Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU) : - Second Division
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU) : - Second Division
6 Id., at pp. 56-57. Mancenido, Bolo, Quebral, Casañas, Pagulayan, Tierra, Cometa, Rendon,
and two (2) others who are not respondents herein.
10 Id., at p. 62.
635
636
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 635
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU) 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
Laws.7 In turn, Borela referred the charge to the MWEU (MWEU)
grievance committee for investigation.
On May 21, 2007, a notice of hearing was sent to Assembly in accordance with Section 2(g), Article V of
petitioner, who attended the scheduled hearing. On June 6, the union’s Constitution and By-Laws,11 which grants them
2007, the MWEU grievance committee recommended that the right to appeal any arbitrary resolution, policy and rule
petitioner be suspended for 30 days. promulgated by the Executive Board to the General
In a June 20, 2007 letter,8 Borela informed petitioner Membership Assembly. In a June 28, 2007 reply,12 Borela
and his corespondents of the MWEU Executive Board’s denied petitioner’s appeal, stating that the prescribed
“unanimous approval”9 of the grievance committee’s period for appeal had expired.
recommendation and imposition upon them of a penalty of Petitioner and his corespondents sent another letter13 on
30 days suspension, effective June 25, 2007. July 4, 2007, reiterating their arguments and demanding
In a June 26, 2007 letter10 to Borela, petitioner and his that the General Membership Assembly be convened in
corespondents took exception to the imposition and order that their appeal could be taken up. The letter was
indicated their intention to appeal the same to the General not acted upon.
Membership Petitioner was once more charged with nonpayment of
union dues, and was required to attend an August 3, 2007
_______________ hearing.14 Thereafter, petitioner was again penalized with
a 30-day suspension through an August 21, 2007 letter15 by
7 Id., at pp. 139-176, which provide, as follows: Borela informing petitioner of the Executive Board’s
ARTICLE IX “unanimous approval”16 of the grievance committee
DISCIPLINARY GROUNDS/OFFENSES recommendation to
Section 1. The following grounds for disciplinary action, suspension
or expulsion of members as acts or deeds inimical to the interests and _______________
welfare of the Union and/or its officers and members. Any officer or
member may be penalized for committing any following offenses by fines, 11 Stating that:
suspension, or expulsion: ARTICLE V
x x x x DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES
g. Nonpayment of dues and other monetary obligation due the Union AND OBLIGATIONS OF UNION MEMBERSHIP
for a reasonable period of time: x x x x
1st Offense – Letter reprimand Section 2. Rights and Privileges.—All Union members in good
2nd Offense – Suspension of right benefit privileges for 30 days standing shall have the following rights and privileges: x x x x
3rd Offense – Expulsion from Union membership and g. To appeal to the General Membership Assembly any arbitrary
recommendation for termination of employment. resolution, policy and rule that may be promulgated by the Executive
8 Rollo, p. 61. Board.
9 Id., at pp. 188-189; Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 2007, approved 12 Rollo, p. 63.
by respondents Borela, Cancino, Maga, Montemayor, Fernandez, Torres, 13 Id., at p. 64.
14 Id., at p. 66.
15 Id., at p. 68. 18 Id., at pp. 226-227; Board Resolution No. 7, Series of 2007, approved
16 Id., at pp. 202-203; Board Resolution No. 4, Series of 2007, approved by respondents Borela, Quebral, Tierra, Imana, Rendon, Yeban, Cancino,
by respondents Borela, Tierra, Bolo, Casañas, Fernandez, Rendon, Torres, Montemayor, Mancenido, Mandilag, Fernandez, Buenaventura,
Montemayor, Torres, Quebral, Pagulayan, Cancino, Maga, Cometa, Apilado, Maga, Barbero, Cometa, Bolo, and Manlapaz.
Mancenido, and two (2) others who are not respondents herein. 19 Id., at pp. 74-80, 226-227.
20 Id., at p. 46.
637
638
(m) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except 29 Id., at pp. 322-326; penned by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements; Ortiguerra and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Benedicto R.
(n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self- Palacol and Commissioner Nieves Vivar-de Castro.
organization, union membership and collective bargaining: 30 Herein petitioner.
(1) between and among legitimate labor organizations; 31 ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations.—It shall
(2) between and among members of a union or workers association. be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or
27 Rollo, pp. 279-281. representatives:
28 Id., at pp. 280-281. a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the
right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership.
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 641
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union 642
(MWEU)
_______________ nonagricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases; WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter a
2. Termination disputes; quo dated May 29, 2009 is hereby declared NULL and
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other _______________
terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages less of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
arising from the employer-employee relations; (b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer- enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the
employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
regard-
644
643
was arrived at without observing the prescribed voting (j) violations of or disagreements over any
procedure laid down in the Labor Code; that he is entitled provision in a union or workers’ association
to an award of damages and attorney’s fees as a result of constitution and bylaws;
respondents’ illegal acts in discriminating against him; and x x x x
that in ruling the way it did, the NLRC committed grave (l) violations of the rights and conditions of
abuse of discretion. union or workers’ association membership;
On April 24, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision x x x x
containing the following pronouncement: (n) such other disputes or conflicts involving
the rights to self-organization, union
_______________ membership and collective bargaining —
(1) between and among legitimate labor
33 Rollo, pp. 323-325. organizations;
34 Id., at pp. 327-337.
35 Id., at pp. 343-345.
36 Id., at pp. 346-369.
646
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
645 Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU)
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 645
(2) between and among members of a
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
union or workers’ association.
(MWEU)
In brief, “Inter-Union Dispute” refers to any
conflict between and among legitimate labor unions
The petition lacks merit. involving representation questions for purposes of
Petitioner’s causes of action against MWEU are collective bargaining or to any other conflict or
inter/intra-union disputes cognizable by the BLR dispute between legitimate labor unions. “Intra-Union
whose functions and jurisdiction are largely confined Dispute” refers to any conflict between and among
to union matters, collective bargaining registry, and union members, including grievances arising from
labor education. Section 1, Rule XI of Department any violation of the rights and conditions of
Order (D.O.) No. 40-03, Series of 2003, of the membership, violation of or disagreement over any
Department of Labor and Employment enumerates provision of the union’s constitution and bylaws, or
instances of inter/intra-union disputes, viz.: disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of
Section 1. Coverage.—Inter/intra-union union. On the other hand, the circumstances of unfair
disputes shall include: labor practices (ULP) of a labor organization are
x x x x stated in Article 249 of the Labor Code, to wit:
(b) conduct of election of union and workers’ Article 249. Unfair labor practices of labor
association officers/nullification of election of organizations.—It shall be unlawful for labor
union and workers’ association officers; organization, its officers, agents, or
(c) audit/accounts examination of union or representatives to commit any of the following
workers’ association funds; unfair labor practices:
x x x x (a) To restrain or coerce employees in
(g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/ the exercise of their right to self-organi-
expulsion of union and workers’ association zation; Provided, That the labor
officers and members; organization shall have the right to
x x x x prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership;
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/32 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/32
3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781 3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an them as falling within the concept of ULP under
employer to discriminate against an Article 249(a) and (b), still, petitioner’s complaint
employee, including discrimination against cannot prosper for lack of substantial evidence. Other
an employee with respect to whom than his bare allegation, petitioner offered no proof
membership in such organization has been that MWEU did not penalize some union members
denied or terminated on any ground other who failed to pay the increased dues. On the proposed
than the usual terms and conditions under discriminatory CBA provisions, petitioner merely
which membership or continuation of attached the pages containing the questioned
membership is made available to other provisions without bothering to reveal the MWEU
members. representatives responsible for the said proposal.
x x x x Article 249 mandates that “x x x only the officers,
mem-
_______________
647
37 Citing Azucena, Jr., Cesario A., The Labor Code with Comments
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 647 and Cases, Vol. II, 5th edition, p. 256 (2004).
38 Id.
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU)
Applying the aforementioned rules, We find that
648
the issues arising from petitioner’s right to
information on the increased membership dues, right
to appeal his suspension and expulsion according to 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
CBL provisions, and right to vote and be voted on are
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
essentially intra-union disputes; these involve
(MWEU)
violations of rights and conditions of union
membership. But his claim that a director of MWEU
warned that non-MWEU members would not receive bers of the governing boards, representatives or
CBA benefits is an inter-union dispute. It is more of agents or members of labor associations or
an “interference” by a rival union to ensure the organizations who have actually participated in,
loyalty of its members and to persuade nonmembers authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be
to join their union. This is not an actionable wrong held criminally liable.” Plain accusations against all
because interfering in the exercise of the right to MWEU officers, without specifying their actual
organize is itself a function of self-organizing.37 As participation, do not suffice. Thus, the ULP charges
long as it does not amount to restraint or coercion, a must necessarily fail.
labor organization may interfere in the employees’ In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings,
right to self-organization.38 Consequently, a only substantial evidence is necessary to establish the
determination of validity or illegality of the alleged case for or against a party. Substantial evidence is
acts necessarily touches on union matters, not ULPs, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
and are outside the scope of the labor arbiter’s mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving,
As regards petitioner’s other accusations, i.e., by substantial evidence, the allegations of ULP in his
discrimination in terms of meting out the penalty of complaint. The NLRC, therefore, properly dismissed
expulsion against him alone, and attempt to cause the the case.
employer, MWC, to discriminate against non-MWEU FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is
members in terms of retrenchment or reduction of DISMISSED.
personnel, and signing bonus, while We may consider SO ORDERED.39
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/32 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/32
3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781 3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781
Thus, the instant Petition. Petitioner’s Arguments
Issue Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside
and that respondents be declared guilty of unfair labor
In an August 28, 2013 Resolution,40 this Court resolved practices under Article 249(a) and (b) and adjudged liable
to give due course to the Petition, which claims that the CA for damages and attorney’s fees as prayed for in his
erred: complaint, petitioner maintains in his Petition and Reply42
that respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices which
A. IN DECLARING THAT THE PRESENCE OF he clearly enumerated and laid out in his pleadings below;
INTER/INTRA-UNION CONFLICTS NEGATES THE that these unfair labor practices committed by respondents
COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter; that the
AGAINST A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA failed to rule on his
OFFICERS, AND IN AFFIRMING THAT THE NLRC accusation of unfair labor practices and simply dismissed
PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CASE FOR his complaint on the ground that his causes of action are
ALLEGED LACK OF JURISDICTION. intra- or inter-union in nature; that admittedly, some of his
causes of action involved intra- or inter-union disputes, but
_______________ other acts of respondents constitute
650
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 649
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU) 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
B. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE (MWEU)
GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER
ARTICLE 249(a) AND (b) OF THE LABOR CODE. unfair labor practices; that he presented substantial
C. IN DECLARING THAT THE THREATS MADE evidence to prove that respondents are guilty of unfair
BY A UNION OFFICER AGAINST MEMBERS OF A labor practices by failing to observe the proper procedure in
RIVAL UNION IS (sic) MERELY AN the imposition of the increased monthly union dues, and in
“INTERFERENCE” AND DO NOT AMOUNT TO unduly imposing the penalties of suspension and expulsion
“RESTRAINT” OR “COERCION.” against him; that under the union’s constitution and
D. IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER FAILED bylaws, he is given the right to appeal his suspension and
TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN expulsion to the general membership assembly; that in
PROVING RESPONDENTS’ SPECIFIC ACTS OF denying him his rights as a union member and expelling
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. him, respondents are guilty of malice and evident bad faith;
E. IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE that respondents are equally guilty for violating and
SOLIDARILY LIABLE TO PETITIONER FOR curtailing his rights to vote and be voted to a position
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND within the union, and for discriminating against non-
ATTORNEY’S FEES.41 MWEU members; and that the totality of respondents’
conduct shows that they are guilty of unfair labor practices.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/32 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001782f1d818aed944929003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/32
3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781 3/14/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 781
Our Ruling
Respondent’s Arguments
The Court partly grants the Petition.
In their joint Comment,43 respondents maintain that In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals
petitioner raises issues of fact which are beyond the and the CA to resolve, as this Court is not a trier of facts.
purview of a petition for review on certiorari; that the However, when the conclusion arrived at by them is
findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive; that the erroneous in certain respects, and would result in injustice
Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in declaring that as to the parties, this Court must intervene to correct the
there is no unfair labor practices committed against error. While the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA are one in
petitioner; that petitioner’s other allegations fall within the their conclusion in this case, they erred in failing to resolve
jurisdiction of the BLR, as they refer to intra- or inter- petitioner’s charge of unfair labor practices against
union disputes between the parties; that the issues arising respondents.
from petitioner’s right to information on the increased It is true that some of petitioner’s causes of action
dues, right to appeal his suspension and expulsion, and constitute intra-union cases cognizable by the BLR under
right to vote and be voted upon are essentially intra-union Article 226 of the Labor Code.
