A.C. No. 11069 - Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

The case involves the union KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY (petitioner) and respondents Rafael Hernandez et al.
The dispute centers on the regularity of the collection of additional dues (an extra P5.00) from union members by the respondent union.
The union had previously collected a contribution of P2.00 per member as provided in its constitution and by-laws for retirement benefits.

Evidence in the form of certain resolutions passed by the union was presented through a certification issued by the convention chairman and secretary.
The certification, which attested to the approval and regularity of the union resolutions, was submitted after the hearing had terminated.
Respondents contended that the certification was submitted without affording them the opportunity to cross-examine the certifying officers, thus violating due process requirements.

Resolution No. 1, central to the dispute, effectively amended section 1, article VI of the union’s constitution by pegging the members’ contribution at P2.00 only, contrary to the subsequent collection of an additional P5.00.
The union’s constitution and by-laws stipulated that any amendment regarding contributions must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the members present in a convention.
It was admitted that Resolution No. 1 was passed by a mere majority rather than the 2/3 vote required, raising questions as to its legitimacy and regularity.

The Court noted that while Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875 allows the court to consider extrajury evidence (such as ocular inspections), it does not obviate the need to comply with due process.
Specific relief requests involved:

The petition by respondents for reconsideration of a previous decision remanding the case for additional evidence on the certification and resolutions.
An objection to the approval of the union president’s accounting concerning his trip abroad, particularly the issue of whether corresponding receipts for travel expenses were submitted.

Respondents, despite their initial concerns, later indicated that they would assume, for the sake of argument, the genuineness of both the certification and the resolutions to avoid further delay in disposing of the merits.

Whether the submission of the certification after the termination of the hearing, and without giving respondents an opportunity for cross-examination, violated the respondents’ constitutional right to due process.
Whether such evidence, being self-serving in nature, should be admitted in the record without proper testing of its veracity.

Whether Resolution No. 1, which effectively amended certain provisions of the union’s constitution and by-laws regarding the collection of members’ contributions, was validly enacted.
Whether the resolution’s passage by a mere majority, as opposed to the constitutionally mandated 2/3 vote, renders it null and void.

Whether the union president’s accounting for his trip abroad, despite objections regarding the absence of receipts for travel expenses, was properly presented and approved by the convention.