3R.

epublic of tbe ~bilippines

~upremc QCourt
;:ffianila

FIRST DIVISION

SOUTH COTABATO G.R No. 235569

INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES,
INCORPORATED (SCIPSI),
and/or GABRIEL MUNASQUE Present:
as General Manager,
Petitioners, GESMUNDO, CJ, Chairperson,
HERNANDO,
ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO, and
-versus- MARQUEZ,JJ

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE ROMEO
MONTEFALCO, JR., and MARIA
CONSUELO S. BACAY in their
capacities as OIC of BUREAU OF
LABOR RELATIONS, MED
ARBITER JASMINE M.
DEMETILLO and MAKAR PORT
LABOR ORGANIZATION,
represented by its president, Promulgated: r
MARIO C. MARIGON,
Respondents.
DEC 1 3 2023 - ~1

x---------------------------------------------x

DECISION

GESMUNDO, CJ.:

A complaint charging the employer for non-remittance of collected

union member dues by virtue of a check-off provision in the CBA, does not
fall under "intra-union disputes" over which the Mediator-Arbiter (Med-
Decision 2 G.R. No. 235569

Arbiter) may exercise jurisdiction. The charge constitutes an unfair labor

practice on the part of the employer, being in the nature of interference as it
curtails the employees' right to self-organization. Hence, it is the Labor
Arbiter who has jurisdiction to settle the controversy.

This is a Petition foi, Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the January 31,

2
201 7 Decision and November 9, 201 73 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128607. The CA upheld the jurisdiction of the
Med-Arbiter over a case involving the nonremittance by the employer of
union dues to the exclusive bargaining representative.

The Antecedents

On August 16, 2010, Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO),

through its President Mario Marigon (Marigon ), filed a "Petition"4 for unfair
labor practice (ULP) against South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc.
(SCIPSJ) before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office No. 12 in Koronadal City, South Cotabato. MPLO was the
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of SCIPSI from
October 12, 1999 until February 2007. 5

Marigon alleged that SCIPSI used to collect monthly dues from the
members of MPLO through salary deduction, and remit the same to the
union. However, from August 2006 to February 2007, SCIPSI withheld the
collections despite demands from MPLO and the clarification issued by the
DOLE Regional Director. 6 He maintained that by illegally withholding the
amounts collected from the union members, SCIPSI committed a form of
harassment against MPLO and had interfered in the affairs of the union. 7
Consequently, Marigon prayed that SCIPSI be ordered to release the amount
it collected from MPLO members from August 2006 to February 2007. 8

SCIPSI countered that since Marigon was dismissed from

employment on December 5, 2007, he had no legal capacity to sue on behalf
of MPLO, and demand remittance of the union dues collected from August

Rollo, pp. 11-32. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Id. at 34-44. The Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 128607 was penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B.
' Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijarn (a retired Member of the Court) and
Francisco P. Acosta of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 74-75. The Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 128607 was penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B.
Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (a retired Member of the
Court) and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court) of the Special Former Fourth
Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 CA rollo, pp. 39-42, docketed as Case No. RO 12-SG-IN-001-16-08-10.
Id. at 96.
6
Id. at 39-41.
7
Id. at 97.
Id. at 98.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 235569

2006 to February 2007. 9 It claimed that while it was willing to remit the
collected union dues, it was not clear who was the duly authorized person to
receive the same since l\1PLO had a new set of officers. 10 SCIPSI also
averred that the charge of ULP has already prescribed since more than one
year had passed from the time that it collected the union dues, while
Marigon filed the complaint only in 2010. 11

Ruling of the Med-Arbiter

On December 13, 2010, Mediator-Arbiter Jasmin M. Demetillo (Med-

Arbiter Demetillo) issued an Order, 12 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner Makar Port

Labor Organization (MPLO) is hereby directed to determine and
specify the duly authorized person/officer to receive the unremitted
union dues in its favor within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
order.

Furthermore, the respondent South Cotabato Integrated Port

Services, Inc. (SCIPSI) is hereby ordered to release the unremitted
union dues collected in favor of Makar Port Labor Organization
(MPLO) from August 2006 to 11 February 20 IO 13 within ten (10) days
from receipt of the authority disclosing the name of the
officer/representative duly authorized by the petitioner to receive the
said union dues in its behalf.

