Topic: Due Process
FACTS:
1. It
appears that appellant Paulino Bugay was
formerly an auditor of the defendant union.
2.
He
was at the same time payroll clerk of
the Manila Railroad Company.
3. Sometime
in March, 1953, he was requested by the
secretary-treasurer of the company to deliver certain documents which were in
his possession belonging to the union and in compliance therewith he delivered
them without consulting the officers of the union.
4. Making
use of these documents, the management of the company filed with the City
Fiscal of Manila against Vicente K. Olazo, president of the union, a charge for falsification of commercial
document.
5. The
City fiscal, after proper investigation, dismissed
the charge.
6. Subsequently,
charges for disloyalty and conduct
unbecoming a union member were preferred against appellant Bugay, and later
the corresponding investigation, appellant
was expelled from the union.
7. As
a result, appellant filed a
charge for unfair labor practice against the union before the Court of
Industrial Relations
8. After
due hearing, rendered decision holding that appellant's expulsion was illegal it appearing that the same has not been
approved by the majority of the chapters of the union as required by its
constitution and by-laws.
9. Hence,
the court ordered the reinstatement of
appellant as union member and the restoration to him of all his rights and
privileges.
10. This decision was affirmed by the
Supreme Court.
11. It is to be noted that both in
the investigation held by the investigation committee of the Kapisanan and in
the board meeting of June 14, 1953, where the committee's report recommending
expulsion was approved, Bugay was not
present. As has been pointed out earlier, the reason for Bugay's failure to
attend the investigation does not appear of record. On the other hand, during
the board meeting, the committee of three board members assigned to summon
Bugay failed to serve notice upon him because he was then in Lucena, Quezon.
Why all these proceedings were continued by the respondents inspite of Bugay's
absence remains unexplained in the record. But one thing is certain, whatever might be the merits of the
charge filed by respondent Olazo against him, Bugay did not have sufficient
opportunity to defend himself. Such proceedings, being violative of the
elementary rule of justice and fair play, can not give validity to any act done
pursuant thereto.
12. Besides, the contention that majority of the chapters voted in
favor of Bugay's expulsion is not borne by the evidence. An examination
of the chapters to the Kapisanan board of directors (Exhs. 7 to 28) shows that
all of the votes, except those of the Hondagua Chapters and Engineering Manila
Yard Chapter (Exhs. 14 and 17) were not validly cast.
13. CFI-no sufficient cause of action
14. CIR-union is guilty
15. SC-affirmed CIR
ISSUE/S: WON
Bugay’s expulsion was illegal
RULING: YES, there is unfair labor
practice because expulsion was illegal.
It
was found that not only
has he not been given an opportunity to defend himself but his expulsion was
not submitted to the different chapters of the union as required by its
constitution and by-laws. The result was that because of his expulsion
he was subjected to humiliation and
mental anguish with the consequent loss of his good name and reputation.
This is especially so considering that the members of the union from which he
was expelled amounted to around 20,000 more or less. It is, therefore, an error
for the lower court to hold that the complaint does not state sufficient cause
of action for the relief claimed by appellant.
DISPOSITIVE: Bugay won
DOCTRINE: Expulsion of a member is illegal
if he is not given due process it appearing that the same has not been approved
by the majority of the chapters of the union as required by its constitution
and by-laws. Hence, the court CAN ORDER the reinstatement of appellant as union
member and the restoration to him of all his rights and privileges.
No comments:
Post a Comment