, the appropriate procedure would have been for them to becomemembers of ST$ first. The procedure for membership is very clearly spelled out in

rticle ?D of ST$'s CL. 5aving become members, they could then draw guidancefromAng ala+ang anggaga(a "g Ang Tiba+ &.Ang Tiba+, (=< Phil. 88*. Therein theSupreme Court held that Bif a member of the union disli#es the provisions of the by&lawshe may see# to have them amended or may withdraw from the unionE otherwise he mustabide by them.B nder rticle FD?? of ST$'s CL, there is also a specific provision forconstitutional amendments. What is clear therefore is that ST$'s CL provides fororderly procedures and remedies which appellants could have easily availed:themselves; of instead of resorting to an eAercise of their so&called Bresidual powerB. 26

Second, the grievances of the petitioners could have been brought up and resolved inaccordance with the procedure laid down by the union's CL 2and by the Labor Code.2:They contend that their sense of desperation and helplessness led to the 6ctober 3,(**8 election. 5owever, we cannot agree with the method they used to rectify years ofinaction on their part and thereby ease bottled&up frustrations, as such method was in

total disregard of the ST$'s CL and of due process. The end never 7ustifies themeans.

We agree with the solicitor general's observation that Bthe act of suspending theconstitution when the uestioned election was held is an implied admission that theelection held on that date :6ctober 3, (**8; could not be considered valid under theeAisting ST$ constitution . . ..B 29

The ratification of the new C eAecuted between the petitioners and the niversity ofSanto Tomas management did not validate the void 6ctober 3, (**8 election. atifiedwere the terms of the new C, not the issue of union leadership G a matter that

should be decided only by union members in the proper forum at the proper time andafter observance of proper procedures.

'pilogue

?n dismissing this Petition, we are not passing upon the merits of the mismanagementallegations imputed by the petitioners to the private respondentsE these are not at issuein the present case. Petitioners can bring their grievances and resolve their differenceswith private respondents in timely and appropriate proceedings. Courts will not toleratethe unfair treatment of union members by their own leaders. When the latter abuse andviolate the rights of the former, they shall be dealt with accordingly in the proper forum

after the observance of due process.

W5//$6/, the Petition is hereby -?S%?SS/- and the assailed esolutions$$?%/-. Costs against petitioners.

S6 6-//-.

elo1 ,itug1 2urisi!a and onzaga-Re+es1 3341 concur4


11/13

Foo*oe

( SeePanganiban, attles in the Supreme Court, (**2 ed., p. )=.

@ Rollo, pp. +3&28.

< Rollo, pp. +@&+


12/13

a" Subversives or persons who profess subversive ideasE

b" Persons who have been convicted of a crime involving moralturpitudeE and

c" Persons who are not faculty members of the Company. !Rollo,

p.@2ed 1?61 purpose.

d" 9ross misconduct unbecoming a 1?61 officer.


13/13

e" %isappropriation of 1?61 funds and property. This is without pre7udice to thefiling of an appropriate criminal or civil action against the responsible officer orofficers by any interested party.

f" Willful violation of any provision of this Constitution and y&Laws or rules,regulations, measures, resolutions or decisions of the 1?61.

Sec. @. The following procedure shall govern impeachment and recallproceedings4

a" ?mpeachment or recall proceedings shall be initiated by a formal petition orresolution signed by at least thirty !

3.ust.bitonio

Documents