Mendoza v. Manila Water Employees Union
Mendoza v. Manila Water Employees Union
Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union In 2008, during the freedom period and negotiations for a new
(MWEU), a Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) registered collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with MWC, petitioner joined
labor organization consisting of rank-and-file employees within the another union, the Workers Association for Transparency,
Manila Water Company (MWC). Empowerment and Reform, All-Filipino Workers Confederation
(WATER-AFWC). He was elected union President. Other MWEU
The respondents were MWEU officers during the period material to
members were inclined to join WATER-AFWC, but MWEU director
this Petition, with Borela as President and Chairman of the MWEU
Torres threatened that they would not get benefits from the new
Executive Board, Quebral as First Vice-President and Treasurer, and
CBA.
Cometa, as Secretary.
The MWEU leadership submitted a proposed CBA which contained
In a letter, MWEU through Cometa informed petitioner that the
provisions to the effect that in the event of retrenchment, non-
union was unable to fully deduct the increased P200 union dues
MWEU members shall be removed first, and that upon the signing
from his salary due to lack of the required check-off authorization
of the CBA, only MWEU members shall receive a signing bonus.
from him.
RULING of the LABOR ARBITER:
Petitioner was warned that his failure to pay the union dues would
result in sanctions upon him. Quebral informed Borela, through a On October 13, 2008, petitioner filed a Complaint against
letter, that for such failure to pay the union dues, petitioner and respondents for unfair labor practices before the NLRC of Quezon
several others violated the MWEU's Constitution and By-Laws. In City. petitioner accused the respondents of illegal termination from
turn, Borela referred the charge to the MWEU grievance committee MWEU in connection with the events relative to his non-payment of
for investigation. union dues; unlawful interference, coercion, and violation of the
rights of MWC employees to self-organization — in connection with
In May 2007, a notice of hearing was sent to petitioner, who
the proposed CBA submitted by MWEU leadership, which petitioner
attended the scheduled hearing. In June 2007, the MWEU grievance
claims contained provisions that discriminated against non-MWEU
committee recommended that petitioner be suspended for 30 days.
members.
Petitioner was once more charged with non-payment of union dues,
In their joint Position Paper and other pleadings, respondents
and was required to attend hearing. Thereafter, petitioner was
claimed that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the dispute,
again penalized with a 30-day by Borela informing petitioner of the
which is intra-union in nature; that the Bureau of Labor Relations
Executive Board's "unanimous approval" of the grievance committee
(BLR) was the proper venue; and that they were not guilty of unfair
recommendation to suspend, to which he submitted a written
labor practices, discrimination, coercion or restraint.
reply, invoking his right to appeal through the convening of the
General Membership Assembly. However, the respondents did not The Labor Arbiter ruled that the parties shall exhaust first all the
act on petitioner's plea. administrative remedies before resorting to compulsory arbitration.
Thus, instant case is referred back to the Union for the General
Meanwhile, MWEU scheduled an election of officers. Petitioner filed
Assembly to act or deliberate complainant's appeal on the decision
his certificate of candidacy for Vice-President, but he was
of the Executive Board.
disqualified for not being a member in good standing on account of
his suspension.
RULING of the NLRC: of unfair labor practices and simply dismissed his complaint on the
ground that his causes of action are intra- or inter-union in nature;
Petitioner appealed before the NLRC. The NLRC issued its Decision,
that admittedly, some of his causes of action involved intra- or inter-
declaring that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby declared
union disputes, but other acts of respondents constitute unfair labor
NULL and VOID for being rendered without jurisdiction and the
practices; that he presented substantial evidence to prove that
instant complaint is DISMISSED.
respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices by failing to observe
RULING of the CA: the proper procedure in the imposition of the increased monthly
union dues, and in unduly imposing the penalties of suspension and
In a Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA, petitioner sought to
expulsion against him; that under the union's constitution and by-
reverse the NLRC Decision and be awarded his claim for damages
laws, he is given the right to appeal his suspension and expulsion to
and attorney's fees on account of respondents' unfair labor
the general membership assembly; that in denying him his rights as
practices, arguing among others that his charge of unfair labor
a union member and expelling him, respondents are guilty of malice
practices is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter; that the fact that the
and evident bad faith; that respondents are equally guilty for
dispute is inter- or intra-union in nature cannot erase the fact that
violating and curtailing his rights to vote and be voted to a position
respondents were guilty of unfair labor practices in interfering and
within the union, and for discriminating against non-MWEU
restraining him in the exercise of his right to self-organization as
members; and that the totality of respondents' conduct shows that
member of both MWEU and WATER-AFWC, and in discriminating
they are guilty of unfair labor practices.
against him and other members through the provisions of the
proposed CBA which they drafted; that his failure to pay the RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
increased union dues was proper since the approval of said increase
In their joint Comment, respondents maintain that petitioner raises
was arrived at without observing the prescribed voting procedure
issues of fact which are beyond the purview of a petition for review
laid down in the Labor Code; that he is entitled to an award of
on certiorari; that the findings of fact of the CA are final and
damages and attorney's fees as a result of respondents' illegal acts
conclusive; that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in declaring
in discriminating against him; and that in ruling the way it did, the
that there is no unfair labor practices committed against petitioner;
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
that petitioner's other allegations fall within the jurisdiction of the
The CA ruled that petitioner's complaint cannot prosper for lack of BLR, as they refer to intra- or inter-union disputes between the
substantial evidence. Other than his bare allegation, petitioner parties; that the issues arising from petitioner's right to information
offered no proof that MWEU did not penalize some union members on the increased dues, right to appeal his suspension and expulsion,
who failed to pay the increased dues. On the proposed and right to vote and be voted upon are essentially intra-union in
discriminatory CBA provisions, petitioner merely attached the pages nature; that his allegations regarding supposed coercion and
containing the questioned provisions without bothering to reveal the restraint relative to benefits in the proposed CBA do not constitute
MWEU representatives responsible for the said proposal. Plain an actionable wrong;| that in not paying his union dues, petitioner
accusations against all MWEU officers, without specifying their is guilty of insubordination and deserved the penalty of expulsion;
actual participation, do not suffice. Thus, the ULP charges must that petitioner failed to petition to convene the general assembly
necessarily fail. through the required signature of 30% of the union membership in
good standing.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
ISSUE:
Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that
respondents be declared guilty of unfair labor practices. Petitioner Whether the respondents are guilty of Unfair Labor Practices. –YES!
maintains in his Petition and Reply that respondents are guilty of
unfair labor practices which he clearly enumerated and laid out in
his pleadings below; that these unfair labor practices committed by
respondents fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter; that the
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA failed to rule on his accusation
RULING: Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and
procedure for prosecution thereof. — Unfair labor
Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer
practices violate the constitutional right of workers and
under Article 248 and by labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor
employees to self-organization, are inimical to the
Code, which provides as follows:
legitimate interests of both labor and management,
ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. — including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
its officers, agents or representatives: mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the
relations.
exercise of their right to self-organization.
However, a labor organization shall have "In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the
the right to prescribe its own rules with commission of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize."
respect to the acquisition or retention of "All the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence
membership; relate to the workers' right to self-organization." "The term unfair
labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
the Labor Code which, at their core, violates the
notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing
constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
organization." Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the 'right
associations or organizations who have actually
to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.
shall be held criminally liable.
NOTE: (Inter-Union Dispute v. Intra-Union Dispute)
Court finds that petitioner was illegally suspended for the
second time and thereafter unlawfully expelled from MWEU due In brief, "Inter-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and
to respondents' failure to act on his written appeals. The required among legitimate labor unions involving representation questions
petition to convene the general assembly through the required for purposes of collective bargaining or to any other conflict or
signature of 30% of the union membership does not apply in dispute between legitimate labor unions.
petitioner's case; the Executive Board must first act on his two
"Intra-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict between and among
appeals before the matter could properly be referred to the
union members, including grievances arising from any violation of
general membership. Because respondents did not act on his two
the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
appeals, petitioner was unceremoniously suspended, disqualified
disagreement over any provision of the union's constitution and by-
and deprived of his right to run for the position of MWEU Vice-
laws, or disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of union.
President in the election of officers, expelled from MWEU, and
forced to join another union, WATER-AFWC. For these,
respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices under
Article 249 (a) and (b) — that is, violation of petitioner's
right to self-organization, unlawful discrimination, and
illegal termination of his union membership — which case
falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiters, in accordance with Article 217 of the Labor
Code.
The primary concept of unfair labor practices is stated in Article 247
of the Code, which states: