TodayisMonday,February08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.149763July7,2009
EDUARDOJ.MARIO,JR.,MA.MELVYNP.ALAMIS,NORMAP.COLLANTES,andFERNANDOPEDROSA,
Petitioners,
vs.
GILY.GAMILLA,RENELUISTADLE,NORMAS.CALAGUAS,MA.LOURDESC.MEDINA,EDNAB.SANCHEZ,
REMEDIOSGARCIA,MAFELYSRAEL,ZAIDAGAMILLA,andAURORADOMINGO,Respondents.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,1underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,are(1)theDecision2dated
16 March 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 60657, dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari
underRule65oftheRulesofCourtand(2)theResolution3dated30August2001oftheappellatecourtinthe
samecasedenyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.
I
FACTS
ThePetitionatbararosefromthefollowingfactualandproceduralantecedents.
(1)CaseNo.NCRODM9412022
At the time when the numerous controversies in the instant case first came about, petitioners Atty. Eduardo J.
Mario,Jr.,Ma.MelvynP.Alamis,NormaP.Collantes,andFernandoPedrosawereamongtheexecutiveofficers
anddirectors(collectivelycalledtheMarioGroup)oftheUniversityofSto.TomasFacultyUnion(USTFU),alabor
union duly organized and registered under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and the bargaining
representativeofthefacultymembersoftheUniversityofSantoTomas(UST).4
Respondents Gil Y. Gamilla, Rene Luis Tadle, Norma S. Calaguas, Ma. Lourdes C. Medina, Edna B. Sanchez,
RemediosGarcia,MafelYsrael,ZaidaGamilla,andAuroraDomingowereUSTprofessorsandUSTFUmembers.
The1986CollectiveBargainingAgreement(CBA)betweenUSTandUSTFUexpiredon31May1988.Thereafter,
bargaining negotiations ensued between UST and the Mario Group, which represented USTFU. As the parties
were not able to reach an agreement despite their earnest efforts, a bargaining deadlock was declared and
USTFUfiledanoticeofstrike.Subsequently,thenSecretaryoftheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment(DOLE)
Franklin Drilon assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, which was docketed as NCMBNCRNS0211789. The
DOLESecretaryissuedanOrderon19October1990,layingthetermsandconditionsforanewCBAbetweenthe
USTandUSTFU.InaccordancewithsaidOrder,theUSTandUSTFUenteredintoaCBAin1991,whichwastobe
effectivefortheperiodof1June1988to31May1993(hereinafter19881993CBA).InkeepingwithArticle253
A5oftheLaborCode,asamended,theeconomicprovisionsofthe19881993CBAweresubjecttorenegotiation
forthefourthandfifthyears.
Accordingly,on10September1992,USTandUSTFUexecutedaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA),6 whereby
USTfacultymembersbelongingtothecollectivebargainingunitweregrantedadditionaleconomicbenefitsforthe
fourth and fifth years of the 19881993 CBA, specifically, the period from 1 June 1992 up to 31 May 1993. The
relevantportionsoftheMOAread:
MEMORANDUMOFAGREEMENT
xxxx
1.0. The University hereby grants additional benefits to Faculty Members belonging to the collective
bargaining unit as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into
between the parties herein over and above the benefits now enjoyed by the said faculty members, which
additionalbenefitsshallamountintheaggregatetoP42,000,000.00[.]
2.0.UnderthisAgreementtheUniversityshallgrantsalaryincreases,towit:

2.1.THIRTY(P30.00)PESOSperlectureunitpermonthtocoveredfacultymembersretroactivetoJune1,
1991
2.2.AdditionalTHIRTY(P30.00)PESOSperlectureunitpermonthontopofthesalaryincreasegrantedin
[paragraph]2.1hereoftothesaidfacultymemberseffectiveJune1,1992
2.3. In the case of a covered faculty member whose compensation is computed on a basis other than
lectureunitpermonth,heshallreceivesalaryincreasesthatareequivalenttothoseprovidedinparagraphs
2.1 and 2.2 hereof, with the amount of salary increases being arrived at by using the usual method of
computingthesaidfacultymembersbasicpay
3.0. The UNIVERSITY shall likewise restore to the faculty members the amounts corresponding to the
deductionsinsalarythatweretakenfromthepaychecksinthesecondhalfofJune,1989andinthefirst
halfofJuly,1989,providedthatsaiddeductionsinsalaryrelatetotheunionactivitiesthatwereheldinthe
aforestated payroll periods, and provided further that the amounts involved shall be taken from the P42
Million(sic)economicpackage.
4.0. A portion of the P42,000,000.00 economic package amounting to P2,000,000.00 shall be used to
satisfy all obligations that remained outstanding and unpaid in the May 17, 1986 Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
5.0. Any unspent balance of the aggregate of P42,000,000.00 as of October 15, 1992, shall, within two
weeks,beremittedtotheUnion[:]
5.1. The unspent balance mentioned in paragraph 5.0 inclusive of earnings but exclusive of checkoffs,
shallbeusedforthesalaryincreaseshereingranteduptoMay31,1993,forincreasesinhospitalization,
educationalandretirementbenefits,andforothereconomicbenefits.
6.0.Thebenefitshereingrantedconstitutetheentireandcompletepackageofeconomicbenefitsgranted
by the UNIVERSITY to the covered faculty members for the balance of the term of the existing collective
bargainingagreement.
7.0.ItisclearlyunderstoodandagreeduponthattheaggregatesumofP42millionischargeableagainst
the share of the faculty members in the incremental proceeds of tuition fees collected and still to be
collectedProvided,however,thathe(sic)commitmentoftheUNIVERSITYtopaytheaggregatesumofP42
millionshallsubsistevenifthesaidamountexceedstheproportionatesharethatmayaccruetothefaculty
members in the tuition fee increases that the UNIVERSITY may be authorized to collect in SchoolYear
19921993, and, Provided, finally, that the covered faculty members shall still be entitled to their
proportionateshareinanyundistributedportionoftheincrementalproceedsofthetuitionfeeincreasesin
SchoolYear 19921993, and incremental proceeds are, by law and pertinent Department of Education
Culture and Sports (DECS) regulations, required to be allotted for the payment of salaries, wages,
allowancesandotherbenefitsofteachingandnonteachingpersonnelfortheUNIVERSITY.
8.0.WiththisAgreement,thepartiesconfirmthat[:]
8.1.theUniversityhascompliedwiththerequirementsofthelawrelativetothereleaseanddistributionof
theincrementalproceedsoftuitionfeeincreasesastheseincrementalproceedspertaintothefacultyshare
inthetuitionfeeincreasecollectedduringtheSchoolYear19911992and,
8.2. the economic benefits herein granted constitute the full and complete financial obligation of the
UNIVERSITY to the members of its faculty for the period June 1, 1991 to May 31, 1993, pursuant to the
provisionsoftheexistingCollectiveBargainingAgreement.
9.0.Subjecttotheprovisionsoflaw,andwithoutreducingtheamountsofsalaryincreasesgrantedunder
paragraphs 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3[,] the UNION shall have the right to a prorata lump sum checkoff of all
sumsofmoneydueandpayabletoitfromthepackageofeconomicbenefitsgrantedunderthisAgreement,
providedthatthereisanauthorizationofamajorityofthemembersoftheUNIONandprovided,further,that
theP42millioneconomicpackagehereingrantedshallnotinanywaybeexceeded.
10.0.ThisAgreementshallbeeffectiveforaperiodoftwo(2)years,startingJune1,1991andendingon
May31,1993,provided,however,thatifforanyreasonnonewcollectivebargainingagreementisentered
intoattheexpirationdatehereof,thisAgreement,togetherwiththeMarch18,1991CollectiveBargaining
Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect until such time as a new collective bargaining agreement
shallhavebeenexecutedbytheparties.
xxxx
UNIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMAS

USTFACULTYUNION

BY:

BY:

(signed)
FR.TERESOM.CAMPILLO,JR.,O.P.
Treasurer

(signed)
ATTY.EDUARDOJ.MARINO,JR.
President

Attestedby[:]
(signed)
REV.FR.ROLANDODELAROSA,O.P.(Emphasisours.)
On 12 September 1992, the majority of USTFU members signed individual instruments of ratification,7 which
purportedly signified their consent to the economic benefits granted under the MOA. Said instruments uniformly
recited:
RATIFICATION OF THE USTUSTFU MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1992
GRANTINGAPACKAGEOFTHEP42MILLIONFACULTYBENEFITSWITHPROVISIONFORCHECKOFF.
September12,1992
Date
TOWHOMITMAYCONCERN:
I, the undersigned UST faculty member, aware that the law requires ratification and that without
ratification by majority of all faculty members belonging to the collective bargaining unit, the
Memorandum of Agreement between the University of Santo Tomas and the UST Faculty Union (or
USTFU) dated September 10, 1992 may be questioned and all the faculty benefits granted therein
maybecancelled,doherebyratifythesaidagreement.
