Airline Pilots Association v. CIR (Gaston did not want Gomez faction to take whom he represents.

" It cannot be overemphasized

over the corporate name and funds of ALPAP) likewise that a labor dispute can exist "regardless of
Facts: - CIR rendered a decision certifying ALPAP as the whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of employer and employee."
- ALPAP and PAL were locked in a labor dispute the abovementioned pilots with Gomez as
(case #1) with ALPAP members staging a strike president Moreover, nothing in the constitution and by-laws of
- CIR issued a return-to-work order several times - CIR held that the amendment to the by-laws ALPAP restricts membership therein to PAL pilots alone.
before the strikers halted was illegal because it was not adopted in Although there has never been an instance where a non-
accordance with the procedure prescribed and
- Two pilots, one of them being Felix Gaston, because non-employees cannot be included as
PAL pilot became a member of ALPAP, the complete lack
refused to take the flights assigned to him ALPAP members of any such precondition for ALPAP membership cannot
which prompted PAL to terminate his services but be interpreted as an unmistakable authority for the
- A majority of ALPAP members adopted a Issue(s): association to accept pilots into its fold though they may
resolution amending its constitution and by- not be under PAL's employ.
laws allowing any active member who shall be w/n non-employees can represent and be a member of a
forced to retire or forced to resign or otherwise Therefore, CIR’s certification of the Gomez faction was
union of employees of a certain employer
terminated for union activities to have the
made with GAD.
option to either continue to be and remain as
an active member in good standing or to resign who between Gomez and Gaston is the true president of
in writing ALPAP As between Gomez and Gaston, the court held that
Gomez’s election cannot be valid and binding. He was
- PAL filed an urgent ex parte to enjoin ALPAP
members from proceeding with their en masse Held: elected at a meeting of only 45 ALPAP members called just
resignation/retirement one day after the election of Gaston as President of ALPAP
Yes. Procedurally, 221 out of 270 members voted in favor who received a majority of 180 votes out of a total
- Despite a no-work-stoppage order from CIR, a
substantial majority (180) of ALPAP members of the member during a general membership meeting, all membership of 270.
filed letters or retirement/resignation with PAL in compliance with ALPAP by-laws. Substantively, the
- PAL withheld from them any benefit or restrictive interpretation made by CIR is erroneous. CATCH: While SC considers the CIR ruling, on the matter of
privileged them may have been entitled by who has the exclusive rights to the office, funds and name
reason of employment because of their Sec. 2(e) of RA 875 defines a “labor organization” as any of ALPAP, as having been erroneously made, it did not
defiance of the CIR order union “any union or association of employees which hold, however, that those belonging to the group of
- Those who left PAL elected Gaston as exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of collective Gomez do not possess any right at all over the office, funds
president; those who remained with PAL (45 in bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and name of ALPAP of which they are also members.
all) elected Ben Hur Gomez and conditions of employment." The absence of the
- The Gomez faction filed a certification petition condition which the CIR would attach to the statutory It is perfectly within the powers and prerogatives of a
(case #2) with the CIR praying that it be concept of a labor organization, as being limited to the labor organization, through its duly elected officers, to
declared as the sole and exclusive collective employees of a particular employer is quite evident from authorize a segment of that organization to bargain
bargaining representative of all pilots then
the law. The emphasis of the Industrial Peace Act is clearly collectively with a particular employer, particularly where
employed by PAL and were then on active flight
and/or operational assignments on the purposes for which a union or association of those constituting the segment share a common and
employees is established rather than that membership distinguishable interest, apart from the rest of their fellow
- This was opposed by the Gaston group on the
ground that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the therein should be limited only to the employees of a union members, on matters that directly affect the terms
subject matter because a certification particular employer. Even under Section 2(h) and conditions of their particular employment. As the
proceeding in the CIR is not the proper forum "representative" is defined as including "a legitimate labor circumstances pertinent to the case at bar presently stand,
for the adjudication as to who is the lawful organization or any officer or agent of such organization, ALPAP (Gaston) has extended recognition to ALPAP
president of a legitimate labor organization whether or not employed by the employer or employee (Gomez) to enter and conclude collective bargaining
 contracts with PAL. Having given ALPAP (Gomez) this 3. Subsequently, another group headed by Dominica Nacua, sustains the view that said officers were lawfully elected,
authority, it would be clearly unreasonable on the part of claiming as the duly elected set of officers of the union, in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the
ALPAP (Gaston) to disallow the former a certain use of the filed a complaint, for and in behalf of the union, against contrary.
CSAI to restrain them from acting on behalf of the union
office, funds and name of ALPAP when such use is
and directing Aboitiz to remit the checked-off union dues. DISPOSITIVE: SAPI won. Petition denied
necessary or would be required to enable ALPAP (Gomez)
to exercise, in a proper manner, its delegated authority to 4. CSAI filed its answer alleging that the union and the former DOCTRINE: Art. 242-A (b) of the Labor Code
bargain collectively with PAL. Clearly, an intelligently are one and the same and that Nacuahas already been Art.242-A. Reportorial Requirement – the following are
considered adjustment of grievances and integration of expelled as member/officer of the union through two documents to besubmitted to the Bureau by the legitimate
the diverse and varying interests that not infrequently and, resolutions its Board of Directors. labor organization concerned:
often, unavoidably permeate the membership of a labor xxx xxx xxx
5. The Med-Arbiter issued an order holding that the set of (b) Its list of officers, minutes of the election of officers
organization, will go a long way, in achieving peace and
officers of SAPI headed by Nacua, was the lawful set of and list of voters within 30 days from election.
harmony within the ranks of ALPAP. Of course, in the officers entitled to the release and custody of the union xxx xxx xxx
eventuality that the pilots presently employed by PAL and dues as well as agency fees of the said association.
who subscribe to the leadership of Ben Hur Gomez should Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not
consider it to their better interest to have their own 6. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall
separate office, name and union funds, nothing can decision of the Med-Arbiter and after the Secretary of subject the erring officers or membersto suspension,
prevent them from setting up a separate labor union. In Labor denied CSAI’s appeal/motion for reconsideration for expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.
lack of merit, filed a petition with the Supreme Court.
that eventuality, whatever vested rights, interest or
participation they may have in the assets, including cash ISSUE: Who is entitled to the collection and custody of the
funds, of ALPAP as a result of their membership therein union dues?
should properly be liquidated in favor of such withdrawing
members of the association. RULING: SAPI.

