2 - Nube v. Philnabank

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 703 7/30/20, 2:24 PM
G.R. No. 174287. August 12, 2013.*
NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES (NUBE),

petitioner, vs. PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (PEMA) and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on

Certiorari; It is elementary that a question of fact is not appropriate
for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.―Whether there was a valid disaffiliation is a factual issue.
It is elementary that a question of fact is not appropriate for a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
385
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 385
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) vs. Philnabank

Employees Association (PEMA)
parties may raise only questions of law because the Supreme Court
is not a trier of facts. As a general rule, We are not duty-bound to
analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered
by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence,
the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the
parties and are not reviewable by this Court, except: (1) When the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of
discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the CA,
in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001739e5a43cf3bf374df003600fb002c009e/p/ARQ307/?username=Guest Page 1 of 23
same is contrary to the admissions of both parties; (7) When the

findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitionerÊs main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the CA are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record. The Court finds no cogent reason to apply
these recognized exceptions.
Labor Law; Labor Unions; The right of the local union to
exercise the right to disaffiliate from its mother union is well settled
in this jurisdiction.―The right of the local union to exercise the
right to disaffiliate from its mother union is well settled in this
jurisdiction. In MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 (2000),
We held: A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother
union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate and
voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all its
members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its
autonomy from the federation which it belongs when circumstances
warrant, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of association. The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a
mother union [or] a federation „x x x is to increase by collective
action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions
of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free
to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the
restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the
Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual
welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought
it into existence.‰ Thus, a local
386
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever

such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered
disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the federationÊs
constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of
autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent
union.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jonathan P. Sale for petitioner.
Remegio D. Saladero, Jr. for respondent PEMA.
Marino M. Buban, Jr. for respondent PNB.
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are the May
22, 2006 Decision1 and August 17, 2006 Resolution2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 84606, which
reversed the May 27, 2004 Decision3 of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment acting as voluntary arbitrator, the
dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE in light of the findings, the Bank is hereby

ORDERED to release all union dues withheld and to
continue remitting to NUBE-PNB chapter the membersÊ
obligations under the CBA, LESS the amount corresponding
to the number of non-union members including those who
participated in the unsuccessful withdrawal of membership
from their mother union.
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III, with Associate Justices
Roberto A. Barrios and Santiago Javier Ranada, concurring; Rollo, pp. 59-68.
2 Rollo, p. 57.
3 Id., at pp. 70-78.
387
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 387

The parties are enjoined to faithfully comply with the

abovementioned resolution.
With respect to the URGENT MOTION FOR
INTERVENTION filed by PEMA, the same is hereby denied
without prejudice to the rights of its members to bring an
action to protect such rights if deemed necessary at the
opportune time.
SO ORDERED.4
We state the facts.

Respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) used to be
a government-owned and controlled banking institution

established under Public Act 2612, as amended by
Executive Order No. 80 dated December 3, 1986 (otherwise
known as The 1986 Revised Charter of the Philippine
National Bank). Its rank-and-file employees, being
government personnel, were represented for collective
negotiation by the Philnabank Employees Association
(PEMA), a public sector union.
In 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission
approved PNBÊs new Articles of Incorporation and By-laws
and its changed status as a private corporation. PEMA
affiliated with petitioner National Union of Bank
Employees (NUBE), which is a labor federation composed
of unions in the banking industry, adopting the name
NUBE-PNB Employees Chapter (NUBE-PEC).
Later, NUBE-PEC was certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the PNB rank-and-file
employees. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was
subsequently signed between NUBE-PEC and PNB
covering the period of January 1, 1997 to December 31,
2001.
Pursuant to Article V on Check-off and Agency Fees of
the CBA, PNB shall deduct the monthly membership fee
and other assessments imposed by the union from the
salary of each union member, and agency fee (equivalent to
the
_______________
4 Id., at p. 78. (Emphasis in the original).
388

National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) vs.
Philnabank Employees Association (PEMA)
monthly membership dues) from the salary of the rank-

and-file employees within the bargaining unit who are not
union members. Moreover, during the effectivity of the
CBA, NUBE, being the Federation union, agreed that PNB
shall remit P15.00 of the P65.00 union dues per month
collected by PNB from every employee, and that PNB shall
directly credit the amount to NUBEÊs current account with
PNB.5
Following the expiration of the CBA, the Philnabank
Employees Association-FFW (PEMA-FFW) filed on
January 2, 2002 a petition for certification election among
the rank-and-file employees of PNB. The petition sought
the conduct of a certification election to be participated in
by PEMA-FFW and NUBE-PEC.
While the petition for certification election was still
pending, two significant events transpired · the
independent union registration of NUBE-PEC and its
disaffiliation with NUBE.
With a legal personality derived only from a charter
issued by NUBE, NUBE-PEC, under the leadership of
Mariano Soria, decided to apply for a separate registration
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On March 25, 2002, it was registered as an independent
labor organization under Registration Certificate No. NCR-
UR-3-3790-2002.
Thereafter, on June 20, 2003, the Board of Directors of
NUBE-PEC adopted a Resolution6 disaffiliating itself from
NUBE. Cited as reasons were as follows:
xxxx
WHEREAS, in the long period of time that the Union has
been affiliated with NUBE, the latter has miserably failed to
extend and provide satisfactory services and support to the
former in the form of legal services, training assistance,
educational seminars, and the like;
_______________
5 CA Rollo, pp. 45-46.
6 Id., at pp. 29-31.
389
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 389

WHEREAS, this failure by NUBE to provide adequate

essential services and support to union members have caused
the latter to be resentful to NUBE and to demand for the
UnionÊs disaffiliation from the former[;]
WHEREAS, just recently, NUBE displayed its lack of
regard for the interests and aspirations of the union members
by blocking the latterÊs desire for the early commencement of
CBA negotiations with the PNB management[;]

WHEREAS, this strained relationship between NUBE
and the Union is no longer conducive to a fruitful partnership
between them and could even threaten industrial peace
between the Union and the management of PNB.
WHEREAS, under the circumstances, the current officers
of the Union have no choice but to listen to the clamor of the
overwhelming majority of union members for the Union to
disaffiliate from NUBE.7
The duly notarized Resolution was signed by Edgardo B.

Serrana (President), Rico B. Roma (Vice-President), Rachel
C. Latorre (Secretary), Valeriana S. Garcia (Director/Acting
Treasurer), Ruben C. Medrano (Director), and Verlo C.
Magtibay (Director). It is claimed that said Resolution was
overwhelmingly ratified by about eighty-one percent (81%)
of the total union membership.
On June 25, 2003, NUBE-PEC filed a Manifestation and
Motion8 before the Med-Arbitration Unit of DOLE, praying
that, in view of its independent registration as a labor
union and disaffiliation from NUBE, its name as appearing
in the official ballots of the certification election be changed
to „Philnabank Employees Association (PEMA)‰ or, in the
alternative, both parties be allowed to use the name
„PEMA‰ but with PEMA-FFW and NUBE-PEC be
denominated as
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 29-30.
8 Id., at pp. 32-37.
390

„PEMA-Bustria Group‰ and „PEMA-Serrana Group,‰

respectively.
On the same date, PEMA sent a letter to the PNB
management informing its disaffiliation from NUBE and
requesting to stop, effective immediately, the check-off of
the P15.00 due for NUBE.9
Acting thereon, on July 4, 2003, PNB informed NUBE of
PEMAÊs letter and its decision to continue the deduction of
the P15.00 fees, but stop its remittance to NUBE effective

July 2003. PNB also notified NUBE that the amounts
collected would be held in a trust account pending the
resolution of the issue on PEMAÊs disaffiliation.10
On July 11, 2003, NUBE replied that: it remains as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the PNB rank-and-
file employees; by signing the Resolution (on disaffiliation),
the chapter officers have abandoned NUBE-PEC and joined
another union; in abandoning NUBE-PEC, the chapter
officers have abdicated their respective positions and
resigned as such; in joining another union, the chapter
officers committed an act of disloyalty to NUBE-PEC and
the general membership; the circumstances clearly show
that there is an emergency in NUBE-PEC necessitating its
placement under temporary trusteeship; and that PNB
should cease and desist from dealing with Serrana, Roma,
Latorre, Garcia, Medrano, and Magtibay, who are expelled
from NUBE-PEC.11 With regard to the issue of non-
remittance of the union dues, NUBE enjoined PNB to
comply with the union check-off provision of the CBA;
otherwise, it would elevate the matter to the grievance
machinery in accordance with the CBA.
Despite NUBEÊs response, PNB stood firm on its
decision. Alleging unfair labor practice (ULP) for non-
implementation of the grievance machinery and procedure,
NUBE brought the
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 63-65.
10 Id., at pp. 66-68; p. 81.
11 Id., at pp. 69-72; pp. 82-83.
391
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 391

matter to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board

(NCMB) for preventive mediation.12 In time, PNB and
NUBE agreed to refer the case to the Office of the DOLE
Secretary for voluntary arbitration. They executed a
Submission Agreement on October 28, 2003.13
Meantime, the DOLE denied PEMAÊs motion to change
its name in the official ballots. The certification election

was finally held on October 17, 2003. The election yielded
the following results:
Number of eligible voters 3,742

Number of valid votes cast 2,993
Number of spoiled ballots 72
Total 3,065
Philnabank Employees Association-FFW 289
National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE)-Philippine 2,683
National Bank (PNB) Chapter
No Union 21
Total 2,99314
On April 28, 2004, PEMA filed before the voluntary

arbitrator an Urgent Motion for Intervention,15 alleging
that it stands to be substantially affected by whatever
judgment that may be issued, because one of the issues for
resolution is the validity of its disaffiliation from NUBE. It
further claimed that its presence is necessary so that a
complete relief may be accorded to the parties. Only NUBE
opposed the motion, arguing that PEMA has no legal
personality to intervene, as it is not a party to the existing
CBA; and that NUBE is the exclusive bargaining
representative of the PNB rank-and-file employees and, in
dealing with a union other than NUBE,
_______________
12 Id., at p. 48.
13 Id., at p. 48; p. 76.
14 Id., at pp. 38-41.
15 Id., at pp. 42-44.
392

PNB is violating the duty to bargain collectively, which is

another form of ULP.16
Barely a month after, DOLE Acting Secretary Manuel G.
Imson denied PEMAÊs motion for intervention and ordered
PNB to release all union dues withheld and to continue
remitting the same to NUBE. The May 27, 2004 Decision
opined:
Before we delve into the merits of the present dispute, it

behooves [Us] to discuss in passing the propriety of the
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION filed by the Philnabank
Employees Association (PEMA) on April 28, 2004, the alleged
[break-away] group of NUBE-PNB Chapter.
A cursory reading of the motion reveals a denial thereof is
not prejudicial to the individual rights of its members. They
are protected by law.
Coming now to the main issues of the case, suffice it to say
that after an evaluative review of the record of the case,
taking into consideration the arguments and evidence
adduced by both parties, We find that indeed no effective
disaffiliation took place.
It is well settled that [l]abor unions may disaffiliate from
their mother federations to form a local or independent union
only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding
the expiration of the CBA. [Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al.] However, such
disaffiliation must be effected by a majority of the members
in the bargaining unit. (Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of
Labor Relations).
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to the case at bar, it
is difficult to believe that a justified disaffiliation took place.
While the record apparently shows that attempts at
disaffiliation occurred sometime in June of 2003 x x x the
latest result of a certification election dated 17 October 2003
mooted such disaffiliation.
_______________
16 Id., at p. 48; pp. 96-97.
393
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 393

Further, even if for the sake of argument an attempt at

disaffiliation occurred, the record is bereft of substantial
evidence to support a finding of effective disaffiliation. There
might have been a mass withdrawal of the union members
from the NUBE-PNB Chapter. The record shows, however,
that only 289 out of 3,742 members shifted their allegiance
from the mother union. Hence, they constituted a small
minority for which reason they could not have successfully
severed the local unionÊs affiliation with NUBE.

Thus, since only a minority of the members wanted
disaffiliation as shown by the certification election, it can be
inferred that the majority of the members wanted the union
to remain an affiliate of the NUBE. [Villar, et al. v. Inciong, et
al.]. There being no justified disaffiliation that took place, the
bargaining agentÊs right under the provision of the CBA on
Check-Off is unaffected and still remained with the old
NUBE-PNB Chapter. x x x
While it is true that the obligation of an employee to pay
union dues is co-terminus with his affiliation [Philippine
Federation of Petroleum Workers v. CIR], it is equally tenable
that when it is shown, as in this case, that the withdrawal
from the mother union is not supported by majority of the
members, the disaffiliation is unjustified and the disaffiliated
minority group has no authority to represent the employees of
the bargaining unit. This is the import of the principle laid
down in [Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations
supra] and the inverse application of the Supreme Court
decision in [Philippine Federation of Petroleum Workers v.
CIR] regarding entitlement to the check-off provision of the
CBA.
As a necessary consequence to our finding that no valid
disaffiliation took place, the right of NUBE to represent its
local chapter at the PNB, less those employees who are no
longer members of the latter, is beyond reproach.
However, the Bank cannot be faulted for not releasing
union dues to NUBE at the time when representation status
issue was still being threshed out by proper gov-
394

ernmental authority. Prudence dictates the discontinuance of

remittance of union dues to NUBE under such circumstances
was a legitimate exercise of management discretion
apparently in order to protect the BankÊs business interest.
The suspension of the check-off provision of the CBA, at the
instance of the latter made in good faith, under the present
circumstances cannot give rise to a right of action. For having
been exercised without malice much less evil motive and for
not causing actual loss to the National Union of Bank
Employees (NUBE), the same act of management [cannot] be

penalized.17
Aggrieved, PEMA filed before the CA a petition under

Rule 43 of the Rules on Civil Procedure with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of
preliminary injunction (WPI). On November 2, 2004, the
CA denied the application for WPI.18 PEMAÊs motion for
reconsideration was also denied on February 24, 2005,
noting PNBÊs manifestation that it would submit to the
judgment of the CA as to which party it should remit the
funds collected from the employees.19
On June 21, 2005, however, petitioner again filed an
Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a TRO against the June
10, 2005 Resolution of DOLE Acting Secretary Imson,
which ordered PNB to properly issue a check directly
payable to the order of NUBE covering the withheld funds
from the trust account.20 Considering the different factual
milieu, the CA resolved to grant the motion.21
Subsequent to the partiesÊ submission of memoranda,
the CA promulgated its May 22, 2006 Decision, declaring
the validity of PEMAÊs disaffiliation from NUBE and
directing PNB to return to the employees concerned the
amounts de-
_______________
17 Rollo, pp. 75-77.
18 CA Rollo, p. 553.
19 Id., at p. 574.
20 Id., at pp. 583-595.
21 Id., at pp. 597-598.
395
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 395

ducted and held in trust for NUBE starting July 2003 and
to stop further deductions in favor of NUBE.22
As to the impropriety of denying PEMAÊs motion for
intervention, the CA noted:
x x x Among the rights of the [PEMA] as an affiliate of a

federation is to disaffiliate from it. Any case in which this is
an issue is then one in which the union has a significant legal

interest and as to which it must be heard, irrespective of any
residual rights of the members after a decision that might
deny a disaffiliation. It is a non-sequitur to make the
intervention of the union in this case dependent on the
question of whether its members can pursue their own
agenda under the same constraints.23
On the validity of PEMAÊs disaffiliation, the CA

ratiocinated:
The power and freedom of a local union to disaffiliate from

its mother union or federation is axiomatic. As Volkschel vs.
Bureau of Labor Relations [137 SCRA 42] recognizes, a local
union is, after all, a separate and voluntary association that
under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression is
free to serve the interests of its members. Such right and
freedom invariably include the right to disaffiliate or declare
its autonomy from the federation or mother union to which it
belongs, subject to reasonable restrictions in the law or the
federationÊs constitution. [Malayang Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428]
Without any restrictive covenant between the parties,
[Volkschel Labor Union vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, supra,
at 48,] it is instructive to look into the state of the law on a
unionÊs right to disaffiliate. The voluntary arbitrator alludes
to a provision in PD 1391 allowing disaffiliation only within a
60-day period preceding the ex-
_______________
22 Rollo, p. 67.
23 Id., at p. 64.
396

piration of the CBA. In Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine

Labor Organization vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawang
Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills, etc. [258 SCRA
371], however, the rule was not held to be iron-clad. Volkschel
was cited to support a more flexible view that the right may
be allowed as the circumstances warrant. In Associated
Workers Union-PTGWO vs. National Labor Relations
Commission [188 SCRA 123], the right to disaffiliate was

upheld before the onset of the freedom period when it became
apparent that there was a shift of allegiance on the part of
the majority of the union members.
xxxx
As the records show, a majority, indeed a vast majority, of
the members of the local union ratified the action of the board
to disaffiliate. Our count of the members who approved the
board action is, 2,638. If we divide this by the number of
eligible voters as per the certification election which is 3,742,
the quotient is 70.5%, representing the proportion of the
members in favor of disaffiliation. The [PEMA] says that the
action was ratified by 81%. Either way, the groundswell of
support for the measure was overwhelming.
The respondent NUBE has developed the ingenious theory
that if the disaffiliation was approved by a majority of the
members, it was neutered by the subsequent certification
election in which NUBE-PNB Chapter was voted the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent. It is argued that the effects of
this change must be upheld as the latest expression of the
will of the employees in the bargaining unit. The truth of the
matter is that the names of PEMA and NUBE-PNB Chapter
are names of only one entity, the two sides of the same coin.
We have seen how NUBE-PNB Employees Chapter evolved
into PEMA and competed with Philnabank Employees
Association-FFW for supremacy in the certification election.
To realize that it was PEMA which entered into the contest,
we need only to remind ourselves that PEMA was the one
which filed a motion in the certification election case to have
its name PEMA put in the official ballot.
397
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 397

DOLE insisted, however, in putting the name NUBE-PNB

Chapter in the ballots unaware of the implications of this
seemingly innocuous act.24
NUBE filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was

denied;25 hence, this petition raising the following issues
for resolution:
I. The Secretary of Labor acted without error and without grave abuse
of discretion in not giving due course to the urgent motion for

intervention filed by PEMA.
II. The Secretary of Labor acted without grave abuse of discretion and
without serious error in ruling that PEMAÊs alleged disaffiliation
was invalid.
III. The Secretary of Labor did not commit serious error in ordering
the release of the disputed union fees/dues to NUBE-PNB Chapter.
IV. There is no substantial basis for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order.
V. Under the Rules of Court, the appeal/petition of PEMA should have
been dismissed.
VI. PEMA and NUBE are not one and the same, and the denial by the
Secretary of Labor of the motion for intervention was proper.
VII. NUBE-PNB Chapter, not PEMA, has been fighting for PNB rank-
and-file interests and rights since PNBÊs privatization, which is
further proof that NUBE-PNB Chapter and PEMA are not one and
the same.
VIII. The alleged disaffiliation was not valid as proper procedure was
not followed.
IX. NUBE is entitled to check-off.26
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 64-66.
25 Id., at pp. 57, 79-99.
398