UndertheAgreement,theUniversityshallpayP42millionoveraperiodoftwo(2)yearsfromJune1,
1991uptoMay31,1992.
In consideration of the efforts of the UST Faculty Union as the faculty members sole and exclusive
collectivebargainingrepresentativeinobtainingthesaidP42millionpackageofeconomicbenefits,a
checkoff of ten percent thereof covering union dues, and special assessment for Labor Education
FundandattorneysfeesfromUSTFUmembersandagencyfeefromnonmembersfortheperiodof
theAgreementisherebyauthorizedtobemadeinonelumpsumeffectiveimmediately,providedthat
twopercent(sic)shallbefor[the]administrationoftheAgreementandthebalanceofeightpercent
(sic) shall be for attorneys fees to be donated, as pledged by the USTFU lawyer to the Philippine
Foundation for the Advancement of the Teaching Profession, Inc. whose principal purpose is the
advancement of the teaching profession and teachers welfare, and provided further that the
deductions shall not be taken from my individual monthly salary but from the total package of P42
milliondueundertheAgreement.
_________________________
SignatureofFacultyMember(Emphasisours.)
USTFU,throughitsPresident,petitionerAtty.Mario,wrotealetter8dated1October1992totheUSTTreasurer
requestingthereleasetotheunionofthesumofP4.2million,whichwas10%oftheP42millioneconomicbenefits
packagegrantedbytheMOAtofacultymembersbelongingtothecollectivebargainingunit.TheP4.2millionwas
soughtbyUSTFUinconsiderationofitseffortsinobtainingthesaidP42millioneconomicbenefitspackage.UST
remittedthesumofP4.2milliontoUSTFUon9October1992.9
AfterdeductingfromtheP42millioneconomicbenefitspackagetheP4.2millioncheckofftoUSTFU,theamounts
owed to UST, and the salary increases and bonuses of the covered faculty members, a net amount of
P6,389,145.04remained.Theremainingamountwasdistributedtothefacultymemberson18November1994.
On 15 December 1994, respondents10 filed with the MedArbiter, DOLENational Capital Region (NCR), a
Complaint for the expulsion of the Mario Group as USTFU officers and directors, which was docketed as Case
No.NCRODM9412022.11RespondentsallegedintheirComplaintthattheMarioGroupviolatedtherightsand
conditionsofmembershipinUSTFU,particularlyby:1)investingtheunspentbalanceoftheP42millioneconomic
benefits package given by UST without prior approval of the general membership 2) simultaneously holding
elections viva voce 3) ratifying the CBA involving the P42 million economic benefits package and 4) approving
theattorneys/agencyfeesworthP4.2millionintheformofcheckoff.RespondentsprayedthattheMarioGroup
bedeclaredjointlyandseverallyliableforrefundingallcollectedattorneys/agencyfeesfromindividualmembers
ofUSTFUandthecollectivebargainingunitandthat,afterduehearing,theMariogroupbeexpelledasUSTFU
officersanddirectors.
(2)CaseNo.NCRODM9510028
On16December1994,USTandUSTFU,representedbytheMarioGroup,enteredintoanewCBA,effective1
June1993to31May1998(19931998CBA).ThisnewCBAwasregisteredwiththeDOLEon20February1995.
Respondents12filedwiththeMedArbiter,DOLENCR,on18October1995,anotherComplaintagainsttheMario
Groupforviolationoftherightsandconditionsofunionmembership,whichwasdocketedasCaseNo.NCROD
M9510028.13TheComplaintprimarilysoughttoinvalidatecertainprovisionsofthe19931998CBAnegotiated
bytheMarioGroupforUSTFUandtheregistrationofsaidCBAwiththeDOLE.
(3)CaseNo.NCRODM9610001

On24September1996,petitionerNormaCollantes,asUSTFUSecretaryGeneral,postednoticesinsomefaculty
rooms at UST, informing the union members of a general assembly to be held on 5 October 1996. Part of the
agendaforsaiddatewastheelectionofnewUSTFUofficers.Thefollowingday,25September1996,respondents
wrotealetter14totheUSTFUCommitteeonElections,urgingthelattertorescheduletheelectionstoensurea
free,clean,honest,andorderlyelectionandtoaffordtheunionmembersthetimetopreparethemselvesforthe
same. The USTFU Committee on Elections failed to act positively on respondents letter, and neither did they
adoptandpromulgatetherulesandregulationsfortheconductofthescheduledelection.
