[G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999.

] August 15, 1997 Resolution 2 of Director

Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio Jr. of the Bureau
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU)v. Dir. of Labor Relations (BLR) in BLR Case No. A-8-
BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR. of 49-97, which affirmed the February 11, 1997
the Bureau of Labor Relations Decision of Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin.
The med-arbiter’s Decision disposed as
DECISION follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered,

PANGANIBAN, J.: judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
election of USTFU officers conducted on
October 4, 1996 and its election results as null
There is a right way to do the right thing at the and void ab initio.
right time for the right reasons, 1 and, in the
present case, in the right forum by the right "Accordingly, respondents Gil Gamilla, et al
parties. While grievances against union are hereby ordered to cease and desist from
leaders constitute legitimate complaints acting and performing the duties and functions
deserving appropriate redress, action thereon of the legitimate officers of [the] University of
should be made in the proper forum at the Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) pursuant
proper time and after observance of proper to [the] union’s constitution and by-laws (CBL).
procedures. Similarly, the election of union
officers should be conducted in accordance "The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
with the provisions of the union’s constitution issued by this Office on December 11, 1996 in
and bylaws, as well as the Philippine connection with the instant petition, is hereby
Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically, made and declared permanent." 3
while all legitimate faculty members of the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to Likewise challenged is the October 30, 1997
a collective bargaining unit may take part in a Resolution 4 of Director Bitonio, which denied
duly convened certification election, only bona petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
fide members of the UST Faculty Union
(USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally The Facts
called election for union officers. Mob hysteria,
however well-intentioned, is not a substitute for
the rule of law. The factual antecedents of the case are
summarized in the assailed Resolution as
The Case follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petitioners-appellees [herein Private

The Petition for Certiorari before us assails the Respondents] Marino, et. al. (appellees) are
duly elected officers of the UST Faculty Union ‘10’, Appeal). Denominated as [a] general
(USTFU). The union has a subsisting five-year faculty assembly, the convocation was
Collective Bargaining Agreement with its supposed to discuss the ‘state of the unratified
employer, the University of Santo Tomas UST-USTFU CBA’ and ‘status and election of
(UST). The CBA was registered with the USTFU officers’ (Annex ‘11’, Appeal)
Industrial Relations Division, DOLE-NCR, on
20 February 1995. It is set to expire on 31 May "On 04 October 1996, the med-arbiter in Case
1998. No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001 issued a temporary
restraining order against herein appellees
"On 21 September 1996, appellee Collantes, in enjoining them from conducting the election
her capacity as Secretary General of USTFU, scheduled on 05 October 1996.
posted a notice addressed to all USTFU
members announcing a general assembly to "Also on 04 October 1996, and as earlier
be held on 05 October 1996. Among others, announced by the UST secretary general, the
the general assembly was called to elect general faculty assembly was held as
USTFU’s next set of officers. Through the scheduled. The general assembly was
notice, the members were also informed of the attended by members of the USTFU and, as
constitution of a Committee on Elections admitted by the appellants, also by ‘non-
(COMELEC) to oversee the elections. (Annex USTFU members [who] are members in good
"B", petition) standing of the UST Academic Community
Collective Bargaining Unit’ (See paragraph XI,
"On 01 October 1996, some of herein Respondents’ Comment and Motion to
appellants filed a separate petition with the Dismiss). On this occasion, appellants were
Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed against elected as USTFU’s new set of officers by
herein appellees and the members of the acclamation and clapping of hands (See
COMELEC. Docketed as Case No. NCR-OD- paragraphs 40 to 50, Annex ‘12’, Appeal).
M-9610-001, the petition alleged that the
COMELEC was not constituted in accordance "The election of the appellants came about
with USTFU’s constitution and by-laws (CBL) upon a motion of one Atty. Lopez, admittedly
and that no rules had been issued to govern not a member of USTFU, that the USTFU CBL
the conduct of the 05 October 1996 election. and ‘the rules of the election be suspended
and that the election be held [on] that day’
"On 02 October 1996, the secretary general of (See paragraph 39, Idem.)
UST, upon the request of the various UST
faculty club presidents (See paragraph VI, "On 11 October 1996, appellees filed the
Respondents’ Comment and Motion to instant petition seeking injunctive reliefs and
Dismiss), issued notices allowing all faculty the nullification of the results of the 04 October
members to hold a convocation on 04 October 1996 election. Appellees alleged that the
1996 (See Annex ‘C’ Petition; Annexes ‘4’ to holding of the same violated the temporary
restraining order issued in Case No. NCR-OD- Respondents’ Comment and Motion to
M-9610-001. Accusing appellants of Dismiss). Appellants also averred that they
usurpation, appellees characterized the now constituted the new set of union officers
election as spurious for being violative of having been elected in accordance with law
USTFU’s CBL, specifically because the after the term of office of appellees had
general assembly resulting in the election of expired. They further maintained that
appellants was not called by the Board of appellees’ scheduling of the 5 October 1996
Officers of the USTFU; there was no elections was illegal because no rules and
compliance with the ten-day notice rule regulations governing the elections were
required by Section 1, Article VIII of the CBL; promulgated as required by USTFU’s CBL and
the supposed elections were conducted that one of the members of the COMELEC was
without a COMELEC being constituted by the not a registered member of USTFU. Appellants
Board of Officers in accordance with Section 1, likewise noted that the elections called by the
Article IX of the CBL; the elections were not by appellees should have been postponed to
secret balloting as required by Section 1, allow the promulgation of rules and regulations
Article V and Section 6, Article IX of the CBL, and to ‘insure a free, clean, honest and orderly
and, the general assembly was convened by elections and to afford at the same time the
faculty members some of whom were not greater majority of the general membership to
members of USTFU, so much so that non- participate’ (See paragraph V, Idem). Finally,
USTFU members were allowed to vote in appellants contended that the holding of the
violation of Section 1, Article V of the CBL. general faculty assembly on 04 October 1996
was under the control of the Council of
