INTERNATIONAL WIRING SYSTEMS WORKERS UNION, REP. BY ITS CURRENT PRESIDENT DEXTER DATU, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND FED…

International Wiring Systems Workers Union versus Department of Labor and Employment

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by the International Wiring Systems Workers Union against the Department of Labor and Employment, the Bureau of Labor Relations, and the Federation of Democratic Trade Union. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations directing it to remit federation dues to its mother federation, and the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment affirming that Order. The case matters because it gathers in one decision three lessons every labor law examinee must carry: the necessity of a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari against a ruling of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations over disputes between a federation and its affiliate, and the binding force of a contract of affiliation, including the obligation to pay federation dues.

Procedural History

On March 7, 2006, the Federation of Democratic Trade Union filed a petition to collect unpaid federation dues before the Regional Office Med-Arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment in Region III. The Med-Arbiter took cognizance of the case and rendered a decision on May 11, 2006. That decision was later considered null and void for lack of jurisdiction, because the dispute fell within the original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Bureau then took cognizance of the petition, treating the hearings held and pleadings filed before the Regional Office as part of its records. On December 29, 2009, the Bureau issued an Order granting the petition and directing the petitioner to remit the federation dues. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Secretary of Labor and Employment treated as an appeal. On August 17, 2010, the Secretary issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the Bureau's Order. The petitioner then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary's Resolution.

Facts

The International Wiring Systems Workers Union had been an affiliate of the Federation of Democratic Trade Union since October 1991, as shown by a Charter Certificate issued to it by the Federation. For years, the local union remitted fifty percent of the monthly union dues checked off from its members' payroll to the mother federation. The remittances proceeded without incident until Innorlito Pampoza assumed leadership of the local union and stopped remitting the monthly federation dues.

On March 7, 2006, the Federation filed a petition to collect unpaid federation dues, claiming that the local union's members had unanimously approved the remittance of fifty percent of monthly dues, and that despite several demands the local union failed to remit since January 2002, in the total amount of Five Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty Three Pesos. The local union moved to dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, insisting that no provision in its constitution and by-laws required payment of federation dues, and that no resolution signed by a majority of its members authorized such payment.

The Bureau of Labor Relations granted the petition, ordering the local union to remit Four Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Seventy Five Pesos representing fifty percent of the monthly checked-off collections from 2003 to 2005, and to remit fifty percent of collected monthly dues from January to May 2006 or until such time as it validly disaffiliated from the mother federation. The Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed. The local union disaffiliated on June 29, 2006, and brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment before resorting to the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the Bureau of Labor Relations properly took cognizance of, and exercised original jurisdiction over, a dispute between a federation and its affiliate that was initially filed with the Regional Office Med-Arbiter.
• Whether or not the petitioner is obligated to remit federation dues to the private respondent Federation despite the absence of a general membership resolution authorizing payment.
• Whether or not the Federation's alleged failure to render essential services barred it from collecting federation dues.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, as amended, fixes where complaints or petitions involving labor unions are filed and heard, and it is the provision that anchors the original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations over federation-affiliate disputes:

Section 4. Where to file. - Complaints or petitions involving labor unions with independent registrations, chartered locals, workers' associations, its officers or members shall be filed with the Regional Office that issued its certificate of registration or certificate of creation of chartered local. Complaints involving federations, national unions, industry unions, its officers or member organizations shall be filed with the Bureau. Petitions for cancellation of registration of labor unions with independent registration, chartered locals and workers association and petitions for deregistration of collective bargaining agreements shall be resolved by the Regional Director. He/She may appoint a Hearing Officer from the Labor Relations Division. Other inter/intra-union disputes and related labor relations disputes shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter in the Regional Office. Complaints or petitions involving federations, national or industry unions, trade union centers and their chartered locals, affiliates or member organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall be heard and resolved by the Bureau. When two or more petitions involving the same parties and the same causes of action are filed, the same shall be automatically consolidated.

This provision places the petition of the Federation against its local affiliate within the original jurisdiction of the Bureau, which is why the Court sustained the Bureau's taking cognizance of the case.

Sections 1 to 3, Article XI of the Federation's Constitution and By-laws establish the dues that an affiliate is bound to pay, and they are the source of the petitioner's obligation:

Section 1. The revenue of the Federation shall be derived from initiation fees, monthly dues, and other assessments as may be levied by the Executive Board. Section 2. Membership fee of (20.00) Twenty pesos, shall be paid per member upon admission to the Federation. Section 3. Monthly dues of not less than (10.00) ten pesos per member shall be paid to the Federation.

Because the petitioner was an affiliate, it was bound by these provisions of the Federation's Constitution and By-laws, which the Federation had the right to enforce.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was defective and dismissible because the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary's Resolution before coming to the Court. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari. Without such a motion seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the questioned Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory, and the merits can no longer be reviewed. The petitioner showed no ground falling under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if the petition were proper, the Bureau correctly exercised original jurisdiction. The dispute was between a federation and its affiliate, and under Section 4, Rule XI, such a petition may be filed either with the Regional Office or the Bureau, and shall be heard and resolved by the Bureau. The Med-Arbiter's assumption of jurisdiction was an error, but that error did not preclude the Bureau from taking cognizance of the petition as if it had been originally filed before it, to serve the ends of substantial justice and equity. The Court stressed that hearings and resolutions of labor disputes are not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in the regular courts.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner was obligated to pay federation dues. As an affiliate, it was bound by the Federation's Constitution and By-laws, which required members to pay dues and which the Federation had the right to collect. The affiliation created a binding contract between the parties, giving the contract of affiliation the force of law as between them, and the local union became subject to the Federation's constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations together with the charter issued to it, until disaffiliation. The Court warned that to permit the local union to renege on its obligation would result in unjust enrichment on its part.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the claim that the Federation's failure to render essential services barred collection. No cogent or compelling reason was shown to justify any deviation from the findings of the Bureau, affirmed by the Secretary, which were in accordance with the facts and the law. The Court added that the findings of fact of administrative agencies, by reason of their special knowledge and expertise, are accorded not only great respect but even finality, especially when affirmed. No grave abuse of discretion was shown, which the Court described as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.

Doctrine

First, the remedy of an aggrieved party against a decision or resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition to any further remedy, and then to seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari. Without that motion within the ten-day reglementary period, the ruling becomes final and executory, and the merits can no longer be reviewed.

Second, under Section 4, Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code, a complaint or petition involving a federation and its chartered local, affiliate, or member organization may be filed either with the Regional Office or the Bureau, and shall be heard and resolved by the Bureau. The Bureau's original jurisdiction is not lost merely because the petition was first erroneously filed with a Med-Arbiter, since labor proceedings are not governed by strict technical rules and substantial justice may be served.

Third, a contract of affiliation binds the local union to the federation's constitution and by-laws, including the obligation to pay federation dues under Sections 1 to 3, Article XI. The affiliation has the force of law between the parties, and a local union may not renege on that obligation, lest it be unjustly enriched.

Fourth, the findings of fact of administrative agencies like the Department of Labor and Employment are accorded great respect and even finality when affirmed, and may be disturbed only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment were sustained, leaving the petitioner liable to remit the federation dues.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a decision or resolution of the Secretary of Labor and Employment becomes final and executory without a timely motion for reconsideration, and a contract of affiliation binds the local union to pay federation dues. Examiners use this case to test the motion for reconsideration requirement under Rule 65 against the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the original jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations over federation-affiliate disputes, and the binding force of a contract of affiliation.