Thus, on 1 October 1996, respondents15 filed with the MedArbiter, DOLENCR, an Urgent ExParte
Petition/Complaint, which was docketed as Case No. NCRODM9610001.16 Respondents alleged in their
Petition/Complaint that the general membership meeting called by the USTFU Board of Directors on 5 October
1996, the agenda of which included the election of union officers, was in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution and ByLaws of USTFU. Respondents prayed that the DOLE supervise the conduct of the USTFU
elections,andthattheybeawardedattorneysfees.
On 4 October 1996, the MedArbiter DOLENCR, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the
holdingoftheUSTFUelectionsscheduledthenextday.
(4)CaseNo.NCRODM9610016
Also on 4 October 1996, the UST Secretary General headed a general faculty assembly attended by USTFU
members,aswellasUSTFUnonmembers,butwhoweremembersofthecollectivebargainingunit.Duringsaid
assembly,respondentswereamongtheelectedofficersofUSTFU(collectivelyreferredtoastheGamillaGroup).
Petitioners filed with the MedArbiter, DOLENCR, a Petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the
resultsofthe4October1994election.ThePetitionwasdocketedasCaseNo.NCRODM9610016.
InaDecisiondated11February1997inCaseNo.NCRODM9610016,theMedArbiterDOLENCR,nullifiedthe
electionoftheGamillaGroupasUSTFUofficerson4October1996forhavingbeenconductedinviolationofthe
Constitution and ByLaws of the union. This ruling of the MedArbiter was affirmed on appeal by the Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) in a Resolution issued on 15 August 1997. Respondents were, thus, prompted to file a
PetitionforCertioraribeforethisCourt,docketedasG.R.No.131235.
While G.R. No. 131235 was pending, the term of office of the Gamilla Group as USTFU officers expired on 4
October1999.TheGamillaGroupthenscheduledthenextelectionofUSTFUofficerson14January2000.
On 16 November 1999, the Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 131235, affirming the BLR Resolution
dated15August1997whichruledthatthepurportedelectionofUSTFUofficersheldon4October1996wasvoid
forviolatingtheConstitutionandByLawsoftheunion.17
(5)CaseNo.NCRODM9611009
On 15 November 1996, respondents18 filed before the MedArbiter, DOLENCR, a fourth Complaint/Petition
againsttheMarioGroup,aswellasthePhilippineFoundationfortheAdvancementoftheTeachingProfession,
Inc.,SecurityBankCorporation,andBankofthePhilippineIslands,whichwasdocketedasCaseNo.NCRODM
9611009.19RespondentsclaimedintheirlatestComplaint/PetitionthattheywerethelegitimateUSTFUofficers,
havingbeenelectedon4October1996.TheyprayedforanorderdirectingtheMarioGrouptoceaseanddesist
from using the name of USTFU and from performing acts for and on behalf of the USTFU and the rest of the
membersofthecollectivebargainingunit.
DOLE Department Order No. 9 took effect on 21 June 1997, amending the Rules Implementing Book V of the
LaborCode,asamended.Thereunder,jurisdictionoverthecomplaintsforanyviolationoftheunionconstitution
andbylawsandtheconditionsofunionmembershipwasvestedintheRegionalDirectoroftheDOLE.20Pursuant
to said Department Order, all four Petitions/Complaints filed by respondents against the Mario Group,
particularly, Case No. NCRODM9412022, Case No. NCRODM9510028, Case No. NCRODM9610001,
andCaseNo.NCRODM9611009wereconsolidatedandindorsedtotheOfficeoftheRegionalDirectorofthe
DOLENCR.
On 27 May 1999, the DOLENCR Regional Director rendered a Decision21 in the consolidated cases in
respondentsfavor.
In Case No. NCRODM9412022 and Case No. NCRODM9510028, the DOLENCR Regional Director
adjudged the Mario Group, as the executive officers of USTFU, guilty of violating the provisions of the USTFU
ConstitutionandBylawsbyfailingtocollectunionduesandtoconductageneralassemblyeverythreemonths.
TheDOLENCRRegionalDirectoralsoruledthattheMarioGroupviolatedArticle241(c)22and(l)23oftheLabor
CodewhentheydidnotsubmitalistofunionofficerstotheDOLEwhentheydidnotsubmit/provideDOLEand
the USTFU members with copies of the audited financial statements of the union and when they invested in a
bank,withoutpriorconsentofUSTFUmembers,thesumofP9,766,570.01,whichformedpartoftheP42 million
economicbenefitspackage.
