Practice question
Employees sign one inseparable document that ratifies lucrative CBA benefits and automatically authorizes a nonmandatory attorney-fee deduction. They cannot approve the benefits while withholding approval of the fee. The union relies solely on the signatures and asserts that genuine consent is irrelevant. Under Mariño v. Gamilla, which is correct?
- Every CBA signature necessarily authorizes all fees.
- The officers alone determine whether consent exists.
- The employees' education makes genuine consent unnecessary.
- The authorization must embody genuine consent; this inseparable arrangement does not establish it merely because signatures were obtained.
- The statutory safeguards apply only to employees who cannot read.
Legal references
- https://library.laborlaw.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2022.Labor_.Code_.DOLE-edition.pdf — Labor Code Arts. 228(b) [222(b)], 250(n)–(o) [241(n)–(o)], 259(h) [248(h)] and 260(e) [249(e)].
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49401 — Mariño v. Gamilla, G.R. 149763, July 7, 2009, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.