G.R. No. 131235 November 16, 1999
UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), et al., petitioners, vs. Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR., et al., respondents.

FACTS

The UST Faculty Union (USTFU) had a subsisting Collective Bargaining Agreement. The incumbent union officers, led by Eduardo Mariño Jr., properly called for a general assembly and election of new officers on October 5, 1996, in accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws (CBL). Prior to this, some union members filed a petition with the DOLE Med-Arbiter, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on October 4, 1996, enjoining the scheduled election. Despite this TRO, a separate “general faculty assembly” was convened on October 4, 1996, by various faculty club presidents. This assembly was attended by both USTFU members and non-members from the broader bargaining unit. During this gathering, upon a motion from a non-union member, the USTFU CBL and election rules were suspended, and a new set of officers, led by Gil Gamilla, was elected by acclamation and clapping of hands.
The incumbent officers filed a petition to nullify this October 4 election. The Med-Arbiter and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Director ruled in their favor, declaring the election null and void and ordering Gamilla’s group to cease acting as union officers. Gamilla’s group elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the election of union officers conducted on October 4, 1996, which resulted in the ouster of the incumbent USTFU officers, is valid.

RULING

No, the election is null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Med-Arbiter and the BLR Director. The Court emphasized that the election of union officers is an internal affair that must strictly comply with the union’s own constitution and by-laws, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code. The October 4 assembly flagrantly violated the USTFU CBL on multiple grounds: it was not called by the USTFU Board of Officers; it did not comply with the mandatory ten-day notice requirement; no Committee on Elections was constituted as required; the voting was done by acclamation instead of secret balloting; and non-union members were allowed to participate and even instigate the proceedings. The Court stressed that only bona fide union members have the right to vote in union elections, not all members of the collective bargaining unit. Furthermore, the assembly was held in defiance of a valid TRO issued by the Med-Arbiter. The grievances against the incumbent officers, while potentially legitimate, should have been pursued through the proper intra-union mechanisms provided in the CBL, such as impeachment or recall proceedings, not through a irregular general assembly that disregarded established rules. The Court held that mob action cannot substitute for the rule of law and due process in union governance.