Title
Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja
Case
G.R. No. 83190
Decision Date
Aug 4, 1992
A dispute over union dues between rival factions of Seamen's Association of the Philippines (SAPI) led to a jurisdictional and legitimacy battle. The Supreme Court upheld SAPI's registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations, affirming Dominica C. Nacua's group as the legitimate officers entitled to the dues, dismissing CSAI's claims.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 83190)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Formation and Registration of the Associations
    • Inception of the Organization
1.1. On October 23, 1950, a group of deck officers and marine engineers organized themselves into a non-stock corporation known as Cebu Seamen’s Association, Inc. (CSAI) and registered it with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1.2. The same group later registered the organization with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) as a labor union under the name Seamen’s Association of the Philippines, Incorporated (SAPI) on June 23, 1969.
  • Labor Contract and Union Dues
2.1. SAPI had entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, under which the company remitted checked-off union dues until the dispute arose. 2.2. The controversy centered on the rightful custody and release of these union dues and agency fees.
  • Emergence of the Intra-Union Dispute
    • Conflicting Claims on Representation
1.1. A faction led by Manuel Gabayoyo claimed the authority to collect and manage union dues, asserting they were newly elected officers of CSAI on January 20, 1987 under SEC supervision. 1.2. Conversely, another group headed by Dominica C. Nacua contended that they were the legitimate officers of SAPI, having been elected on December 20, 1986.
  • Initiation of Legal Proceedings
2.1. On May 26, 1987, the group led by Nacua filed a complaint seeking to restrain the Gabayoyo group from acting on behalf of the union and to direct the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to remit union dues to their officers. 2.2. The respondent CSAI, represented by Gabayoyo, filed an Answer/Position Paper on June 10, 1987, contending that the union and the corporation were one and the same, and that the expulsion of Nacua and her colleague from the corporation invalidated their authority.
  • Proceedings and Administrative Actions
    • Actions by the Med-Arbiter
1.1. On June 19, 1987, the Med-Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Gabayoyo-led group and directed the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation to remit the already checked-off union dues to the complainant union, scheduling further hearings for July 1, 1987. 1.2. A motion for reconsideration of the Med-Arbiter’s order was also filed by the respondent, but the subsequent order maintained the initial ruling.
  • Appeals and Final Administrative Decisions
2.1. Following the Med-Arbiter’s order, the group headed by Gabayoyo appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). 2.2. On February 19, 1988, the BLR affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision in a resolution issued by Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja. 2.3. An additional appeal/motion for reconsideration filed with the Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor, was denied on April 11, 1988.
  • Underlying Dispute Context
    • Nature of the Controversy
1.1. The dispute was fundamentally an intra-union conflict regarding the rightful set of officers who could claim the custody and release of union dues. 1.2. It involved a confrontation over whether the actions taken by the Gabayoyo-led group, related to the dormant corporation CSAI, could affect the union’s (SAPI’s) rights and internal representation.
  • Implications of Prior Actions
2.1. Evidence showed that CSAI, the original corporate entity, was inoperative and had been ordered by the SEC to explain its inoperation on August 24, 1984, without a satisfactory response. 2.2. The allegations of expulsion of Nacua from the corporation did not extend to her status within the labor union SAPI, where she had been subsequently re-elected as president.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction Over the Dispute
    • Whether the Med-Arbiter of Region VII had jurisdiction to hear the dispute regarding union dues and internal representation, considering that Article 226 of the Labor Code vests exclusive jurisdiction on the BLR and its subdivisions.
  • Validity of the Union Registration
    • Whether the complainant-appellee, Seamen’s Association of the Philippines (SAPI), was properly registered as a labor federation with the Bureau of Labor Relations, separate from the corporate registration of CSAI with the SEC.
  • Authority and Representation
    • Whether Dominica C. Nacua and Atty. Prospero Paradilla have the legal personality and authority to represent the labor union, particularly in light of allegations of their purported expulsion from the association (formerly CSAI).
    • Whether the actions and elections of the Gabayoyo-led group, which pertained to CSAI, have any bearing on the rightful representation of the labor union SAPI.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms