KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Respondents seek reconsideration of our decision remanding this
case to the Court of Industrial
Relations for the reception of evidence concerning certain resolu­tions – the
nature of which was embodied in a certifica­tion issued by the convention
chairman and secretary of the union respectively – which principally
support peti­tioner’s claim as to the
regularity of the collection of additional dues from the union
members.  We were disposed to act thus
due to a finding that the certification
with respect to the regularity of the approval of the questioned resolutions “was submitted after the hearing (below)
had been terminated and without the respondents’ having been given the
opportunity to cross-examine the certifying of­ficers.” The rationale
of the dispositive portion is ex­plained in this wise:

“Section 5(b) of
Republic Act 875 provides that the court in rendering its decisions
‘shall not be bound solely by the evidence presented during the hearing but may
avail itself of all other means such as (but not limited to) ocular ins­pections
which results must be made a part of the record.’ This provision, however, is
not meant to do away with the require­ments of due process.  Respondents had the right to be heard before
certification was admitted so that it could inquire into and test, by
cross-examination if necessary, the veracity of the facts alleged therein.  Otherwise self-serving evidence could easily
find its way into the record.

“On the other hand, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that
the resolutions referred to, apparently passed precisely to meet the objections
of herein respondents alleged in their complaint below, may have a material
bearing on the issues in this case.  It
would therefore serve the ends of truth and justice to have said resolutions
properly presented as evidence so that they may be considered by the trial
court.”

Respondents – aware as
they are that the remanding of the case to the court below was designed
primarily to afford them a chance to be properly heard – now manifest that they
waive their right to inquire into the veracity of the facts alleged in the
certification.  Further, respondents
declare that they are ready to assume, for the sake of argument, the due
execution, genuineness and veracity of the certification and the resolutions
cited therein.  They adopt this posture
ostentibly to avoid further delay in the termination of this case on the
merits.

Premised on section 6,
article X of the union’s con­stitution and by-laws, which specifically
provides:

“Tun. 6- x x x Ang
mga Balangay ay may karapatang
magharap ng mga kapasiyahan upang isaalang-alang ng mga Kinatawan ng
Kumbension.  Lahat ng Kapasiyahang pinag­tibay
ng mga Balangay ay kailangang isulat sa maquinilla upang ikalat sa mga kinata­wan
o delegado ng Kumbension.  Ang mga
kapasiyahang ito ay maaring mapagtibay ng nakararaming boto ng mga delegado,
matangi ang nauukol sa mga pagbabago o susog sa Paunang Salita (Preamble) at mga
tadhana ng Saligang Batas na
kailangang pasiyahan ng
dalawa sa ikatlong bahagi (2/3) ng mga kinatawang dumalo sa Kumbension.”

respondents
advance the view that resolution No. 1 – virtually an amendment of section 1,
article VI of the aforesaid constitution, which pegs the members’ con­tribution
at TWO PESOS (P2.00) only – is null and void for not having been
approved in accordance with the above-quoted provision.

On this point we find respondents’ motion for reconsinderation
well-taken.  In fact, in the decision
sought to be reconsidered we made the observation that, as respondent have
correctly pointed out, “section 1, article VI of the union’s constitution
and by-laws provides for a contribution of P2.00 from each member to cover the
retirement benefits due to retiring members; that the collection of P5.00 was
based merely on the circular of the president of the union, which appears to
have been authorized by the board of direction that the board alone cannot
amend the union’s constitution and by-laws; and that the increased assessment
of P5.00 is the nature of such an amendment, and therefore required approval in
a convention of the union members.” This being case and it being admitted
that resolution No. 1 was passed by a mere majority of the members of the
convention – when under the union’s constitution and by-laws a 2/3 vote of
members is required for an amendment – it is apparent that resolution No. 1 must
be considered to have been illegally enacted.

With respect to the accounting sought from the president of the
union concerning his trip abroad, the same was rendered to and approved by the convention.  Respondents objection to such approval is
premised on the assumption that the corresponding receipts covering the
travel expenses of said president had not been
submitted.  This assumption,
however, is not borne out by the record before us, and hence respondents’
motion for reconsideration in this regard must be denied.

In view of the foregoing, the
motion for reconsideration is granted in part; instead of remanding the case to the court below, judgment is
hereby rendered affirming the resolution of the court en banc
dated April 26, 1962, insofar as it orders
respondents below to stop the monthly collection of five pesos (P5.00)
from the members of the respondent union”; and ordering respondent union
to refund to the said members the additional fees the union had been collect­ing
since the increased dues were made effective until the stoppage of the
same.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.