CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS./DOMINICA C. NACUA, RESPONDENT.

This petition seeks the reversal of the resolution of the Bureau
of Labor Relations^[1]
which affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter holding that the set of officers
of Seamen’s Association of the Philippines headed by Dominica C. Nacua, as
president, was the lawful set of officers entitled to the release and custody
of the union dues as well as agency fees of said association. The dispositive portion of the resolution
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order of the Med-Arbiter
dated 13 July 1987 is hereby affirmed and the appeal therefrom DISMISSED for
lack of merit.” (p. 39, Rollo)

The facts surrounding the controversy in this case, as stated in
the questioned resolution, is as follows:

“The records show that sometime on 23 October 1950, a group of
deck officers and marine engineer on board vessels plying Cebu and other ports of the Philippines organized
themselves into an association and registered the same as a non-stock
corporation known as Cebu Seamen’s
Association, Inc. (CSAI), with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Later, on 23 June 1969, the same
group registered its association with this Bureau as a labor union known as the
Seamen’s Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI).

“SAPI has an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
with the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation which will expire on 31 December
1988. In consonance with the CBA said
company has been remitting checked-off union dues to said union until February,
1987 when a group composed of members of said union, introducing itself to be
its new set of officers, went to the company and claimed that they are entitled
to the remittance and custody of such union dues. This group, headed by Manuel Gabayoyo claims that they were
elected as such on January 20, 1987 under the supervision of the SEC.

“On 26 May 1987, another group headed by Dominica C. Nacua,
claiming as the duly elected set of officers of the union in an election held
on 20 December 1986, filed a complaint, for and on behalf of the union, against
the Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) as represented by Manuel Gabayoyo
for the security of the aforementioned CBA, seeking such relief, among others,
as an order restraining the respondent from acting on behalf of the union and
directing the Aboitiz Shipping Corp. to remit the checked-off union dues for
the months of March and April 1987.

“On 10 June 1987, respondent CSAI filed its Answer/Position
Paper alleging that the complainant union and CSAI are one and the same union:
that Dominica C. Nacua and Atty. Prospero Paradilla who represented the union
had been expelled as members/officers as of November 1984 for lawful causes;
and, that its set of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo has the lawful right to
the remittance and custody of the corpo at funds (otherwise known as union
dues) in question pursuant to the resolution of the SEC dated 22 April 1987.

“To bolster further its posture, on the following day, 11 June
1987, the respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the
grounds, among others, that the SEC, not the Med-Arbiter, has jurisdiction over
the dispute as provided under P.D. NO. 902-A; that there can neither be a
complainant nor respondent in the instant case as the parties involved are one
and the same labor union, and that Mrs. Dominica C. Nacua and Atty. Prospero
Paradilla have no personality to represent the union as they had already been
expelled as members/officers thereof in two resolutions of the Board of
Directors dated November 1984 and January 17, 1987.

“On 19 June 1987, the Med-Arbiter issued an Order denying said
motion but directing the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to remit the already
Checked-off union dues to the complainant union through its officers end to
continue remitting any checked-off union dues until further notice. The Med-Arbiter also set further hearing of
the complaint on July 1, 1987.

“On 19 June 1987, the respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of said order of 19 June 1987, reiterating its previous
position. Thereafter, the Med-Arbiter issued the assailed Order. x x x.”
(pp. 34-35, Rollo)

From the decision of the Med-Arbiter, Cebu Seamen’s Association
headed by Capt. Gabayoyo filed an appeal with the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR).

The BLR, as already stated, affirmed the decision of the
Med-Arbiter in a resolution dated February 19, 1988. The Gabayoyo group appealed to the Office of the Secretary,
Department of Labor, which appeal was considered as a motion for
reconsideration of the BLR’s decision. The said appeal/motion for consideration was denied for lack of merit on
April 11, 1988 (p. 42, Rollo) by the BLR.

Hence, this petition.

There are three issues presented for resolution in this petition,
to wit:

1.         
WHETHER OR NOT THE MED-ARBITER OF REGION VII HAS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE AT BAR.

2.         
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE THE SEAMEN’S
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES WAS REGISTERED AS A LABOR FEDERATION WITH THE
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS.

3.         
WHETHER OR NOT DOMINICA C. NACUA AND PROSPERO PARADIL(L)A HAVE
(THE) PERSONALITY TO REPRESENT THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE, CONSIDERING
THAT BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE ASSOCIATION “SEAMEN’S
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.” (FORMERLY THE CEBU SEAMEN’S
ASSOCIATION, INC.).

