LABOR 2

CASE DIGEST

UST FACULTY UNION v.

BITONIO, JR.
November 16, 1999
Panganiban, J.
Luciano, Noel Christian

SUMMARY: Private respondents filed the instant petition

before the Med-Arb seeking injunctive relief and the
nullification of the union elections where petitioners were
elected as the new set of union officers. They contend, in
the main, that the election was conducted in violation of
the unions CBL. The Med-Arb and the BLR both held that
the election was null and void for non-compliance with the
unions CBL. In fact, non-union members were allowed to
vote in said election which cannot be countenanced. The
petitioners went to the SC on petition for certiorari. The SC
affirmed the BLR decision and upheld the nullification of
the elections for violation of the unions CBL.
DOCTRINE: [On Right to Self-Organization] Selforganization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right
to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose
of collective bargaining or their mutual aid and protection
(Art. 244, LC). Whether employed 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
labor union (Art. 277(c)).
[On Workers Qualification] Corollary to the right of selforganization is the prerogative to join, affiliate with, or
assist a labor union.
To become a union member, an employee must not only
signify the intent to become one, but also take some
positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for
union membership is usually embodied in the unions CBL.
An employee who becomes a union member acquires the

rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this

new status and becomes bound by the unions rules and
regulations.
PARTIES:
1. Petitioners = duly elected officers of the UST Faculty
Union (USTFU)
2. Private Respondents = faculty members of UST
3. Public Respondents = Med-Arbiter Bitonio and DOLE
Representative
FACTS: The Sec. Gen. of USTFU posted a notice addressed
to all union members announcing a general assembly to be
held on Oct. 5, 1996 for the election of the next set of union
officers and the constitution of its Comelec.
Meanwhile, Petitioners filed a separate petition with
the Med-Arb against the Petitioners and the Comelec
alleging:
1. Comelec was not constituted in accordance with
USTFUs Constitution and By Laws (CBL)
2. No rules had been issued to govern the conduct of
the Oct 5 elections
The Med-Arb then issued a TRO against the Private
Respondents enjoining them from conducting the Oct. 5
elections.
On Oct. 4, the general faculty was conducted as called
by the USTFU Sec. Gen. and was attended by members and
non-members of USTFU. On this occasion, Petitioners were
elected as the new set of USTFU officers. They were elected
upon motion of an USTFU non-member who moved for the
suspension of the rules on election so that the election be
held on that day (Oct 4 instead of Oct. 5 as originally called).
Private Respondents filed the instant petition seeking
injunctive relief and the nullification of the Oct. 4 election.
They allege:
1. Holding of the election violated the TRO of the MedArb

LABOR 2
CASE DIGEST

2. Election was usurpation as it was conducted in

violation of the CBL of the Union:
a. The general assembly was not called by the
Board
b. Non-compliance of the 10-day notice rule
c. No Comelec was organized
d. Not by secret balloting
e. Non-members were allowed to vote
Petitioners filed a MOTION TO DISMISS. They allege:
1. Med-Arb has NO jurisdiction over petitions for
prohibition, including ancillary injunctive remedies
2. They are now the new set of union officers as the
term of office of the previous set expired
3. The calling of the Oct. 5 elections was illegal because
no rules and regulations governing the elections
were promulgated as required by the CBL
4. They were not aware of the TRO when the Oct. 4
elections took place.
It appears that Petitioners and UST entered into a CBA
covering 1996-2001. To this, Private Respondents moved for
the issuance of a TRO which the Med-Arb granted.
MED-ARB DECISION: The Med-Arb held that:
1. The Oct. 4 elections (where the petitioners were
elected) was NULL and VOID
2. Thus, TRO is made permanent.
Petitioners appealed the Med-Arbs decision to the Labor
Sec. who transmitted the case to the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) authorized to resolve appeals of intra-union
cases (Art. 241, LC)
BLR DECISION: It agreed with the Med-Arb. It held that:
1. The Oct. 4 elections was void for violation of the
Unions CBL as the general assembly was no
convened or authorized by USTFU
2. The elections is not legitimized by the alleged
ratification of the general membership of the union.

Hence, Petitioners filed this petition.

ISSUE: WON the BLR committed grave abuse of discretion
in refusing to recognize the petitioners as elected officers
during the Oct. 4 general assembly
HELD: NO, the BLR did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.
RATIO:
First Issue: Right to Self-Organization and Union
Membership
[RELEVANT TOPIC]
I.

General Concepts:
A. Self-organization is a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor
Code
1. Art. 244, LC Employees have the right to
form, join, or assist labor organizations for
the purpose of collective bargaining or
their mutual aid and protection
2. Art. 277(c) Whether employed 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 labor union
B. Corollary to this right is the prerogative to
join, affiliate with, or assist a labor union
1. To become a union member, an employee
must not only signify the intent to become
one, but also take some positive steps to
realize that intent
2. The procedure for union membership is
usually embodied in the unions CBL
3. An employee who becomes a union
member acquires the rights and the
concomitant obligations that go with this

LABOR 2
CASE DIGEST

new status and becomes bound by the

unions rules and regulations
II.

III.

Petitioners frustration over the performance of

private respondents as well as their fears of a
fraudulent election to be held under the latters
supervision, could NOT justify the method they
chose to impose their will on the Union
A. ILO Convention No. 87, Art. 3 provides that
workers organizations shall have the right to
draw up their constitution and rules and to
elect their representatives in full freedom,
free from any interference from public
authorities
B. A unions CBL is the fundamental law that
governs the relationship between and among
the union members
1. This is where the rights, duties, and
obligations,
powers,
functions,
and
authority of the officers as well as the
members are defined.
2. It should be upheld, as long as they are
not contrary to law, good morals, or public
policy
Union election v. Certification Election
A. Union election is held pursuant to the unions
CBL, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only
by union members
B. Compare this with certification election which
is the process of determining, through secret
ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent in a bargaining unit
1. In certification election, all employees
belonging to the appropriate bargaining
unit is entitled to vote in the election
2. But a member of the collective bargaining
unit cannot vote in a union election if he is
not a member of said union

C. The Oct. 4 elections is neither a union election

nor a certification election
1. CBL was not followed (so not a union
election)
2. Representation was not in issue (so not a
certification election)
Second Issue: USTFUs CBL Violated
I.

The Oct. 4 election was tainted with irregularities:

A. First, the assembly was not called by the
USTFU.
1. It was a mere convocation of faculty clubs.
2. Not convened in accordance with the
provisions on general membership as
found in the CBL
B. Second, there was no Comelec to oversee the
election as mandated by the CBL
C. Third, the purported election was not done by
secret balloting as required by the CBL
Third Issue: Suspension of USTFUs CBL

I.

The alleged suspension of rules cannot be

sustained
A. First, the faculty assembly was not the proper
forum to conduct the elections as not all who
attended were members of the union
B. Second, the grievances of the petitioners
could have been brought up and resolved with
the procedure laid down in the CBL and by the
Labor Code

II.

Ratification of the new CBA executed by the

petitioners with UST management did not
validate the void Oct. 4 election
A. What was ratified was the terms of the new
CBA, not the issue of union leadership

LABOR 2
CASE DIGEST

DISPOSITIVE:
AFFIRMED.

Petition

is

dismissed.

BLR

resolution