Mendoza v.

Officers of Manila Water Employee’s Union,

January 25, 2016 (ULP)
Doctrine:
It is true that some of the petitioner's causes of action constitute intra-union cases cognizable
by the BLR under Article 226 of the Labor Code. However, petitioner's charge of unfair labor
practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to
Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article 247 of the same Code provides that "the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, shall be
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters."
Facts:

Mendoza was informed by the Union that they were not able to deduct the increased amount
of union dues to his salary and requested that he pay the same. Upon failure to pay, he was
charged with non-payment of dues and imposed upon him a penalty of suspension for 30 days.
Petitioner wrote to the union with the intention of filing an appeal to the imposed penalty with
the General Membership Assembly but the same was denied on the ground that the prescribed
period for appeal had expired. Petitioner wrote another letter reiterating their arguments and
demanding that the General Membership Assembly be convened in order for their appeal to be
taken up but the same was not acted upon. He was then charged for a second time with non-
payment of union fees to which his appeal was likewise denied. Due to this suspension,
Mendoza was then disqualified in running for office within the union for not being a member in
good standing. In addition to this, he was charged for the third time with nonpayment of union
fees. However, this time, he was meted with the penalty of expulsion from the union. Mendoza
joined a new union and was elected president of the same. The MWEU leadership submitted a
proposed CBA which contained provisions to the effect that in the event of retrenchment, non-
MWEU members shall be removed first, and that upon the signing of the CBA, only MWEU
members shall receive a signing bonus; and threatened members of the MWEU that they would
not get benefits from the CBA if they left the union.

Mendoza filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against the respondent union and its
members for unfair labor practice, illegal termination, unlawful interference, coercion, and
violation of the rights of employees to self-organization, as well as discrimination against non
MWEU employees through the proposal in the CBA. Respondents aver that the LA did not have
jurisdiction over the dispute as it was intra-union in nature and should thus fall upon the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The LA ruled in favor of the respondents referring
the dispute back to Union level for the General Membership Assembly to act on the appeal of
the petitioner. Petitioner appealed before the NLRC which also sustained the decision of the LA.
The CA likewise affirmed the decision of the NLRC when it disposed of the petition for certiorari
filed before it by the petitioners. Hence the present petition for review on certiorari assailing
the decision of the CA.

Petitioners mainly argue that the respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices and that the
LA, NLRC, and CA failed to rule on the same and instead dismissed the same on the ground that
the cause of action of the petitioner was intra union in nature and is thus within the jurisdiction
of the BLR.
Issue: Whether the Labor Arbiter was correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling:

No. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner. While it agreed with the lower tribunals that the
causes of action of the petitioner were intra union in nature and is thus under the jurisdiction of
the BLR, the petitioner's charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article
247 of the same Code provides that "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor
practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages,
attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters."

The SC pointed out that the petitioner had laid down and substantiated its contention of unfair
labor practice committed by the respondent union but the same was ignored by the lower
tribunals and was dismissed for simply being intra union in nature. The SC noted that Mendoza
filed a timely appeal upon notice of his suspension but the same was not acted upon by the
Executive Board. Because respondents did not act on his two appeals, petitioner was
unceremoniously suspended, disqualified and deprived of his right to run for the position of
MWEU Vice-President in the September 14, 2007 election of officers, expelled from MWEU, and
forced to join another union, WATER-AFWC. For these, respondents are guilty of unfair labor
practices under Article 249 (a) and (b) — that is, violation of petitioner's right to self-
organization, unlawful discrimination, and illegal termination of his union membership — which
case falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, in accordance with
Article 217 of the Labor Code.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed April 24, 2012 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115639 is hereby MODIFIED, in that all of the respondents —
except for Carlos Villa, Ric Briones, and Chito Bernardo — are declared guilty of unfair labor
practices and ORDERED TO INDEMNIFY petitioner Allan M. Mendoza the amounts of
P100,000.00 as and by way of moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees equivalent to 10 per cent (10%) of the total award.