COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CASES: University of Pangasinan vs NLRC: We shall first deal with the propriety of the special civil

action of mandamus. In this regard, petitioner contends that the NLRC should have, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, resolved the issues raised in the three (3) complaints filed on October 14, November 7 and November 20, 1980 or, in the alternative, ordered the Labor Arbiter to hear and decide the aforementioned three (3) complaints, it having the power of supervision over Labor Arbiters. Sec. 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant. As succinctly provided in this section, anyone who wishes to avail of the remedy of mandamus must state in a verified petition "the facts with certainty." On account of this requirement, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases and showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner is 7 required. Indeed, while the labor arbiter is duty bound to resolve all complaints referred to him for arbitration and, therefore, he may be compelled bymandamus to decide them (although not in any 8 particular way or in favor of anyone), we find that the peculiar circumstances in this case do not merit the issuance of the writ of mandamus. Petitioner admits that only six of the complaints were certified to Labor Arbiter Fernandez for compulsory arbitration. It failed, however, to allege why this was the case or whether it had exerted any effort to include the remaining complaint in the certification. What it stresses is the alleged assurance of Labor Arbiter Fernandez that the seventh complaint may be discussed in its position paper. It turned out, however, that, according to the unrebutted allegation of the Solicitor General, Labor Arbiter Fernandez inhibited himself from handling the cases referred to him as he was teaching at the University. Hence, Labor Arbiter Fernandez forwarded the complaints to the Assistant Director for Arbitration in Regional Office No. 1 in San Fernando, La Union for appropriate action. He should have forwarded all of the complaints to the said Assistant Director, but it appears that Fernandez turned over only four of them. In turn, the Assistant Director referred only complaints Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which had been docketed as RBI-C-24-81, LS-42-81 and LS-43-81, to Executive Labor Arbiter Sotero L. Tumang for compulsory arbitration. However, while only these three docket numbers appear on the caption of 9 the decision, the same actually resolved four complaints, as earlier mentioned. From these facts, one may infer that there must have been a mishandling of the complaints and/or the records of the cases. However, the petitioner failed to substantiate by evidence such negligence on the 10 part of the public respondents as to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Its officials even neglected the simple act of verifying from the MOLE office in Dagupan City whether the records of all

the cases filed had been forwarded to the proper official who should resolve them. 12 its pleadings is there an allegation to that effect.

11

Infact, nowhere in

On the contrary, the petitioner took Fernandez' words seriously and allowed the proceedings to reach its inevitable conclusion. When it received a copy of the decision, the petitioner should have taken note of Executive Labor Arbiter Tumang's observation therein that it had discussed matters "beyond the scope of the issues alleged in the complaints." In its memorandum of appeal, it should have prayed for the inclusion of the three complaints inasmuch as in labor cases, an appeal may be treated as a motion for reconsideration or 13 vice-versa. The fact that three complaints had been omitted did not escape the attention of the NLRC which stated in its resolution that "since those cases were not consolidated it is now too late to 14 consolidate them" with the four decided cases. We agree with the NLRC that the said complaints should proceed separately as long as their resolution would not conflict with the resolved 15 cases. It should be added that under Art. 217(b) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiters." Needless to say, the NLRC could not have acted on matters outside of the cases appealed to it. UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio: There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons, 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 unions constitution and bylaws, as well as the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Specifically, while all legitimate faculty members of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) belonging to a collective bargaining unit may take part in a duly convened certification election, only bona fide members of the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) may participate and vote in a legally called election for union officers. Mob hysteria, however wellintentioned, is not a substitute for the rule of law. First Issue: Right to Self-Organization and Union Membership Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective [12] bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. 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 [13] membership in a labor union. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor [14] union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union [15] membership is usually embodied in the unions constitution and bylaws. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by the unions rules and regulations. When a man joins 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. He accepts the will of the majority of the members in order that he may derive the advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. Just as the enactments of the legislature bind all of us, to the constitution and by-laws of
[1]

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. If a member of a union dislikes the provisions of the by-laws, he may seek to have them amended or may withdraw from the union; otherwise, he must abide by them. It is not the function of courts to decide the wisdom or propriety of legitimate bylaws of a trade union. On joining a labor union, the constitution and by-laws become a part of the members 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 express 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 joining a union to abide by its laws and comply with the will of the lawfully constituted majority does not require a member to submit to the determination of the union any question involving his personal rights. Second Issue: USTFUs Constitution and ByLaws Violated Unquestionably, the assembly was not a union meeting (with reference to Sec. 1, Art. VIII, USTFU CBL). It was in fact a gathering that was called and participated in by management and non-union members. By 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 1 and 2 of Article IX of the USTFUs CBL Third, the purported election was not done by secret balloting, in violation of Section 6, Article IX of the USTFUs CBL, as well as Article 241 (c) of the Labor Code. The foregoing infirmities considered, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to Director Bitonios [25] finding and conclusion. In Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations , 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 lack of due process -- undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and the absence of the notice of the dates of balloting.. Third Issue: Suspension of USTFUs CBL First, as has been discussed, the general faculty assembly was not the proper forum to conduct the election of USTFU officers. Not all who attended the assembly were members of the union; some, apparently, were even disqualified from becoming union members, since they represented management. Second, the grievances of the petitioners could have been brought up and resolved in accordance [27] [28] with the procedure laid down by the unions CBL and by the Labor Code. They contend that their sense of desperation and helplessness led to the October 4, 1996 election. However, 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 USTFUs CBL and of due process. The end never justifies the means.

We agree with the solicitor generals observation that the act of suspending the constitution when the questioned election was held is an implied admission that the election held on that date [October 4, [29] 1996] could not be considered valid under the existing USTFU constitution xxx. The ratification of the new CBA executed between the petitioners and the University of Santo Tomas management did not validate the void October 4, 1996 election. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA, not theissue of union leadership -- a matter that should be decided only by union members in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of proper procedures.

VICTORIANO vs ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS: