Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETAR! OF A"OR AND EMPO!MENT, THE REGIONA DIRECTOR OF
THE NATIONA CAPITA REGION, DEPARTMENT OF A"OR AND EMPO!MENT
an# UNITED RCPI COMMUNICATIONS A"OR ASSOCIATION $URCPICA%&FUR,
respondents.
Ermitao, Asuncion, Manzano & Associates for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Abad, Leano & Associates for respondent U!"#!LA.

REGAADO, J.:
his petition for certiorari see!s the annul"ent of the orders issued b# public
respondents in N$C Ref. No. $%&'&(, vi)* +&, the order of Ma# -, &./0 of respondent
Re1ional Director re2uirin1 petitioner Radio Co""unications of the Philippines, Inc.
+hereinafter, RCPI, and its e"plo#ees represented b# 3u!lod n1 Man11a1a4a sa RCPI'
N56 +3MRCPI'N56, for brevit#, to pa# private respondent 7nited RCPI Co""unications
6abor 8ssociation +7RCPIC68'57R for short, its &9: union service fee of P;<-,/;9.0%,
=ointl# and severall#, and accordin1l# directin1 the issuance of a 4rit of e>ecution and
1arnish"ent of RCPI?s ban! account for the satisfaction of said fee@ +<, the order of
8u1ust &0, &./0 of respondent Secretar# of 6abor and E"plo#"ent "odif#in1 the
fore1oin1 order b# reducin1 the union service fee to &%: of the a4arded a"ounts and
holdin1 petitioner solel# liable for the pa#"ent of such fee@ and +(, the order, dated
March <%, &./-, of respondent Secretar# den#in1 petitioner?s "otion for
reconsideration.
he records
1
sho4 that on Ma# ;, &./&, petitioner, a do"estic corporation en1a1ed in
the teleco""unications business, filed 4ith the National $a1es Council an application
for e>e"ption fro" the covera1e of $a1e Order No. &.
'
he application 4as opposed
b# respondent 7RCPIC68'57R, a labor or1ani)ation affiliated 4ith the 5ederation of
7nions of Ri)al +57R,. On Ma# <<, &./&, the National $a1es Council, throu1h its
Chair"an, rendered a letter'decision
(
disapprovin1 said application and orderin1 the
petitioner to pa# its covered e"plo#ees the "andator# livin1 allo4ance of P<.%% dail#
effective March <<, &./&. Said letter'decision 4as affir"ed b# the Office of the
President in O.P. Case No. &//< and, subse2uentl#, this Court in its resolution of Aul#
&9, &./9 in B.R. No. -%&;/ dis"issed RCPI?s petition for certiorari for lac! of "erit.
Entr# of final =ud1"ent 4as issued b# the Court on Aul# &9, &./9.
)
5urther"ore, it is not denied that as earl# as March &(, &./9, before the aforesaid case
4as elevated to this Court, respondent union filed a "otion for the issuance of a 4rit of
e>ecution, assertin1 therein its clai" to &9: of the total bac!pa# due to all its "e"bers
as Cunion service feeC for havin1 successfull# prosecuted the latter?s clai" for pa#"ent
of 4a1es and for rei"burse"ent of e>penses incurred b# 57R and pra#ed for the
se1re1ation and re"ittance of said a"ount to 57R thru its National President.
5

In a subse2uent CMotion for I""ediate Issuance of $rit of E>ecutionC, dated Septe"ber
., &./9, respondent union reiterated its clai" for said union service fee but this ti"e in
an a"ount e2uivalent to <%: of the total bac!pa# due its "e"bers, to be re"itted to
the institution previousl# adverted to.
*
On Septe"ber <;, &./9, petitioner filed its opposition to said "otion, assertin1, a"on1
others, that Cthere is no le1al basis for respondent 7nion to have the su" e2uivalent to
<%: union service fee deducted fro" the a"ount due to ever# recipient "e"berC.
7
8n
alias 4rit of e>ecution 4as issued on Septe"ber <0, &./9.
8

