FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 76579-82. August 31, 1988.]

BENEDICTO RODRIGUEZ, etc., petitioner, vs. HON. DIRECTOR,

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, CARLOS GALVADORES and
LIVI MARQUEZ, respondents.

[G.R. No. 80504. August 31, 1988.]

REY C. SUMANGIL, VIRGILIO V. HERNANDEZ, et al. ,

petitioners, vs. MANOLITO PARAN, ROSALINDA DE GUZMAN,
FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., and HON. PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, respondents.

Conrado Leaño for petitioner in G.R No. 76579-82 and private

respondent in G.R. No. 80504.
King and Adorio Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. No. L-80504. .
Potenciano Flores for private respondent Marquez in G.R. No. 76579-
82.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR LAW; LABOR ORGANIZATION; ELECTION OF UNION

OFFICERS HELD INVALID; CASE AT BAR. — The provincial elections for union
officers were moved to a later date without prior notice to all voting
members and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor. The elections in
Metro Manila were conducted under no better circumstances, were held in
defiance of the temporary restraining order issued on July 23, 1986 despite
previous notice of said order to all parties concerned. Said elections must
therefor be rendered void. The claim that a heavy voter turn-out of 73%,
even if true cannot purge the elections of their grave defects. Besides, the
protected right of workers to self-organization would be diluted if the
election of the officers who will govern their affairs is not fairly and honestly
conducted.
2. ID.; ID.; FILING OF COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS;
ASSENT OF 30% OF UNION MEMBERSHIP, NOT MANDATORY. — Art 242 of
the Labor Code provides that a report of any violation of rights or conditions
in union membership may be made by at least 30% of all members
concerned. The provision uses the permissive "may" which negates the
notion that the 30% assent of all members is mandatory. Further, the 30%
assent of union members is not a factor in determining the jurisdiction by
the Bureau of Labor Relations.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES BY
THE LABOR RELATIONS DIRECTOR, PROPER. — The petition to nullify the
1986 union elections could not be deemed defective because it did not have
the assent of 30% of the union membership. The petition clearly involved an
intra-union conflict — one directly affecting the right of suffrage of more than
800 union members and the integrity of the union elections — over which, as
the law explicitly provides, jurisdiction could be assumed by the Labor
Relations Director or the Med-Arbiters "at their own initiative" or "upon
request of either or both parties." The Med-Arbiter and the Labor Relations
Director over the cases at bar was entirely proper. It was in fact their duty to
do so, given the facts presented to them.
4. ID.; ID.; RESOLUTION ALLOWING INCREASE IN UNION DUES,
ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. — Concerning the increase of union dues, the
respondent Director found that the resolution of the union's Legislative
Council to this effect does not bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3)
of the members of the Council, contrary to the requirement of the union
constitution and by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of
the resolution by a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite
called and conducted for that purpose, again in violation of the constitution
and by-laws. The resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be
struck down, as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. The collection of
union dues at the increased rates must be discontinued; and the dues thus
far improperly collected — refunded to the union members or held in trust
for disposition by them in accordance with their charter and rules, in line
with this Court's ruling in a parallel situation (San Miguel Corporation vs.
Noriel, 103 SCRA 185).

DECISION

NARVASA, J : p

The above entitled special civil actions of certiorari were separately

instituted but have been consolidated because they involve disputes among
employees of the Philippines Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), who
are members of the same union, the Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU).
The disputes concern the validity of the general elections for union officers in
1986, and the increase of union dues adopted and put into effect by the
incumbent officers subsequent to said elections. LibLex

G.R. Nos. 76579-82: Controversy Respecting Elections of Officers

Assailed by the petitioners in G.R. No. 76579-82 are (1) the decision
dated October 10, 1986 of the Director of Labor Relations (BLR) annulling the
elections of officers of the labor union above mentioned, FTWU, and (2) the
resolution dated October 30, 1986, denying their motion for reconsideration
of the decision.
The union's by-laws provide for the election of officers every three (3)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 years, in the month of July. Pursuant thereto, the union's Legislative Council
set the provincial elections for its officers on July 14 to 18, 1986, and those
for Metro Manila on July 25, 1986.
The same Council also quite drastically raised the fees for the filing of
certificates of candidates which had therefore ranged from P75.00 to
P100.00. The filing fee for each candidate for president of the labor
organization was increased to P3,000; that for each candidate for vice-
president, secretary-general, treasurer and auditor, to P2,000.00; and that
for assistant secretary, assistant treasurer and assistant auditor, to
P1,000.00 each. cdll