"On 24 October 1996, appellees filed another College/Faculty Club Presidents in cooperation
urgent ex-parte motion for a temporary with the USTFU Reformist Alliance and that
restraining order, this time alleging that they received the Temporary Restraining Order
appellants had served the former a notice to issued in Case No. NCR-OD-M-9610-001 only
vacate the union office. For their part, on 07 October 1996 and were not aware of the
appellants moved to dismiss the original same on 04 October 1996.
petition and the subsequent motion on
jurisdictional grounds. Both the petition and the "On 03 December 1996, appellants and UST
motion were captioned to be for "Prohibition, allegedly entered into another CBA covering
Injunction with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction the period from 01 June 1996 to 31 May 2001
and Temporary Restraining Order." According (Annex 11, appellants’ Rejoinder to the Reply
to the appellants, the med-arbiter has no and Opposition).chanrobles law library
jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition,
‘including the ancillary remedies of restraining "Consequently, appellees again moved for the
order and/or preliminary injunction, which are issuance of a temporary restraining order to
merely incidental to the main petition for prevent appellants from making further
PROHIBITION’ (Paragraph XVIII3, representations that [they] had entered into a
new agreement with UST. Appellees also violation of the union’s Constitution and Bylaws
reiterated their earlier stand that appellants (CBL), Public Respondent Bitonio rejected
were usurping the former’s duties and petitioners’ contention that it was a legitimate
functions and should be stopped from exercise of their right to self-organization. He
continuing such acts. ruled that the CBL, which constituted the
covenant between the union and its members,
"On 11 December 1996, over appellants’ could not be suspended during the October 4,
insistence that the issue of jurisdiction should 1996 general assembly of all faculty members,
first be resolved, the med-arbiter issued a since that assembly had not been convened or
temporary restraining order directing the authorized by the USTFU.
respondents to cease and desist from
performing any and all acts pertaining to the Director Bitonio likewise held that the October
duties and functions of the officers and 4, 1996 election could not be legitimized by the
directors of USTFU. recognition of the newly "elected" set of
officers by UST or by the alleged ratification of
"In the meantime, appellants claimed that the the new CBA by the general membership of
new CBA was purportedly ratified by an the USTFU. Ruled Respondent
overwhelming majority of UST’s academic Bitonio:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
community on 12 December 1996 (Annexes 1
to 10, Idem). For this reason, appellants "This submission is flawed. The issue at hand
moved for the dismissal of what it denominated is not collective bargaining representation but
as appellees’ petition for prohibition on the union leadership, a matter that should concern
ground that this had become moot and only the members of USTFU. As pointed out
academic." 5 by the appellees, the privilege of determining
who the union officers will be belongs
Petitioners appealed the med-arbiter’s exclusively to the members of the union. Said
Decision to the labor secretary, 6 who privilege is exercised in an election proceeding
transmitted the records of the case to the in accordance with the union’s CBL and
Bureau of Labor Relations which, under applicable law.
Department Order No. 9, was authorized to
resolve appeals of intra-union cases, "To accept appellants’ claim to legitimacy on
consistent with the last paragraph of Article the foregoing grounds is to invest in appellants
241 of the Labor Code. 7 the position, duties, responsibilities, rights and
privileges of USTFU officers without the benefit
The Assailed Ruling of a lawful electoral exercise as defined in
USTFU’s CBL and Article 241(c) of the Labor
Agreeing with the med-arbiter that the USTFU Code. Not to mention the fact that labor laws
officers’ purported election held on October 4, prohibit the employer from interfering with
1994 was void for having been conducted in the employees in the latter’s exercise of
their right to self-organization. To allow "(3) Whether the overwhelming ratification of
appellants to become USTFU officers on the the Collective Bargaining Agreement executed
strength of management’s recognition of them by the petitioners in behalf of the USTFU with
is to concede to the employer the power of the University of Santo Tomas has rendered
determining who should be USTFU’s leaders. moot and academic the issue as to the validity
This is a clear case of interference in the of the suspension of the Constitution and By-
exercise by USTFU members of their right to Laws and the elections of October 4, 1996 in
self-organization." 8 the General Faculty Assembly[.]"