On October <;, &./9, 4ithout the !no4led1e and consent of respondent union,
petitioner entered into a co"pro"ise a1ree"ents
9
4ith 3MRCPI'N56 as the ne4
bar1ainin1 a1ent of oppositors RCPI e"plo#ees, the pertinent provisions 4hereof are
hereunder reproduced*
$DERE8S, there are no4 pendin1 4ith the National 6abor Relations
Co""ission Case No. N6RC'NCR' &&'9<09'/( +N56, et al. vs. RCPI,
relative to RCPI?s alle1ed liabilities under P.D. &-&( and $a1e Orders
&, < and ( and N6RC Certified Case No. %(90, 4ith the National
$a1es Council and the Office of the Re1ional Director, Ministr# of
6abor and E"plo#"ent, National Capital Re1ion N$C Case Ref. No.
$O'&'&( +O.P. Case No. &//<, S.C. B.R. No. -%&;/, relative to
RCPI?s alle1ed liabilities under $a1e Order No. &@ and 4ith the Office
of the Re1ional Director, MO6E'NCR, a si"ilar case +NCR'5SD'&%'
&&/' /(,@
1
?$DERE8S, RCPI is one of the parties in the above cases and is
herein represented b# its dul# authori)ed representativeEs 4hile the
co"plainantEe"plo#ees of RCPI are the other real parties in interest
in the said cases and are represented herein b# 3MRCPI'N56, the
dul# certified bar1ainin1 a1ent of the said co"plainantEe"plo#ees@
$DERE8S, it is to the actual interest and benefit of the parties
"entioned in the precedin1 $DERE8S +the herein parties, that this
Co"pro"ise 81ree"ent be entered into b# and bet4een the" for the
purpose of novatin1 the above "entioned cases, particularl# an# and
all decisions therein, 4ith the vie4 of re'definin1 the parties? ri1hts and
obli1ations under the various Presidential Decrees andEor $a1e
Orders sub=ects of the above "entioned cases.
NO$, DERE5ORE, for and in consideration of the fore1oin1
pre"ises and the ter"s and conditions herein stated, the parties have
a1reed and bound the"selves as follo4s* D8 F
&. RCPI b# 4a# of a co"pro"ise settle"ent ac!no4led1es its alle1ed
liabilit# under PD &-&( +"andator# third #ear, and $a1e Order & +first
and third #ear, sub=ect of the cases "entioned in the first $DERE8S
hereof@
<. 8s consideration for the dis"issal 4ith pre=udice of the above'
captioned cases and the novation thereof and of all decisions in said
cases, the parties hereb# further a1ree that*
a, On Nove"ber (%, &./9, RCPI shall pa# to each of its
e"plo#eesEco"plainants (%: of 4hatever is due hi"Eher under PD
&-&( +"andator# third #ear, and $a1e Order & +first and third #ear,
sub=ect of the cases "entioned in the first $DERE8S hereof@
b, he balance of -%: due to each e"plo#eeEco"plainant under PD
&-&( +"andator# third #ear, and $a1e Order & +first and third #ear,
sub=ect of the cases "entioned in the first $DERE8S hereof shall be
the sub=ect of re'openin1 andEor ne1otiation b# the parties on Aul# (&,
&./0 for the purpose of reachin1 a co"pro"ise settle"ent thereon on
ter"s "utuall# acceptable. 81ainst this (%: shall be deducted in full
all personal cash advances of ever# covered e"plo#ee@
c, Of and fro" the aforesaid total a"ount due ever# e"plo#ee, &%:
thereof shall be considered as attorne#?s fee due 8tt#. Rodolfo
Capoc#an, the sa"e to be deducted fro" the re"ainin1 -%: and
distributed to 8tt#. R. Capoc#an at the ti"e of the distribution of the
re"ainin1 -%:. In this connection, 8tt#. Rodolfo Capoc#an "anifest
+sic, that he is authori)ed b# the covered e"plo#ee +sic, to collect
&%: of 4hatever isEare due the" as attorne#?s fees and underta!es
and binds hi"self to sub"it to RCPI the re2uired individual chec!'off
authori)ation 4ith respect to the (%:. De and the herein union
assu"e sole responsibilit# for and shall hold RCPI free and har"less
fro" an# clai", suit or co"plaint arisin1 fro" the deduction of this
&%: attorne#?s fee,?
> > >
$hat transpired thereafter is "ore co"pletel# and undisputedl# narrated b# the Solicitor
Beneral in behalf of public respondent, thus*
hereupon, the parties to the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent filed a =oint
Motion to Dis"iss 4ith Pre=udice pra#in1 for the dis"issal of the sa"e
4ith pre=udice on the 1round that the decision of the National $a1es
Council dated Ma# <<, &./& had alread# been novated b# the
Co"pro"ise 81ree"ent re'definin1 the ri1hts and obli1ations of the
parties. Respondent 7nion on Nove"ber -, &./9 countered b#
opposin1 the "otion and alle1in1 that one of the si1natories thereof'
3u!lod n1 Man11a1a4a sa RCPI is not a part# in interest in the case
but that it 4as respondent 7nion 4hich represented oppositors RCPI
e"plo#ees all the 4a# fro" the level of the National $a1es Council
up the Supre"e Court. Respondent 7nion therefore clai"ed that the
Co"pro"ise 81ree"ent is irre1ular and invalid, apart fro" the fact
that there 4as nothin1 to co"pro"ise in the face of a final and
e>ecutor# decision.
On Nove"ber <<, &./9, respondent 7nion filed an 7r1ent Motion for
6ien +&9: 7nion Service 5ee, callin1 attention to a Resolution
passed and approved b# the 7RCPIC68'57R 6e1islative 3oard on
Aune ;, &./; declarin1 respondent union entitled to a su" e2uivalent
to &9: of the total bac!pa# received b# each RCPI e"plo#ee fro"
RCPI as union service fee and rei"burse"ent of e>penses incurred
in successfull# handlin1 the instant case. Respondent 7nion pra#ed
that RCPI be re2uired to deposit 4ith the Cashier of the National
Capital Re1ion, Ministr# of 6abor and E"plo#"ent an a"ount
e2uivalent to &9: of the total a"ount due to the covered e"plo#ees
as union service fee. Cop# of this "otion 4as received b# the Office
of the President, RCPI on Nove"ber </, &./9.
2
> > >
?8ctin1 on the 7r1ent Motion for 6ien, Director Severo M. Pucan
issued an Order dated Nove"ber <9, &./9 a4ardin1 to 7RCPIC68'
57R and 57R &9: of the total bac!pa# of RCPI e"plo#ees as their
union service fees, and directin1 RCPI to deposit said a"ount 4ith
the cashier of the Re1ional Office for proper disposition to said
a4ardees.
Despite notice of the Order of Nove"ber <9, &./9, and its
acco"pan#in1 letter re2uestin1 the "ana1e"ent of RCPI to 4ithhold
the &9: union service fee fro" each e"plo#ee affected, petitioner
paid in full the covered e"plo#ees on Nove"ber <., &./9, 4ithout
deductin1 the union service fee of &9:. In its "otion for
reconsideration and to set aside the Order of Nove"ber <9, &./9,
petitioner ar1ued that said Order has been rendered "oot and
acade"ic b# the fact that it had alread# paid in full the a4ard under
the decision of the National $a1es Council. It proposed instead that
7RCPIC68 andEor 57R re'direct their efforts at collection to the ran!
and file e"plo#ees of RCPI. It also attac!ed the 2uestioned order as
null and void ab anitio for lac! of =urisdiction and due process.
On Dece"ber &0, &./9, respondent 7nion filed a petition pra#in1 for
1arnish"ent of petitioner?s funds in its depositor# ban!s to effect
re"ittance of its &9: union service fee in vie4 of the pa#"ent in full
b# the latter of the 4a1es due its covered e"plo#ees. Petitioner
"oved to dis"iss the petition for 1arnish"ent as ille1al, irre1ular and
hi1hl# ano"alous. his 4as opposed b# respondent 7nion.
1+