Bureau of Labor Relations Cases: Nos. LRD-M-7-503-86 & LRD-M-7-504-86

Although the increased fees were paid in due course by the candidates,
no less than two complaints were filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations for
their invalidation as excessive, prohibitive and arbitrary. One, docketed as
Case No. LRD-M-7-503-86, was presented by Rey Sumangil, a candidate for
president, and the members of his slate. The other, Case No. LRD-M-7-504-
86, was filed by Carlos Galvadores, also a presidential candidate, and his
group. Impleaded as respondents in both complaints were Benedicto
Rodriguez, the Chairman of the Commission on Elections of the union, and
the incumbent union officers, headed by the president, Manolito Paran.
Acting on the complaints, the Med-Arbiter issued on July 8, 1986 a
restraining order against the enforcement of the new rates of fees.
Other BLR Cases: Nos. LRD-M-7-557-86 and LRD-M-7-559-86
It appears that notwithstanding the cases questioning the candidates'
fees, the elections for the provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain
areas of Luzon were nevertheless held on July 21 and 22, 1986, which are
dates different from those specified by the Legislative Council (i.e., July 14 to
18, 1986). The validity of the elections was very shortly challenged on the
ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2) adequate ground rules. Carlos
Galvadores and his fellow candidates filed on July 22, 1986 a petition with
the BLR, docketed as Case No. LRD-M-7557-86, praying that the Union's
COMELEC be directed to promulgate ground rules for the conduct of the
provincial elections. On the day following, Livi Marquez, a candidate for vice-
president, together with other candidates in his ticket, filed another petition
against the same Union COMELEC and Manolito Paran, the union president -
docketed as Case No. LRD-M-7-559-86 - seeking to restrain the holding of
the elections scheduled on July 25, 1986 in the Metro Manila area until (1)
ground rules therefor had been formulated and made known to all members
of the labor organization, and (2) the issue of the filing fees had been finally
decided. In connection with these complaints, a temporary restraining order
was issued on July 23, 1986 prohibiting the holding of elections on July 25,
1986.
The restraining order notwithstanding, the Union COMELEC proceeded
with the general elections in all the PLDT branches in Metro Manila on July
25, 1986. It then reported that as of July 15, 1986 the number of qualified
voters was 9,429 of which 6,903 actually voted, the percentage of turn-out
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 being 73%, and that those who obtained the highest number of votes for the
various elective positions were:
Manolito Paran President 3,030 votes
Eduardo de Leon 1st Vice-President 2,185 votes
Efren de Lima 2nd Vice-President 2,806 votes
Roger Rubio Secretary General 2,462 votes
Virgilio Tulay Asst. Sec. General 2,924 votes
Rosalinda de Guzman Treasurer 2,659 votes
Filmore Dalisay Asst. Treasurer 2,525 votes
Damiana Yalung Auditor 2,942 votes
Jaime Pineda Asst. Auditor 3,082 votes
Livi Marquez and Carlos Galvadores, and their respective groups,
forthwith filed separate motions praying that the COMELEC be declared
guilty of contempt for defying the temporary restraining order, and for the
nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections of July 25, 1986 but also
the provincial elections of July 21 and 22, 1986.
The four (4) cases were jointly decided by Med-Arbiter Rasidali
Abdullah on August 28, 1986. His judgment denied the petitions to nullify the
elections, as well as the motion for contempt, but invalidated the increase in
rates of filing fees for certificates of candidacies. The judgment accorded
credence to the Union COMELEC's averment that it had not received the
restraining order on time. It took account, too, of the fact that the turn-out of
voters was 73%, much higher than the turn-out of 62% to 63% in prior
elections, which fact, in the Med-Arbiter's view was a clear manifestation of
the union members' desire to go ahead with the elections and express their
will therein.
This judgment was however overturned by the Officer-in-Charge of
Labor Relations, on appeal seasonably taken. The OIC's decision, dated
October 10, 1986 nullified the general elections in the provinces and Metro
Manila on the ground of (1) lack of notice to the candidates and voters, (2)
failure to disseminate the election ground rules to all parties concerned, and
(3) disregard of the temporary restraining order of the Med-Arbiter. The
decision stressed the following points: 1
"The undue haste with which the questioned general elections
were held raises doubts as to its validity. In its desire to conduct the
elections as scheduled, the respondents unwittingly disregarded
mandatory procedural requirements. The respondents' pretensions
that the appellants were duly furnished with the ground
rules/guidelines of the general elections and that the same were
properly disseminated to the qualified voters of the union are not
supported by the records.
"xxx xxx xxx

"Moreover, the Union's Comelec did not follow the schedule of

election outlined in the guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines fixed the
elections in Visayas-Mindanao on July 14, 16 and 18, 1986, in Northern
Luzon, on July 16, 17, 18 and 21, 1986 and in Southern Luzon on July
16,17 and 18, 1986 (records, pp. 67-70). Surprisingly, however, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Union's Comelec conducted the elections in Northern and Southern
Luzon on July 21, and 22, 1986 and in Visayas-Mindanao on July 25,
1986 without proper notice to the appellants.

"Accordingly, the unwarranted failure of the Union's Comelec to

duly furnish the appellants the guidelines and properly disseminate the
same to the voters, and the holding of the elections not in accordance
with the schedule set by the guidelines and in open defiance of the July
23, 1986 Restraining Order, precipitated an uncalled for confusion
among the appellants' supporters and unduly prevented them from
adopting the appropriate electoral safeguards to protect their interests.
Under the circumstances, this Office is constrained to invalidate the
general elections held on July 21, 22 and 25, 1986 and declare the
results thereof null and void.
"Furthermore, only 6,903 out of the 9,426 qualified voters
trooped to the polls during the July 21, 22 and 25, 1986 general
elections. Considering the closeness of the result of the elections, the
2,056 qualified voters, if they were able to cast their votes, could have
drastically altered the results of the elections. But more important, the
disenfranchisement of the remaining 27% qualified voters is a
curtailment of Trade Unionism implicitly ordained in the worker's right
to self-organization explicitly protected by the Constitution.

"xxx xxx xxx

"The submission of the respondents that they did not receive a
copy of the injunctive order is completely rebuffed by the records. It
appears that the same was received and signed by a certain Cenidoza
for respondent Manolito Paran at 4:30 P.M. of July 23, 1986 and by
respondent Benedicto Rodriguez himself, also on July 23, 1986 at 4:30
P.M. In the case of Manolitao Paran, the restraining order in question
was served at his office/postal address at Rm. 310 Regina Bldg.,
Escolta, Manila."

It is this decision of the BLR Officer-in-Charge which is the subject of

the certiorari actions filed in this Court by Benedicto Rodriguez, the chairman
of the Union COMELEC, and docketed as G.R. Nos. 76579-82. He claims the
decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion considering that (a)
the Med-Arbiter had found no fraud or irregularity in the elections; (b) the
election was participated in by more than 73% of the entire union
membership; and (c) the petition for nullity was not supported by 30% of the
general membership.
G.R. No. 80504: Controversy Respecting Labor Union Dues
The terms of office of the old officers (Manolito Paran, et al.) ended in
August, 1986. However, the new set of officers (headed by the same
Manolito Paran) apparently could not assume office under a new term
because of the proceedings assailing the validity of the elections pending
before the Bureau of Labor Relations. What happened was that the old
officers continued to exercise the functions of their respective offices under
the leadership of Manolito Paran.
On January 17, 1987, the Legislative Council of the union passed a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 resolution which generated another controversy. That resolution increased
the amount of the union dues from P21.00 to P50.00 a month. It was then
presented to the general membership for ratification at a referendum called
for the purpose. Rey Sumangil and his followers objected to the holding of
the referendum. When their objection went unheeded, they and their
supporters, all together numbering 829 or so, boycotted the referendum and
formally reiterated their protest against it. Subsequently the union officers
announced that the referendum has resulted in a ratification of the increased
union dues.
On March 1, 1987 Manolito Paran requested the PLDT to deduct the
union dues at the new, increased rates, from the salaries of all union
members and dispense with their individual written authorizations therefor.
PLDT acceded to the request and effected the check-off of the increased
dues for the payroll period from March 1 to March 15, 1987.
BLR Case No. NCR-OD-M-7-3-206-87
Once again Rey Sumangil and his followers hied themselves off to the
Bureau of Labor Relations. They filed a petition on March 26, 1987
challenging the resolution for the increase in union dues, docketed as BLR
Case No. NCR-OD-M-73-206-87. They contended that since the terms of the
members of the Legislative Council who approved the resolution had already
expired in August, 1986, and their reelection had been nullified by the
Bureau, they had no authority to act as members of the council;
consequently, it could not be said that the resolution for the increase of
union dues had been approved by 2/3 vote of the Council members, as
provided by the union constitution and by laws; hence, the resolution was
void. They further contended that there had been no valid ratification of the
resolution because the plebiscite had been "rigged."
Once again Rey Sumangil and his group were unsuccessful in
proceedings at the level of the Med-Arbiter. The latter denied their petition
on the ground of lack of support of at least 30% of all members of the union,
citing Article 242 of the Labor Code which reads as follows:
"Art. 242. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization. — . . . Any violation of the above rights and conditions of
membership shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration
and expulsion of officer from office, whichever is appropriate. At least
thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or
members specially concerned may report such violation to the Bureau.
The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported
violation to mete the appropriate penalty."

Again Sumangil and his group went up on appeal to the Director of

Labor Relations, before whom they raised the issue of whether or not the
petition in fact had the support of at least 30% of the members, and said
30%-support was indeed a condition sine qua non for acquisition by the Med-
Arbiters (in the Labor Relations Division in a Regional Office of the MOLE) of
jurisdiction over the case. Again Sumangil and his followers were successful
in their appeal.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On July 1, 1987 the Director of Labor Relations rendered a decision
reversing that of the Med-Arbiter. The Director ordered the cessation of the
collection of the twenty-nine peso increase and the return of the amounts
already collected. In the first place, according to her, the petition was
supported by 6,022 signatures, a number comprising more than 30% of the
total membership of the union (10,413). In the second place, the Director
ruled, even assuming the contrary, the lack of 30%-support will not preclude
the BLR from taking cognizance of the petition where there is a clear
violation of the rights and conditions of union membership because Article
226 of the Labor Code, expressly confers on it the authority to act on all
intra-union and inter-union conflicts and grievances affecting labor and
management relations, at the instance of either or both parties. The
provision cited reads as follows:
"Art. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. — The Bureau of Labor
Relations and the Labor Relations division in the Regional Offices of the
Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act,
at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all
inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or
problems arising from or affecting labor management relations . . ."

As regards Article 242 of the Labor Code, relied upon by the Med-
Arbiter, the Director expressed the view that the 30%-support therein
provided is not mandatory, and is not a condition precedent to the valid
presentation of a grievance before the Bureau of Labor Relations. The
Director ruled, finally, that Sumangil and the other union members had a
valid grievance calling for redress, since the record disclosed no compliance
with the requirement that the resolution for the increase of union dues be
passed by at least 2/3 vote of the members of the Legislative Council and be
ratified by a majority of the entire membership at a plebiscite.
But not long afterwards, the Director reversed herself. The
Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP) — with which Paran's
Union, the FTWU, is affiliated — intervened in the case and moved for
reconsideration of her decision. By resolution dated October 1, 1987, the
Director set aside her decision of July 1, 1987 and entered a new one
dismissing the petition of Sumangil and company, in effect affirming the
Med-Arbiter's order. The Director opined that the intervenor (MKP) was
correct in its contention that there was no 30%-membership-support for the
petition, since only 829 members had signed their support therefor, as
correctly found by the Med-Arbiter, and because of this, the BLR never
acquired jurisdiction over the case. According to her: 2
"The rationale for such requirement is not difficult to discern. It is
to make certain that there is a prima facie case against prospective
respondents whether it be the union/or its officers and thus forestall
nuisance or harassment petitions/complaints. The requirement was
intended to shield the union from destabilization and paralyzation
coming from adventurous and ambitious members or non-members
engaged in union politics under the guise of working for the union
welfare.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ". . . As found out by the Med-Arbiter in the Office of origin all
signatures except that of 829 were obtained without the knowledge of
the signatories. At this point we cannot permit 829 members to 'rock
the boat' so to speak, of a union which has at present ten thousand
four hundred and thirteen (10,413) passengers."

