Topic:
Effect of Election
FACTS:
On
June 30, 1981, a written request for
accounts examination of the financial status of KMP Labor Union, the
existing labor union at Franklin Baker Company in San Pablo City, was filed by private respondent Silvestre
and 13 other employees, who are members of the union
Acting
on said request, Union Account Examiner Vicedo of the MOLE conducted the investigation and thereafter submitted
a report
Based
on the revelations, private respondents filed with the Regional Office QC,
MOLE, a petition for the expulsion of
the union officers
They
committed gross violation of the Labor Code, specifically pars. (a), (b), (g),
(h), (j), and (k) of Article 242; and, the constitution and by-laws of the
union, Sections 6 and 7
Union
Officers:
- Denied imputation and argued that
the disallowed expenditures were made in good faith; that the same conduced the
benefit of members
- They are willing to reimburse the
same from their own personal funds
- They should not be held
accountable for the non-production of books of accounts of the Union for years
1977, 1978, and 1979 because they were not the officers then and not one of the
former officers of the Union had turned over to them the records
- Non-ratification of the
constitution and by-laws of the Union and the non-segregation of the Union
funds occurred before they became officers and that they have already been
correcting the same
Med-Arbiter
Cabibihan ordered the holding of a referendum, to be conducted under the supervision of BLR
Petitioners
appealed the order to respondent Trajano of BLR the disallowed expenditures of
P1,278.00 were made in good faith and not used for the personal benefit of
herein union officers but, instead, contributed to the benefit of the members they
were elected in 1980 only and, therefore, they could not be made responsible
for the omissions of their predecessors who failed to turn over union records
for the questioned period there would be a general election on Oct. 4, 1982, at
which time, both the election and the desired referendum could be undertaken to
determine the membership at minimum expense they prayed that resolution on the
issue be held in abeyance
Respondents
claimed that Med-Arbiter erred in calling a referendum to decide issue; the
appropriate action should be the expulsion of union officers
Trajano
dismissed both appeals and affirmed in
toto the order of Med-Arbiter
ISSUE: Whether or
not union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed against them thus
expulsion was proper
HELD: NO
RATIO:
If
herein union officers (also petitioners) were guilty of the alleged acts
imputed against them, said public respondent pursuant to Article 242 of the New
Labor Code and in the light of Our ruling in Duyag vs. Inciong, 98 SCRA
522, should have meted out the appropriate penalty on them, i.e., to expel them
from the Union, as prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the
issue;
The
alleged falsification and misrepresentation of herein union officers were not
supported by substantial evidence. The fact that they disbursed the amount of
P1,278.00 from Union funds and later on was disallowed for failure to attach
supporting papers thereon did not of itself constitute falsification and/or
misrepresentation. The 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; and
The repudiation of
both private respondents to the highly sensitive position of auditor at the
October 4, 1982 election, 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.
By
and large, the holding of the referendum in question has become moot and
academic. This is in line with Our ruling in Pascual vs. Provincial Board of
Nueva Ecija, 106 Phil. 471, which We quote:
The Court should never remove a
public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their
officers. 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 misfaults 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: Petitioners WON.
DOCTRINE: The Court should never remove a
public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their
officers. 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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment