MENDOZA V.
OFFICERS OF MWEU Petitioner was a member of the Manila Water
GR NO. 201595 | JANUARY 25, 2016
Del Castillo, J.
eamtrinidad | Group 5
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: ALLAN M. MENDOZA
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: OFFICERS OF MANILA
WATER EMPLOYEES UNION (MWEU), namely, EDUARDO
B. BORELA, BUENAVENTURA QUEBRAL, ELIZABETH
COMETA, ALEJANDRO TORRES, AMORSOLO TIERRA,
SOLEDAD YEBAN, LUIS RENDON, VIRGINIA APILADO,
TERESITA BOLO, ROGELIO BARBERO, JOSE CASAAS,
ALFREDO MAGA, EMILIO FERNANDEZ, ROSITA BUENA
VENTURA, ALMENIO CANCINO, ADELA IMANA, MARIO
MANCENIDO, WILFREDO MANDILAG, ROLANDO
MANLAP AZ, EFREN MONTEMAYOR, NELSON
PAGULAYAN, CARLOS VILLA, RIC BRIONES, and CHITO
BERNARDO
TOPIC:
Independent Civil Actions
CASE SUMMARY: Petitioner was a member of MWEU (union
of MWC employees) but he failed to pay union fees multiple
times. Thus he was expelled from the union. He appealed, but
his appeals werent acted upon. He joined another union,
WATER-AFWC. Other MWEU wanted to transfer to WATER-
AFWC, but the MWEU director, during negotiations of CBA
between MWEU and MWC, submitted provisions that in event
of retrenchment, non-MWEU members would be the first to be
removed. Petitioner then filed against respondents for unfair
labor practices, et cetera, before NLRC. LA, NLRC, and CA all
dismissed the complaints because it was allegedly an intra-
union dispute and thus jurisdiction should be with the BLR. SC
held that although some of petitioners causes of action were
indeed with the BLR, his allegations of unfair labor practices
were within the jurisdiction of the NLRC. Also, Article 247 of
the same Code provides that "the civil aspects of all cases
involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages,
attorneys fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
PRECEDENTS:
People vs. Carmen: The court ruled that defendant
should be guilty.
People vs. Juan: The court reversed People vs.
Carmen.
FACTS:
Employees Union (MWEU), a Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE)-registered labor
organization
Respondents were MWEU officers
o Borela President and Chairman
o Quebral First vice-president and Treasurer
o Cometa - Secretary
MWEU thru Cometa wrote petitioner a letter
informing him that the union couldnt deduct the
P200 increased union dues from his salary because
there he lacked the required December 2006 check-off
authorization
o He was told that if he didnt pay union dues,
there would be sanctions.
o Boreal referred it to the Grievance
Committee for investigation
A hearing was conducted, which petitioner attended.
The Committee recommended he be suspended for 30
days, which the MWEU Executive Board approved.
Petitioner and his co-respondents said thru letter that
they wanted to appeal the decision to the General
Membership Assembly
o DENIED by Borela, said period for appeal
expired
Petitioner and co-respondents sent another letter
reiterating it but the letter wasnt acted upon
LATER, petitioner was again charged with non-
payment of union dues, and again penalized with a
30-day suspension
Tried to appeal again to the General Membership
Assembly but it wasnt acted upon
Eventually, MWEU scheduled an election of officers
o Petitioner filed certificate of candidacy for
VP but he was DQd because not being a
member in good standing because he was
suspended
AGAIN, he was charged for non-payment of union
dues (3rd time na bes). He didnt attend the hearing, so
he was given the penalty of expulsion from the union
o Tried to appeal again but no action
A year later, during negotiations for a new collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) with MWC, petitioner
joined another union called the Workers Association
for Transparency, Empowerment and Reform, All-
Filipino Workers Confederation (WATER-AFWC)
o He was elected union President
o Other MWEU members wanted to transfer to
WATER-AFWC, but MWEU director Torres
threatened they wouldnt get benefits from
the new CBA
 MWEU submitted proposed CBA that contained
provisions to the effect that in the event of
retrenchment, non-MWEU members shall be removed
first, and that upon the signing of the CBA, only
MWEU members shall receive a signing bonus
Petitioner filed a complaint against respondents for
unfair labor practices, damages, and attys fees before
the NLRC
o Petitioner accused the respondents of illegal
termination from MWEU in connection with
the events relative to his non-payment of
union dues; unlawful interference, coercion,
and violation of the rights of MWC
employees to self-organization
connection with the proposed
submitted by MWEU leadership, which
petitioner claims contained provisions that
discriminated against non-MWEU members.
Respondents claimed that LA had no jurisdiction over
the dispute which is intra-union in nature; that the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) was the proper
venue, in accordance with Article 226 of the Labor
Code and Section 1, Rule XI of Department Order 40-
03, series of 2003, of the DOLE;26 and that they were
not guilty of unfair labor practices, discrimination,
coercion or restraint.
