Professional Documents
Culture Documents
o
However, Atty. Montao did not
possess the qualification requirement under
par. (d) of Section 26 that candidates must
be an officer or member of a legitimate
labor organization.
o
Since Atty. Montao, as legal
assistant employed by FFW, is considered
as confidential employee, consequently, he
is ineligible to join FFW Staff Association,
the rank-and-file union of FFW.
Union officers:
o
The disallowed expenditures were
made in GF and for the benefit of the
members, and that they are willing to
reimburse the same from their own
personal funds.
o
They should not be held accountable
for books of accounts for 1977-79 since
they were not the officers then and not one
of the former officers had turned over the
records in question.
o
The non-ratification of the
constitution and bylaws and the nonsegregation of the Union funds occurred
before they became officers and that they
have already been correcting it.
11
MedArbiter ordered the holding of a
referendum to decide whether to expel or
suspend the Union officers.
Facts :
Petitioner was employed by
respondent as Checker I and a member of
the company union. On April 1992,
petitioner was then the VP of the union and
appointed to the position of Shop Steward
which is a union position under the payroll
of the company. The CBA between the
union and company provided for the
appointment of a Shop Steward from among
the union members upon recommendation
of the union president. The Shop Steward
is a field representative of both the
company and the union and acts as an
independent arbiter of all complaints
brought to his attention.
On December 1993, the union
president wrote a letter to the petitioner
regarding his recall as a Shop Steward due
to loss of trust and confidence. After
investigation, the company recommends
the recall of the petitioner as Shop Steward
and reversion to his former position as
Checker I in accordance with CBA.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the DOLE.
In an order, the Med Arbiter ordered the
reinstatement of petitioner as Shop
Steward. The order of Med-Arbiter was
affirmed by the Secretary of Labor.
Petitioner again filed a complaint with
Med-Arbiter involving money claims in the
form of allowances, etc., The complaint was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner
filed a series of complaints with NLRC one of
which is for ULP which later amended to
illegal demotion. The LA dismissed the
complaint for lack of cause of action. While
the cases filed were pending, a second
complaint for ULP was filed, the LA
dismissed the same for lis pendencia. On
third complaint, the same is dismissed for
res judicata. Petitioner appealed the
decision to NLRC which NLRC remanded the
case.
Upon remand, the LA ruled that the
demotion was for cause but was effected
without observance of procedural due
process and ordered the respondent to pay
petitioner indemnity. Confusion followed,
petitioner filed a motion to be reinstated to
the position of Shop Steward which was
resolved in his favor. Respondent filed a
Petition for Prohibition, Issuance of TRO
and/or Writ of Permanent Injunction
claiming that petitioner should be
reinstated to his previous position of
Checker I.
The NLRC issued a TRO.
Petitioner filed a petition before the CA.
The CA took note of the reinstatement of
12
13
FACTS
Since January 1979, there had been
negotiations between the Pacific Banking
Corporation and the Pacific Banking
Corporation Employees Organization
(PABECO) for a CBA for 1979 to 1981.
Because of a deadlock, the Minister of Labor
assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.
The Deputy Minister rendered a decision
directing the parties to execute a CBA in
accordance with the terms and conditions
set forth in his decision
The union was represented in the
negotiations by its president, Paula S. Paug,
allegedly assisted as consultant by Jose P.
Umali, Jr., the president of the National
Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) with
which it was formerly affiliated. Lawyer
Juanito M. Saavedras earliest recorded
participation in the case was on July 15 and
27, 1979 when he filed a motion for
reconsideration and a supplemental motion.
No action was taken on said motions.
The parties appealed to the Office of the
President of the Philippines. The CBA
negotiations were resumed. The union
president took part in the second phase of
the negotiations. Saavedra filed a
memorandum. He claimed he exerted much
effort to expedite the decision. The Office of
the President issued a resolution directing
the parties to execute a CBA containing the
terms and conditions of employment
embodied in the resolution.
The CBA was ultimately finalized on June 3,
1980. Monetary benefits of more than P14
M were involved in the three-year CBA,
according to the banks counsel.
Even before the formalization of the CBA,
Saavedra filed in the case his notice of
attorney s lien. The banks vice-president in
a reply to the letter of the union president
stated that he had serious doubts about
paying the attorneys fees.
The union officials requested the bank to
withhold around P345,000 out of the total
benefits as 10% attorneys fees of
Saavedra. At first, the bank interposed no
objection to the request in the interest of
harmonious labor-management relations. In
theory, the actual 10% attorneys fees may
amount to more than one million pesos.
15
18
Held:
The non-compliance by the private
respondent with the said award did not
threaten the existence of petitioner or that
of its members. The dispute did not concern
the right of the Union to organize nor the
employees right to work. It merely involved
the non-payment of the vacation and sick
leaves of the employees for the past years
services. Furthermore, petitioner could have
applied with the Bureau of Labor Relations
for a writ of execution to enforce the award
that was already final and executory. As to
the second issue, petitioner assails as too
harsh the suspension meted out by the
NLRC to its members. The strikers in
question did not only violate the no-strike
policy of the state in regard to vital
industries; instead, they repeatedly defied
the orders of the Director of Labor Relations
and the Minister of Labor for them to return
to work. Their dismissal was recommended
by the labor arbiter. However, out of
compassion, the NLRC and the Minister of
Labor only suspended them. Petitioner then
21