GALVADORES ET AL.

v TRAJANO (Director of BLR)

G.R. No. 70067 | September 15, 1986
Melencio-Herrera, J. | Protacio

Summary
Union hires private respondent Jose Espinas as their counsel during the collective bargaining
negotiations, with the agreement that he is to be paid on a contingent fee basis. When the
Minister of Labor and Employment granted the wage increases that the Union wanted,
respondent counsel’s fee was to be deducted from the wages of the individual members
themselves. That’s why the petitioner union members opposed this, questioning the legality of
the check-off for attorney’s fees amounting to around P1M from monetary benefits awarded to
them.

FACTS
- Respondent counsel is the legal counsel of respondent Union since 1964
o Hired on a case to case contingent fee basis
- Counsel received a letter from Union President saying that he will be compensated 10% of
any improvement of PLDT’s last offer on the wage increase, which resulted into a deadlock
- Minister of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over issues in the bargaining
deadlock and proceeded to resolve by compulsory arbitration
o Awarded across-the-board wage increases
o Obviously, there were improvements obtained from PLDT’s last offer
- Executive Board of the Union passed a resolution requesting PLDT to deduct P115 per
employee for the legal services extended by respondent counsel (October 29 Resolution)
- Petitioners filed a letter-complaint before the MOLE through Galvadores, assailing the
imposition of deductions on their wages to answer for attorney’s fees
o Position that the attorney’s fees of respondent counsel were not only unreasonable,
but also violative of Article 250(o), and that deductions need the ratification by the
general membership of the union
- Respondents argued that attorney’s fees pertained to services during compulsory
arbitration proceedings and cannot be considered as negotiation fees/attorney’s fees within
the context of Article 250
- PLDT was hands-off to the issue – filed notice that assessment is withheld from the
differential pay due but won’t be turned over to the Union without MOLE authority
- Case referred to BLR because it’s an intra-union dispute
- Union filed a Manifestation claiming that ~6000 members of the Union ratified the October
29 Resolution in a plebiscite
o So Respondent Counsel moved for the payment of his legal fees
- Petitioners question the plebiscite on the ground that a question was misleading and
deceptive as it assumed that there was no dispute regarding the deduction of attorney’s
fees from monetary benefits awarded to the employees
- Respondent BLR dismissed petitioners’ complaint saying that the outcome of the plebiscite
negates any further question on the right of the union counsel to collect the amount of
P115
 o This decision is assailed by petitioners on the following grounds
 Individual written authorization of all employees must be first obtained
before any assessment made against their monetary benefits
 Assuming that Respondent Counsel is entitled to attorney’s fees, it should be
taken from Union funds

ISSUE
W/N the attorney’s fees due to respondent counsel are covered by Article 250’s prohibition
against imposing such fees to the individual union – YES

RATIO
 Article 228 provides that “no attorney’s fees, negotiation fees… arising from any
collective bargaining negotiation/conclusion of CBA shall be imposed on any individual
member of the contracting union; provided, however, that the fees may be charged
against union funds”
 Article 250(o) provides that “other than for monetary activities under the Code, no
special assessment, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees, or any other extraordinary fees
may be checked from any amount due an employee without individual written
authorization duly signed by the employee”
 Even the Omnibus Rules provide that deductions from wages of employees may be
made by employer only in cases authorized by law
 Provisions are clear. No check-offs from any amount due to employees may be
effected without individual written authorizations duly signed by the employees
o Required authorization is wanting. The employees are even protesting.
 Benefits awarded to the employees still form part of the collective bargaining
negotiations even though it was placed under compulsory arbitration
o This isn’t the mandatory activity under the Code which dispenses with individual
written authorizations, even if it’s “compulsory” in nature
o It is a judicial process of settling disputes laid down by law
 Article 228 does not except a CBA placed under compulsory arbitration from the ambit
of the prohibition.

RULING
BLR decision is set aside. Attorney’s fees may be charged against Union funds pursuant to
Article 228(b) of the Labor Code.