Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio, JR

    Uploaded by

    KMCL
    LABREL

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio, JR

    Uploaded by

    KMCL
    13 views2 pages
    LABREL

    Original Title

    UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio, Jr..docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    LABREL

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views2 pages

    UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio, JR

    Uploaded by

    KMCL
    LABREL

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CASE: UST Faculty Union vs. Bitonio, Jr.

    G.R. No. 131235


    Nov 16, 1999

    FACTS:
    ● The petitioners of this case included various USTFU members such as Gil Y.
    Gamilla, Corazon Qui, Norma Calaguas, among others.
    ● Respondents included Dir. Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio Jr., Med-Arbiter Tomas F.
    Falconitin, and several other individuals.
    ● The case involves a dispute over the election of officers in the University of Santo
    Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU). The election took place during the UST General
    Faculty Assembly on October 4, 1996.
    ● The petitioners were elected as USTFU's new set of officers by acclamation and
    clapping of hands.
    ● The election came about upon a motion by Atty. Lopez, who was not a member of
    USTFU, to suspend the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws and hold the election that
    day. After the election, the petitioners and UST entered into a Collective Bargaining
    Agreement (CBA).
    ● The respondents filed a motion for a restraining order to prevent the petitioners from
    making further representations, hence, the med-arbiter issued a temporary
    restraining order, directing the respondents to cease and desist from performing any
    acts pertaining to the duties and functions of the USTFU officers.
    ● The Bureau of Labor Relations upheld the med-arbiter's ruling that the election was
    void for being conducted in violation of the union's Constitution and By-Laws.
    ● The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    WON the suspension of the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws during the General
    Faculty Assembly valid? (NO)

    RULING:
    NO, The Court held that the constitutional right to self-organization is better understood
    in the context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of
    Right to Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention
    provides that workers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitution
    and rules and to elect their representatives in full freedom, free from any interference
    from public authorities.

    However, it also held that the freedom conferred by the provision is expansive; the
    responsibility imposed on union members to respect the constitution and rules they
    themselves draw up equally so. The point to be stressed is that the union's CBL is the
    fundamental law that governs the relationship between and among the members of the
    union. It is where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions and authority of
    the officers as well as the members are defined.

    In both elections, there are procedures to be followed. Thus, the October 4, 1996
    election cannot properly be called a union election, because the procedure laid down in
    the USTFU's CBL for the election of officers was not followed. It could not have been a
    certification election either, because representation was not the issue, and the proper
    procedure for such election was not followed. The participation of non-union members
    in the election aggravated its irregularity.

    The ratification of the new CBA did not validate the void election, as union
    leadership should be decided only by union members in the proper forum and
    after observing proper procedures.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.


    TAKE NOTE:
    ● The Court emphasized that the right to self-organization and union membership is
    guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code, however, this right
    must be exercised in accordance with the union's constitution and bylaws.
    o The October 4, 1996 assembly was not a union meeting but a gathering
    called and participated in by management and non-union members.
    ARTICLE VIII-MEETINGS OF THE UNION (Constitution and By-Laws)
    Sec. 1. The Union shall hold regular general membership meetings at least
    once every three (3) months. Notices of the meeting shall be sent out by the
    Secretary-General at least ten (10) days prior to such meetings by posting in
    conspicuous places, preferably inside Company premises, said notices. The
    date, time and place for the meetings shall be determined by the Board of
    Officers.
    o The election was conducted without a commission on elections and without
    secret balloting, violating the USTFU's CBL and the Labor Code.
    ARTICLE IX - UNION ELECTION (Constitution and By-Laws)
    Sec. 1. There shall be a Committee on Election (COMELEC) to be created by
    the Board of Officers at least thirty (30) days before any regular or special
    election.
    ● Suspending the CBL during the assembly was an implied admission that the election
    could not be considered valid under the existing USTFU constitution.
    ● Grievances against union leaders should be addressed in the proper forum at the
    proper time and after observing proper procedures.

    You might also like