Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA, CORAON !UI, NORMA
CALAGUAS, IRMA "OT#NCIANO, LU $# GUMAN, R#M#$IOS GARCIA, R#N#
ARN#%O, #$IT&A OCAM"O, C#SAR R#Y#S, C#LSO NI#RRA, GLIC#RIA
'AL$R#S, MA. LOUR$#S M#$INA, &I$#LITA GA'O, MAF#L YSRA#L, LAURA
A'ARA, NATI(I$A$ SANTOS, F#R$INAN$ LIMOS, CARM#LITA #S"INA,
#NAI$A FAMORCA, "&ILI" AGUINAL$O, '#N#$ICTA ALA(A )*+ L#ONCIO
CASAL, petitioners,
vs.
$,r. '#N#$ICTO #RN#STO R. 'ITONIO %R. o- ./e '0re)0 o- L)bor Re1).,o*2,
Me+3Arb,.er TOMAS F. FALCONITIN o- T/e N).,o*)1 C)4,.)1 Re5,o*, $e4)r.me*. o-
L)bor )*+ #m41o6me*. ($OL#), #$UAR$O %. MARI7O %R., MA. M#L(YN ALAMIS,
NORMA COLLANT#S, UR'ANO ALA'AGIA, RONAL$O ASUNCION, #NAI$A
'URGOS, ANT&ONY CURA, FUL(IO M. GU#RR#RO, MYRNA &ILARIO, T#R#SITA
M##R, F#RNAN$O "#$ROSA, NIL$A R#$O'LA$O, R#N# SISON, #(#LYN
TIROL )*+ ROSI# ALCANTARA, respondents.

"ANGANI'AN, J.:
There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons,
1
and in
the present case, in the right forum by the right parties. While grievances against union
leaders constitute legitimate complaints deserving appropriate redress, action thereon
should be made in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of proper
procedures. Similarly, the election of union officers should be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the union's constitution and bylaws, as well as the Philippine
Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically, while all legitimate faculty members of the
niversity of Santo Tomas !ST" belonging to a collective bargaining unit may ta#e part
in a duly convened certification election, only bona fide members of the ST $aculty
nion !ST$" may participate and vote in a legally called election for union officers.
%ob hysteria, however well&intentioned, is not a substitute for the rule of law.
The Case
The Petition for Certiorari before us assails the 'ugust (), (**+ ,esolution
2
of -irector
.enedicto /rnesto ,. .itonio 0r. of the .ureau of Labor ,elations !.L," in .L, Case
1o. '&2&3*&*+, which affirmed the $ebruary ((, (**+ -ecision of %ed&'rbiter Tomas $.
$alconitin. The med&arbiters -ecision disposed as follows4
W5/,/$6,/, premises considered, 7udgment is hereby rendered declaring the election
of ST$ officers conducted on 6ctober 3, (**8 and its election results as null and void
ab initio.
'ccordingly, respondents 9il 9amilla, et al are hereby ordered to cease and desist from
acting and performing the duties and functions of the legitimate officers of :the; niversity
of Santo Tomas $aculty nion !ST$" pursuant to :the; union's constitution and by&laws
!C.L".
The Temporary ,estraining 6rder !T,6" issued by this 6ffice on -ecember ((, (**8 in
connection with the instant petition, is hereby made and declared permanent.
3
Li#ewise challenged is the 6ctober <=, (**+ ,esolution
8
of -irector .itonio, which
denied petitioners' %otion for ,econsideration.
The Facts
The factual antecedents of the case are summari>ed in the assailed ,esolution as
follows4
Petitioners&appellees :herein Private ,espondents; %arino, et. al. !appellees" are duly
elected officers of the ST $aculty nion !ST$". The union has a subsisting five&year
Collective .argaining 'greement with its employer, the niversity of Santo Tomas !ST".
The C.' was registered with the ?ndustrial ,elations -ivision, -6L/&1C,, on @=
$ebruary (**). ?t is set to eApire on <( %ay (**2.
6n @( September (**8, appellee Collantes, in her capacity as Secretary 9eneral of
ST$, posted a notice addressed to all ST$ members announcing a general
assembly to be held on =) 6ctober (**8. 'mong others, the general assembly was
called to elect ST$'s neAt set of officers. Through the notice, the members were also
informed of the constitution of a Committee on /lections !C6%/L/C" to oversee the
elections. !'nneA B.B, petition"
6n =( 6ctober (**8, some of herein appellants filed a separate petition with the %ed&
'rbiter, -6L/&1C,, directed against herein appellees and the members of the
C6%/L/C. -oc#eted as Case 1o. 1C,&6-&%&*8(=&==(, the petition alleged that the
C6%/L/C was not constituted in accordance with ST$'s constitution and by&laws
!C.L" and that no rules had been issued to govern the conduct of the =) 6ctober (**8
election.
6n =@ 6ctober (**8, the secretary general of ST, upon the reCuest of the various ST
faculty club presidents !See paragraph D?, ,espondents' Comment and %otion to
-ismiss", issued notices allowing all faculty members to hold a convocation on =3
6ctober (**8 !See 'nneA BCB PetitionE 'nneAes B3B to B(=B, 'ppeal". -enominated as :a;
general faculty assembly, the convocation was supposed to discuss the Bstate of the
unratified ST&ST$ C.'B and Bstatus and election of ST$ officersB !'nneA B((B,
'ppeal"
6n =3 6ctober (**8, the med&arbiter in Case 1o. 1C,&6-&%&*8(=&==( issued a
temporary restraining order against herein appellees en7oining them from conducting the
election scheduled on =) 6ctober (**8.
'lso on =3 6ctober (**8, and as earlier announced by the ST secretary general, the
general faculty assembly was held as scheduled. The general assembly was attended by
members of the ST$ and, as admitted by the appellants, also by Bnon&ST$
members :who; are members in good standing of the ST 'cademic Community
Collective .argaining nitB !See paragraph F?, ,espondents' Comment and %otion to
-ismiss". 6n this occasion, appellants were elected as ST$'s new set of officers by
acclamation and clapping of hands !See paragraphs 3= to )=, 'nneA B(@B, 'ppeal".
The election of the appellants came about upon a motion of one 'tty. Lope>, admittedly
not a member of ST$, that the ST$ C.L and Bthe rules of the election be
suspended and that the election be held :on; that dayB !See G paragraph <*, ?dem."
6n (( 6ctober (**8, appellees filed the instant petition see#ing in7unctive reliefs and the
nullification of the results of the =3 6ctober (**8 election. 'ppellees alleged that the
holding of the same violated the temporary restraining order issued in Case 1o. 1C,&
6-&%&*8(=&==(. 'ccusing appellants of usurpation, appellees characteri>ed the election
as spurious for being violative of ST$'s C.L, specifically because the general
assembly resulting in the election of appellants was not called by the .oard of 6fficers of
the ST$E there was no compliance with the ten&day notice rule reCuired by Section (,
'rticle D??? of the C.LE the supposed elections were conducted without a C6%/L/C
being constituted by the .oard of 6fficers in accordance with Section (, 'rticle ?F of the
C.LE the elections were not by secret balloting as reCuired by Section (, 'rticle D and
Section 8, 'rticle ?F of the C.L, and, the general assembly was convened by faculty
members some of whom were not members of ST$, so much so that non&ST$
members were allowed to vote in violation of Section (, 'rticle D of the C.L.
6n @3 6ctober (**8, appellees filed another urgent ex-parte motion for a temporary
restraining order, this time alleging that appellants had served the former a notice to
vacate the union office. $or their part, appellants moved to dismiss the original petition
and the subseCuent motion on 7urisdictional grounds. .oth the petition and the motion
were captioned to be for BProhibition, ?n7unction with Prayer for Preliminary ?n7unction and
Temporary ,estraining 6rder.B 'ccording to the appellants, the med&arbiter has no
7urisdiction over petitions for prohibition, Bincluding the ancillary remedies of restraining
order andHor preliminary in7unction, which are merely incidental to the main petition for
P,65?.?T?61B !Paragraph FD???<, ,espondents' Comment and %otion to -ismiss".
'ppellants also averred that they now constituted the new set of union officers having
been elected in accordance with law after the term of office of appellees had eApired.
They further maintained that appellees' scheduling of the ) 6ctober (**8 elections was
illegal because no rules and regulations governing the elections were promulgated as
reCuired by ST$'s C.L and that one of the members of the C6%/L/C was not a
registered member of ST$. 'ppellants li#ewise noted that the elections called by the
appellees should have been postponed to allow the promulgation of rules and regulations
and to Binsure a free, clean, honest and orderly elections and to afford at the same time
the greater ma7ority of the general membership to participateB !See paragraph D, ?dem".
