Atty. Marino et. al. vs. Dr. Gamilla et. al.

G.R. No. 149763, July 7, 2009

FACTS:
Petitioners are among the executive officers and directors of
University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) while respondents are
composed of UST faculty and USTFU members. The dispute arose when
UST

and

USTFU,

represented

by

petitioners

herein,

entered

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby UST faculty members

belonging to the CBA unit were granted additional economic benefits and
at the same time stipulated a 10% check-off over said benefits to cover
union dues and special assessment for Labor Education Fund and
attorneys fees. Respondents filed with the Med Arbiter a complaint
assailing, among others, the check-off for union dues and attorneys fees
collected under the MOA for being violative of the rights and conditions
of membership in USTFU. DOLE Regional Director, by virtue of an order
consolidating all the complaints by the respondents, rendered among
others a decision in favor of the latter and ruled that the check-off
collected as negotiation fees were invalid. Both the BLR and CA, on
appeal, AFFIRMED said decision and ordered to return to the general
membership the amount collected by way of attorneys fees; hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
Is the check-off of union dues and special assessment of attorneys
fees inserted in the written authorization ratifying the MOA benefits
valid?
LAW:
Article 222(b) and 241(n) and (o) of the Labor Code, as amended
RULING:

NO. The economic benefits package granted under the MOA did
not constitute union funds from which attorneys fees could have been
validly deducted. Under Article 222(b), attorneys fees may only be paid
from union funds; yet the amount to be used in paying for the same does
not become union funds until it is actually deducted as attorneys fees
from the benefits awarded to the employees. What the law requires is
that the funds be already deemed union funds even before the attorneys
fees are deducted or paid therefrom; it does not become union funds
after the deduction or payment. To rule otherwise will also render the
general prohibition stated in Article 222(b) nugatory, because all that the
union needs to do is to deduct from the total benefits awarded to the
employees the amount intended for attorneys fees and, thus, convert
the latter to union funds, which could then be used to pay for the said
attorneys fees. Furthermore, the inclusion of the authorization for a
check-off of union dues and special assessments for the Labor Education
Fund and attorneys fees in the same document for the ratification of the
MOA granting the economic benefits package, necessarily vitiated the
consent of USTFU members for there was no way for any individual
union member to separate his or her consent to the ratification of the
MOA from his or her authorization of the check-off of union dues and
special assessments. As it were, the ratification of the MOA carried with
it the automatic authorization of the check-off of union dues and special
assessments in favor of the union. Substantial compliance is not enough
in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the
compensation of the union members. Their express consent is required,
and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined
by law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed.
OPINION:
I concur with great conviction. . .
The instant case is a pure demonstration of a finesse and
intelligent attempt to circumvent the law; but not good enough under the

watchful eyes of our magistrate. A check-off provision is in effect an

encumbrance over the wages/salaries of the worker, and under our laws,
the salaries/wages of the labor should be left unencumbered except for
legal purposes or as a consequence of benefits received. The very nature
of a check-off warrants regulation from the State which is, among others,
what is ought to be achieved by Article 222 and Article 241. An attempt
to stale mate a worker by incorporating a check-off provision in an
agreement for additional benefits cannot stand in the eyes of law. A
separate consent is essential, to validate and authorize a stipulation for
fees and cannot be incorporated in an agreement granting benefits for
the very reason that the two are just not meant for each other and one
cannot give and at the same time take what has been given.