DEL PILAR ACADEMY vs.
DEL PILAR ACADEMY UNION  LA: It was an error on the part of DPA not to have collected agency fee
J. Nachura | April 30, 2008
 DEL PILAR ACADEMY UNION (UNION) is the SEBA of teaching and non-
teaching personnel of DEL PILAR ACADEMY (DPA) in Imus.
 The UNION and DPA entered into a CBA granting salary increase and
other benefits to the teaching and non-teaching staff:
 Among the salient provisions of the CBA are:
o SALARY INCREASE
 Computation to be prepared by DPA
 Teaching load of teachers shall only be 23 hours per week and any
excess shall be considered overload with pay
 Overload pay will be based on the teachers’ basic monthly rate
 DPA agrees to grant longevity pay as follows: 100 for every 5 years of
continuous service.
o VACATION LEAVE WITH PAY
 Every faculty member who has rendered at least 6 consecutive
semesters shall be entitled to the 11th month and 12th month pay as
summer vacation leave with pay
 Non-teaching employees who shall rendered at least 1 year of service
shall be entitled to 15 days leave with pay
 The UNION then assessed agency fees from non-union employees and
requested DPA to deduct said assessment from the employees’ salaries
and wages.
o DPA refused to effect deductions claiming that the non-union
employees were not amenable to it.
 The UNION negotiated for the renewal of the CBA
o DPA refused to renew it unless the provision regarding the
entitlement to 2 months summer vacation leave pay will be
amended by limiting the same to teachers who have rendered at
least 3 consecutive academic years of satisfactory service.
 The UNION objected to the proposal, claiming diminution
of benefits.
 DPA refused to sign the CBA, resulting in a deadlock.
 The UNION requested DPA to submit the case for voluntary arbitration,
but DPA refused, prompting the UNION to file a case for unfair labor
practice with the Labor Arbiter against DPA.
o DPA denied committing unfair labor practices against the UNION.
o DPA justified the non-deduction of the agency fees by the absence
of individual check-off authorization from the non-union
employees.
o As regards the proposal to amend the provision on summer
vacation leave pay, DPA alleged that the same cannot be
considered unfair for it was done to make the provisions of the
CBA conformable to the DECS Manual of Regulation for Private
Schools.
due other workers who are non-union members but are included in the
bargaining unit represented by the UNION.
o Art. 248 (e) (Now Art. 259) provides:
 “Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not
members of the recognized collective bargaining agency may be
assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid
by members of the recognized collective bargaining agreement:
Provided, that the individual authorization required under Article [241],
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the
recognized collective bargaining agent.”
o DPA’s fear to deduct individual dues without authorization from
non-union members has no basis in fact or in law.
 For receipt of CBA benefits, non-union members are duty
bound to pay agency fees which may lawfully be deducted
sans individual check-off authorization.
 Being recipient of the same benefits, they should share
and be made to pay the same imposed on union
members.
 Hence, DPA erred in refusing to deduct agency fees
which lawfully belongs to the UNION.
o However, DPA cannot be liable for ULP considering the lack of
evidence that said acts were done to undermine the UNION or
stifle the members’ right to self-organization or that DPA was in
bad faith.
 If at all, DPA’s error may have been the result of a
mistaken notion that individual check-off authorization is
needed for it to be able to deduct assessment especially
after non-union members registered their objection.
 More so, for ULP to prosper, there must be a clear
showing of acts aimed at stifling the workers’ right to self-
organization. Mere allegations and mistaken notions
would not suffice.
 NLRC: Affirmed the LA’s ruling.
o Upheld the UNION’s right to agency fee but did not consider
DPA’s failure to deduct the same as unfair labor practice (ULP)
 CA: Affirmed the NLRC resolution with MODIFICATIONS
o Upheld the UNION’s right to collect agency fee from non-union
employees but did not adjudge DPA liable for ULP.
o However, the CA ordered DPA to deduct agency fees from the
salaries of non-union employees.
 ISSUE / RATIO  The UNION also negotiated for entitlement to summer
vacation leave for teaching and non-teaching personnel.
1. WON the UNION is entitled to collect agency fees from non-union o These provisions in the CBA surely benefited the non-union
members – YES employees, justifying the collection of, and the UNION’s
2. WON individual written authorization is necessary for a valid check entitlement to agency fees.
off – NO  As such, no requirement of written authorization from the non-union
employees is needed to effect a valid check-off.
 The collection of agency fees in an amount equivalent to union dues and o Art. 248 (e) makes it explicit that Art. 241 (o) (Now Art. 242 (o))
fees from employees who are not union members is recognized by Art. requiring written authorization is inapplicable to non-union
248 (e) of the Labor Code. members, especially in this case where the non-union employees
 When so stipulated in the CBA or authorized in writing by the employees receive several benefits under the CBA.
concerned, the Labor Code and its IRR recognize it to be the duty of the o In Holy Cross of Davao College vs. Hon. Joaquin, the SC held:
employer to deduct the sum equivalent to the amount of union dues, as  That the employee’s acceptance of benefits from a CBA
agency fees, from the employees’ wages for direct remittance to the justifies the deduction of agency fees from his pay and the
UNION. union’s entitlement thereto.
o This system is referred to as check off.  In this aspect, the legal basis of the union’s right to agency
o No requirement of written authorization from the non-union fees is neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi-
employees is necessary if the non-union employees accept the contractual, deriving from the established principle that
benefits resulting from the CBA. non-union employees may not unjustly enrich themselves
 Here, DPA admitted its failure to deduct agency fees from the salaries of by benefiting from employment conditions negotiated by
the non-union employees. the bargaining union.
o DPA justifies the non-deduction by the absence of individual
written authorization. DISPOSITIVE Petition DENIED
o DP posits that Art. 248 (e) is inapplicable considering that its CA AFFIRMED
employees derived no benefits from the CBA
 The annual salary increase of its employee is a benefit
mandated by law, and not derived from the CBA as DECS
required all schools to allocate at least 70% of tuition fee
increases for salaries and other benefits of teaching and
non-teaching personnel.
 That even prior to the execution of the CBA, DPA was
already granting annual salary increases.
o DPA also argues that the non-union employees objected to the
deduction an hence, a written authorization is indispensable to
effect a valid check off.
o Lastly, DPA argues that such conclusion proceeds from a
misplaced premise that the salary increase arose from the CBA.
 DPA’s arguments cannot be sustained.
o Contrary to what DPA wants to portray, the grant of annual salary
increase is not the only provision in the CBA that benefited the
non-union employees.
 The UNION negotiated for other benefits such as
limitations on teaching assignments to 23 hours per week,
additional compensation for overload units or teaching
assignments in excess of the 23-hour per week limit, and
payment of longevity pay.