Duyag v. Inciong

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the removal of private respondents as union officers due to alleged irregularities and anomalies in the administration of the affairs of the union. On January 14, 1977, the five petitioners, who are arrastre checkers of E. Razon, Inc. in the South Harbor, Port Area, Manila as well as bona fide members of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union, filed with Regional Office No. 4 of the Department of Labor a complaint containing several charges against the four private respondents, who, respectively, are the president (for more than twenty years), treasurer, vice-president and auditor of the union. The record reveals the following facts, some of which are admitted or not denied by the private respondents, whiny the other facts are supported by substantial evidence which is summarized in the decisions of the med-arbiter and the Director of Labor Relations: Unauthorized increases in union dues.

- for arrastre checkers, the monthly union dues amount to ten pesos, as fixed in section 2(b), article VI of the union's constitution and bylaws approved on September 5,1969. The monthly union dues were increased by two pesos in the resolution of September 1, 1970 and by five pesos in the resolution of March 14, 1972. However, those two resolutions are void because they were not approved by three-fourths of all the members of the board of directors, as required in article VII of the union's constitution and by-laws, dealing with amendments.

For March, April and May, 1973, the respondents without the benefit of any board resolution caused to be collected an additional one peso, thus increasing the union dues to eighteen pesos. For April and May, 1975, the respondents caused to be collected monthly union dues amounting to nineteen pesos or another increase of one peso. And for the first semester of 1976, a deduction of eight pesos and fifty centavos was made from the mid-year bonus without any board resolution authorizing such deduction.

In prior years, no deduction for union dues was made from the mid-year bonus. The med-arbiter concluded that the increases in union dues and the deduction from the mid-year bonus are void because the same were collected in contravention of the constitution and by-laws. Moreover, their collection was not covered by any check-off authorization nor evidenced by any receipt and was in contravention of the Labor Code.

The amounts collected were not duly accounted for. The Labor Code provides: "ART. 242.

Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. - The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization: x x x x x x x x x "(g) No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws; "(h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose; x x x x x x x x x "(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly caned for the purpose.

The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees.

The record shall be attested to by the president; "(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney's fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and x x x x x x x x x. The foregoing legal provisions apply squarely to the unauthorized deductions from the wages of the arrastre checkers.

For such unauthorized collection of union dues, the responsibility of respondent Ricardo R. Manalad, as union president, is not denied. Withholding of union members' share in the profits amounting to P18,640.09. - E. Razon, Inc., the arrastre operator, paid to the union on December 18.

1973 the sum of P25,684.61 as its share of the profits (profit-share) for the period from May to October, 1973. Instead of distributing the whole amount to the union members, the dents paid to them only P19,974 and retained the of P5,710.61 which had not been accounted for. The Labor Arbiter found that other amounts were withheld by the respondents from the union's profit-shares for subsequent periods.

The total amount withheld is P18,640.09 or P18.570.63, as shown in page 8 of private respondents' memorandum. With specific reference to the profit-share amounting to P22,559.50 paid by E. Razon, Inc. for the period from November, 1973 to February, 1974, the respondents deposited the amount in the account of the union's Cooperative Credit Union of which respondent Manalad was also the president. Later, the respondents withdrew the said amount, distributed among the union members the sum of P20,848 and withheld the balance of P1,711.50, which respondent Manalad and the union treasurer, respondent Honorato K. Leano appropriated as follows: Manalad - Filipinas Bank and Trust Com pany, Manila Hilton Branch Chock No. 352966 dated March 22, 1975, drawn to cash.................

P1.000.00 Leaño - Filipinos Rank and Trust Company, Manila Hilton Branch Chock No. 352967 dated March 22, 1975, drawn to cash............................ 559.50 Leaño - Filipinos Bank and Trust Company Manila Hilton Branch Check No. 352968 dated March 22,1975, drawn to cash............................. 152.00 TOTAL .........................................