SO ORDERED. 14

Med-Arbiter Demetillo held that the existing collective bargaining

agreement ( CBA) between l\1PLO and SCIPSI continued to have legal effect
until February 11, 2007. She reasoned that under Article 253 of the Labor
Code, the employer and the exclusive bargaining agent shall continue to
observe and respect the terms of the existing CBA until a new agreement has
been executed by the parties. 15 Since the proclamation and final result of the
certification election of the new exclusive bargaining unit only became final
and executory on February 11, 2007, l\1PLO continued to be the sole and

9
Id. at 104-105.
" Id. at 107-108.
11
Id. at 109.
12 Rollo, pp. 84-86. The Order in Case No. R012-SG-IN-001-16-08-10 was penned by Med-Arbiter
Jasmin M. Demetillo of the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. 12, City of
Koronadal, South Cotabato.
13 Due to inadvertence, the date of February 11, 2007 was erroneously indicated as February 11, 2010 in
the dispositive portion of the December 13, 20 l O Order of Med-Arbiter Demetillo.
14
Rollo, p. 86.
15
Id. at 85.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 235569

exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees and, therefore,

entitled to the union dues collected by SCIPSI until such date. 16

Conversely, Med-Arbiter Demetillo declared that Marigon is not a

party-in-interest in the case because of his dismissal from employment
which was upheld by Executive Labor Arbiter Tomas B. Bautista, Jr. and the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. MAC-
04-010824-09. She also ruled that .MPLO failed to adduce evidence that
Marigon remained to be its President and member, considering that its
constitution and by-laws only admit and maintain members who are
employees of the company. 17

On March 25, 2011, Saranggani Marine and General Workers Union-

Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (SAMAGEWU-TUPAS),
filed a Motion for Intervention 18 to annul the December 13, 2010 Order of
Med-Arbiter Demetillo. SAMAGEWU-TUPAS claimed that it is the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of SCIPSI
who executed a CBA effective December 5, 2006 until December 5, 2011. It
contended that Med-Arbiter Demetillo did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition filed by Marigon because the latter lacks authority to institute the
19
action and represent .MPLO. Hence, the said Order is null and void.

Med-Arbiter Demetillo issued an Order2° on April 5, 2011, denying

the Motion for Intervention because: (1) SAMAGEWU-TUPAS had no legal
interest to protect in the unremitted collection of union dues; (2) the motion
was filed after judgment was already rendered on the case; and (3) the
21
assailed Order had already attained finality.

Dissatisfied, SAMAGEWU-TUP AS appealed22 to the Bureau of

Labor Relations (BLR).

Ruling of the BLR

On January 31, 2012, the BLR issued a Resolution, 23 the decretal

portion of which reads:

16 Id.
17
Id. at 86.
18 CA roilo, pp. 119-127.
19 . Id. at 123.
20 Id. at 128-129.
21
Id.
22 Id. at 130-147, a Memorandum of Appeal.
23 Rollo, pp. 89-94. The Resolution in Case No. BLR-A-TR-8-5-4-11 was penned by Officer-in-Charge
Romeo M. Montefalco, Jr. of the DOLE, Bureau of Labor Relations, Manila.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 235569

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of Saranggani

Marine and General Workers Union - Trade Unions of the Philippines
and Allied Services (SAMAGEWU-TUPAS) is GRANTED. The 13
December 2010 Order of DOLE Region XII Mediator-Arbiter Jasmin M.
Demetillo is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

1.) Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO) is hereby

directed to submit within ten (10) days, to DOLE Region
XII, from receipt of this Resolution a list of all its
members from August 2006 to 11 February 2007;
2.) Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO) is hereby
directed to call a general assembly within ten (I 0) days
from receipt of this Resolution and to finally designate,
through a ratified Board Resolution, the authorized
representative who shall receive the unremitted union
dues [on] behalf of the union;
3.) South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. is hereby
directed to release to the designated representative of
MPLO the umemitted union dues covering the period of
August 2006 to present, within ( I 0) days from receipt of
the Board Resolution, unless there is a clear showing that ·
union dues from February 2007 onwards has been
remitted to MPLO.

