P. 1
036. Kapisanan v Trajano

036. Kapisanan v Trajano

|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by Krys Martinez

More info:

Published by: Krys Martinez on Nov 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





036. Kapisanan v Trajano Jan. 21, 1985 Relova, J. Topic: Under F. Union-Member Relations  2. Election of Officers  e.

Who May Vote (Aside from the word “members” in the case and the provision, I can’t seem to connect this to the topic)

P: Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP), Isagani Gutierrez, Florencia Carreon, Jose Flores, Dennis Alinea, Eladio De Luna wnd Crisanto De Villa R: The Honorable Cresenciano Trajano, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Catalino Silvestre, and Cesar Alfaro

Short Version:
Facts: Catalino et al requested for accounts examination of the labor union by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. An investigation was conducted, and it was found out that there disallowed disbursements amounting to P1,278 made by Union Officers. Catalino et al filed for expulsion of the Union Officers, and the Med-Arbiter ordered a referendum to resolve the issue. This order was affirmed by Director Trajano. Held: If the union officers were guilty, they should have been expelled and no referendum was needed to determine if they should stay or not. The results of the elections only show the members’ faith on the leadership of the union officers and their condonation of any alleged act the officers’ may have committed. Orders of Director Trajano SET ASIDE.

Facts:  A request for accounts examination of the financial status of KMP Labor Union (UNION), the existing labor union at Franklin Baker company in San Pablo City, was filed by Catalino Silvestre and 13 other employees. Union Account Examiner Florencio Vicedo from Ministry of Labor and Employment conducted the necessary investigation. In the findings, it was found out that there was P1,278 worth of disallowed expenditures (some spent in picture taking in the zoo, payment for long distance calls, sound systems, etc.). Catalino et al filed with the Regional Office of Ministry of Labor and Employment for the expulsion of union officers on the ground that they committed gross violation of the Labor Code (Art. 242) and the constitution and by-laws of the Union.
o Union officers denied the imputation and argued that the disallowed expenditures were made in good faith for the benefit of the members, and that they were willing to reimburse the same from personal funds. They also said that they should not be held accountable for non-production of account books since the same weren’t turned over to them.

 


Med-Arbiter ordered the holding of a referendum to decide on the issue of whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their respective positions.
o o Union Officers raised their same arguments and asked that resolution on the issue be held in abeyance. Catalino, on the other hand, claimed that Med-Arbiter erred in calling a referendum to decide the issue and reiterated that the appropriate action should be expulsion of officers.

Director Trajano affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision. Petitioners filed MR, reiterating their arguments and claiming that in the general election recently held, all of them (except Ambrocio dela Cruz and Eliseo Celerio) were elected by an overwhelming majority, while Catalino and Cesar Alfaro (the respondents) lost. Director Trajano denied the MR.

Issue: Should Director Trajano’s orders be SET ASIDE? (YES) Reasoning:   If the union officers are guilty of the imputed acts, in light of the ruling in Duyag v Inciong, the appropriate penalty is expulsion from the union and NOT a referendum. The falsification and misrepresentation of the union officers are not supported by substantial evidence. Such expenditures appeared to have been made in good faith and the amount spent for the purpose mentioned in the report, if concurred in or accepted by the members, are reasonable. The results of the elections (putting them again in office and not the respondents) is a convincing manifestation and demonstration of the union membership's faith in the herein officers' leadership on one hand and a clear condonation of an act they had allegedly committed. In Pascual v Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, the Court said: “When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.”

Dispositive: Resolution and Order by Director Trajano are SET ASIDE. Petition for expulsion of officers are DISISSED in view of the election held on Oct. 4, 1982. Digested By: Krys Martinez

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->