8t this =uncture, the record sho4s that on Dece"ber &., &./9, said Re1ional Director
issued an order declarin1 the decision full# satisfied and liftin1 all the 1arnish"ents
effected pursuant thereto C+C,onsiderin1 that the 8lias $rit of E>ecution dated <0
Septe"ber &./9 in this case had alread# been full# satisfied.
11
Do4ever, it appears that thereafter, in an order dated Ma# -, &./0, NCR officer'in'
char1e Ro"eo 8. Goun1 found petitioner RCPI and its e"plo#ees =ointl# and severall#
liable for the pa#"ent of the &9: union service fee a"ountin1 to P;<-,/;9.0% to private
respondent 7RCPIC68'57R and conse2uentl# ordered the 1arnish"ent of petitioner?s
ban! account to enforce said clai". It 4as his position that althou1h the decision of the
National $a1es Council did not cate1oricall# re2uire pa#"ent of the &9: service fee
directl# to 7RCPIC68'57R it had acted as the counsel of record of petitioner?s
e"plo#ees, hence said pa#"ent could be authori)ed b# appl#in1 suppletoril# the
provisions of Section (-, Rule &(/ of the Rules of Court on attorne#?s lien. Said order
further noted that the transaction entered into b# petitioner in favor of 3MRCPI'N56 in
the 1uise of a co"pro"ise a1ree"ent, 4as "ade 4ithout the consent of 7RCPIC68'
57R in clear defraudation of the latter?s ri1ht to the &9: union service fee =ustl# due it.
1'
8ctin1 on petitioners CO"nibus MotionC see!in1, a"on1 others, a reconsideration of
said order of Ma# -, &./0, 4hich "otion 4as treated as an appeal, respondent
Secretar# of 6abor and E"plo#"ent issued an order on 8u1ust &/, &./0 "odif#in1 the
order appealed fro" b# holdin1 petitioner solel# liable to respondent union for &%: of
the a4arded a"ounts as attorne#?s fees, on the rationale that*
... oppositor?s clai" for attorne#?s fee 4as the ulti"ate conse2uence
of the non'co"pliance of RCPI 4ith $a1e Order No. &. he RCPI
e"plo#ees 4ere forced to avail of the services of oppositor as
counsel, RCPI havin1 continuousl# 4ithheld pa#"ent of said benefit.
he# 4ere forced to liti1ate up to the Supre"e Court for the
protection of their interest. In the case of Cristobal vs. ECC, I,;.</%
pro"ul1ated 5ebruar# <0, &./&, &%( SCR8 ((., the Supre"e Court
ruled that ?the defaultin1 e"plo#er or 1overn"ent a1enc# re"ains
liable for attorne#?s fees because it co"pelled the co"plainant to
e"plo# the services of counsel b# un=ustl# refusin1 to reco1ni)e the
validit# of the clai".? 8ttorne#?s fee due the oppositor is, thus,
char1eable a1ainst RCPI.
1(