$inally, appellants contended that the holding of the general faculty assembly on =3
6ctober (**8 was under the control of the Council of CollegeH$aculty Club Presidents in
cooperation with the ST$ ,eformist 'lliance and that they received the Temporary
,estraining 6rder issued in Case 1o. 1C,&6-&%&*8(=&==( only on =+ 6ctober (**8
and were not aware of the same on =3 6ctober (**8.
6n =< -ecember (**8, appellants and ST allegedly entered into another C.' covering
the period from =( 0une (**8 to <( %ay @==( !'nneA ((, appellants' ,e7oinder to the
,eply and 6pposition".
ConseCuently, appellees again moved for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
to prevent appellants from ma#ing further representations that :they; had entered into a
new agreement with ST. 'ppellees also reiterated their earlier stand that appellants
were usurping the former's duties and functions and should be stopped from continuing
such acts.
6n (( -ecember (**8, over appellants' insistence that the issue of 7urisdiction should
first be resolved, the med&arbiter issued a temporary restraining order directing the
respondents to cease and desist from performing any and all acts pertaining to the duties
and functions of the officers and directors of ST$.
?n the meantime, appellants claimed that the new C.' was purportedly ratified by an
overwhelming ma7ority of ST's academic community on (@ -ecember (**8 !'nneAes (
to (=, ?dem". $or this reason, appellants moved for the dismissal of what it denominated
as appellees' petition for prohibition on the ground that this had become moot and
academic.
5
Petitioners appealed the med&arbiter's -ecision to the labor secretary,
6
who transmitted
the records of the case to the .ureau of Labor ,elations which, under -epartment
6rder 1o. *, was authori>ed to resolve appeals of intra&union cases, consistent with the
last paragraph of 'rticle @3( of the Labor Code.
9
The Assailed Ruling
'greeing with the med&arbiter that the ST$ officers' purported election held on
6ctober 3, (**3 was void for having been conducted in violation of the union's
Constitution and .ylaws !C.L", Public ,espondent .itonio re7ected petitioners'
contention that it was a legitimate eAercise of their right to self&organi>ation. 5e ruled
that the C.L, which constituted the covenant between the union and its members, could
not be suspended during the 6ctober 3, (**8 general assembly of all faculty members,
since that assembly had not been convened or authori>ed by the ST$.
-irector .itonio li#ewise held that the 6ctober 3, (**8 election could not be legitimi>ed
by the recognition of the newly BelectedB set of officers by ST or by the alleged
ratification of the new C.' by the general membership of the ST$. ,uled
,espondent .itonio4
This submission is flawed. The issue at hand is not collective bargaining representation
but union leadership, a matter that should concern only the members of ST$. 's
pointed out by the appellees, the privilege of determining who the union officers will be
belongs eAclusively to the members of the union. Said privilege is eAercised in an
election proceeding in accordance with the union's C.L and applicable law.
To accept appellants' claim to legitimacy on the foregoing grounds is to invest in
appellants the position, duties, responsibilities, rights and privileges of ST$ officers
without the benefit of a lawful electoral eAercise as defined in ST$'s C.L and 'rticle
@3(!c" of the Labor Code. 1ot to mention the fact that labor laws prohibit the employer
from interfering with the employees in the latter' eAercise of their right to self&organi>ation.
To allow appellants to become ST$ officers on the strength of management's
recognition of them is to concede to the employer the power of determining who should
be ST$'s leaders. This is a clear case of interference in the eAercise by ST$
members of their right to self&organi>ation.
:
5ence, this Petition.
9
The Issues
The main issue in this case is whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in refusing to recogni>e the officers BelectedB during the 6ctober 3, (**8
general assembly. Specifically, petitioners in their %emorandum urge the Court to
resolve the following Cuestions4
1;
!(" Whether the Collective .argaining nit of all the faculty members in that 9eneral
$aculty 'ssembly had the right in that 9eneral $aculty 'ssembly to suspend the
provisions of the Constitution and .y&Laws of the ST$ regarding the elections of
officers of the union:.;
!@" Whether the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution and .y&Laws of the
ST$ in that 9eneral $aculty 'ssembly is valid pursuant to the constitutional right of
the Collective .argaining nit to engage in Bpeaceful concerted activitiesB for the purpose
of ousting the corrupt regime of the private respondents:.;
!<" Whether the overwhelming ratification of the Collective .argaining 'greement
eAecuted by the petitioners in behalf of the ST$ with the niversity of Santo Tomas
has rendered moot and academic the issue as to the validity of the suspension of the
Constitution and .y&Laws and the elections of 6ctober 3, (**8 in the 9eneral $aculty
'ssembly:.;
The Courts Ruling
The petition is not meritorious. Petitioners fail to convince this Court that -irector .itonio
gravely abused his discretion in affirming the med&arbiter and in refusing to recogni>e
the binding effect of the 6ctober 3, (**8 general assembly called by the ST
administration.
First Issue4
Right to Self-Organization
and Union e!bership
't the outset, the Court stresses that "ational Federation of #abor $"F#% &. #agues!a
11
has held that challenges against rulings of the labor secretary and those acting on his
behalf, li#e the director of labor relations, shall be acted upon by the Court of 'ppeals,
which has concurrent 7urisdiction with this Court over petitions for certiorari. 5owever,
inasmuch as the memoranda in the instant case have been filed prior to the
promulgation and finality of our -ecision in 1$L, we deem it proper to resolve the
present controversy directly, instead of remanding it to the Court of 'ppeals. 5aving
disposed of the foregoing procedural matter, we now tac#le the issues in the present
case seriati!.
Self&organi>ation is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and
the Labor Code. /mployees have the right to form, 7oin or assist labor organi>ations for
the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection.
12
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 a labor union.
13
Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to 7oin, affiliate with or assist a labor union.
18

Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the
intent to become one, but also ta#e some positive steps to reali>e that intent. The
procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union's constitution and
bylaws.
15
'n employee who becomes a union member acCuires the rights and the
concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by the union's
rules and regulations.
When a man 7oins a labor union !or almost any other democratically controlled group",
necessarily a portion of his individual freedom is surrendered for the benefit of all
members. 5e accepts the will of the ma7ority of the members in order that he may derive
the advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. 0ust as the enactments of
the legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and by&laws of the union !unless contrary
to good morals or public policy, or otherwise illegal", which are duly enacted through
democratic processes, bind all of the members. ?f a member of a union disli#es the
provisions of the by&laws, he may see# to have them amended or may withdraw from the
unionE otherwise, he must abide by them. ?t is not the function of courts to decide the
wisdom or propriety of legitimate by&laws of a trade union.
6n 7oining a labor union, the constitution and by&laws become a part of the member's
contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by the constitution and
governing rules of the union so far as it is not inconsistent with controlling principles of
law. The constitution and by&laws of an unincorporated trade union eApress the terms of a
contract, which define the privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, those
who have become members. The agreement of a member on 7oining a union to abide by
its laws and comply with the will of the lawfully constituted ma7ority does not reCuire a
member to submit to the determination of the union any Cuestion involving his personal
rights.
16
Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly committed by the private
respondents during the latter's incumbency impelled the 6ctober 3, (**8 election of the
new set of ST$ officers. They assert that such eAercise was pursuant to their right to
self&organi>ation.
Petitioners' frustration over the performance of private respondents, as well as their
fears of a BfraudulentB election to be held under the latter's supervision, could not 7ustify
the method they chose to impose their will on the union. -irector .itonio aptly
elucidated4
19
The constitutional right to self&organi>ation is better understood in the conteAt of ?L6
Convention 1o. 2+ !$reedom of 'ssociation and Protection of ,ight to 6rgani>e", to
which the Philippines is signatory. 'rticle < of the Convention provides that wor#ers'
organi>ations 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. The
freedom conferred by the provision is eApansiveE the responsibility imposed on union
members to respect the constitution and rules they themselves draw up eCually so. The
point to be stressed is that the union's C.L is the fundamental law that governs the
relationship between and among the members of the union. ?t is where the rights, duties
and obligations, powers, functions and authority of the officers as well as the members
are defined. ?t is the organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any officer or
member of the union. Without respect for the C.L, a union as a democratic institution
degenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob rule.
Union 'lection &s.
Certification 'lection
' union election is held pursuant to the union's constitution and bylaws, and the right to
vote in it is en7oyed only by union !e!bers. ' union election should be distinguished
from a certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot,
the sole and eAclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit, for purposes of collective bargaining.
1:
Specifically, the purpose of a certification
election is to ascertain whether or not a ma7ority of the employees wish to be
represented by a labor organi>ation and, in the affirmative case, by (hich particular
labor organi>ation.
19
?n a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can
vote.
2;
Therefore, a union member who li#ewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining
unit is entitled to vote in said election. 5owever, the reverse is not always trueE an
employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of the
union cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise authori>ed by the constitution
and bylaws of the union. Derily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non&
union activity.
?n both elections, there are procedures to be followed. Thus, the 6ctober 3, (**8
election cannot properly be called a union election, because the procedure laid down in
the ST$'s C.L for the election of officers was not followed. ?t could not have been a
certification election either, because representation was not the issue, and the proper
procedure for such election was not followed. The participation of non&union members
in the election aggravated its irregularity.
Second Issue4
USTFU)s Constitution and
*+ #a(s ,iolated
The importance of a union's constitution and bylaws cannot be overemphasi>ed. They
embody a covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamental
law governing the members' rights and obligations.
21
's such, the union's constitution
and bylaws should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to law, good morals or
public policy.
We agree with the finding of -irector .itonio and %ed&'rbiter $alconitin that the 6ctober
3, (**8 election was tainted with irregularities because of the following reasons.
First, the 6ctober 3, (**8 assembly was not called by the ST$. ?t was merely a
convocation of faculty clubs, as indicated in the memorandum sent to all faculty
members by $r. ,odel 'ligan, 6P, the secretary general of the niversity of Santo
Tomas.
22
?t was not convened in accordance with the provision on general membership
meetings as found in the ST$'s C.L, which reads4
ARTIC#' ,III-''TI"-S OF T.' U"IO"
Sec. (. The nion shall hold regular general membership meetings at least once every
three !<" months. 1otices of the meeting shall be sent out by the Secretary&9eneral at
least ten !(=" days prior to such meetings by posting in conspicuous places, preferably
inside Company premises, said notices. The date, time and place for the meetings shall
be determined by the .oard of 6fficers.
23
nCuestionably, the assembly was not a union meeting. ?t was in fact a gathering that
was called and participated in by management and non&union members. .y no legal fiat
was such assembly transformed into a union activity by the participation of some union
members.
Second, there was no commission on elections to oversee the election, as mandated by
Sections ( and @ of 'rticle ?F of the ST$'s C.L, which provide4
ARTIC#' I/ - U"IO" '#'CTIO"
Sec. (. There shall be a Committee on /lection !C6%/L/C" to be
created by the .oard of 6fficers at least thirty !<=" days before any
regular or special election. The functions of the C6%/L/C include the
following4
a" 'dopt and promulgate rules and regulations that will ensure a free,
clean, honest and orderly election, whether regular or specialE
b" Pass upon Cualifications of candidatesE
c" ,ule on any Cuestion or protest regarding the conduct of the election
sub7ect to the procedure that may be promulgated by the .oard of
6fficersE and
d" Proclaim duly elected officers.
Sec. @. The C6%/L/C shall be composed of a chairman and two
members all of whom shall be appointed by the .oard of 6fficers.
AAA AAA AAA
28
Third, the purported election was not done by secret balloting, in violation of Section 8,
'rticle ?F of the ST$'s C.L, as well as 'rticle @3( !c" of the Labor Code.
The foregoing infirmities considered, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to
-irector .itonio's finding and conclusion. ?n Rodriguez &. 0irector1 *ureau of #abor
Relations,
25
we invalidated the local union elections held at the wrong date without prior
notice to members and conducted without regard for duly prescribed ground rules. We
held that the proceedings were rendered void by the lac# of due process G undue
haste, lac# of adeCuate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and the absence of
the notice of the dates of balloting.
Third Issue4
Suspension of USTFU)s C*#
Petitioners contend that the 6ctober 3, (**8 assembly BsuspendedB the union's C.L.
They aver that the suspension and the election that followed were in accordance with
their Bconstituent and residual powers as members of the collective bargaining unit to
choose their representatives for purposes of collective bargaining.B 'gain they cite the
numerous anomalies allegedly committed by the private respondents as ST$
officers. This argument does not persuade.
First, as has been discussed, the general faculty assembly was not the proper forum to
conduct the election of ST$ officers. 1ot all who attended the assembly were
members of the unionE some, apparently, were even disCualified from becoming union
members, since they represented management. Thus, -irector .itonio correctly
observed4
$urther, appellants cannot be heard to say that the C.L was effectively suspended during
the =3 6ctober (**8 general assembly. ' union C.L is a covenant between the union
and its members and among members !0ohnson and 0ohnson Labor nion&$$W, et al. v.
