DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY and DR. CARMELITA I. QUEBENGCO VS DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSU-NAFTEU)

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY and DR. CARMELITA I. QUEBENGCO

VS

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSU-NAFTEU)
584 SCRA 592 (2009)

It is axiomatic in labor relations that a Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law.

In 2001, a splinter group of the De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSU-NAFTEU) led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the then incumbent officers of DLSU-NAFTEU had failed to call for a regular election since 1985. DOLE-NCR held that the holdover authority of DLSU-NAFTEU’s incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under the control and supervision of its Labor Relations Division and subject to pre-election conferences. Even with the conditions for the conduct of election imposed by the DOLE-NCR, DLSU-NAFTEU called for a regular election without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference. The incident prompted the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. The BLR granted the Aliazas group’s motion for intervention three days before the intended date of election.

The Aliazas group requested the University ―to escrow all union dues/agency fees and whatever money considerations deducted from salaries of concerned co-academic personnel until such time that an election of union officials has been scheduled and subsequent elections has been held.‖ DLSU and Quebengco’s move prompted DLSU-NAFTEU to file a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP complaint), claiming that they unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed DLSU-NAFTEU’s ULP complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the said Order of the NLRC with respect to the ―subsuming‖ of ULP’s complaint under the certified case, the ULP complaint having been, at the time the NLRC Third Division Order was issued, ―already disposed of‖ by the Arbiter and was in fact pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division.

ISSUE:
Whether or not DLSU and Quebengco is guilty of unfair labor practice

HELD:
On the other matter raised by DLSU and Quebengco – that their acts of withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with respondent’s incumbent set of officers pending the intra-union dispute did not constitute interference, the Court finds for DLSU-NAFTEU.

Pending the final resolution of the intra-union dispute, DLSU-NAFTEU’s officers remained duly authorized to conduct union affairs. It bears noting that at the time DLSU and Quebengco’s questioned moves were adopted, a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. It thus behooved DLSU to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law.

Respecting the issue of damages, DLSU-NAFTEU, in its Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, prayed for the award of exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.

Exemplary 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. While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, respondent must show proof of entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the Court may consider awarding exemplary damages. No such damages were prayed for, however, hence, the Court finds no basis to grant the prayer for exemplary damages.

Share this:

Leave a Reply