Additionally,theDOLENCRRegionalDirectordeclaredthatthecheckoffofP4.2millioncollectedbytheMario
Group, as negotiation fees, was invalid. According to the MOA executed on 10 September 1992 by UST and
USTFU,theP42millioneconomicbenefitspackagewaschargeableagainsttheshareofthefacultymembersin

theincrementalproceedsoftuitionfeescollectedandstilltobecollected.UnderRepublicActNo.6728,2470%of
thetuitionfeeincreasesshouldbeallottedtoacademicandnonacademicpersonnel.Giventhattherecordswere
silentastohowmuchoftheP42millioneconomicbenefitspackagewasobtainedthroughnegotiationsandhow
muchwasfromthestatutoryallotmentof70%ofthetuitionfeeincreases,theDOLENCRRegionalDirectorheld
thattheentireamountwaswithinthestatutoryallotment,whichcouldnotbethesubjectofnegotiationand,thus,
couldnotbeburdenedbynegotiationfees.
TheDOLENCRRegionalDirectorfurtherfoundthattheprincipalsubjectofCaseNo.NCRODM9610001(i.e.,
violation by the Mario Group of the provisions on election of officers in the Labor Code and the USTFU
ConstitutionandByLaws)hadbeensupersededbythecentraleventinCaseNo.NCRODM9611009(i.e.,the
subsequentelectionofanothersetofUSTFUofficersconsistingoftheGamillaGroup).Whilethereweretwosets
ofUSTFUofficersvyingforlegitimacy,theeventualrulingoftheDOLENCRRegionalDirector,fortheexpulsionof
theMarioGroupfromtheirpositionsasUSTFUofficers,practicallyextinguishedCaseNo.NCRODM9611009.
Thedecretalportionofthe27May1999DecisionoftheDOLENCRRegionalDirectorreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:
a)Expelling[theMarioGroup]fromtheirpositionsasofficersofUSTFU,andherebyorderthemunderpain
ofcontempt,toceaseanddesistfromperformingactsassuchofficers
b)Ordering[theMarioGroup]tojointlyandseverallyrefundtoUSTFUtheamountofP4.2Mcheckedoff
asattorneysfeesfromtheP42Meconomicpackage
c)Ordering[theMarioGroup]toaccountfor:
c.1.P2.0MpaidtoUSTFUinsatisfactionoftheremainingobligationoftheUniversityunderthe1986
CBA
c.2.P7.0MasconsiderationoftheCompromiseAgreemententeredintobyUSTFUinvolvingcertain
laborcases
c.3.Interest/earningsoftheP9,766,570.01balanceoftheP42Minvested/depositedby[theMario
Group]withthePCICapitalCorporation.
d)OrderingconductofelectionofUnionofficersunderthesupervisionofthisDepartment.25
Petitionersinterposedanappeal26beforetheBLR,whichwasdocketedasBLRATR52251099.
Inthemeantime,theelectionofUSTFUofficerswasheldasscheduledon14January2000,27inwhichtheGamilla
Group claimed victory.28 On 3 March 2000, the Gamilla group, as the new USTFU officers, entered into a
MemorandumofAgreement29withtheUST,whichprovidedfortheeconomicbenefitstobegrantedtothefaculty
membersoftheUSTfortheyears19992001.SaidAgreementwasratifiedbytheUSTFUmemberson9March
2000.
Onthesameday,9March2000,theBLRpromulgateditsDecision30inBLRATR52251099,thefalloofwhich
provides:
WHEREFORE,theappealisGRANTEDINPART.Accordingly,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyMODIFIEDto
the effect that appellant USTFU officers are hereby ordered to return to the general membership the amount of
P4.2milliontheyhavecollectedbywayofattorneysfees.
Let the entire records of this case be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of
electionofofficersofUSTFU.TheelectionshallbeheldunderthecontrolandsupervisionoftheRegionalOffice,
in accordance with Section 1 (b), Rule XV of Department Order No. 9, unless the parties mutually agree to a
differentprocedureconsistentwithensuringintegrityandfairnessintheelectoralexercise.
