Verceles vs BLR
G.R. No. 152322; February 15, 2005 FACTS: Private respondents Rodel E. Dalupan, et al are members of the University of the East Employees’ Association (UEEA). On 15 September 1997, they each received a Memorandum from the UEEA charging them with spreading false rumors and creating disinformation among the members of the said association. They were given seventytwo hours from receipt of the Memorandum to submit their Answer. Through a collective reply, they denied the allegations and further sent a letter informing the officers of UEEA informing them that the memorandum was vague and without legal basis. UEEA issued another memorandum giving the private respondents respondents another another seventyseventy-two two hours from receipt receipt within within which which to properly properly reply because because the collective reply letter was not responsive to the first memorandum. Their failure would be construed as an admission of the truthfulness and veracity of the charges. The same was still denied by the respondents. On 09 Oc Octob tober er 1997, 1997, Ernes Ernesto to Verce Verceles les,, in his capac capacity ity as presi presiden dentt of the the associat association, ion, through through a Memoran Memorandum dum,, informe informed d Rodel Rodel Dalupan Dalupan,, et al ., . , that that thei their r membership in the association has been suspended and shall take effect immediately upon receipt thereof. A result of which, a complaint for illegal suspension was filed by the private respondents before the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR). The Regional Director of the latter rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the BLR-DOLE, but the same and the motion for reconsideration reconsideration were denied. When appealed before the Court of Appeals, said petition was still denied due course for lack of merit. Hence, the petition is now elevated to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the assent of 30% of the members of the union is required to confer jurisdiction upon the BLR or LRD in intra-union conflicts. RULING: The Court ruled in the negative. The 30% support requirement needed to report violations of rights and conditions of union membership, as found in the last paragraph of Arti Articl cle e 241 241 of the the Labo Laborr Code, ode, is not not manda andato tory ry.. The The cour courtt reit reiter erat ated ed its its pronouncements made in the case of Rodriguez vs Dir., BLR, as follows: The assent of 30% of the union members is not a factor in the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations is furnished by Article 226 of the same Labor Code, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau, and the Labor Relations Division in the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, over "all interunion and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management relations," making no reference whatsoever to any such 30%-support 30%-support requirement. Indeed, the officials mentioned are given the power to act "on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts (1) " upon request of either or both parties" as well as (2) "at their own initiative." NOTE: Kindly relate this case to question # 1. The answer is NO. Please refer to the above ruling. Prepared by: Michelle S. Benitez LLB-4