G.R. No.

L-27392 January 30, 1971

PABLO CATURA and LUZ SALVADOR, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CELESTINO TABANIAG, et al., respondents.
FERNANDO, J.
FACTS:
Catura and Salvador are the President and Treasurer of a labor organization which
Tabaniag et al. are members. In 1966, Tabaniag et al. demanded from Catura and
Salvador “a full and detailed report of all financial transaction of the union and to make
the book of accounts and other records of the financial activities of the union open to
inspection by the members," but was refused. Then, a General Membership Resolution
was made reiterating previous demands, but again was refused and remained
unheeded.
All remedies under the union’s constitution and by-laws were exhausted; thus, a
complaint for unfair labor practice for the “unauthorized disbursement of union funds”
was filed by Tabaniag et al. against Catura and Salvador. Then, CIR issued an Order
requiring and directing Catura and Salvador to “personally deliver and deposit all said
book of accounts, bank accounts, and other documents related to the finances of the
said labor union.” 
ISSUE:
Whether the Order was beyond the power of the CIR to issue.
HELD:
No. The CIR was correct in issuing the Order for the exercise of the statutory
power of investigation.
Clearly, the matter was deemed serious enough by the prosecutor of CIR to call for the
exercise of the statutory power of investigation to substantiate the alleged violation to
assure that the rights and conditions of membership under Sec. 17 of the Industrial
Peace Act be respected. 
The authority to investigate might be rendered futile if CIR could be held as having
acted contrary to law. The power to investigate requires an inquiry into existing facts
and conditions. The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the
most solid character as to whether there was a failure to comply with the mandates of
the law. The matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary to give
it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the power sought to be
exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority.
Petition is DENIED.