In an effort to set aside this reversing resolution of the Labor Relations

Director, Rey Sumangil and his group have come to this Court via the instant
special civil action of certiorari. In their petition they insist that the support
of 30% of the union membership is not a jurisdictional requirement for the
ventilation of their grievance before the BLR, and assuming the contrary,
they have proven that 3,501 workers had in fact joined in the petition,
constituting 33% of the total membership. They also emphasize the validity
of their grievance, drawing attention to the absence of the requisite 2/3 vote
essential for validity of any resolution increasing the rates of union dues, and
the doubtful result of the referendum at which the resolution had allegedly
been ratified.
Three issues are thus presented to the Court in these cases. The first
involves the validity of the 1986 general elections for union officers; the
second, whether or not 30%-membership support is indispensable for
acquisition of jurisdiction by the Bureau of Labor Relations of a complaint for
alleged violation of rights and conditions of union members; and third, the
validity of the increase in union dues.
The General Elections of 1986
A review of the record fails to disclose any grave abuse of discretion
tainting the adjudgment of respondent Director of Labor Relations that the
general elections for union officers held in 1986 were attended by grave
irregularities, rendering the elections invalid. That finding must thus be
sustained.
The dates for provincial elections were set for July 14 to 18, 1986. But
they were in fact held on July 21 to 22, 1986, without prior notice to all
voting members, and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor. The
elections in Metro Manila were conducted under no better circumstances. It
was held on July 25, 1986 in disregard and in defiance of the temporary
restraining order properly issued by the Med-Arbiter on July 23, 1986, notice
of which restraining order had been regularly served on the same date, as
the proofs adequately show, on both the Union President, Manolito Paran,
and the Chairman of the Union COMELEC, Benedicto Rodriguez. Moreover, as
in the case of the provincial elections, there were no ground rules or
guidelines set for the Metro Manila elections. Undue haste, lack of adequate
safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting, and absence of notice of the
dates of balloting, thus attended the elections in the provinces and in Metro
Manila. They cannot but render the proceedings void.
The claim that there had been a record-breaking voter turnout of 73%,
even if true, cannot purge the elections of their grave infirmities. The
elections were closely contested. For example, in the presidential contest,
Manolito Paran appeared to have won over Rey Sumangil by only 803 votes,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and in the vice-presidential race, Eduardo de Leon won over Dominador
Munar by only 204 votes. These results would obviously have been affected
by the ballots of the 2,056 voters who had been unable to cast their votes
because of lack of notice of actual dates of the elections.llcd