in nature; that his allegations regarding supposed coercion
and restraint relative to benefits in the proposed CBA do An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict
not constitute an actionable wrong; that all of the acts between and among union members, including
questioned by petitioner are covered by Section 1, Rule XI grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
of Department Order 40-03, Series of 2003 as intra-/inter- conditions of membership, violation of or
union disputes which do not fall within the jurisdiction of disagreement over any provision of the union’s
the Labor Arbiter; that in not paying his union dues, constitution and bylaws, or disputes arising from
petitioner is guilty chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1
and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series
_______________ of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the following
circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes x x x.44
43 Id., at pp. 403-435.
_______________
44 Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., 651
651 Phil. 190, 203; 636 SCRA 472, 487 (2010), citing Azucena, Jr., supra note
37 at p. 111.
other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other services which are not performed or not to be
affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the performed, including the demand for fee for union
Labor Arbiters.” negotiations;
Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the (e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s
employer under Article 248 and by labor organizations fees from employers as part of the settlement of any
under Article 249 of the Labor Code,45 which provides as issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
follows: (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor notwithstanding, only the officers, members of
organizations.—It shall be unfair labor practice for a governing boards, representatives or agents or
labor organization, its officers, agents or members of labor associations or organizations who
representatives: have actually participated in, authorized or ratified
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
of their right to self-organization. However, a labor (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August
organization shall have the right to prescribe its own 21, 1981)
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership; Petitioner contends that respondents committed acts
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to constituting unfair labor practices — which charge was
discriminate against an employee, including particularly laid out in his pleadings, but that the Labor
discrimination against an employee with respect to Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA ignored it and simply
whom membership in such organization has been dismissed his complaint on the ground that his causes of
denied or to terminate an employee on any ground action were intra- or inter-union in nature. Specifically,
other than the usual terms and conditions under petitioner claims that he was suspended and expelled from
which membership or continuation of membership is MWEU illegally as a result of the denial of his right to
made available to other members; appeal his case to the general membership assembly in
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain accordance with the union’s constitution and bylaws. On
collectively with the employer, provided it is the the other hand, respondents counter that such charge is
representative of the employees; intra-union in nature, and that petitioner lost his right to
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to appeal when he failed to petition to convene the general
pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or assembly through the required signature of 30% of the
other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for union membership in good standing pursuant to Article VI,
Section 2(a) of MWEU’s Constitution and By-Laws or by a
_______________ petition of the majority of the general membership in good
standing under Article VI, Section 3.
45 As earlier stated, provisions of the Labor Code, from Article 156 Under Article VI, Section 2(a) of MWEU’s Constitution
onward, have since been renumbered as a result of the passage of and By-Laws, the general membership assembly has the
Republic Act No. 10151. power to “review revise modify affirm or repeal [sic]
resolution and decision of the Executive Board and/or
committees upon peti-
653
654
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 653
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(MWEU)
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU)
tion of thirty percent (30%) of the Union in good Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
standing,”46 and under Section 2(d), to “revise, modify, (MWEU)
affirm or reverse all expulsion cases.”47 Under Section 3 of
the same Article, “[t]he decision of the Executive Board which is required to act by a simple majority vote of its
may be appealed to the General Membership which by a members. The Board’s decision shall then be
simple majority vote reverse the decision of said body. If approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the general
the general Assembly is not in session the decision of the membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the
Executive Board may be reversed by a petition of the purpose.
majority of the general membership in good standing.”48 The documentary evidence is clear that when petitioner
And, in Article X, Section 5, “[a]ny dismissed and/or received Borela’s August 21, 2007 letter informing him of
expelled member shall have the right to appeal to the the Executive Board’s unanimous approval of the grievance
Executive Board within seven days from notice of said committee recommendation to suspend him for the second
dismissal and/or expulsion which, in [turn] shall be time effective August 24, 2007, he immediately and timely
referred to the General membership assembly. In case of an filed a written appeal. However, the Executive Board —
appeal, a simple majority of the decision of the Executive then consisting of respondents Borela, Tierra, Bolo,
Board is imperative. The same shall be Casañas, Fernandez, Rendon, Montemayor, Torres,
approved/disapproved by a majority vote of the general Quebral, Pagulayan, Cancino, Maga, Cometa, Mancenido,
membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the and two others who are not respondents herein — did not
purpose.”49 act thereon. Then again, when petitioner was charged for
In regard to suspension of a union member, MWEU’s the third time and meted the penalty of expulsion from
Constitution and By-Laws provides under Article X, MWEU by the unanimous vote of the Executive Board, his
Section 4 thereof that “[a]ny suspended member shall have timely appeal was again not acted upon by said board —
the right to appeal within three (3) working days from the this time consisting of respondents Borela, Quebral, Tierra,
date of notice of said suspension. In case of an appeal a Imana, Rendon, Yeban, Cancino, Torres, Montemayor,
simple majority of vote of the Executive Board shall be Mancenido, Mandilag, Fernandez, Buenaventura, Apilado,
necessary to nullify the suspension.” Maga, Barbero, Cometa, Bolo, and Manlapaz.
Thus, when an MWEU member is suspended, he is Thus, contrary to respondents’ argument that petitioner
given the right to appeal such suspension within three lost his right to appeal when he failed to petition to
working days from the date of notice of said suspension, convene the general assembly through the required
which appeal the MWEU Executive Board is obligated to signature of 30% of the union membership in good standing
act upon by a simple majority vote. When the penalty pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(a) of MWEU’s
imposed is expulsion, the expelled member is given seven Constitution and By-Laws or by a petition of the majority
days from notice of said dismissal and/or expulsion to of the general membership in good standing under Article
appeal to the Executive Board, VI, Section 3, this Court finds that petitioner was illegally
suspended for the second time and thereafter unlawfully
_______________ expelled from MWEU due to respondents’ failure to act on
his written appeals. The required petition to convene the
46 Rollo, p. 144. general assembly through the required signature of 30%
47 Id. (under Article VI, Section 2[a]) or majority (under Article
48 Id. VI, Section 3) of the union membership does not apply in
49 Id., at p. 158. petitioner’s case; the Executive Board must first act on his
two appeals before the matter could properly be
655
656
VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 655 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union VOL. 781, JANUARY 25, 2016 657
(MWEU)
Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union
(MWEU)
referred to the general membership. Because
respondents did not act on his two appeals, petitioner was the constitutional right of workers and employees to
unceremoniously suspended, disqualified and deprived of self-organization.”52
his right to run for the position of MWEU Vice President in
the September 14, 2007 election of officers, expelled from Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the
MWEU, and forced to join another union, WATER-AFWC. ‘right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
For these, respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes
under Article 249(a) and (b) — that is, violation of of collective bargaining.’ This is made plain by no less
petitioner’s right to self-organization, unlawful than three provisions of the Labor Code of the
discrimination, and illegal termination of his union Philippines. Article 243 of the Code provides as
membership — which case falls within the original and follows:
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, in accordance ART. 243. Coverage and employees’ right to
with Article 217 of the Labor Code. self-organization.—All persons employed in
The primary concept of unfair labor practices is stated in commercial, industrial and agricultural
Article 247 of the Labor Code, which states: enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical,
or educational institutions whether operating for
Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and profit or not, shall have the right to self-
procedure for prosecution thereof.––Unfair labor organization and to form, join, or assist labor
practices violate the constitutional right of workers organizations of their own choosing for purposes
and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the or collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent
legitimate interests of both labor and management, and itinerant workers, self-employed people,
including their right to bargain collectively and rural workers and those without any definite
otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of employers may form labor organizations for
freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace their mutual aid and protection.
and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor- Article 248(a) declares it to be an unfair labor
management relations. practice for an employer, among others, to ‘interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
“In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the their right to self-organization.’ Similarly, Article
commission of acts that transgress the workers’ right to 249(a) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organize.”50 “[A]ll the prohibited acts constituting unfair organization to ‘restrain or coerce employees in the
labor practice in essence relate to the workers’ right to self- exercise of their rights to self-organization . . .’
organization.”51 “[T]he term unfair labor practice refers to x x x x
that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at The right of self-organization includes the right to
their core, violates organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine
which of two or more unions in an establishment to
_______________ join, and to engage in concerted activities with
coworkers for purposes of collective bargaining
50 Baptista v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA
through representatives
48, 57.
51 Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., 657 Phil.
_______________
342, 368; 642 SCRA 338, 360-361 (2011).
52 Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, G.R. No. 175002,
February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 113, 133.
657
658
659
56 U-Bix Corporation v. Bandiola, 552 Phil. 633, 651; 525 SCRA 566, _______________
584 (2007).
58 Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No.
57 Montinola v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 198656, September 8,
180636, March 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 340, 356, citing Kaisahan at
2014, 734 SCRA 439, 464.
Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v.
Manila Water Company, Inc., 676 Phil. 262; 660 SCRA 263 (2011).
660