Dence, the instant petition, basicall# on the sole issue of 4hether the public
respondents acted 4ith 1rave abuse of discretion a"ountin1 to lac! of =urisdiction in
holdin1 the petitioner solel# liable for Cunion service fee? to respondent 7RCPIC68'57R.
$e hold in the ne1ative.
he contention of petitioner that the challen1ed order of Ma# -, &./0 4as issued 4ith
1rave abuse of discretion, for supposedl# i"posin1 an additional obli1ation in the for"
of attorne#?s fees not conte"plated in the decision of the National $a1es Council, is
bereft of "erit.
$hile it is true that the ori1inal decision of said Council@ did not e>pressl# provide for
pa#"ent of attorne#?s fees, that particular aspect or deficienc# is dee"ed to have been
supplied, if not "odified pro tanto, b# the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent subse2uentl#
e>ecuted bet4een the parties. 8 cursor# perusal of said a1ree"ent sho4s an
un2ualified ad"ission b# petitioner that Cfro" the aforesaid total a"ount due ever#
e"plo#ee, &%: thereof shall be considered as attorne#?s fee,
1)
althou1h, as hereinafter
discussed, it sou1ht to 4ithhold it fro" respondent union. Considerin1, ho4ever, that
respondent union 4as cate1oricall# found b# the 6abor Secretar# to have been
responsible for the successful prosecution of the case to its ulti"ate conclusion in
3
behalf of its "e"ber, e"plo#ees of herein petitioner, its ri1ht to fees for services
rendered, or 4hat it ter"ed as Cunion service fee,C is indubitable.
he further pretension of petitioner that respondent union is not entitled to attorne#?s fee
or union service fee because it is not a "e"ber of the 3ar is both untenable and in
disre1ard of the liberali)ed sche"e and theor# of representation for labor adopted in the
6abor Code.
8s e>plained b# the order of the Deput# Minister of 8u1ust &/, &./0 hereinbefore
adverted to F
... he appearance of labor federations and local unions as counsel in
labor proceedin1s has been 1iven le1al sanction and 4e need onl#
cite 8rt. <<< of the 6abor Code 4hich allo4s non'la4#ers to represent
their or1ani)ation or "e"bers thereof.
It is undisputed that oppositor +private respondent herein, 4as the
counsel on record of the RCPI e"plo#ees in their clai" for EC%68
under $a1e Order No. & since the inception of the proceedin1s at the
National $a1es Council up to the Supre"e Court. It had therefore a
valid clai" for attorne#?s fee 4hich it called union service fee?. ..
15