There is no doubt
that the controversy between the aforesaid two sets of officers is an
intra-union dispute. Both sets of officers claim to be entitled to
the release of the union dues collected by the company with whom it had an
existing CBA. The controversy involves
claims of different members/officers to certain rights granted under the labor
code.

Article 226 of the Labor Code vests upon the bureau of Labor
Relations and Labor Relations Division the original and exclusive authority and
jurisdiction to act on all inter-union and intra-union disputes. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter originally, and
the Director on appeal, correctly assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.

The determinative issue in this case is who is entitled to the
collection and custody of the union dues? Cebu Seamen’s Association headed by Gabayoyo or Seamen’s Association of
the Philippines headed by Nacua.

As stated in the findings of fact in the questioned resolution of
Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja on October 23, 1950, a group of deck officers organized the Cebu
Seamen’s Association, Inc., (CSAI), a non-stock corporation and registered it
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The same group registered the organization with the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) as Seamen’s Association of the Philippines (SAPI). It is the registration of the organization
with the BLR and not with the SEC which made it a legitimate labor organization
with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.

We gathered from the records that CSAI, the corporation was already
inoperational before the controversy in this case arose. In fact, on August 24, 1984, the SEC ordered
the CSAI to show cause why its certificate of registration should not be
revoked for continuous inoperation (p. 343, Rollo). There is nothing in the records which would
show that CSAI answered said show-cause order.

Also, before the controversy, private respondent Dominica Nacua
was elected president of the labor union, SAPI. It had an existing CBA with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation. Before the end of the term of private
respondent Nacua, some members of the union which included Domingo Machacon and
petitioner Manuel Gabayoyo showed signs of discontentment with the leadership
of Nacua. This break-away group revived
the moribund corporation and issued an undated resolution expelling Nacua from
the association (pp. 58-59, Rollo). Sometime in February, 1987, it held its own election of officers
supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also filed a case of estafa against Nacua sometime in May,
1986 (p. 52, Rollo).

The expulsion of Nacua from the corporation, of which she denied
being a member, has however, not affected her membership with the labor
union. In fact, in the elections of
officers for 1987-1989, she was re­-elected as the president of the labor
union. In this connection, We cannot
agree with the contention of Gabayoyo that Nacua was already expelled from the
union. Whatever acts their group had
done in the corporation do not bind the labor union. Moreover, Gabayoyo cannot claim leadership of the labor group by
virtue of his having been elected as a president of the dormant corporation
CSAI.

Under the principles of administrative law in force in this
jurisdiction, decisions of administrative officers shall not be disturbed by
courts, except when the former acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion.

Public respondent Bureau of Labor Relations correctly ruled on
the basis of the evidence
presented by the parties that SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with
its office, is not the same association as CSAI, the corporation, insofar as
their rights under the Labor Code are concerned. Hence, the former and not the latter association is entitled to
the release and custody of union fees with Aboitiz Shipping and other shipping
companies with whom it had an existing CBA. As correctly held by public respondent:

“It is undisputed from the records that the election of the so
called set of officers headed by Manuel Gabayoyo was conducted under the
supervision of the SEC, presumably in accordance with its constitution and
by-laws as well as the articles of incorporation of respondent CSAI, and the
Corporation Code. That had been so
precisely on the honest belief of the participants therein that they were
acting in their capacity as members of the said corporation. That being the case, the aforementioned set
of officers is of the respondent corporation and not of the complainant union. It follows,
then, that any proceedings and actions taken by said set of officers can
not, in any manner, affect the union and its members.

“On the other hand, we rule and so hold that the other set of
officers headed by Dominica C. Nacua is the lawful set of officers of SAPI and
therefore, is entitled to the release and custody of the union dues as well as
the agency fees, if any, there be. A
record check with the Labor Organizations (LOD), this Bureau, shows that SAPI
has submitted to it for file the list of this new set of officers, in
compliance with the second paragraph of Article 242 (c) of the Labor Code. This list sufficiently sustains the view
that said officers were lawfully elected, in the absence of clear and
convincing proof to the contrary.” (pp. 9-10, Rollo)

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. The questioned resolution of the Bureau of
Labor Relations is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Dated February 19, 1988 issued by Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja.