View full case

UST FACULTY UNION v. DIR. BITONIO JR. OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) and its members, who are faculty members of the University of Santo Tomas. The USTFU had a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the University that was set to expire on May 31, 1998. On September 21, 1996, a notice was posted calling for a general assembly to elect the next set of officers. A Committee on Elections (COMELEC) was constituted to oversee the elections. On October 4, 1996, a general faculty assembly was held, attended by USTFU members and non-USTFU members. During this assembly, the appellants were elected as the new set of USTFU officers by acclamation.

The appellees filed a petition seeking the nullification of the election, alleging violations of the USTFU's constitution and by-laws. The USTFU officers elected during this assembly claimed to be the legitimate leaders of the union. On October 24, 1996, the USTFU officers were served a notice to vacate the union office. They filed an urgent ex-parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Meanwhile, the officers who were elected during the October 4, 1994 assembly moved to dismiss the original petition and subsequent motion on jurisdictional grounds.

Appellants argued that the med-arbiter had no jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition, including ancillary remedies such as a TRO, and that they were the new set of union officers elected in accordance with the law. They claimed that the elections called by the appellees were illegal because no rules and regulations were promulgated as required by USTFU's constitution and by-laws. They also argued that the general faculty assembly held on October 4, 1996, was under the control of the Council of College/Faculty Club Presidents in cooperation with the USTFU Reformist Alliance. Appellants claimed that the new CBA was ratified on December 12, 1996, by an overwhelming majority, and moved for the dismissal of the appellees' petition on the ground of mootness.

The case was appealed to the labor secretary, who transmitted the case to the Bureau of Labor Relations for resolution. The main issue is whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the officers elected during the October 4, 1996 general assembly. The appellants argue that the recognition by UST and the alleged ratification of the new CBA legitimize their position as union officers. The petitioners also argue that the ratification of the new CBA has rendered moot and academic the issue of the validity of the suspension of the Constitution and By-Laws and the elections held on October 4, 1996, in the General Faculty Assembly.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Director of Labor Relations gravely abused his discretion in affirming the med-arbiter's ruling and refusing to recognize the binding effect of the October 4, 1996 general assembly called by the UST administration.

  2. Whether the union members who conducted the October 4, 1996 general assembly had the right to self-organization.

  3. Whether or not the October 4, 1996 election was a valid union election or certification election.

  4. Whether or not the October 4, 1996 election violated the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws.

  5. Whether or not the October 4, 1996 assembly effectively suspended the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws.

  6. Whether the general faculty assembly attended by members and non-members alike was a proper forum for transacting union matters.

  7. Whether non-union members could initiate the suspension of a union's constitution and participate in a union election.

  8. Whether the grievances of the petitioners could have been resolved in accordance with the procedure laid down by the union's constitution and the Labor Code.

  9. Whether the ratification of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) validated the void election held on October 4, 1996.

RULING:

  1. The petition is not meritorious. The Court held that the Director of Labor Relations did not gravely abuse his discretion in affirming the med-arbiter's ruling and refusing to recognize the binding effect of the general assembly. The Court emphasized that the freedom to self-organize is a fundamental right, but it must be exercised in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the union. The constitution and bylaws of a union define the privileges, rights, duties, and obligations of its members, and must be respected to maintain the union as a democratic institution.

  2. The Court ruled that the union members who conducted the October 4, 1996 general assembly did not have the right to self-organization. The Court explained that while employees have the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, becoming a union member requires not only the intent to become one, but also positive steps to realize that intent in accordance with the union's constitution and bylaws. Conducting a general assembly without following the procedures set by the union's constitution and bylaws does not qualify as a valid exercise of the right to self-organization.

  3. The October 4, 1996 election cannot be considered a valid union election or certification election. The procedure laid down in the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws for the election of officers was not followed. Additionally, non-union members participated in the election, which further aggravated its irregularity.

  4. The October 4, 1996 election was found to have violated the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws. It was not called by the USTFU and did not follow the provision on general membership meetings as stated in the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws. There was also no commission on elections to oversee the election, as mandated in the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws. Furthermore, the election was not conducted using secret balloting, which is a violation of both the Constitution and Bylaws and the Labor Code.

  5. The October 4, 1996 assembly did not effectively suspend the USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws. The assembly was not the proper forum to conduct the election of USTFU officers as it was not attended by all union members and even included non-union members. The USTFU's Constitution and Bylaws should be upheld unless they are contrary to law, good morals, or public policy.

  6. The general faculty assembly attended by members and non-members was not a proper forum for transacting union matters. Allowing non-union members to initiate the suspension of a union's constitution and participate in a union election is incompatible with the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize.

  7. Non-union members cannot initiate the suspension of a union's constitution and participate in a union election. Appellants should have become members of the union first and availed themselves of the orderly procedures and remedies provided in the union's constitution.

  8. The grievances of the petitioners could have been resolved in accordance with the procedure laid down by the union's constitution and the Labor Code. The method used by the petitioners was in total disregard of the union's constitution and due process.

  9. The ratification of a new CBA does not validate the void election held on October 4, 1996. The ratification only pertains to the terms of the new CBA and not the issue of union leadership, which should be decided by union members in the proper forum and after observance of proper procedures.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Freedom to self-organize is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code.

  • The constitution and bylaws of a union define the privileges, rights, duties, and obligations of its members.

  • The union's constitution and bylaws must be respected and followed to maintain the union as a democratic institution.

  • Conducting a general assembly without following the procedures set by the union's constitution and bylaws does not qualify as a valid exercise of the right to self-organization.

  • Union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity.

  • The importance of a union's constitution and bylaws which embody a covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamental law governing the members' rights and obligations.

  • Union elections must follow the procedures laid down in the union's constitution and bylaws.

  • Non-union members cannot vote in a union election, unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union.

  • Union elections must be conducted using secret balloting.

  • An irregularly conducted election can be rendered void due to the lack of due process and integrity of the voting process.

  • The freedom of association and protection of the right to organize should be guaranteed by insulating unions against intrusions from the employer and non-union members.

  • Non-union members cannot initiate the suspension of a union's constitution and participate in a union election. Membership in the union is required before participating in union matters.

  • Grievances should be resolved in accordance with the procedures laid down by the union's constitution and the Labor Code. Resorting to methods that disregard these procedures is not justified.

  • The ratification of a new CBA does not validate a void election. The issue of union leadership should be decided by union members in the proper forum and after observance of proper procedures.