Let the entire records of this case be remanded to DOLE Region

XII for the determination of the union membership and facilitation of the
release of all withheld union dues to Makar Port Labor Organization
(MPLO) is entitled to [sic].

SO RESOLVED. 24

The BLR held that SAMAGEWU-TUP AS has no legal interest on the

unremitted union dues because the same were collected from union members
by reason of their affiliation with MPLO. As such, SAMAGEWU-TUP AS
had no right to intervene in the case. 25

As regards the matter of jurisdiction, the BLR declared that the case
involves an intra-union dispute between two factions within MPLO: the
Colomida-Las Pifias group and the Marigon group. Hence, the issue does not
involve ULP, but one which revolves around the question of which group
has the right to receive the collected union dues. 26

24
Id. at 93-94.
25
Id. at 92.
26 Id. at 92-93.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 235569

SAMAGEWU-TUPAS and SCIPSI filed their respective Motions for

Reconsideration,27 both insisting that the Med-Arbiter has no jurisdiction
over the case. SCIPSI added that their rank-and-file employees requested the
"dis-authorization of union dues releases to MPLO - M. Marigon," as
evidenced by their signed Letters28 to the management dated August 25 and
29, 2006. In the same letter, the employees asked the management to release
the union dues to SAMAGEWU-TUP AS, the union which they had voted
overwhelmingly during the certification and run-off election. 29 As an
alternative prayer, SCIPSI stated that the case should be dismissed because
the issue of nomemittance of union dues had already become moot and
academic due to the remittance of the union dues to SAMAGEWU-
TUP AS. 30

The BLR denied both motions in its November 28, 2012

Resolution. 31 Aggrieved, SCIPSI filed a Petition for Certiorari32 with the
CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BLR when it
affirmed the Decision of the Med-Arbiter and ordered that the collected
union dues be remitted to MPLO.

Ruling of the CA

On January 31, 2017, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the BLR.

It sustained the BLR's finding that the case involved an intra-union dispute
since SCIPSI sought a determination of who has the right to receive the
33
union dues. Hence, the Med-Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case.

The CA also held that SCIPSI availed of the wrong remedy since the
decisions of the BLR are appealable to the Secretary of Labor. It likewise
noted that the issue on the lack of authority of Marigon to file the suit on
behalf of MPLO was rendered moot when the labor union actively
participated in the proceedings. 34

SCIPSI filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 35 but the CA denied it in

its November 9, 2017 Resolution. Undaunted, SCIPSI filed the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari.

27 CArollo, pp. 149-160, 161-164.

28 Id. at 167-180.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 163.
31 Rollo, pp. 96-98.
32 CArollo, pp. 3-21.
33 Rollo, pp. 41-42.
34 Id. at 43.
35 Id. at 45-54.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 235569

Issues

SCIPSI submits the following grounds in support of its petition:

(A)
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
FACT AND LAW IN AFFIRMING THAT THE MED-ARBITER HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
COMPLAINT FILED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT MARIO C.
MARIGON[.]

(B)
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
FACT AND LAW IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT
MARIGON'S AUTHORITY TO FILE THE COMPLAINT WAS
RENDERED MOOT WHEN THE LABOR UNION ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS[.]

(C)
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
FACT AND LAW IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BLR
WHICH ORDERED THE PETITIONER CORPORATION TO REMIT
UNION DUES TO RESPONDENT UNION FROM AUGUST 2006 TO
PRESENT[.] 36

SCIPSI maintains that Med-Arbiter Demetillo has no jurisdiction over

the petition filed by Marigon, considering that the allegation of ULP was
evident, not only on the face of the petition, but also on the allegations
therein. Since Marigon's petition pertained to the alleged unlawful
withholding of the collected union dues, then it involved ULP and not an
intra-union dispute. 37

As regards Marigon's lack of authority, SCIPSI faults the CA in

holding that the issue was rendered moot by the subsequent active
participation of MPLO. On the contrary, MPLO did not participate in the
proceedings since it was only Marigon who was filing the pleadings and
motions. Considering that Marigon has been dismissed from employment
with SCIPSI, he is ineligible to represent MPLO as its President, and
therefore, not a party-in-interest. 38

Lastly, the CA erred in affirming the error committed by the BLR

when the latter ordered SCIPSI to remit the union dues to MPLO from
"August 2006 up to the present." This period is beyond the term ofMPLO as

36
Id. at 18-19.
37
Id. at 19-20.
38
Id. at 20-22.
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 235569

the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file

employees of SCIPSI. 39

In his Comment, 40 Marigon, maintains that SCIPSI merely rehashed

and repleaded its arguments before the CA, which the latter had already
passed upon in its assailed Decision. Thus, the present petition should be
denied due course. 41

SCIPSI filed a Consolidated Reply, 42 reiterating the arguments in its

petition for review. It also emphasized that its rank-and-file employees had
signed a "Disauthorization" dated August 25 and 29, 2006, where they
withdrew the authority from MPLO to collect union dues from its
members. 43

Based on the above arguments, the instant case involves the resolution
of two issues; (1) Did Med-Arbiter Demetillo have jurisdiction over the
Petition filed by Marigon?; and (2) Did Marigon have the authority to file a
case on behalf ofMPLO?

Ruling of the Court

The petition is impressed with merit.

The Med-Arbiter has no jurisdiction

over the Petition filed by Marigon

It is basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined

upon the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon the claims being prayed for. Jurisdiction cannot be
made to depend on the defenses raised by the defendant in its answer or
motion to dismiss. 44 It is neither fixed by consent or agreement of the parties
or by estoppel. 45 In labor proceedings, the allegations made in the complaint
and in the position paper may be considered in determining jurisdiction. 46

39
Id. at 22-23.
40
Id. at 115-116.
41 Id.
42
Id. at 149-164.
43
Id. at 157.
44 Yusen Air and Sea Service Philippines, Inc. v. Villamar, 504 Phil. 437,447 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, Third
Division], citing Multinational Village Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 280 Phil.
113, 117 (1991) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
45
Vivero v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 158, 165 (2000) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division], citing
Tolentino v. Court ofAppeals, 345 Phil. 448,456 (1997) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
46
San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTWGO, 561 Phil. 263, 269 (2007)
[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division].
Decision 9 G.R. No. 235569

If the allegations in the complaint involve ULP, it is the Labor Arbiter

who has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 224 of the Labor Code. ULP
generally refers to acts that violate the worker's right to self-organization.47
Article 259 of the Labor Code, enumerates the different types of ULP that
may be committed by the employer, viz.:

ARTICLE 259. [248] Unfair Labor Practices of Employers.- It shall

be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following
unfair labor practices:

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the

exercise of their right to self-organization;

(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an

employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw
from one to which he belongs;

(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union

members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the

formation or administration of any labor organization, including
the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or
supporters;

(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other

terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization....

(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate

against an employee for having given or being about to give
testimony under this Code;

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by

this Code;

(h) To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers

or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective
bargaining or any other dispute; or

(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. (Emphasis

supplied)

An employer incurs liability for ULP under Article 259(a) when it

engages in acts that reasonably tend to interfere with the employees' right to
self-organization. Direct evidence of intimidation or coercion by the

47 Aboitiz Power Renewables, Jnc./Tiwi Consolidated Union v. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc., 876 Phil.
839, 854 (2020) (Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division], citing San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-
File Union (SACORU) v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 819 Phil. 326, 337 (2017) [Per J.
Caguioa, Second Division].

fr
Decision GR No. 235569

employer is not required, if it can be reasonably inferred that the anti-union

conduct of the employer has an adverse effect on self-organization and
collective bargaining. 48

Thus, in Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, 49 the Court

ruled that an employer may be liable for ULP when it fails to deduct union
dues and assessments from the employees' salaries by virtue of a check-off
provisron in the CBA. 50 It explained that an employer's full compliance with
the check-off provision in the CBA is vital to the union's role of advocating
for the interests of the members of the bargaining unit. 51

