ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 130680. June 7, 2000]

EMILIO NUNEZ et al. vs. HON. BENEDICTO ERNESTO BITONIO, JR., et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 130680 (Emilio Nu�ez and 201 other former members of Mabuhay Vinyl Workers Union-FFW (MVWU-FFW) v. Hon. Benedicto Ernesto Bitonio, Jr., Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and Mabuhay Vinyl Workers Union-FFW and/or Juanito B. Palacio Jr., President; Ben S. Carillo, Vice President; Prospero A. Sumagang, Secretary; Diosdado T. Reponte, Treasurer; Aurelio Pacong, Auditor; Wilfredo Navato, P.R.O.; Rodolfo Lumayag, Mutual Aid Officer; and Nestor Fernandez, Juanito Enriquez, Roberto Landicho, Vicente Borres, Edgardo Sala, Pedrito Doloquez, Wilfredo Rosales, Members of the Board of Directors.)

This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the 23 May 1997 and 1 July 1997 resolutions of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) denying petitioners' appeal and motion for reconsideration, respectively.

On 1 July 1996 petitioner Emilio Nu�ez, along with 201 other employees of private respondent Mabuhay Vinyl Corporation who were former members of the Mabuhay Vinyl workers' Union-FFW (MVWU-FFW) and are presently members of the Southern Philippine Federation of Labor (SPFL), filed a complaint with DOLE Regional Office XII for the cancellation of registration of MVWU-FFW, for a final audit and accounting of its funds and properties and for the liquidation and distribution of its assets to all its members, themselves included. To support their stance, petitioners cited MVWU-FFW's constitution and bylaws, Sec. 56 of which provides that three-fourths (3/4) vote of the members may dissolve the union. Without giving the exact number of employees in the union, petitioners nonetheless claimed that they constituted more than eighty percent (80%) of the union's membership. Since the remaining members no longer constituted at least twenty percent (20%) of the members of the members of the bargaining unit as required by Art. 234 [c] of the Labor Code, its registration should be cancelled pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 11, Book V, of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.

MVWU-FFW and its officers filed a motion to dismiss contending that petitioners had no cause of action against them. They pointed out that since petitioners were admittedly no longer members of MVWU-FFW they could not invoke Sec. 56 of the union's constitution as the provision applied only to members. As former members, petitioners had neither the legal personality nor cause of action to invoke this particular provision against MVWU-FFW.

On 7 February 1997 the Regional Director of the Regional Office XII denied the complaint and declared that "the respondent union's charter as a local of the Federation of Free Workers shall continue to exist." On appeal with the Bureau of Labor Relations, Director IV Benedicto Ernesto Bitonio Jr. dismissed the appeal for lack of merit in the assailed Resolution of 23 May 1997 and denied reconsideration in the Resolution of 1 July 1997.

The petition is devoid of merit.

First. Petitioners submit that private respondent union, MVWU-FFW, no longer has the support of twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the bargaining unit when they severed their membership therefrom; hence, its registration certificate should be cancelled because said support is required by Art. 234 of the Labor Code for a labor union to have a certificate of registration.

This is untenable. Private respondent MVWU-FFW is but a local chapter of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and as such it does not have its own registration certificate. A local chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization not upon compliance with the requirements of registration like those for an independent labor organization but upon submission with the BLR of a copy of its charter certificate indicating its creation issued by the federation which possesses a registration certificate. This is evident from Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment where the Court ruled that some of the requirements in Art. 234 of the Labor Code "are no longer required" with respect to direct affiliates -

Ordinarily, a labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon registration with the BLR x x x x

But when an unregistered union becomes a branch local or chapter of a federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II, Section 3, Book V of the Implementing Rules x x x x

Paragraph (a) refers to a local chapter of a federation which did not undergo the rudiments of registration while paragraph (b) refers to an independently registered union which affiliated with a federation. Implicit in the foregoing differentiation is the fact that a local or chapter need not be independently registered. By force of law [in this case, Art. 212 (h)], such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with the aforementioned provisions of Section 3.

Thus, several requirements that are otherwise required for union registration are omitted, to wit: 1). The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at least 20% of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit x x x x

Clearly the alleged lack of support of twenty percent (20%) of the employees in MVWY-FFW was not required to have such support prior to its recognition by the BLR as a legitimate local chapter of FFW. In other words, its legal existence could not be challenged on the ground that its membership no longer comprised at least twenty percent (20%) of the members of the bargaining unit.

Second. Petitioners who are admittedly no longer members of MVWU-FFW do not have the personality to ask for the dissolution of MVWU-FFW. Section 56 of MVWU-FFW's constitution and bylaws provides that "(t)he dissolution of the Union shall be decided by three-fourths (3/4) vote of all the members of the Union." Petitioners insists that their disaffiliation from the union should be considered as compliance with the three-fourths (3/4) vote needed to seek dissolution. This is a rather twisted interpretation of Sec. 56. The provision is clear. There must be a general meeting called for the purpose of deciding the issue of dissolution of the union where three-fourths (3/4) votes should be mustered to warrant dissolution.

Third. Since petitioners have already severed their ties with MVWU-FFW they have no right to ask for accounting of its funds. Article 241 of the Labor Code provides that only members of a union whose accounting of funds is sought may demand an accounting.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions dated 23 May 1997 and 1 July 1997 of public respondent Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment, which denied petitioners' appeal and their motion for reconsideration, respectively, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE