Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Quezon City, Metro Manila

Rita
Petitioner,

- versus - Civil Case No. ________

X Union of
X Manufacturing Company
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x

PETITIONERS POSITION PAPER

PETITIONER unto this Honourable Court, most respectfully submit

this position Paper, and state:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner is the auditor of X Union operating at X Manufacturing

Company. During one audit she conducted, she discovered that the union
President, Vice President, Treasurer, and about half of the members of the
union were squandering the union funds and they are defrauding the other
members. Rita then filed a petition for cancellation of the union at the
Bureau of Labor Relations. However the union President, filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the petitioner is not supported by 30% of the
unions member

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF THE

LABOR UNION IS VALID.

WHETHER OR NOT RITA IS A PARTY-IN-INTEREST TO COMMENCE A

PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF A UNIONS REGISTRATION.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON

GROUNDS THAT THE PETITION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY 30% OF THE
UNION MEMBERS.

DISCUSSIONS

THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

OF THE LABOR UNION IS VALID

According to Art. 239 of Labor Code (Before the amendments by RA. No.
9481), The following are grounds for cancellation of union registration:
 Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following shall
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

a. Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with

the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of
members who took part in the ratification;

------------------ x x x x ----------------------

d. Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within

thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and
misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the
financial report itself;

Another provision that the Labor Code provided for a valid cancellation of
the registration of the Labor Union can be found on Art. 250 [241] to wit:

Art. 250 [241]. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. The
following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization:

a. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the

members of a legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive
or oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed;

------------------ x x x x----------------------

h. Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall

be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the
collection and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and
maintained for the purpose;

i. The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or
object other than those expressly provided by its constitution and by-
laws or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the
majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the
purpose;

j. Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a

record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be
evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made,
which shall state the date, place and purpose of such payment. Such
record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.

With regards with the present case, there is a clear violation of the
provision for the right of members because of the misrepresentations done
by the President, Vice President and other members of the labor union
involved through the squandering of the union funds which is unknown to
the other members until the audit of Rita. Thus these kinds of activities by
the parties involved, they are violating the rights of the union members,
hence, there is a valid argument that the petition for cancellation is valid.

In words of Azucena, if the conditions of membership, or the rights of the

members, are violated, the violation may result in the cancellation of the
union registration or the expulsion of the culpable officers. Such

2
consequence is categorically stated in the last paragraph of Art. 250 [241],
which states:
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall
be a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of
officers from office, whichever is appropriate.

PETITIONER IS A PARTY-IN-INTEREST

On the issue if, the petitioner has a direct interest on the case, that can be
answered on the provision given on Art. 241(1) of the Labor Code which
states:

Art. 241 (1). The treasurer of any labor organization and ever
officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such
organization for the collection, management, disbursement,
custody or control of the funds, money, and other properties of
the organization, shall render to the organization to its
members a true and correct account of all moneys received
and paid by him since the last day on which he rendered such
account, and all bonds, securities and other properties of the
organization entrusted to his custody or under his control.

By that, it is easily known that the petitioner, as the unions auditor, has the
responsibility to make sure that the funds of the union are well-kept and
well reported. With this responsibility, petitioner has the direct interest in
the case because what the other executives and members are doing
involves the union funds, which is under the direct management of the
treasurer, thus giving her the choice whether she will see with a blind eye,
or will she report the activities to the Bureau of Labor Union and do the
right thing. On this case, she wanted to do the right thing.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest, i.e., the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Said section provides:

Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who

stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest.

To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action

must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real holder of the
right sought to be enforced. Interest within the meaning of the rule means
material interest, an interest in essence to be affected by the judgment as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere
incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest,
as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate or consequential interest. (North-eastern College Teachers

3
and Employees Association v North-eastern College Inc., G.R. No.
152923, January 19, 2009)

PETITION IS NOT SUPPORTED

BY 30% OF THE UNIONS MEMBERS

Ordinarily, Article 250 [241] requires 30% of the members to report a

vaiolation of the labor organization procedures. Nevertheless, when such
violation directly affects only one or two members, then only one or two
members would be enough to report such violation. In this case, Rita is the
treasurer of said union and the activities of the President, Vice President
and other members directly affects her because such activities and
misappropriation of union funds fall down on her responsibilities to report
the financial books of the union to the Bureau of Labor Union.

Thus, on the matter concerning the 30% support requirement needed to

report violations of rights and conditions of union membership, as found in
the last paragraph of Article 250 [241] of the Labor Code, The Supreme
Court held that they likewise cannot sanction the petitioners. They have
already made their pronouncement in the case Verceles v BUREAU OF
LABOR RELATIONS-DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
(G.R. No. 152322. February 15, 2005), who likewise sustained the case of
Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations (G.R. Nos. 76579-82
August 31, 1988) that the 30% requirement is not mandatory. In this case,
the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa held in part:

The respondent Directors ruling, however, that the assent of 30% of the
union membership, mentioned in Article 241 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. 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 especially 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.

Atty. JERWEL ADRIAN C. DE PERIO

Counsel for Defedants

4
 Unit 718 Prima Residences Condominium
Quezon Avenue
1118 Quezon City, Philippines

EXPLANATION

A copy of this position paper is being furnished to petitioners

counsel not by personal service but by registered mail due to time
constraint.

JERWEL ADRIAN C. DE PERIO

5
 VERIFICATION

I, RITA, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

I am the petitioner in the above entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of the foregoing document and I have read the same and the
contents of which are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or on the
basis of authentic documents.

AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this December 17,

2016.

Rita
Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

MANILA )SS.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this September 2, 2015;

affaint exhibiting to me his TIN I.D. No. 107-945-748-00.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this September 2, 2015.

DOC. NO._______
PAGE NO._______ NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO._______
SERIES OF 2015.

Copy furnished by registered mail

Registry Receipt No.__________
Mandaluyong Post Office
Date: September 2, 2015

Atty. ANTONIO ESCOBER

Counsel for the Petitioner
3rd floor AZPHI Bldg.
2840 Ma. Aurora corner E. Zobel Sts.
Poblacion, Makati City