GR 106518; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999
ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS, petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., et al., respondents.
FACTS
The ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing a check-off provision. This provision authorized the company to advance to the union an amount equivalent to 10% of the total salary increases and signing bonuses granted under the CBA, to cover union expenses. This advance was to be deducted from the members’ benefits as they accrued. Subsequently, several union members filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), arguing that this special assessment was illegal for non-compliance with Article 241 of the Labor Code and the union’s constitution and by-laws. They sought to stop further deductions.
The Med-Arbiter declared the assessment illegal, ordered refunds, and directed the company to cease deductions. On appeal, DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma initially affirmed this decision. However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the union officers and the company, Undersecretary Laguesma reversed his own decision and dismissed the complaint. He found the check-off valid due to individual written authorizations executed by a majority of the union members. The aggrieved union members then filed this special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the reversal.
ISSUE
Did the public respondent act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order reversing his initial decision and validating the check-off provision?
RULING
No, the public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the check-off provision. The legal logic centers on compliance with Article 241(o) of the Labor Code, which permits special assessments only when supported by a written authorization from individual union members. The Court found that a majority of the union members had indeed executed individual written authorizations specifically for this 10% deduction. This satisfied the statutory requirement, rendering the check-off lawful.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural argument that the Undersecretary’s initial decision was “final and unappealable.” It clarified that while such a decision is not subject to ordinary appeal, it can still be reconsidered via a motion for reconsideration filed with the same office. This motion is a necessary step to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to a judicial petition for certiorari. Therefore, the Undersecretary acted within his jurisdiction in entertaining the motion and reversing his prior ruling based on the evidence of individual authorizations. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.