It goes without saying that free and honest elections are indispensable
to the enjoyment by employees and workers of their constitutionally
protected right to self-organization. That right "would be diluted if in the
choice of the officials to govern . . . (union) affairs, the election is not fairly
and honestly conducted," and the labor officers concerned and the courts
have the duty "to see to it that no abuse is committed by any official of a
labor organization in the conduct of its affairs." 3
The Matter of 30%-Support for Complaints for Violations of Union
Membership Rights
The respondent Director's ruling, however, that the assent of 30% of
the union membership, mentioned in Article 242 of the Labor Code, was
mandatory and essential to the filing of a complaint for any violation of
rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization (such as the
arbitrary and oppressive increase of union dues here complained of), cannot
be affirmed and will be reversed. The very article relied upon militates
against the proposition. It states that a report of a violation of rights and
conditions of membership in a labor organization may be made by "(a)t least
thirty percent (30%) of all the members of a union or any member or
members specially concerned. " 4 The use of the permissive "may" in the
provision at once negates the notion that the assent of 30% of all the
members is mandatory. More decisive is the fact that the provision expressly
declares that the report may be made, alternatively by "any member or
members specially concerned." And further confirmation that 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 inter-union 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 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." There can thus be no question about the capacity of
Rey Sumangil and his group of more than eight hundred, to report and seek
redress in an intra-union conflict involving a matter they are specially
concerned, i.e., the rates of union dues being imposed on them.
These considerations apply equally well to controversies over elections.
In the cases at bar, the petition to nullify the 1986 union elections could not
be deemed defective because it did not have the assent of 30% of the union
membership. The petition clearly involved an intra-union conflict — one
directly affecting the right of suffrage of more than 800 union members and
the integrity of the union elections — over which, as the law explicitly
provides, jurisdiction could be assumed by the Labor Relations Director or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Med-Arbiters "at their own initiative" or "upon request of either or both
parties."
The assumption of jurisdiction by the Med-Arbiter and the Labor
Relations Director over the cases at bar was entirely proper. It was in fact
their duty to do so, given the facts presented to them. So this Court has had
occasion to rule: 5
"The labor officials should not hesitate to enforce strictly the law
and regulations governing trade unions even if that course of action
would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from
government interference.
"For the protection of union members and in order that the
affairs of the union may be administered honestly, labor officials should
be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration
of union affairs.
"Laxity, permissiveness, neglect and apathy in supervising and
regulating the activities of union officials would result in corruption and
oppression. Internal safeguards within the union can easily be ignored
or swept aside by abusive, arrogant and unscrupulous union officials to
the prejudice of the members.
"It is necessary and desirable that the Bureau of Labor Relations
and the Ministry of Labor should exercise close and constant
supervision over labor unions, particularly the handling of their funds,
so as to forestall abuses and venalities."

As regards the final issue concerning the increase of union dues, the
respondent Director found that the resolution of the union's Legislative
Council to this effect 6 does not bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3)
of the members of the Council, contrary to the requirement of the union
constitution and by-laws; and that proof is wanting of proper ratification of
the resolution by a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite
called and conducted for that purpose, again in violation of the constitution
and by-laws. The resolution increasing the union dues must therefore be
struck down, as illegal and void, arbitrary and oppressive. The collection of
union dues at the increased rates must be discontinued; and the dues thus
far improperly collected must be refunded to the union members or held in
trust for disposition by them in accordance with their charter and rules, in
line with this Court's ruling in a parallel situation, 7 viz:
". . . All amounts already collected must be credited accordingly
in favor of the respective members either for their future legal dues or
other assessments or even delinquencies, if any. And if this
arrangement regarding the actual refund of what might be excessive
dues is not acceptable to the majority of the members, the matter may
be decided in a general meeting called for the purpose."

WHEREFORE, in G.R. Nos. 76579-82, the petition for certiorari is

DISMISSED, no grave abuse of discretion or other serious error having been
shown in the decision of the respondent Director of Labor Relations, said
decision — ordering the holding of new elections for officers of the Free
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Telephone Workers Union — being on the contrary in accord with the facts
and the law, but in the G.R. No. 80504, the petition for certiorari is granted,
the challenged order dated October 1, 1987 is set aside, and the decision of
July 1, 1987 of the Labor Relations Director reinstated, modified only as to
the treatment of the excess collections which shall be disposed of in the
manner herein indicated. Costs against petitioner in G.R. Nos. 76579-82 and
private respondents (except the PLDT) in G.R. No. 80504.
Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 68-69.
2. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
3. Pasudeco v. BLR, 101 SCRA 732.
4. Emphasis supplied.
5. Duyag v. Inciong, 98 SCRA 522, 533.
6. Resolution No. 87-02, January 17, 1987.

7. San Miguel Corporation v. Noriel, 103 SCRA 185.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com