Union Members' Right to Due Process in Suspension and Expulsion Cases

The Supreme Court has clarified that union officers who disregard a member's right to appeal disciplinary actions commit unfair labor practices. In Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union (G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016), the Court held that a union cannot suspend or expel a member without respecting the appeal process in its own constitution and by-laws. The ruling reinforces that the right to self-organization includes the right to fair treatment within one's union.

The Facts of the Case

Allan Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU). In 2007, the union charged him with non-payment of increased union dues. After a hearing, the union's grievance committee recommended a 30-day suspension, which the Executive Board approved. Mendoza appealed to the General Membership Assembly as allowed by the union's constitution, but the union president denied his appeal, claiming the period had lapsed.

Mendoza was charged again for the same offense. He received another 30-day suspension and again filed a written appeal. The Executive Board never acted on it. A third charge resulted in his expulsion from the union. His appeals were again ignored. Because of his suspension, Mendoza was disqualified from running for union Vice-President in the September 2007 elections. He later joined another union.

The Jurisdictional Question

The Labor Arbiter initially referred the case back to the union for the General Assembly to act on Mendoza's appeal. The NLRC dismissed the complaint entirely, ruling that the dispute was intra-union in nature and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations, not the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The Supreme Court partly disagreed. While some of Mendoza's claims—such as the validity of the dues increase and his right to information—were indeed intra-union disputes cognizable by the BLR, his charge of unfair labor practices was different. Under Article 217 of the Labor Code, Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice cases. Article 247 further provides that the civil aspects of such cases, including claims for damages and attorney's fees, fall under the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction.

The Union's Violation of Its Own Rules

The Court examined MWEU's constitution and by-laws. Under Article X, Section 4, a suspended member may appeal within three working days from notice, and the Executive Board must act on the appeal by a simple majority vote. Under Article X, Section 5, an expelled member has seven days to appeal to the Executive Board, which must then refer the matter to the General Membership Assembly.

The evidence showed that Mendoza filed timely appeals after his second suspension and his expulsion. The Executive Board simply did not act on them. The respondents argued that Mendoza lost his right to appeal because he failed to gather a petition signed by 30% of the union membership to convene the General Assembly. The Court rejected this argument: the Executive Board had to act on his appeals first before the matter could be referred to the General Membership. By ignoring his appeals, the union deprived Mendoza of due process.

Unfair Labor Practices Established

The Court found the respondents guilty of unfair labor practices under Article 249(a) and (b) of the Labor Code. These provisions prohibit labor organizations from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, and from causing an employer to discriminate against an employee.

By disregarding Mendoza's appeals, the union illegally suspended and expelled him, disqualified him from running for office, and forced him to join another union. These acts violated his right to self-organization and amounted to unlawful discrimination and illegal termination of his union membership.

The Court awarded Mendoza P100,000.00 in moral damages and P50,000.00 in exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. Three respondents—Carlos Villa, Ric Briones, and Chito Bernardo—were excluded from liability because the evidence did not show their participation in the acts complained of.

Practical Takeaways

• Unions must follow their own rules. When a union's constitution and by-laws grant members a right to appeal disciplinary actions, the union's officers are bound to act on those appeals. Failure to do so can constitute an unfair labor practice.
• Due process applies within unions. A member facing suspension or expulsion is entitled to the appeal process provided in the union's constitution. Officers cannot bypass this process or impose additional requirements not stated in the rules.
• Unfair labor practice claims belong to Labor Arbiters. Even if a dispute also involves intra-union matters, the specific charge of unfair labor practice under Articles 248 or 249 of the Labor Code falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
• Officers can be held personally liable. Union officers who actually participate in or authorize unfair labor practices may be held solidarily liable for damages. However, officers who did not participate in the wrongful acts may be excluded from liability.
• Document your appeals. A member who files a timely written appeal creates a clear record. In this case, Mendoza's written appeals were crucial evidence that the union ignored his right to due process.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.