On the other hand, a Med-Arbiter is an officer in the DOLE Regional

Office or BLR who is authorized to hear and decide representation cases,
inter/intra-union disputes and other labor relations disputes, except cases
involving cancellation of union registration. 52 An "intra-union dispute"
refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of
membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union's
constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of
union." Rule XI, Section 1 of DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, as
amended by DOLE Department Order No. 40-F-03-08, enumerates the
instances considered as intra-union dispute, to wit:

SECTION 1. Coverage. - A inter/intra-union disputes shall include:

(a) conduct or nullification of election of officers of unions and

workers' association;

(b) audit/accounts examination of union or workers' association funds;

(c) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;

(d) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;

(e) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for union

membership;

(f) validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition;

(g) opposition to application for union or cba registration;

48 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Associatfon-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd, 147
Phil. 194, 208-209 (1971) [Per J. Ruiz Castro].
49 331 Phil. 680 (1996) [Per C.J. Narvasa Third Division].
50 Id. at 693.
51
!d.at691.
52 DOLE Department Order No. 40-03 dated February 17, 2003, art. I, sec. l (ii).
53 Jd.art.J,sec. l(bb).
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 235569

(h) violations of or disagreements over any provision of the constitution

and by-laws of a union or workers' association;

(i) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations

or the registration of collective bargaining agreements;

G) violations of the rights and conditions of membership in a union or

workers' association;

(k) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except

interpretation of collective bargaining agreements;

(1) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion/suspension or any

disciplinary action meted against any officer and member, including
those arising from non-compliance with the reportorial requirements
under Rule V;

(m) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-

organization, union membership and collective bargaining:
I) between and among legitimate labor organizations; and
2) between and among members of a union or workers' association.

Based on the foregoing rules and principles, the determination of

whether jurisdiction was properly acquired by Med-Arbiter Demetillo, will
depend on the allegations of Marigon in the Petition which he captioned as
one filed for "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR ILLEGALLY AND
UNREASONABLY WITHHOLDING THE UNION DUES COLLECTED
FROM UNION MEMBERS." 54 A simple perusal of his allegations in the
said Petition would reveal that his cause of action arose from the non-
remittance by SCIPSI of the collected monthly dues from its employees by
virtue of a check-off. This was evident from paragraphs 2 and 3 of his
Petition where he accused SCIPSI of collecting monthly dues from the
members of MPLO, through salary deductions, from August 2006 until
February 2007, and illegally withholding the same despite demands to turn-
over the collections to him. 55

Clearly, the allegations in Marigon's Petition did not involve an intra-

union dispute as ruled by the BLR and the CA. On the contrary, it was a case
of ULP which had a direct connection to the alleged noncompliance of
SCIPSI with the check-off provision in its CBA with MPLO. Such
noncompliance of SCIPSI is in the form of an interference with the right of
its rank-and-file employees to self-organization under Article 259(a)" of the
Labor Code.

54 CA rollo, p. 39.
55 Id. at 39-4 I.
56 Art. 259. Unfair Labor Practices ofEmployers. - It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any
of the following unfair labor practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization[.J
Decision 12 G.R. No. 235569

It bears reiterating that the process of check-off, which involves the

deduction of fees from the employees and the subsequent remittance of the
collected amount to the bargaining representative, assures the latter of
continuous funding. 57 Without such funds, the union, in this case MPLO,
would not be effective in discharging its duties and responsibilities as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its members. Ineluctably, an
allegation of unlawful withholding by the employer of the collected union
members' fees under a check-off provision in the CBA establishes a case of
ULP. As such, the Med-Arbiter cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case
since Article 224 of the Labor Code expressly vests jurisdiction over ULP
cases on the Labor Arbiter.

Thus, it was erroneous for the CA and the BLR to declare that the
case involved an intra-union dispute between two factions within MPLO.
Both the CA and the BLR failed to consider that the issue as to which of the
two groups had the right to receive the collected union dues only arose after
Med-Arbiter Demetillo issued the December 13, 2010 Order or during its
execution stage. Else stated, the matter of intra-union controversy would not
have arisen if not for the December 13, 2010 Order of Med-Arbiter
Demetillo.

Marigon has no authority

to file the petition.

Article 219(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as

referring to "any union or association of employees which exists in whole or
in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of employment." A legitimate labor
organization enjoys the right to be certified, once elected, as "the exclusive
representative of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
58
purposes of collective bargaining."

It is therefore a basic requirement for membership in a labor union,

that the individual is an employee belonging to the bargaining unit that the
union seeks to represent. Also, an employee cannot be elected as a labor
59
union officer if he/she is not a member in good standing. If the employee
no longer belongs to the bargaining unit being represented by the labor 60
union, he/she is deemed automatically removed from the membership.
Clearly, a labor union cannot represent a person who is not a member and no

57 Holy Cross of Davao College, Inc. v. Joaquin, supra note 49 at 691.

58 See LABOR CODE, art. 251 (b ).
59 Id. art. 250(c).
60 Id., Art. 256. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. - The
inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the
cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed
from the list of membership of said union. (Emphasis supplied)
Decision 13 G.R. No. 235569

longer an employee of the establishment, otherwise, the suit is defective. 61

Neither should the reverse be allowed, where an individual would assert the
right to represent a labor organization when he/she is no longer a member or
officer thereof.

There is no dispute in the present case that Marigon was dismissed

from employment as early as December 2007, or more than two (2) years
before he filed the complaint in August 2010. He neither objected to
SCIPSI's allegation in its Position Paper nor to Med-Arbiter Demetillo's
finding that his employment was terminated on December 5, 2007. 62 Med-
Arbiter Demetillo even cited Section 3(c), Article IV of MPLO's
Constitution and By-laws, which provides that "[p]ersons who are not
employees of the company" shall not be eligible for membership, or be
elected or appointed to any position in MPLO. 63 Interestingly, Marigon did
not interpose any appeal to refute the findings of Med-Arbiter Demetillo.

As ruled by Med-Arbiter Demetillo, Marigon is not a bona.fide

member of MPLO. He is not entitled to represent the union nor receive the
union dues on the latter's behalf. Only duly authorized officers, agents, or
members of the labor union, pursuant to its constitution and by-laws, may be
allowed to collect fees, dues or other member contributions. 64 Since Marigon
was no longer an employee, he cannot be authorized to represent and collect
union fees on MPLO's behalf. At this juncture, Med-Arbiter Demetillo
should have dismissed Marigon's Petition since a complaint is not deemed
as filed if done by a person who was not authorized to do so. An
unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. 65

It is settled rule that a decision rendered by a tribunal without the

appropriate jurisdiction is null and void. 66 Evidently, the December 13, 2010
Order of Med-Arbiter Demetillo was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
As such, the Order "is a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and

61 NARJC Workers' Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 113 Phil. 777, 782 (1961) [Per J. Paredes].
62 CA rollo, p. I 04, p. 118.
63 Id. at 117.
64 LABOR CODE, art. 250 reads:
Art. 250. Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization. - ...

(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[.]
65 Takata (Phils.) Corp. v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 735 Phil. 256, 264 (2014) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division], citing Tamondong v. Court ofAppeals, 486 Phil. 729, 741 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
Division].
66 Espino v. National Labor Relations Commission, 310 Phil. 60, 76 (I 995) [Per J. Romero, Third
Division], citing Dy v. NLRC, 229 Phil. 234, 242 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division] and Calimlim
v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 37 (1982) [Per J. Vasquez, First Division].
Decision 14 G.R. No. 235569

slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head." 67 It cannot acquire

finality nor create any right or impose any duties. 68

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The January 31, 2017

Decision and November 9, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 128607 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

A new one is hereby entered DISMISSING the Petition docketed as

Case No. RO12-SG-IN-001-16-08-10 entitled "Makar Port Labor
Organization, represented by its President, Mario C Marigon, complainant,
versus South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. and/or Gabriel
Munasque, as General Manager, respondents," for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

~
1ef Justice

WE CONCUR:

~£,jEi(/w,jll
Associate Justice

.ROSARIO

'r

J ~ ~ S P . MARQUEZ
~!!ciate Justice

67 De Roca v. Dabuyan, 827 Phil. 98, 112 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division], citing Saldana v.
Court ofAppeals, 268 Phil. 424,432 (1990) [Per J. Grifio-Aquino, First Division].
68
Id.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 235569

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
•