G.R. No. L-4941 - A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Bicol Transportation Employees Mutual Association

A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed an application for certiorari to review and set aside a portion of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The challenged decision ordered the petitioner to continue its former practice of allowing “check-off” deductions from the monthly earnings of employees who had authorized their union’s collection of dues.

On September 15, 1950, the Undersecretary of Labor certified the existence of a labor dispute between the petitioner (the employer) and its 308 workers affiliated with the Bicol Transportation Employees Mutual Aid Association.
The dispute arose following an unsuccessful strike by the employees on September 14, 1950, which lasted until September 19, 1950, prompting the presiding judge of the Court of Industrial Relations to order the resumption of work on September 20, 1950 under the same pre-strike conditions.
The union was directed to submit a detailed petition concerning unsolved disputes. A petition, filed on November 3, 1950, was received on November 9, 1950, and formed part of the evidence considered by the court in rendering its decision dated April 26, 1951.

The petitioner contended that there is no law in the Philippines compelling an employer to implement the check‐off system against its will and argued that the Court of Industrial Relations exceeded its jurisdiction.
Respondents relied on the statutory provisions under Commonwealth Act No. 103 (Sections 4, 13, and 20) as well as Republic Act No. 602 (Minimum Wage Law), which they argued provided the necessary authority for carrying out the check-off practice.
The decision highlighted that check‐off is considered a “normal incident of employment” and an expedient arrangement for collecting union dues, especially in view of the dispersed employment areas over four provinces.

Subsequent to the order, Republic Act No. 602 was enacted, further clarifying that wages may be paid directly to employees except when the employee or their union has authorized a check‐off.
Economic and practical considerations were raised, noting that the centralized deduction process offers efficiency benefits in managing union dues over wide geographical areas.
A dissent was later filed by Justice Montemayor, who raised concerns about the coercive nature of imposing the check‐off system, emphasizing the need for explicit, prior agreement by both employer and employees.

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted within its authority by compelling the petitioner to continue the check‐off system based on the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 and Republic Act No. 602.
Whether there exists any legal basis that mandates the employer to deduct union dues through the check‐off system against its will without an express contractual or written employee authorization.

Whether the consent of employees and/or the employer is necessary for the check‐off arrangement to operate legally, especially when the union’s authorization or employees’ written consent is in question.
How the division of responsibilities and burdens among the employer, union, and employees should be interpreted under the relevant law.

Whether the administrative burden and extra expense imposed on the employer by implementing the check‐off system justify or undermine its compulsory application.
The broader implications on labor-management relations when state intervention effectively mandates arrangements that affect the financial operations of an employer.