ALLAN M. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU), NAMELY, EDUARDO B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, ELIZABETH COMETA, ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO …

Mendoza versus Manila Water Employees Union

The Case

This is a labor law case about the boundary between two kinds of disputes. Allan Mendoza, a rank-and-file member of the Manila Water Employees Union, was suspended and then expelled by the union's officers for refusing to pay an increased union due. He sued the officers for unfair labor practices, damages, and attorney's fees before the labor tribunals. The officers answered that the quarrel was purely internal to the union and belonged to the Bureau of Labor Relations, not to the Labor Arbiter. The case matters because the Supreme Court draws the dividing line: intra-union disputes go to the Bureau of Labor Relations, but a charge of unfair labor practices by a labor organization under Article 249 of the Labor Code belongs to the Labor Arbiter, and the two may exist side by side in one complaint.

Procedural History

Mendoza filed a complaint for unfair labor practices, damages, and attorney's fees with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Virginia Luyas-Azarraga. The Labor Arbiter held that the complaint was premature and referred it back to the union so that the General Membership Assembly could act on Mendoza's appeal. Mendoza appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which reversed her. The Commission declared her decision null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction, ruled that the causes of action were intra-union and inter-union disputes cognizable by the Bureau of Labor Relations, and dismissed the complaint. Mendoza's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on April 24, 2012, agreeing that the matter was outside the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction and adding that the unfair labor practice charges failed for lack of substantial evidence. Mendoza came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, and the Court gave the petition due course.

Facts

Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union, a registered labor organization of rank-and-file employees in Manila Water Company. The respondents were its officers, with Eduardo Borela as President and Chairman of the Executive Board, Buenaventura Quebral as First Vice-President and Treasurer, and Elizabeth Cometa as Secretary. In April 2007, the union informed Mendoza that it could not fully deduct the increased union dues of 200 pesos from his salary because he had not given the required check-off authorization, and warned him of sanctions. He was charged with violating the union's Constitution and By-Laws, the grievance committee heard him, and the Executive Board approved a 30-day suspension effective June 25, 2007.

Mendoza and his co-respondents wrote to the board invoking their right under the union's Constitution and By-Laws to appeal an arbitrary resolution of the Executive Board to the General Membership Assembly. Borela denied the appeal, saying the period had expired, and a later demand to convene the assembly was not acted upon. Mendoza was charged a second time, heard, and suspended for another 30 days effective August 24, 2007, and again his plea to convene the assembly went unheeded. When the union scheduled its election of officers for September 2007, he filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice-President but was disqualified for not being a member in good standing because of the suspension.

In October 2007, he was charged a third time and did not attend the hearing. This time the Executive Board unanimously approved his expulsion, and his pleas for appeal to the General Membership Assembly were again ignored. In 2008, during the freedom period and the negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, he joined another union, the Workers Association for Transparency, Empowerment and Reform, and was elected its President. A union director, Torres, threatened other members inclined to join that they would not get benefits under the new agreement. The union leadership submitted proposed provisions stating that in case of retrenchment non-members would be removed first, and that only union members would receive a signing bonus.

Issues

• Whether or not the presence of intra-union and inter-union disputes in the complaint removes the charge of unfair labor practices from the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
• Whether or not the respondents are guilty of unfair labor practices under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 249 of the Labor Code.
• Whether or not the threat made by a union officer against members of a rival union is mere interference that does not amount to restraint or coercion.
• Whether or not Mendoza presented substantial evidence of the specific acts of unfair labor practices charged.
• Whether or not the respondents are solidarily liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Labor Code, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, provides:

Article 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives: (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; (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members; (c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees; (d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, including the demand for fee for union negotiations; (e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney's fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.

This is the very provision Mendoza invoked, and the Court holds that a charge under it is a labor dispute for the Labor Arbiter, not an internal union matter for the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Article 247 of the Labor Code provides:

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.

This is why Mendoza's prayer for damages and attorney's fees travels with his unfair labor practice charge and does not convert it into a mere intra-union dispute.

Section 5, Article X of the union's Constitution and By-Laws, quoted by the Labor Arbiter, provides:

Section 5. Any dismissed and or expelled member shall have the rights to appeal to the Executive Board within seven days from the date of notice of the said dismissal and or expulsion, which in turn shall be referred to the General Membership Assembly. In case of an appeal, a simple majority of the decision of the Executive Board is imperative. The same shall be approved or disapproved by a majority vote of the general membership assembly in a meeting duly called for the purpose.

This is the internal remedy the Labor Arbiter said Mendoza had to exhaust, and the provision around which his complaint of denial of membership rights revolves.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court partly granted the petition and held that the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all erred in failing to resolve the charge of unfair labor practices. It is true, the Court said, that some of Mendoza's causes of action are intra-union disputes cognizable by the Bureau of Labor Relations, such as his right to information on the increased dues, his right to appeal his suspension and expulsion under the union's Constitution and By-Laws, and his right to vote and be voted upon. But his charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code, and Article 247 places the civil aspects of such cases, including damages and attorney's fees, with the Labor Arbiter as well. The presence of intra-union or inter-union elements does not swallow the unfair labor practice charge.

On the second and third issues, the Court examined the acts charged. The threat of a union director that non-members would not receive benefits under the new collective bargaining agreement was treated by the Court of Appeals as an inter-union dispute, an interference by a rival union to keep the loyalty of its members, not an actionable wrong so long as it does not amount to restraint or coercion. The alleged discrimination in the proposed provisions on retrenchment and signing bonus, and the claim that Mendoza alone was expelled, may fall within Article 249, paragraphs (a) and (b), but they must be proved.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the unfair labor practice charges must fail for lack of substantial evidence. Mendoza offered no proof that the union failed to penalize other members who did not pay the increased dues, and he attached only the pages containing the questioned provisions without identifying the representatives responsible for the proposal. The Court stressed the statutory limit in Article 249: only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents who actually participated in, authorized, or ratified the unfair labor practices may be held liable, and plain accusations against all the officers without specifying their participation do not suffice.

On the fifth issue, since the unfair labor practice charges were not established by substantial evidence, the claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees could not be granted.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction is determined by the cause of action pleaded. A charge that a labor organization, its officers, agents, or representatives restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, or caused or attempted to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, is an unfair labor practice under Article 249 of the Labor Code and belongs to the Labor Arbiter, not to the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Second, the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney's fees and other affirmative relief, are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under Article 247.

Third, intra-union disputes, meaning conflicts between and among union members arising from violations of the rights and conditions of membership or from disagreements over the union's Constitution and By-Laws, remain with the Bureau of Labor Relations. The two kinds of dispute may coexist in one complaint, and the labor tribunals must resolve the unfair labor practice charge instead of dismissing the whole case as intra-union.

Fourth, under Article 249, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents who actually participated in, authorized, or ratified the unfair labor practices may be held liable, so a complaint must specify each respondent's participation.

Disposition

The petition was partly granted: the case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for resolution of Mendoza's charge of unfair labor practices, while his claims for damages and attorney's fees were denied for lack of substantial evidence.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an intra-union dispute does not erase an unfair labor practice charge, because Article 249 charges belong to the Labor Arbiter and Article 247 carries the damages with them. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over unfair labor practices by labor organizations and the requirement that each officer's actual participation be proved.