7/24/2019 Litton Mills Employees v.
Ferrer-Calleja Digest
Dayrit, Daryl Kenneth R.
 Topic: Modifcations in CBA, Eect o Aliation
itton Mills E!ployees Association"Kapatiran and Ro#elio A$on# %.
&errer"Calle'a
(.R. )o. "*+-, )o%e!$er /0, 1++
2adilia, 3.
4ylla$5s: Di 6o !ahanap eh. 4o tina6e 5p 6o na lahat nan# iss5es
&acts:
2etitioner 5nion, MEA"K, is a le#iti!ate la$or or#ani7ation
in the respondent co!pany, M8, 9hile indi%id5al petitioner, Ro#elio
A$on#, and indi%id5al respondent, Rodolo !ali, are the %ice"
president, respecti%ely, o MEA"K.
• ;n 0 A5#5st 1+-, 9itho5t the 6no9led#e and appro%al o
the #eneral !e!$ership o MEA"K, !ali <Aliated<
petitioner"5nion 9ith the ederation o (ATC;RD. !ali then
ca5sed !i!eo#raphed lea=ets to $e distri$5ted to the
5nion"!e!$ers, 5r#in# the! to contin5e aliatin# 9ith
(ATC;RD.
• A !a'ority o the 5nion"!e!$ers, n5!$erin# */> o5t o a
total !e!$ership o ,, !ore or less, opposed the
aliation o MEA"K 9ith (ATC;RD, and e?pressly
!aniested their intention to re!ain as an independent"
5nion, in a state!ent, <4a!a"4a!an# Kapasiyahan<, dated
+ A5#5st 1+- 9hich, a!on# others, also a5thori7ed
petitioner A$on# to ta6e appropriate steps a#ainst
respondent !ali, incl5din# i!peach!ent, sho5ld the latter
contin5e the aliation o the petitioner"5nion 9ith
(ATC;RD.
• Despite the opposition o a !a'ority o the 5nion
!e!$ership to the petitioner" 5nion@s aliation 9ith
(ATC;RD, !ali contin5ed 9ith it, as e%idenced $y a letter
he 9rote to M8, dated / A5#5st 1+-, 9hich 9as 9ritten
on paper 9ith the letterhead o (ATC;RD printed on it.
•  Thereater, A$on# and the !a'ority o the elected 5nion
ocers si#ned a letter, dated /0 A5#5st 1+-, addressed to
!ali, acc5sin# hi! o disloyalty $y reasons o his aliation
9ith (ATC;RD, and ad%isin# hi! to appear $eore the! on
A5#5st 1+- at /: p.!. in the co!pany canteen, to re5te
the char#e o disloyalty a#ainst hi!. The sa!e letter 9arned
!ali that his ail5re to attend said !eetin# 9o5ld $e
interpreted as an ad!ission on his part o the char#e
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/litton-mills-employees-v-ferrer-calleja-digest
le%elled a#ainst hi!. !ali did not sho9 5p at the appointed
conrontation o /* A5#5st 1+-.
• Conse5ently, the !a'ority o the 5nion ocers, led $y
A$on#, %oted to i!peach !ali
•  The co!pany@s position on the re5est o the petitioners, as
stated in its letter to the petitioners, dated  4epte!$er
1+-, 9as that the petitioner sho5ld frst co!ply 9ith the
pro%ision o the CBA, to 9it: An e!ployee 9ho is e?pelled
ro! the nion or ca5se shall, 5pon de!and $y the nion,
$e ter!inated ro! e!ploy!ent, pro%ided that all pertinent
re5ire!ents o the Ministry o a$or and E!ploy!ent are
frst co!plied 9ith pro%ided that the nion shall hold the
co!pany ree ro! any lia$ility that !ay arise d5e to said
ter!ination
Decision o the Med"Ar$iter
;n > )o%e!$er 1+-, Med"Ar$iter Residali A$d5llah iss5ed
an order declarin# that the iss5e o aliation cannot $e dealt 9ith
in the co!plaint fled $y petitioners, and that the i!peach!ent o
!ali 9as n5ll and %oid.
 The Med"Ar$iter o5nd no %alid #ro5nd to s5stain the
i!peach!ent o Rodolo !ali as president o the petitioner 5nion,
since !ali 9as not aorded his ri#ht to d5e process, his
i!peach!ent ha%in# $een appro%ed 9itho5t co!pliance 9ith the
proced5re laid do9n in the petitioner"5nion@s constit5tion and $y"
la9s.
Respondent !ali cannot $e held lia$le 5nder 2ar. $,
4ection >, Art. 8 o the 5nion@s constit5tion and $y"la9s as he 9as
only tryin# to aliate the 5nion 9ith the ederation or reason,
perhaps, to avail [sic] the services and assistance of the
federation and not organizing or joining another labor
union.
8ss5e:
1/4
7/24/2019 Litton Mills Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja Digest
Fhether or not the respondent@s act o aliatin# petitioner"
5nion 9ith (ATC;RD is a #ro5nd or i!peach!ent 5nder petitioner"
5nion Constit5tion and By"a9s
Geld:
 Hes.
Ratio:
Art. 8, 4ection >. Me!$ership !ay $e lost 5nder the
ollo9in# #ro5nds:
??? ??? ???
$ Organizing or joining another labor union or any
federation.
•  ;ne o the #ro5nds or losin# !e!$ership in the 5nion, as
aorestated, is $y 'oinin# a ederation. There is no disp5te in
the present case that (ATC;RD is a la$or ederation, to
9hich respondent !ali aliated the petitioner"5nion as
e%idenced $y !i!eo#raphed lea=ets he ca5sed to $e
distri$5ted a!on# the 5nion"!e!$ers, 5r#in# the! to
contin5e aliatin# 9ith (ATC;RD, the 2led#e o Alle#iance
o ne9ly"appointed 4hop 4te9ard )or$erto Da%id, and the
letter o !ali to M8, dated / A5#5st 1+-, the last t9o /
$ein# attested to $y (ATC;RD@s )ational 2resident Ti!oteo
Aran'5ae7 and the act that the letter dated / A5#5st 1+-
9as 9ritten on paper 9ith (ATC;RD@s letterhead Also, the
aliation o the petitioner 5nion 9ith (ATC;RD 9as
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/litton-mills-employees-v-ferrer-calleja-digest
ar!ed $y !ali hi!sel, 9hen he presented the alle#ed
* si#nat5res o 5nion"!e!$ers 9ho s5pported his !o%e
o aliatin# the 5nion MEAK 9ith (ATC;RD. Gence, it
cannot be denied that Umali did not only propose the
aliation, but in fact aliated the petitioner union
with !"#O$%, in contravention of the above&cited
prohibition in 'ection (, !rticle )* of the petitioner
union+s #onstitution and y&-aws.
•  8t 9ill appear in s5ch case that the 5nion itsel has ratifed
the act o aliation. 8t 9ill $e noted that !ali, al$eit
$elatedly, presented the si#nat5res o * !e!$ers o the
5nion, as proo o the s5pport he had ro! the! or the
5nion@s aliation 9ith (ATC;RD.
  ;n the other hand, petitioners presented */> si#nat5res, or
->.1I o the entire 5nion !e!$ership, 9ho si#ned the
<4a!a"4a!an# Kapasiyahan<,
opposed the aliation, as proo
in addition o those 9ho
to petitioners@ alle#ation
that o5t o the * si#nat5res presented $y !ali, -
si#nat5res 9ere either or#ed or a6ed, t9ice or thrice
9ritten, or si#nat5res o already resi#ned e!ployees.
(Ratication not valid kasi nga forged ung
signatures)
As to the !odifcation o CBA
&5rther!ore, the Co5rt notes that the collecti%e $ar#ainin#
a#ree!ent o the petitioner"5nion MEAK 9ith M8 9as to e?pire
only on J ;cto$er 1+*, 9hereas, !ali aliated the 5nion
aro5nd A5#5st 1+-, or a$o5t 0 !onths $eore the e?piration o
said CBA. The aliation o the petitioner"5nion 9ith (ATC;RD
con%erted the former+s status from that of an independent
union to that of a local of a labor federation. 45ch chan#e in
stat5s not only aects the 8dentity o the petitioner 5nion $5t also
its po9ers, d5ties and pri%ile#es, or as a local, it 9ill ha%e to
2/4
7/24/2019 Litton Mills Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja Digest

contend 9ith and cons5lt the ederation, in !atters aectin# the
5nion.
 The act o aliatin# 9ith a ederation is a !a'or !odifcation in the
stat5s o the petition 5nion. And s5ch act is a %iolation o the r5le
that no !odifcation o the #! can be made during its
eistence, unless either party serves written notice to
2etitioners sho5ld ha%e sho9n s5$stantial co!pliance 9ith
said i!peach!ent proced5re, $y #i%in# !ali a!ple opport5nity to
deend hi!sel, as contrasted to an o5tri#ht i!peach!ent, ri#ht
ater he ailed to appear $eore the frst and only in%esti#ation
sched5led on /* A5#5st 1+- in the itton Canteen.

terminate or modify  the agreement at least sity /012 days

prior to its epiration date. Gence, there 9as a %iolation o the Decision: Moot and acade!ic
e?istin# CBA, on the part o !ali.

Consistent 9ith the ore#oin# o$ser%ations, it appears ro!

As to the proced5res o i!peach!ent o a 5nion ocer, ro! the record that a #ro5p o e!ployees headed $y petitioner
Ro#elio A$on# $ro6e a9ay ro! the petitioner"5nion and or!ed a
ne9 5nion, called itton Mills For6ers nion, and that in a
certifcation election that ollo9ed, said itton Mills For6ers nion,
4ection /, Article  o the petitioner"5nion@s Constit5tion and By" headed $y petitioner A$on#, 9as chosen as the collecti%e
a9s pro%ides the proced5res to $e ollo9ed, to 9it:  $ar#ainin# a#ent.
8!peach!ent sho5ld $e initiated $y petition si#ned $y at least JI
o all bona fde !e!$ers o the 5nion, and addressed to the
Chair!an o the E?ec5ti%e Board $ A #eneral !e!$ership
!eetin# shall $e con%ened $y the Board Chair!an to consider the
i!peach!ent o an ocer c Beore any i!peach!ent %ote is
fnally ta6en, the 5nion ocer a#ainst 9ho! i!peach!ent char#es
ha%e $een fled shall $e #i%en a!ple opport5nity to deend
hi!sel , and d A !a'ority o all the !e!$ers o the 5nion shall $e
re5ired to i!peach or recall 5nion ocers.

8t clearly appears that the a$o%e cited proced5re 9as not

ollo9ed $y the petitioners 9hen they i!peached !ali.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/litton-mills-employees-v-ferrer-calleja-digest 3/4
7/24/2019 Litton Mills Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/litton-mills-employees-v-ferrer-calleja-digest 4/4