TheBLRfoundnobasisfortheorderoftheDOLENCRRegionalDirectortotheMarioGrouptoaccountforthe
amountsofP2millionandP7millionsupposedlypaidbyUSTtoUSTFU.TheBLRclarifiedthatUSTpaidUSTFUa
lumpsumofP7million.TheP2millionofthislumpsumwasthepaymentbyUSTofitsoutstandingobligationsto
USTFU under the 1986 CBA. This amount was subsequently donated by USTFU members to the Philippine
FoundationfortheAdvancementoftheTeachingProfession,Inc.TheremainingP5millionofthelumpsumwas
theconsiderationforthesettlementofanillegaldismissalcasebetweenUSTandtheMarioGroup.Hence,the
P5millionlegallybelongedtotheMarioGroup,andtherewasnoneedtomakeitaccountforthesame.Astothe
interest earnings of the sum of P9,766,570.01 that was invested by the Mario Group in a bank, the BLR ruled
that the same was included in the amount of P6,389,145.04 that was distributed to the faculty members on 18
November1994.
The BLR, however, agreed in the finding of the DOLENCR Regional Director that the P42 million economic
benefitspackagewassourcedfromthefacultymembersshareinthetuitionfeeincreasesunderRepublicActNo.
6728. Under said law, 70% of tuition fee increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances, and
other benefits of teaching and nonteaching personnel. As was held in the decision31 and subsequent

resolution32oftheSupremeCourtinCebuInstituteofTechnologyv.Ople,thelawhasalreadyprovidedforthe
minimumpercentageoftuitionfeeincreasestobeallottedforteachersandotherschoolpersonnel.Thisallotment
ismandatoryandcannotbediminished,althoughitmaybeincreasedbycollectivebargaining.Itfollowsthatonly
theamountbeyondthatmandatedbylawshallbesubjecttonegotiationfeesandattorney'sfeesforthesimple
reasonthatitwasonlythisamountthattheschoolemployeeshadtobargainfor.
TheBLRfurtherreasonedthattheP4.2millioncollectedbytheMarioGroupwasinthenatureofattorneysfees
ornegotiationfeesand,therefore,fellunderthegeneralprohibitionagainstsuchfeesinArticle222(b)33 of the
Labor Code, as amended. Also, the exception to charging against union funds was not applicable because the
P42millioneconomicbenefitspackageunderthe10September1992MOAwasnotunionfund,asthesamewas
intendednotfortheunioncoffers,butforthemembersoftheentirebargainingunit.ThefactthattheP4.2million
checkoffwasapprovedbythemajorityofUSTFUmemberswasimmaterialinviewoftheclearcommandofArticle
222(b) that any contract, agreement, or arrangement of any sort, contrary to the prohibition contained therein,
shallbenullandvoid.
Lastly,astotheallegedfailureoftheMarioGrouptoperformsomeofitsduties,theBLRheldthatthechangeof
USTFUofficerscanbestbedecided,notbyoutrightexpulsion,butbythegeneralmembershipthroughtheactual
conductofelections.
Petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration34 of the foregoing Decision was denied by the BLR in a
Resolution35dated13June2000.
Aggrievedonceagain,petitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsaPetitionforCertiorari36underRule65ofthe
Rules of Court, which was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 60657. In a Resolution dated 26 September 2000, the
CourtofAppealsdirectedrespondentstofiletheirCommentand,inordernottorendermootandacademicthe
issues in the Petition, enjoined respondents and all those acting for and on their behalf from enforcing,
implementing,andeffectingtheBLRDecisiondated9March2000.
On16March2001,theCourtofAppealsrendereditsDecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.60657,favoringrespondents.
AccordingtotheCourtofAppeals,theBLRdidnotcommitgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtolackorexcess
of jurisdiction, in ruling that the P42 million economic benefits package was merely the share of the faculty
membersinthetuitionfeeincreasespursuanttoRepublicActNo.6728.Theappellatecourtexplained:
Itistooplaintoseethatthe60%oftheproceedsistobeallocatedspecificallyforincreaseinsalariesorwagesof
themembersofthefacultyandallotheremployeesoftheschoolconcerned.UnderSection5(2)ofRepublicAct
6728,theamounthadbeenincreasedto70%ofthetuitionfeeincreaseswhichwasspecificallyallocatedtothe
paymentofsalaries,wages,allowancesandotherbenefitsofteachingandnonteachingpersonneloftheschool[,]
exceptadministratorswhoareprincipalstockholdersoftheschoolandtocoverincreasesasprovidedforinthe
collectivebargainingagreementsexistingorinforceatthetimethelawbecameeffective[.]