Stripped of the non-essential, the issue ultimately boils

down on whether PEMA validly disaffiliated itself from
NUBE, the resolution of which, in turn, inevitably affects
the latterÊs right to collect the union dues held in trust by
PNB.
We deny the petition.
Whether there was a valid disaffiliation is a factual
issue.27 It is elementary that a question of fact is not
appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The parties may raise only
questions of law because the Supreme Court is not a trier
of facts. As a general rule, We are not duty-bound to
analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and
considered by the tribunals below. When supported by

substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are
conclusive and binding on the parties and are not
reviewable by this Court, except: (1) When the conclusion is
a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) When the CA, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to
the admissions of both parties; (7) When the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitionerÊs main and reply briefs
are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the
findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contra-
_______________
26 Id., at p. 291.
27 Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek
Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 656, 663.
399
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 399

dicted by the evidence on record.28 The Court finds no

cogent reason to apply these recognized exceptions.
Even a second look at the records reveals that the
arguments raised in the petition are bereft of merit.
The right of the local union to exercise the right to
disaffiliate from its mother union is well settled in this
jurisdiction. In MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos,29 We held:
A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother

union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate
and voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all
its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare
its autonomy from the federation which it belongs when
circumstances warrant, in accordance with the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of association.

The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother
union [or] a federation
„x x x is to increase by collective action the bargaining
power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the
locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve
their own and the common interest of all, subject to the
restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the
Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for
mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement
which brought it into existence.‰
Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a
federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such
disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence
of specific provisions in the federationÊs constitution
prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a
local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union.30
_______________
28 Medina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137582, August 29, 2012, 679
SCRA 191, 201.
29 383 Phil. 329; 326 SCRA 428 (2000).
30 MSMG-UWP v. Hon. Ramos, supra, at pp. 368-369; pp. 466-467.
400

Likewise, Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. National Labor

Relations Commission31 restated:
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother

federation is not a novel thesis unillumined by case law. In
the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs.
Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., we upheld the right of local unions
to separate from their mother federation on the ground that
as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not
owe their creation and existence to the national federation to
which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their
members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by
collective action, the common bargaining power of local
unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their
interests. Admittedly, there are times when without succor
and support local unions may find it hard, unaided by other

support groups, to secure justice for themselves.
Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association,
free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints
imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national
federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the
terms laid down in the agreement which brought such
affiliation into existence.
Such dictum has been punctiliously followed since then.32
And again, in Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. v.

Department of Labor and Employment – Office of the
Secretary,33 this Court opined:
Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered

local union acquires legal personality through
_______________
31 G.R. No. 127374 and G.R. No. 127431, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 369.
32 Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
supra, at pp. 375-376.
33 537 Phil. 459; 507 SCRA 300 (2006).
401
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 401

the charter certificate issued by a duly registered federation

or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in
accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A
local union does not owe its existence to the federation with
which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary
association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere
affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union. It only gives
rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in
representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are
considered principals while the federation is deemed to be
merely their agent. As such principals, the unions are
entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate
labor organization, including the right to seek certification as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate
employer unit.34
Finally, the recent case of Cirtek Employees Labor

Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics,
Inc.35 ruled:
x x x [A] local union may disaffiliate at any time from

its mother federation, absent any showing that the
same is prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such,
however, does not result in it losing its legal
personality altogether. Verily, Anglo-KMU v. Samahan Ng
Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa Sa Manila Bay Spinning
Mills At J.P. Coats enlightens:
A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit
primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality
of bargaining power between the employer and their
employee-members. A local union does not owe its
existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. It is a separate and distinct
_______________
34 Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. v. Department of Labor and
Employment – Office of the Secretary, supra, at pp. 470-471; pp. 311-312.
(Citations omitted)
35 Supra note 27.
402

voluntary association owing its creation to the will of

its members. The mere act of affiliation does not
divest the local union of its own personality,
neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union. It
only gives rise to a contract of agency where the
former acts in representation of the latter.36
These and many more have consistently reiterated the

earlier view that the right of the local members to
withdraw from the federation and to form a new local
union depends upon the provisions of the unionÊs
constitution, by-laws and charter and, in the absence of
enforceable provisions in the federationÊs constitution
preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever
its relationship with its parent.37 In the case at bar, there is
nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by NUBE