Cebu Seamen’s Association v. Ferrer-Calleja It is the set of officers headed by Dominica Nacua that is
the lawful set of officers of SAPI and is, therefore, entitled
to the release and custody of the union dues as well as the
FACTS:
as the agency fees. As stated in the findings of fact, CSAI, a
1. On October 23, 1950, a group of deck officers and marine
non-stock corporation was registered with the SEC. The
engineers on board vessels plying Cebu and other ports of
same group was registered with the BLR as SAPI. It is the
the Philippines organized themselves into an association
registration of the organization with the BLR and not with
and registered it as a non-stock corporation known as
the SEC which made it a legitimate labor organization with
Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc (CSAI) with the Securities
rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
and Exchange Commission (SEC). Later, the same group
registered its association with the Bureau of Labor
The Supreme Court also stated that BLR correctly ruled on
Relations as a labor union known as the Seamen’s
the basis of the evidence presented by the parties that
Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI).
SAPI, the legitimate labor union, registered with its office,
is not the same association as CSAI, the corporation,
2. SAPI had an existing collective bargaining agreement with
insofar as their rights under the Labor Code are
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation and had been remitting
concerned.
checked-off union dues to said union until a group of union
members headed by Manuel Gabayoyo, introducing
A record check with the BLR shows that SAPI has
themselves as the new set of officers elected under the
submitted to it for files the list of this new set of officers, in
supervision of the SEC, claimed that they are entitled to
compliance with second paragraph of Art 242 (c) of the
the remittance and custody of such union dues.
Labor Code [now Art. 242-A (b)]. This list sufficiently