xxxx
It is too plain to see, too, that under the "Memorandum of Agreement" between UST and the Union, x x x, the
P42,000,000.00economicpackagegrantedbytheUSTtotheUnionwasincompliancewiththemandatesofthe
lawandpertinentDepartmentofEducation,CultureandSportsregulation(sic)requiredtobeallottedfollowingthe
payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and nonteaching personnel of the
University[.]
xxxx
Whether or not UST implemented the mandate of Republic Act 6728 voluntarily or through the efforts and
prodding of the Union does not and cannot change or alter a whit the nature of the economic package or the
purpose or purposes of the allocation of the said amount. For, if we acquiesced to and sustained Petitioners
stance, we will thereby be leaving the compliance by the private educational institutions of the mandate of
RepublicAct6728atthewill,mercy,whimsandcapricesoftheUnionandtheprivateeducationalinstitution.This
cannotandshouldnotcometopass.
With our foregoing findings and disquisitions, We thus agree with the [BLR] that the aforesaid amount of
P42,000,000.00shouldnotanswerforanyattorneysfeesclaimedbythePetitioners.xxx.
xxxx
Moreover,[Section5ofRuleXof]theCBLoftheUnionprovidesthat:
Section5.Specialassessmentsorotherextraordinaryfeessuchasforpaymentofattorneysfeesshallbemade
onlyuponsucharesolutiondulyratifiedbythegeneralmembershipbysecretballoting.xxx.
Also,Article241(n)37oftheLaborCode,asamended,providesthatnospecialassessmentshallbeleviedupon
themembersoftheunionunlessauthorizedbyawrittenresolutionofamajorityofallthemembersatageneral
membershipmeetingdulycalledforthepurpose[.]
xxxx

In "ABSCBN SupervisorsEmployees Union Members versus ABSCBN Broadcasting Corporation, 304 SCRA
489", our Supreme Court declared that Article 241(n) of the Labor Code, as amended, speaks of three (3)
requisites,towit:(1)authorizationbyawrittenresolutionofthemajorityofallmembersatthegeneralmembership
meeting called for the purpose (2) secretarys record of the minutes of the meeting and (3) individual written
authorizationforcheckoffdulysignedbytheemployeeconcerned.
ContrarytotheprovisionsofArticles222(b)and241(n)oftheLaborCode,asamended,andSection5,RuleXof
[the]CBLoftheUnion,noresolutionratifiedbythegeneralmembershipof[the]USTFUthroughsecretballoting
whichembodiedtheawardofattorneysfeeswassubmitted.Instead,thePetitionerssubmittedcopiesoftheform
fortheratificationoftheMOAandthecheckoffforattorneysfees.
xxxx
The aforementioned "ratification with checkoff" form embodied the: (a) ratification of the MOA (b) checkoff of
union dues and (c) checkoff of a special assessment, i.e., attorneys fees and labor education fund. x x x.
Patently,theCBLwasnotcompliedwith.
Worse,thecheckoffforunionduesandattorneysfeeswereincludedintheratificationoftheMOA.Themembers
were thus placed in a situation where, upon ratification of the MOA, not only the checkoff of union dues and
specialassessmentforlaboreducationfundbutalsothepaymentofattorneysfeeswere(sic)authorized.38
In like manner, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction,onthepartoftheBLRinorderingtheconductofelectionsunderthecontrolandsupervisionofthe
DOLENCR.Saidtheappellatecourt:
We agree with the Petitioners that the elections of officers of the Union, before the Decision of the [BLR], had
beenunfetteredbyanyinterventionoftheDOLE.However,WeagreewiththeDecisionofthe[BLR]fortwo(2)
specificreasons,namely:(a)thepartiesaregivenanopportunitytofirstagreeonadifferentproceduretoensure
theintegrityandfairnessoftheelectoralexercise,beforetheDOLE,maysupervisetheelection[.]
xxxx
UnderArticleIXoftheCBL,theBoardofOfficersoftheUnionshallcreateaCommitteeonElections,Comelecfor
brevity,composedofachairmanandtwo(2)membersappointedbytheBoardofOfficers[.]
xxxx
It,however,appearsthatthetermofofficeofthePetitionershadalreadyexpiredinSeptemberof1996.Infact,an
election of officers was scheduled on October 6, 1996. However, on October 4, 1996, [respondents] and the
members of the faculty of UST, both union member and nonunion member, elected [respondents] as the new
officers of the USTFU. The same was, however, (sic) nullified by the Supreme Court, on November 16, 1999.