+E"phasis supplied,.
8s affir"ed and further clarified b# respondent Secretar# of 6abor and E"plo#"ent in
his order of March <%, &./- F
?$hile the clai" for union service fee 4as initiall# directed a1ainst the
union "e"bers, there is no dispute that the clai" 4as basicall# for
attorne#?s fee. 8s a "atter of fact, RCPI ad"itted that the union
service fee is ?for Co"pensation for services rendered b# the union. ...
1*

$e also cannot but loo! as!ance and ta!e a 2ui))ical vie4 of the afore2uoted
co"pro"ise a1ree"ent on 4hich petitioner anchors its "ain ar1u"ents.
8side fro" the fact that, as alread# stated, the sa"e 4as concluded behind the bac! of
private respondent, so to spea!, and 4ith another labor union and a la4#er neither of
4ho" prior thereto had a hand in the recover# of benefits for the RCPI e"plo#ees
concerned, there are certain indicia 4hich cast serious doubts on the "otives and
actuations therein of petitioner.
8s alread# stated, as earl# as March &(, &./9, private respondent had "oved for the
deduction of said fee fro" the total bac!pa# a4arded in the decision of the Council. It
reiterated such clai" in its "otion for a 4rit of e>ecution filed on Septe"ber &%, &./9
after this Court had dis"issed the petition for certiorari filed b# petitioner in B.R. No.
-%&;/. Petitioner 4as full# a4are of these proceedin1s since it even filed its opposition
thereto on Septe"ber <(, &./9, but in the aforestated order of Nove"ber <9, &./9,
private respondent 4as a4arded &9: of the total bac!pa# of the RCPI e"plo#ees as its
union service fee, 4ith petitioner bein1 directed to deposit said a"ount 4ith the NCR
office. Get, on Nove"ber <., &./9, petitioner, despite ti"el# notice of said order and in
total disre1ard thereof, directl# paid its e"plo#ees the full a"ount of their bac!pa#,
4ithout deductin1 the union service fee.
17