Hence, this Petition. 9 The Court’s Ruling

The Issues
The petition is not meritorious. Petitioners fail
to convince this Court that Director Bitonio
The main issue in this case is whether the gravely abused his discretion in affirming the
public respondent committed grave abuse of med-arbiter and in refusing to recognize the
discretion in refusing to recognize the officers binding effect of the October 4, 1996 general
"elected" during the October 4, 1996 general assembly called by the UST
assembly. Specifically, petitioners in their administration.cralawnad
Memorandum urge the Court to resolve the
following questions: 10 First Issue: Right to Self-Organization and
Union Membership
"(1) Whether the Collective Bargaining Unit of
all the faculty members in that General Faculty At the outset, the Court stresses that National
Assembly had the right in that General Faculty Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Laguesma 11 has
Assembly to suspend the provisions of the held that challenges against rulings of the labor
Constitution and By-Laws of the USTFU secretary and those acting on his behalf, like
regarding the elections of officers of the the director of labor relations, shall be acted
union[.] upon by the Court of Appeals, which has
concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over
"(2) Whether the suspension of the provisions petitions for certiorari. However, inasmuch as
of the Constitution and By-Laws of the USTFU the memoranda in the instant case have been
in that General Faculty Assembly is valid filed prior to the promulgation and finality of our
pursuant to the constitutional right of the Decision in NFL, we deem it proper to resolve
Collective Bargaining Unit to engage in the present controversy directly, instead of
"peaceful concerted activities" for the purpose remanding it to the Court of Appeals. Having
of ousting the corrupt regime of the private disposed of the foregoing procedural matter,
respondents[.] we now tackle the issues in the present case
seriatim.
 member of a union dislikes the provisions of
Self-organization is a fundamental right the by-laws, he may seek to have them
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and amended or may withdraw from the union;
the Labor Code. Employees have the right to otherwise, he must abide by them. It is not the
form, join or assist labor organizations for function of courts to decide the wisdom or
the purpose of collective bargaining or for propriety of legitimate by-laws of a trade union.
their mutual aid and protection. 12 Whether
employed for a definite period or not, any "On joining a labor union, the constitution and
employee shall be considered as such, by-laws become a part of the member’s
beginning on his first day of service, for contract of membership under which he agrees
purposes of membership in a labor union. 13 to become bound by the constitution and
governing rules of the union so far as it is not
Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to inconsistent with controlling principles of law.
join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. 14 The constitution and by-laws of an
Therefore, to become a union member, an unincorporated trade union express the terms
employee must, as a rule, not only signify the of a contract, which define the privileges and
intent to become one, but also take some rights secured to, and duties assumed by,
positive steps to realize that intent. The those who have become members. The
procedure for union membership is usually agreement of a member on joining a union to
embodied in the union’s constitution and abide by its laws and comply with the will of the
bylaws. 15 An employee who becomes a union lawfully constituted majority does not require a
member acquires the rights and the member to submit to the determination of the
concomitant obligations that go with this new union any question involving his personal
status and becomes bound by the union’s rules rights." 16
and regulations.
Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies
"When a man joins a labor union (or almost allegedly committed by the private respondents
any other democratically controlled group), during the latter’s incumbency impelled the
necessarily a portion of his individual freedom October 4, 1996 election of the new set of
is surrendered for the benefit of all members. USTFU officers. They assert that such
He accepts the will of the majority of the exercise was pursuant to their right to self-
members in order that he may derive the organization.
advantages to be gained from the concerted
action of all. Just as the enactments of the Petitioners’ frustration over the performance of
legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and private respondents, as well as their fears of a
by-laws of the union (unless contrary to good "fraudulent" election to be held under the
morals or public policy, or otherwise illegal), latter’s supervision, could not justify the
which are duly enacted through democratic method they chose to impose their will on the
processes, bind all of the members. If a union. Director Bitonio aptly elucidated: 17
 for purposes of collective bargaining. 18
"The constitutional right to self-organization is Specifically, the purpose of a certification
better understood in the context of ILO election is to ascertain whether or not a
Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association majority of the employees wish to be
and Protection of Right to Organize), to which represented by a labor organization and, in the
the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the affirmative case, by which particular labor
Convention provides that workers’ organization. 19
organizations shall have the right to draw up
their constitution and rules and to elect their In a certification election, all employees
representatives in full freedom, free from any belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit
interference from public authorities. The can vote. 20 Therefore, a union member who
freedom conferred by the provision is likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining
expansive; the responsibility imposed on union unit is entitled to vote in said election.
members to respect the constitution and rules However, the reverse is not always true; an
they themselves draw up equally so. The point employee belonging to the appropriate
to be stressed is that the union’s CBL is the bargaining unit but who is not a member of the
fundamental law that governs the relationship union cannot vote in the union election, unless
between and among the members of the otherwise authorized by the constitution and
union. It is where the rights, duties and bylaws of the union. Verily, union affairs and
obligations, powers, functions and authority of elections cannot be decided in a non-union
the officers as well as the members are activity.
defined. It is the organic law that determines
the validity of acts done by any officer or In both elections, there are procedures to be
member of the union. Without respect for the followed. Thus, the October 4, 1996 election
CBL, a union as a democratic institution cannot properly be called a union election,
degenerates into nothing more than a group of because the procedure laid down in the
individuals governed by mob rule."cralaw USTFU’s CBL for the election of officers was
virtua1aw library not followed. It could not have been a
certification election either, because
Union Election v. Certification Election representation was not the issue, and the
proper procedure for such election was not
A union election is held pursuant to the followed. The participation of non-union
union’s constitution and bylaws, and the right members in the election aggravated its
to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. irregularity.
A union election should be distinguished from
a certification election, which is the process Second Issue: USTFU’s Constitution and by
of determining, through secret ballot, the sole laws Violated
and exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, The importance of a union’s constitution and
bylaws cannot be overemphasized. They called and participated in by management and
embody a covenant between a union and its non-union members. By no legal fiat was such
members and constitute the fundamental law assembly transformed into a union activity by
governing the members’ rights and obligations. the participation of some union members.
21 As such, the union’s constitution and
bylaws should be upheld, as long as they are Second, there was no commission on elections
not contrary to law, good morals or public to oversee the election, as mandated by
policy. Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX of the USTFU’s
CBL, which provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
We agree with the finding of Director Bitonio
and Med-Arbiter Falconitin that the October 4, "ARTICLE IX — UNION ELECTION
1996 election was tainted with irregularities
because of the following reasons. SECTION 1. There shall be a Committee on
Election (COMELEC) to be created by the
First, the October 4, 1996 assembly was not Board of Officers at least thirty (30) days
called by the USTFU. It was merely a before any regular or special election. The
convocation of faculty clubs, as indicated in the functions of the COMELEC include the
memorandum sent to all faculty members by following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Fr. Rodel Aligan, OP, the secretary general of
the University of Santo Tomas. 22 It was not a) Adopt and promulgate rules and regulations
convened in accordance with the provision on that will ensure a free, clean, honest and
general membership meetings as found in the orderly election, whether regular or special;
USTFU’s CBL, which reads:chanrobles virtual
lawlibrary b) Pass upon qualifications of candidates;

"ARTICLE VIII — MEETINGS OF THE UNION c) Rule on any question or protest regarding
the conduct of the election subject to the
"SECTION 1. The Union shall hold regular procedure that may be promulgated by the
general membership meetings at least once Board of Officers; and
every three (3) months. Notices of the meeting
shall be sent out by the Secretary-General at d) Proclaim duly elected officers.
least ten (10) days prior to such meetings by
posting in conspicuous places, preferably SECTION 2. The COMELEC shall be
inside Company premises, said notices. The composed of a chairman and two members all
date, time and place for the meetings shall be of whom shall be appointed by the Board of
determined by the Board of Officers." 23 Officers.

Unquestionably, the assembly was not a union "x x x" 24

meeting. It was in fact a gathering that was
Third, the purported election was not done by since they represented management. Thus,
secret balloting, in violation of Section 6, Article Director Bitonio correctly
IX of the USTFU’s CBL, as well as Article 241 observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
(c) of the Labor Code.
"Further, appellants cannot be heard to say
The foregoing infirmities considered, we that the CBL was effectively suspended during
cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the 04 October 1996 general assembly. A
Director Bitonio’s finding and conclusion. In union CBL is a covenant between the union
Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor and its members and among members
Relations, 25 we invalidated the local union (Johnson and Johnson Labor Union-FFW, Et.
elections held at the wrong date without prior Al. v. Director of Labor Relations, 170 SCRA
notice to members and conducted without 469). Where ILO Convention No. 87 speaks of
regard for duly prescribed ground rules. We a union’s full freedom to draw up its
held that the proceedings were rendered void constitution and rules, it includes freedom from
by the lack of due process — undue haste, interference by persons who are not members
lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the union. The democratic principle that
of the voting, and the absence of the notice of governance is a matter for the governed to
the dates of balloting. decide upon applies to the labor movement
which, by law and constitutional mandate, must
Third Issue: Suspension of USTFU’s CBL be assiduously insulated against intrusions
coming from both the employer and complete
Petitioners contend that the October 4, 1996 strangers if the ‘protection to labor clause’ of
assembly "suspended" the union’s CBL. They the constitution is to be guaranteed. By
aver that the suspension and the election that appellant’s own evidence, the general faculty
followed were in accordance with their assembly of 04 October 1996 was not a
"constituent and residual powers as members meeting of USTFU. It was attended by
of the collective bargaining unit to choose their members and non-members alike, and
representatives for purposes of collective therefore was not a forum appropriate for
bargaining." Again they cite the numerous transacting union matters. The person who
anomalies allegedly committed by the private moved for the suspension of USTFU’s CBL
respondents as USTFU officers. This argument was not a member of USTFU. Allowing a non-
does not persuade. union member to initiate the suspension of a
union’s CBL, and non-union members to
First, as has been discussed, the general participate in a union election on the premise
faculty assembly was not the proper forum to that the union’s CBL had been suspended in
conduct the election of USTFU officers. Not all the meantime, is incompatible with the freedom
who attended the assembly were members of of association and protection of the right to
the union; some, apparently, were even organize.
disqualified from becoming union members,
"If there are members of the so-called observation that "the act of suspending the
‘academic community collective bargaining constitution when the questioned election was
unit’ who are not USTFU members but who held is an implied admission that the election
would nevertheless want to have a hand in held on that date [October 4, 1996] could not
USTFU’s affairs, the appropriate procedure be considered valid under the existing USTFU
would have been for them to become members constitution . . ." 29
of USTFU first. The procedure for membership
is very clearly spelled out in Article IV of The ratification of the new CBA executed
USTFU’s CBL. Having become members, they between the petitioners and the University of
could then draw guidance from Ang Malayang Santo Tomas management did not validate the
Manggagawa Ng Ang Tibay v. Ang Tibay, 103 void October 4, 1996 election. Ratified were
Phil. 669. Therein the Supreme Court held that the terms of the new CBA, not the issue of
‘if a member of the union dislikes the union leadership — a matter that should be
provisions of the by-laws he may seek to have decided only by union members in the proper
them amended or may withdraw from the forum at the proper time and after observance
union; otherwise he must abide by them.’ of proper procedures.
Under Article XVII of USTFU’s CBL, there is
also a specific provision for constitutional Epilogue
amendments. What is clear therefore is that
USTFU’s CBL provides for orderly procedures In dismissing this Petition, we are not passing
and remedies which appellants could have upon the merits of the mismanagement
easily availed [themselves] of instead of allegations imputed by the petitioners to the
resorting to an exercise of their so-called private respondents; these are not at issue in
‘residual power’." 26 the present case. Petitioners can bring their
grievances and resolve their differences with
Second, the grievances of the petitioners could private respondents in timely and appropriate
have been brought up and resolved in proceedings. Courts will not tolerate the unfair
accordance with the procedure laid down by treatment of union members by their own
the union’s CBL 27 and by the Labor Code. 28 leaders. When the latter abuse and violate the
They contend that their sense of desperation rights of the former, they shall be dealt with
and helplessness led to the October 4, 1996 accordingly in the proper forum after the
election. However, we cannot agree with the observance of due process.
method they used to rectify years of inaction
on their part and thereby ease bottled-up WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby
frustrations, as such method was in total DISMISSED and the assailed Resolutions
disregard of the USTFU’s CBL and of due AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
process. The end never justifies the means.
SO ORDERED
We agree with the solicitor general’s