However, as the term of office of the [respondents] had expired, on October 4, 1999, there is nothing to nullify
anymore.Byvirtueofanelection,heldonJanuary14,2000,the[respondents]wereelectedasthenewofficersof
theUnion,whichelectionwasnotcontestedbythePetitionersoranyothergroupintheunion.
xxxx
Wearethusfacedwithasituationwhereonesetofofficersclaimtobethelegitimateandincumbentofficersofthe
Union, pursuant to the CBL of the Union, and another set of officers who claim to have been elected by the
membersofthefacultyoftheUnionthruanelectionallegedtohavebeensupervisedbytheDOLEwhichsituation
partakesofandisakintothenatureofanintrauniondispute[.]xxx.
Undeniably, the CBL gives the Board of Officers the right to create and appoint members of the Comelec.
However,theCBLhasnoapplicationtoasituationwheretherearetwo(2)setsofofficers,onesetclaimingtobe
thelegitimateincumbentofficersholdingovertotheirpositionswhohavenotexercisedtheirpowersandfunctions
thereforandanotherclaimingtohavebeenelectedinanelectionsupervisedbytheDOLEand,atthesametime,
exercisingthepowersandfunctionsappendedtotheirpositions.Insuchacase,theBLR,whichhasjurisdiction
overtheintrauniondispute,canvalidlyordertheimmediateconductofelectionofofficers,otherwise,internecine
disputesandblamethrowingwillderailanorderlyandfairelection.Indeed,Section1(b),[RuleXV],BookVofthe
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, as amended, by Department Order No. 09, Series of
1997,39providesthat,intheabsenceofanyagreementamongthemembersoranyprovisionintheconstitution
and bylaws of the labor organization, in an election ordered by the Regional Director, the chairman of the
committeeshallbearepresentativeoftheLaborRelationsDivisionoftheRegionalOffice[.]40
Ultimately,theCourtofAppealsdecreed:
INTHELIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thePetitionisdeniedduecourseandisherebyDISMISSED.41
Petitionersmovedforreconsideration42oftheDecisiondated16March2001oftheCourtofAppeals,butitwas
deniedbythesaidcourtinitsResolution43dated30August2001.
PetitionerselevatedthecasetothisCourtviatheinstantPetition,invokingthefollowingassignmentoferrors:

I.
WHETHERORNOTTHEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDSERIOUSERRORAND
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT UPHELD THE APPLICATION BY THE HONORABLE
DIRECTOROFTHEBUREAUOFLABORRELATIONSOFTHEPROVISIONSOFREPUBLICACTNO.
6728 TO THE P42 MILLION CBA PACKAGE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS OBTAINED BY THE UST
FACULTYUNIONFROMTHEUNIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMAS.
II.
WHETHERORNOTTHEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDSERIOUSERRORAND
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISALLOWED THE LUMPSUM CHECKOFF
AMOUNTING TO P4.2 MILLION BY RULING THAT THE P42 MILLION CBA ECONOMIC PACKAGE
OBTAINEDBYTHEUSTFACULTYUNIONWASMERELYANALLOCATIONOFTHESEVENTYPER
CENT (70%) OF THE TUITION INCREASES AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,CULTUREANDSPORTS.
III.
WHETHERORNOTTHEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDSERIOUSERRORAND
GRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONWHENITDISREGARDEDTHEPROVISIONSONELECTIONOF
UNION OFFICERS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF THE UST FACULTY UNION AND
INSTEADUPHELDTHEDIRECTIVEOFTHEHONORABLEDIRECTOROFTHEBUREAUOFLABOR
RELATIONS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION OF UNION OFFICERS UNDER THE CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION OF THE
DEPARTMENTOFLABORANDEMPLOYMENT.
Essentially, in order to arrive at a final disposition of the instant case, this Court is tasked to determine the
following:(1)thenatureoftheP42millioneconomicbenefitspackagegrantedbyUSTtoUSTFU(2)thelegalityof
the 10% checkoff collected by the Mario Group from the P42 million economic benefits package and (3) the
validityoftheBLRorderforUSTFUtoconductelectionofunionofficersunderthecontrolandsupervisionofthe
DOLENCRRegionalDirector.
II
RULING
(1)TheP42millioneconomicbenefitspackage
Petitioners argue that the P42 million economic benefits package granted to the covered faculty members were
additionalbenefits,whichresultedfromalongandarduousprocessofnegotiationsbetweentheMarioGroup