SOUTH COTABATO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (SCIPSI), AND/OR GABRIEL MUNASQUE AS GENERAL MANAGER, PETITIONERS, vs. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE ROMEO MONTEFALCO, JR., AND MARIA CONSUELO S. BACAY IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OIC OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, MED ARBITER JASMINE M. DEMETILLO AND MAKAR PORT LABOR ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MARIO C. MARIGON, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 235569, promulgated December 13, 2023.

 Could the deliberate withholding of union dues—collected through a check-off provision—from rank-and-file employees by South Cotabato Integrated Port Services, Inc. amount to an unfair labor practice that deprives the Mediator-Arbiter of jurisdiction and instead vests authority exclusively in the Labor Arbiter?

 

SOUTH COTABATO INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (SCIPSI), AND/OR GABRIEL MUNASQUE AS GENERAL MANAGER, PETITIONERS, vs. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE ROMEO MONTEFALCO, JR., AND MARIA CONSUELO S. BACAY IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OIC OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, MED ARBITER JASMINE M. DEMETILLO AND MAKAR PORT LABOR ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MARIO C. MARIGON, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 235569, promulgated December 13, 2023.

 

Facts of the Case

1. Petition for Unfair Labor Practice
   On August 16, 2010, Makar Port Labor Organization (MPLO), acting through its dismissed president Mario Marigon, filed a petition before DOLE Region XII alleging that SCIPSI had collected monthly union dues from August 2006 to February 2007 via salary check-off but wrongfully withheld remittance despite demands and a DOLE Regional Director’s clarification. MPLO sought an order compelling SCIPSI to turn over the withheld amounts.
2. SCIPSI’s Defenses
   SCIPSI countered that: (a) Marigon, dismissed December 5, 2007, lacked capacity to represent MPLO; (b) more than one year had lapsed, rendering the ULP charge prescribed; and (c) it was unclear who within MPLO was authorized to receive the funds.
3. Medi­ator-Arbiter Proceedings
   On December 13, 2010, Med-Arbiter Demetillo held that the existing CBA remained effective until February 11, 2007, and ordered MPLO to designate its representative, and SCIPSI to remit dues collected to that designee. The Med-Arbiter found Marigon lacked standing—since MPLO’s by-laws precluded non-employees—but nonetheless directed execution.
4. Attempted Intervention and BLR Review
   Saranggani Marine and General Workers Union-TUPAS sought to intervene, claiming exclusive representation status; the Med-Arbiter denied intervention for lack of interest and finality. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) in January 2012 modified the Order to require MPLO to submit membership lists, ratify a representative, and then remittance by SCIPSI to MPLO “from August 2006 to present.” The BLR deemed the dispute an intra-union matter over which the Med-Arbiter had jurisdiction.
5. Court of Appeals Decision
   SCIPSI petitioned the CA for certiorari. In January 2017, the CA affirmed the BLR, characterizing the controversy as intra-union—i.e., determining which faction within MPLO should receive dues—and thus within Med-Arbiter competence. The CA likewise held Marigon’s authority issue moot, as MPLO had actively participated.
6. Supreme Court Review
   SCIPSI elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve: (1) whether the Med-Arbiter had jurisdiction over what was pleaded as a ULP, not an intra-union dispute; and (2) whether Marigon had authority to sue on MPLO’s behalf after dismissal.

 

Primary Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether the nature of the non-remittance of union dues constituted an unfair labor practice—thus vesting jurisdiction in the Labor Arbiter—and whether Mario Marigon, no longer an employee, had authority to file before DOLE.

 

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Jurisdiction: Allegations of non-remittance under a check-off provision are unfair labor practices (interference with the right to self-organization under Art. 259(a), Labor Code), vesting exclusive original jurisdiction in the Labor Arbiter (Art. 224), not in the Mediator-Arbiter.
2. Authority: Marigon, having been dismissed more than two years prior, was neither a member nor officer of MPLO per its by-laws and lacked standing; an unauthorized complaint is a nullity.

Accordingly, the CA decision and its affirmance of BLR orders were reversed, and the petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Dispositive Portion

“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The January 31, 2017 Decision and November 9, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 128607 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered DISMISSING the Petition docketed as Case No. RO12-SG-IN-001-16-08-10… for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED.”

If the withholding of union dues is an unfair labor practice, should all disputes over check-off compliance bypass intra-union mechanisms and proceed directly before the Labor Arbiter?

 

Key Doctrines and Their Explanations

1. Article 259(a), Labor Code: “To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.”
• Establishes that non-remittance under a check-off provision constitutes interference with self-organization.
2. Article 224, Labor Code: Labor Arbitrers’ exclusive original jurisdiction over ULP cases.
• Confirms that ULP claims cannot be heard by Med-Arbiters.
3. Check-off Provision Doctrine: Employer’s duty to deduct and remit union dues is vital for union funding and effectiveness.
• Failure to remit funds impairs collective bargaining capacity.
4. Membership and Officer Eligibility (Art. 250(c), Constitution & By-laws): Only bona fide employee-members may hold union office or represent the union.
• Bars dismissed employees from filing or representing.
5. Nullity of Jurisdictional Acts: Decisions without proper jurisdiction are void ab initio and may be disregarded.
• Emphasizes that orders issued by an improperly vested tribunal create no legal obligation.

Classification: Labor Law

 

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!