that PEMA was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the
federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a
valid breakaway. This being so, PEMA is not precluded to
disaffiliate from NUBE after acquiring the status of an
independent labor organization duly registered before the
DOLE.
Also, there is no merit on NUBEÊs contention that
PEMAÊs disaffiliation is invalid for non-observance of the
procedure that union members should make such
determination through secret ballot and after due
deliberation, conformably with Article 241 (d) of the Labor
Code, as amended.38 Con-
_______________
36 Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek
Electronics, Inc., supra, at pp. 665-666. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
37 PeopleÊs Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Org.
(FFW) v. PeopleÊs Industrial and Commercial Corp., 198 Phil. 166, 178;
112 SCRA 440, 451 (1982).
38 Art. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization.·The following are the rights and conditions of
membership in a labor organization:
403
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 403

spicuously, other than citing the opinion of a „recognized

labor law authority,‰ NUBE failed to quote a specific
provision of the law or rule mandating that a local unionÊs
disaffiliation from a federation must comply with Article
241 (d) in order to be valid and effective.
Granting, for argumentÊs sake, that Article 241 (d) is
applicable, still, We uphold PEMAÊs disaffiliation from
NUBE. First, noncompliance with the procedure on
disaffiliation, being premised on purely technical grounds
cannot rise above the employeesÊ fundamental right to self-
organization and to form and join labor organizations of
their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining.39 Second, the Article nonetheless provides that
when the nature of the organization renders such secret

ballot impractical, the union officers may make the decision
in behalf of the general membership. In this case, NUBE
did not even dare to contest PEMAÊs representation that
„PNB employees, from where [PEMA] [derives] its
membership, are scattered from Aparri to Jolo, manning
more than 300 branches in various towns and cities of the
country,‰ hence, „[to] gather the general membership of the
union in a general membership to vote through secret
ballot-
_______________
xxxx
d. The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due
deliberation, any question of major policy affecting the entire
membership of the organization, unless the nature of the
organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot
impractical, in which case, the board of directors of the
organization may make the decision in behalf of the general
membership;
xxxx
39 See Tropical Hut EmployeesÊ Union-CGW v. Tropical Hut Food
Market, Inc., 260 Phil. 182, 194; 181 SCRA 173, 185 (1990) and Alliance
of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Org. v. Samahan ng mga
Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills, 327 Phil.
1011, 1016; 258 SCRA 371, 375 (1996).
404

ing is virtually impossible.‰40 It is understandable,

therefore, why PEMAÊs board of directors merely opted to
submit for ratification of the majority their resolution to
disaffiliate from NUBE. Third, and most importantly,
NUBE did not dispute the existence of the persons or their
due execution of the document showing their unequivocal
support for the disaffiliation of PEMA from NUBE. Note
must be taken of the fact that the list of PEMA members
(identifying themselves as „PEMA-Serrana Group‰41) who
agreed with the board resolution was attached as Annex
„H‰ of PEMAÊs petition before the CA and covered pages
115 to 440 of the CA Rollo. While fully displaying the

employeesÊ printed name, identification number, branch,
position, and signature, the list was left unchallenged by
NUBE. No evidence was presented that the union
membersÊ ratification was obtained by mistake or through
fraud, force or intimidation. Surely, this is not a case where
one or two members of the local union decided to
disaffiliate from the mother federation, but one where more
than a majority of the local union members decided to
disaffiliate.
Consequently, by PEMAÊs valid disaffiliation from
NUBE, the vinculum that previously bound the two
entities was completely severed. As NUBE was divested of
any and all power to act in representation of PEMA, any
act performed by the former that affects the interests and
affairs of the latter, including the supposed expulsion of
Serrana et al., is rendered without force and effect.
Also, in effect, NUBE loses it right to collect all union
dues held in its trust by PNB. The moment that PEMA
separated from and left NUBE and exists as an
independent labor organization with a certificate of
registration, the former is no longer obliged to pay dues
and assessments to the latter; naturally, there would be no
longer any reason or occasion for
_______________
40 Rollo, pp. 272-273.
41 CA Rollo, p. 115.
405
VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 405

PNB to continue making deductions.42 As we said in

Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations:43
x x x In other words, ALUMETAL [NUBE in this case] is

entitled to receive the dues from respondent companies as
long as petitioner union is affiliated with it and respondent
companies are authorized by their employees (members of
petitioner union) to deduct union dues. Without said
affiliation, the employer has no link to the mother union. The
obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous
with his affiliation or membership. „The employeesÊ check-off

authorization, even if declared irrevocable, is good only as
long as they remain members of the union concerned.‰ A
contract between an employer and the parent organization as
bargaining agent for the employees is terminated by the
disaffiliation of the local of which the employees are
members. x x x 44
On the other hand, it was entirely reasonable for PNB to

enter into a CBA with PEMA as represented by Serrana et
al. Since PEMA had validly separated itself from NUBE,
there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it
from collectively bargaining with PNB.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant
Petition is DENIED. The May 22, 2006 Decision and
August 17, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 84606, which reversed the May 27, 2004
Decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza and Leonen,

JJ., concur.
_______________
42 See Philippine Federation of Petroleum Workers (PFPW), et al. v.
CIR, et al., 147 Phil. 674, 698; 37 SCRA 711, 733 (1971).
43 221 Phil. 423; 137 SCRA 42 (1985).
44 Volkschel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, supra, at pp.
48-49. (Citations omitted)
406

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.―An „Internal Union Dispute‰ or intra-union

conflict refers to a conflict within or inside a labor union.
(Miranda, Jr. vs. Asian Terminals, Inc. [ATI], 590 SCRA
588 [2009])
Labor authorities should, indeed, act with
circumspection in treating petitions for cancellation of
union registration, lest they be accused of interfering with

union activities; The cancellation of a certificate of
registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a
labor organization, for without such registration, it loses ·
as a rule · its rights under the Labor Code. (The Heritage
Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers in the Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter [NUWHRAIN-HHMSC], 639 SCRA
420 [2011])
――o0o――
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 - Nube v. Philnabank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Nube v. Philnabank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Nube v. Philnabank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 703 7/30/20, 2:24 PM

G.R. No. 174287. August 12, 2013.*

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES (NUBE),

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 385

National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) vs. Philnabank

same is contrary to the admissions of both parties; (7) When the

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) vs. Philnabank

union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE in light of the findings, the Bank is hereby

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 387

The parties are enjoined to faithfully comply with the

We state the facts.

a government-owned and controlled banking institution

4 Id., at p. 78. (Emphasis in the original).

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

monthly membership dues) from the salary of the rank-

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 389

WHEREAS, this failure by NUBE to provide adequate

CBA negotiations with the PNB management[;]

The duly notarized Resolution was signed by Edgardo B.

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

„PEMA-Bustria Group‰ and „PEMA-Serrana Group,‰

the P15.00 fees, but stop its remittance to NUBE effective

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 391

matter to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board

its name in the official ballots. The certification election

Number of eligible voters 3,742

On April 28, 2004, PEMA filed before the voluntary

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PNB is violating the duty to bargain collectively, which is

Before we delve into the merits of the present dispute, it

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 393

Further, even if for the sake of argument an attempt at

severed the local unionÊs affiliation with NUBE.

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ernmental authority. Prudence dictates the discontinuance of

Employees (NUBE), the same act of management [cannot] be

Aggrieved, PEMA filed before the CA a petition under

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 395

x x x Among the rights of the [PEMA] as an affiliate of a

an issue is then one in which the union has a significant legal

On the validity of PEMAÊs disaffiliation, the CA

The power and freedom of a local union to disaffiliate from

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

piration of the CBA. In Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine

Commission [188 SCRA 123], the right to disaffiliate was

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 397

DOLE insisted, however, in putting the name NUBE-PNB

NUBE filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was

of discretion in not giving due course to the urgent motion for

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Stripped of the non-essential, the issue ultimately boils

considered by the tribunals below. When supported by

VOL. 703, AUGUST 12, 2013 399

dicted by the evidence on record.28 The Court finds no