81ain, as is evident in the afore2uoted provisions of the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent,
petitioner 4as bound to pa# onl# (%: of the a"ount due each e"plo#ee on Nove"ber
(%, &./9, 4hile the balance of -%: 4ould still be the sub=ect of rene1otiation b# the
parties on Aul# (&, &./0. Get, despite such conditions beneficial to it, petitioner paid in
full the bac!pa# of its e"plo#ees on Nove"ber <., &./9, i1norin1 the service fee due
the private respondent.
$orse, petitioner supposedl# paid to one 8tt#. Rodolfo M. Capoc#an the &%: fee that
properl# pertained to herein private respondent, an un=ustified and bafflin1 diversion of
funds. It tried to e>plain a4a# such obvious ter1iversation b# clai"in1 that said &%: fee
corresponded to the other clai"s e"braced in the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent but not the
liabilit# under $a1e Order No. &, an apocr#phal contradiction of its contrar# ad"ission
in Para1raph - of its Repl#
18
and the provisions of Para1raph <+c, of the co"pro"ise
a1ree"ent.
On top of that, the records do not sho4 an# re=oinder or e>planation b# petitioner of this
1rave revelation and accusation of the Solicitor Beneral*
3ut the spurious and fraudulent character of such disposition "ade b#
petitioner is clearl# inferable fro" the circu"stances that* ... +<, there
is no such 8tt#. Rodolfo Capoc#an in the 8ttorne#?s Rollo of this Court
+See Co""unication fro" the Office of the 3ar Confidant of the
Supre"e Court dated March &-, &./0 found on pa1e ;9. of the
record,. 8tt#. Capoc#an, bein1 a "ere fictitious character, his
?attorne#?s fees? 4hich included the clai" of private respondent,
necessaril# devolved upon petitioner.
?It 4ould no4 appear that petitioner had a secret interest over the &%:
fees due and o4in1 to private respondent and thru the "anipulations
of petitioner?s a1ents 4ere 1iven the appearance of attorne#?s fees? to
a certain 8tt#. Rodolfo Capoc#an. It cannot be denied that b# such
4
fraudulent "ethod, private respondent 4as deprived of its =ust and
la4ful fees.
19
Even the e"plo#"ent of the ter" CnovationC in the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent appears to
have been dictated b# the dubious "otive to secure dis"issal 4ith pre=udice of the
decision of the National $a1es Council. 5or, despite the e>press, albeit i"proper use of
such ter", there could have been no valid novation of the prior =ud1"ent for the si"ple
reason that the pre'e>istin1 obli1ation thereunder and the ne4 one sou1ht to be created
are not absolutel# inco"patible. On the contrar#, the co"pro"ise a1ree"ent e>pressl#
reco1ni)es the respective obli1ations of the parties in said =ud1"ent and precisel#
provides a "ethod b# 4hich the sa"e shall be e>tin1uished, 4hich "ethod is, as
e>pressl# stated in said contract, b# install"ent pa#"ents. he contract, instead of
containin1 provisions inco"patible 4ith the obli1ations in the =ud1"ent, e>pressl#
ratifies such obli1ations and contains provisions for satisf#in1 the". he said a1ree"ent
si"pl# 1ave the petitioner a "ethod and "ore ti"e for the satisfaction of said =ud1"ent.
It did not e>tin1uish the obli1ations contained in the =ud1"ent, until the ter"s of said
a1ree"ent had been full# co"plied 4ith. Dad the petitioner continued to co"pl# 4ith the
conditions of said a1ree"ent, it could have successfull# invo!ed its provisions a1ainst
the issuance of a 4rit of e>ecution upon said =ud1"ent. he contract and the punctual
co"pliance 4ith its ter"s onl# dela#ed the ri1ht of the respondent union to the
e>ecution of the =ud1"ent. he =ud1"ent 4as not satisfied and the obli1ations e>istin1
thereunder still subsisted until the ter"s of the a1ree"ent had been full# co"plied 4ith.

'+

5inall#, petitioner cannot invo!e the lac! of an individual 4ritten authori)ation fro" the
e"plo#ees as a shield for its fraudulent refusal to pa# the service fee of private
respondent. Prior to the pa#"ent "ade to its e"plo#ees, petitioner 4as ordered b# the
Re1ional Director to deduct the &9: attorne#?s fee fro" the total a"ount due its
e"plo#ees and to deposit the sa"e 4ith the Re1ional 6abor Office. Petitioner failed to
do so alle1edl# because of the absence of individual 4ritten authori)ations. 3e that as it
"a#, the lac! thereof 4as re"edied and supplied b# the e>ecution of the co"pro"ise
a1ree"ent 4hereb# the e"plo#ees, e>pressl# approved the &%: deduction and held
petitioner RCPI free fro" an# clai", suit or co"plaint arisin1 fro" the deduction thereof.
$hen petitioner 4as thereafter a1ain ordered to pa# the &%: fees to respondent union,
it no lon1er had an# le1al basis or subterfu1e for refusin1 to pa# the latter.
$e a1ree that 8rticle <<< of the 6abor Code re2uirin1 an individual 4ritten authori)ation
as a prere2uisite to 4a1e deductions see!s to protect the e"plo#ee a1ainst
un4arranted practices that 4ould di"inish his co"pensation 4ithout his !no4led1e and
consent.
'1
Do4ever, for all intents and purposes, the deductions re2uired of the
petitioner and the e"plo#ees do not run counter to the e>press "andate of the la4
since the sa"e are not un4arranted or 4ithout their !no4led1e and consent. 8lso, the
deductions for the union service fee in 2uestion are authori)ed b# la4 and do not
re2uire individual chec!'off authori)ations.
''

On the fore1oin1 considerations, $e find no co1ent reason to disturb the order of the
Secretar# of 6abor and E"plo#"ent findin1 petitioner liable for the union service fee of
private respondent.
$DERE5ORE, the order of the Secretar# of 6abor of 8u1ust &0, &./0 is hereb#
855IRMED and the petition at bar is DISMISSED, 4ith double costs a1ainst petitioner.
he te"porar# restrainin1 order issued pursuant to the Resolution of the Court of Aune
<<, &./- is 6I5ED and declared of no further force and effect.
SO ORDERED.
5