-irector of Labor ,elations, (+= SC,' 38*". Where ?L6 Convention 1o. 2+ spea#s of a
union's full freedom to draw up its constitution and rules, it includes freedom from
interference by persons who are not members of the union. The democratic principle that
governance is a matter for the governed to decide upon applies to the labor movement
which, by law and constitutional mandate, must be assiduously insulated against
intrusions coming from both the employer and complete strangers if the Bprotection to
labor clauseB of the constitution is to be guaranteed. .y appellant's own evidence, the
general faculty assembly of =3 6ctober (**8 was not a meeting of ST$. ?t was
attended by members and non&members ali#e, and therefore was not a forum
appropriate for transacting union matters. The person who moved for the suspension of
ST$'s C.L was not a member of ST$. 'llowing a non&union member to initiate the
suspension of a union's C.L, and non&union members to participate in a union election
on the premise that the union's C.L had been suspended in the meantime, is
incompatible with the freedom of association and protection of the right to organi>e.
?f there are members of the so&called Bacademic community collective bargaining unitB
who are not ST$ members but who would nevertheless want to have a hand in
ST$'s affairs, the appropriate procedure would have been for them to become
members of ST$ first. The procedure for membership is very clearly spelled out in
'rticle ?D of ST$'s C.L. 5aving become members, they could then draw guidance
from Ang ala+ang anggaga(a "g Ang Tiba+ &. Ang Tiba+, (=< Phil. 88*. Therein the
Supreme Court held that Bif a member of the union disli#es the provisions of the by&laws
he may see# to have them amended or may withdraw from the unionE otherwise he must
abide by them.B nder 'rticle FD?? of ST$'s C.L, there is also a specific provision for
constitutional amendments. What is clear therefore is that ST$'s C.L provides for
orderly procedures and remedies which appellants could have easily availed
:themselves; of instead of resorting to an eAercise of their so&called Bresidual powerB.
26
Second, the grievances of the petitioners could have been brought up and resolved in
accordance with the procedure laid down by the union's C.L
29
and by the Labor Code.
2:
They contend that their sense of desperation and helplessness led to the 6ctober 3,
(**8 election. 5owever, we cannot agree with the method they used to rectify years of
inaction on their part and thereby ease bottled&up frustrations, as such method was in
total disregard of the ST$'s C.L and of due process. The end never 7ustifies the
means.
We agree with the solicitor general's observation that Bthe act of suspending the
constitution when the Cuestioned election was held is an implied admission that the
election held on that date :6ctober 3, (**8; could not be considered valid under the
eAisting ST$ constitution . . ..B
29
The ratification of the new C.' eAecuted between the petitioners and the niversity of
Santo Tomas management did not validate the void 6ctober 3, (**8 election. ,atified
were the terms of the new C.', not the issue of union leadership G a matter that
should be decided only by union members in the proper forum at the proper time and
after observance of proper procedures.
'pilogue
?n dismissing this Petition, we are not passing upon the merits of the mismanagement
allegations imputed by the petitioners to the private respondentsE these are not at issue
in the present case. Petitioners can bring their grievances and resolve their differences
with private respondents in timely and appropriate proceedings. Courts will not tolerate
the unfair treatment of union members by their own leaders. When the latter abuse and
violate the rights of the former, they shall be dealt with accordingly in the proper forum
after the observance of due process.
W5/,/$6,/, the Petition is hereby -?S%?SS/- and the assailed ,esolutions
'$$?,%/-. Costs against petitioners.
S6 6,-/,/-.
elo1 ,itug1 2urisi!a and -onzaga-Re+es1 3341 concur4
Foo.*o.e2
( See Panganiban, .attles in the Supreme Court, (**2 ed., p. )=.
@ Rollo, pp. +3&28.
< Rollo, pp. +@&+<.
3 Rollo, pp. 2+&*(.
) Rollo, pp. +)&+*.
8 Rollo, pp. ((@&(3(. The petitioners filed their appeal with the -epartment of Labor and
/mployment on %arch <, (**+.
+ 'ssailed ,esolution, p. @E rollo, p. +).
2 Ibid., p. (@E rollo, p. 2).
* The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon receipt by the Court of the %emorandum
for the private respondents on %arch (, (***. Petitioners' %emorandum was received on 0anuary
((, (***, and public respondents' %emorandum on 0anuary (2, (***.
(= Rollo, pp. )=3&)=).
(( 9, 1o. (@<3@8, %arch (=, (***.
(@ See 'rticle @33 of the Labor Code in con7unction with /Aecutive 6rder 1o. (2=, as well as
'rticle @3) of the same Code.
(< 'rt. @++ !c", Labor Code.
(3 ,eyes v. Tra7ano, @=* SC,' 323, 0une @, (**@.
() $or eAample, the following are pertinent provisions as regards membership in ST$, as set
forth in its C.L4
ARTIC#' I, 5 '*'RS.I2
Sec. (. /very faculty member of the niversity of Santo Tomas, not otherwise
disCualified by law and without regard to seA, race, nationality, religious or
political belief or affiliation, is eligible for membership in the 1?61.
Sec. @. Iualified faculty members of the Company may become members of the
1?61 by written application approved by the President upon recommendation
of the Committee on %embership and after payment in full of the reCuired
admission fee.
Sec. <. The following shall not be eligible for membership nor to election or
appointment to any position in the 1?614
a" Subversives or persons who profess subversive ideasE
b" Persons who have been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitudeE and
c" Persons who are not faculty members of the Company. !Rollo,
p.@2<".
(8 'ng %alayang %anggagawa ng 'ng Tibay /nterprises et al. v. 'ng Tibay, (=@ Phil. 88*,
-ecember @<, (*)+, per .autista 'ngelo, 0.
(+ 'ugust (), (**+ ,esolution, pp. *&(=E rollo, pp. 2@&2<.
(2 J ( !A", ,ule ?, .oo# D, ,ules and ,egulations ?mplementing the Labor Code.
(* ,eyes v. Tra7ano, supra.
@= 'irtime Specialists v. $errer&Calle7a, (2= SC,' +3*, -ecember @*, (*2*.
@( 0ohnson and 0ohnson Labor nion&$$W v. -irector of Labor ,elations, (+= SC,' 38*,
$ebruary @(, (*2*.
@@ See 'nneA BCB of private respondent's Petition filed with the med&arbiterE rollo, p. @8(.
@< Rollo, p. @22.
@3 Rollo, p. @*=.
@) (8) SC,' @<*, 'ugust <(, (*22.
@8 Rollo, pp. 2<&23.
@+ The ST$'s C.L as regards impeachment and recall reads as follows4
ARTIC#' /, 5 I2'AC.'"T A"0 R'CA##
Sec. (. 'ny of the following shall be grounds for the impeachment or recall of
1?61 officers4
a" Committing or causing the commission directly or indirectly of acts against the
interest and welfare of the 1?61.
b" %alicious attac# against the 1?61, its officers, or against a fellow 1?61
officer.
c" $ailure to comply with the obligation to turn over and return to the 1?61
Treasurer within three !<" days any uneApended sum or sums of money received
from the 1?61 funds to answer for an authori>ed 1?61 purpose.
d" 9ross misconduct unbecoming a 1?61 officer.
e" %isappropriation of 1?61 funds and property. This is without pre7udice to the
filing of an appropriate criminal or civil action against the responsible officer or
officers by any interested party.
f" Willful violation of any provision of this Constitution and .y&Laws or rules,
regulations, measures, resolutions or decisions of the 1?61.
Sec. @. The following procedure shall govern impeachment and recall
proceedings4
a" ?mpeachment or recall proceedings shall be initiated by a formal petition or
resolution signed by at least thirty !<=" percent of all bonafide members of the
1?61 and addressed to the Chairman of the .oard of 6fficers.
b" The .oard Chairman shall then convene a general membership meeting to
consider the impeachment or recall of an officer or a group of officers, whether
elective or appointive.
c" 1?61 officers against whom impeachment or recall charges have been filed
shall be given ample opportunity to defend themselves before any impeachment
or recall vote is finally ta#en.
d" ' ma7ority of all the members of the 1?61 shall be reCuired to impeach or
recall 1?61 officers.
e" The 1?61 officers impeached shall ipso facto be considered resigned or
ousted from office and shall no longer be elected or appointed to any position in
the 1?61.
f" The decision of the general membership on the impeachment or recall charge
shall be final and eAecutory.
@2 'rt. @3(.
@* Public respondent's %emorandum, p. (<E rollo, pp. )<<.
The Lawphil Pro7ect & 'rellano Law $oundation