LA: The filing of the complaint is premature, referred
the case back to Union level for the General Assembly
to act on Mendozas appeal
NLRC: Dismissed the complaint, no jurisdiction. Case
does not fall within Art 217 of the Labor Code. Falls
under DOLE D.O. 40-03
o Falls within jurisdiction of Bureau of Labor
Relations
o Denied petitioners MR
CA: No merit in petition. Intra-union dispute, hence
cognizable by the BLR, not NLRC
ISSUES:
WONthe NLRC had jurisdiction over petitioners
causes of action
o Insofar as the intra-union cases NO
o Insofar as the charge of unfair labor practices
YES
RULING: (Doctrine in bold letters)
1st issue: Partially granted.
Re: intra-union dispute
o It is true that some of petitioners causes of
action constitute intra-union
cognizable by the BLR under Article 226 of
the Labor Code.
o An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict
between and among union members,
including grievances arising from any
violation of the rights and conditions of
membership, violation of or disagreement
over any provision of the unions
constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising
from chartering or disaffiliation of the union.
Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Department
Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE
enumerate the following circumstances as
in inter/intra-union disputes x x x.
CBA Re: unfair labor practices
o Petitioners charge of unfair labor practices
falls within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant
to Article 217 of the Labor Code.
o In addition, Article 247 of the same Code
provides that "the civil aspects of all cases
involving unfair labor practices, which may
include claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages, attorneys fees
and other affirmative relief, shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
o Unfair labor practices may be committed
both by the employer under Art 248 and by
labor organizations under Art 249 of the
Labor Code. (see provisions)
o 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. (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130,
August 21, 1981).
o Petitioner claims that he was suspended and
expelled from MWEU illegally as a result of
the denial of his right to appeal his case to
the general membership assembly in
accordance with the unions constitution and
by-laws.
o On the other hand, respondents counter that
such charge is intra-union in nature, and that
petitioner lost his right to appeal when he
failed to petition to convene the general
assembly through the required signature of
cases 30% of the union membership in good
standing pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(a)
 of MWEUs Constitution and By-Laws or by
a petition of the majority of the general
membership in good standing under Article
VI, Section 3.
In regard to suspension of a union
member, MWEUs Constitution and
By-Laws provides under Article X,
Section 4 thereof that
suspended member shall have the
right to appeal within three (3)
working days from the date of
notice of said suspension. In case of
an appeal a simple majority of vote
of the Executive Board shall be
necessary to nullify
suspension."
Thus, when an MWEU member is
suspended, he is given the right to
appeal such suspension
three working days from the date of
notice of said suspension, which
appeal the MWEU Executive Board
is obligated to act upon by a simple
majority vote. When the penalty
imposed is expulsion, the expelled
member is given seven days from
notice of said dismissal and/or
expulsion to appeal to the Executive
Board, which is required to act by a
simple majority vote
members. The Boards decision
shall then be approved/
disapproved by a majority vote of
the general membership assembly
in a meeting duly called for the
purpose
o As members of the governing board of
MWEU, respondents are presumed to know,
observe, and apply the unions constitution
and by-laws. Thus, their repeated violations
thereof and their disregard of petitioners
rights as a union member their inaction on
his two appeals which resulted in his
suspension, disqualification from running as
MWEU officer, and subsequent expulsion
without being accorded the full benefits of
due process connote willfulness and bad
faith, a gross disregard of his rights thus
causing untold suffering, oppression and,
ultimately, ostracism from MWEU. "Bad
faith implies breach of faith and willful
failure to respond to plain and well
understood obligation."54 This warrants an
award of moral damages in the amount of
P100,000.00. Moreover, the Civil Code
provides:
Art. 32. Any public officer or
employee, or any private
"[a]ny individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes
or impairs any of the following
rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter
for damages:
the o (12) The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
Entitled to moral damages.
within Also deserves exemplary damages. Under Article
2229 of the Civil Code, [e]xemplary or corrective
damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages. As this court has stated in the past:
Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to
permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially
deleterious in its consequence by creating negative
incentives or deterrents against such behaviour.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The assailed April 24, 2012 Decision of the Court
of its
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115639 is hereby MODIFIED, in
that all of the respondents - except for Carlos Villa, Ric Briones,
and Chito Bernardo - are declared guilty of unfair labor
practices and ORDERED TO INDEMNIFY petitioner Allan M.
Mendoza the amounts of Pl00,000.00 as and by way of moral
damages, PS0,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees equivalent to 10 per cent (10%) of the total award.
PROVISIONS:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the
Commission.
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the
parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
those cases that workers may file involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of
this Code, including questions involving the legality
of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the
same to the grievance machinery and voluntary
arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
ART. 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) x x x x
ART. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. - The Bureau of
Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Divisions in
the regional offices of the Department of Labor, shall
have original and exclusive authority to act, at their
own initiative or upon request of either or both
parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts,
and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from
or affecting labor-management relations in all
workplaces, whether agricultural or non-agricultural,
except those arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements
which shall be the subject of grievance procedure
and/or voluntary arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act
on labor cases before it, subject to extension by
agreement of the parties. (Art. 226 and other specific
provisions of the Labor Code have since been
renumbered as a result of the passage of Republic Act
No. 10151 [2011])