Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SECOND DIVISION
JESUS B. DIAMONON,
Petitioner,
-versus-
DEPARTMENT
OF
LABOR
AND
EMPLOYMENT; HON. BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA, as the undersecretary of
Labor; MANASES[1] T. CRUZ, in his
capacity as the Med-Arbiter; ATTY.
ZOILO DE LA CRUZ, JR., and
MEMBERS
OF
THE
NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE
SUGAR
INDUSTRY
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
(NACUSIP)
and
PHILIPPINE
AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIAL
AND
INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS UNION (PACIWU),
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
While the FIRST case was pending with the Med-Arbiter, petitioner
filed on May 16, 1991 a second complaint[10] (hereafter referred to as
SECOND) against private respondent Atty. Zoilo V. de la Cruz, Jr.,
and the National Treasurer of NACUSIP and PACIWU, Sofia P.
Mana-ay. He accused them of three (3) offenses, namely: (a) wanton
violation of the Constitution and By-Laws of both organizations,
NACUSIP and PACIWU; (b) unauthorized and illegal disbursements
of union funds of both organizations; (c) and abuse of authority as
national officers of both organizations.
chanroblespublishingcompany
II.
THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IS QUITE MERITORIOUS
AND TO DISREGARD THE SAME WOULD [sic]
TANTAMOUNT TO WILLFULLY [sic] CLOSING OUR EYES
TO AVOID SEEING AND REALIZING THE NAKED
TRUTH.[22]
chanroblespublishingcompany
In the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to comply with Section
2, Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code as amended[28] but also the record reveals that neither
did he exhaust the remedies[29] set forth by the Constitution and bylaws of both unions. In the National Convention of PACIWU and
NACUSIP held on August 10 and 11, 1991, respectively, nothing was
heard of petitioners complaint against private respondents on the
latters alleged unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds.
In fact, what the National Convention resolved was to approve and
adopt the resolution of the National Executive Board removing
petitioner from the positions he held.[30] His failure to seek recourse
before the National Convention on his complaint against private
respondents taints his action with prematurity.
chanroblespublishingcompany
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., took no part; close relation to a party.
chanroblespublishingcompany
[9] Docketed as NCR-OD-M- 91-04-053, Annex A of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 157163.
[10] The case, docketed as NCR-OD-M-91-05-052, was referred to the MedArbitration Branch and assigned to Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz, Annex
A of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 18-26.
[11] Annex C of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 177-183.
[12] Docketed as Case No. OS-A-9-290-91, appeal of Case No. NCR-OD-M-9104-053.
[13] Annex B of the Petition, Rollo at pp. 64-72.
[14] See Note No. 4, supra at 75.
[15] Annex H of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 216-225.
[16] Docketed as Case No. OS-MA-A-1-18-92, appeal of Case No. NCR-OD-M-9105-052, Annex E of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 77-85.
[17] See Note No. 2, supra.
[18] Ibid.
[19] See Note No. 2, supra at pp. 93-94.
[20] Annex I of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 95-101.
[21] See Note No. 3, supra.
[22] Petition, Rollo, p. 10.
[23] Id.; p. 12.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 145,
153 [1997].
[26] Logronio vs. Taleseo, G.R. No. 134602, August 6, 1999; Dando vs. Frazer
227 SCRA 126, 133 [1993]; Espina vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 484, 488
[1992]; Carillo vs. De Paz, 18 SCRA 467, 471 [1966]; Hernandez vs. Andal,
78 Phil. 196, 209-210 [1947].
[27] Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181, 191-192
[1996].
[28] Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code as amended states:
Sec. 2. Who may file. If the issue involves the entire membership of the
union the complaint shall be signed by at least 30% of the membership of
the union.
In addition to the above requirement, the petition on its face must show that
the administrative remedies provided for in the constitution and by-laws
have been exhausted or such remedies are not readily available to the
complaining members through no fault of their own. . . (emphasis
supplied)
[29] Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution and By-Laws of NACUSIP states:
Section 4.
The actions of the National Executive Board shall be
subjected [sic] to review only by the National Convention and/or the
General Council. (Emphasis supplied, Record, p. 23.)
Article XII of the Constitution and By-Laws of PACIWU states:
Article XII - PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING INTERNAL DISPUTE
[30]
[31]
[32]
chanroblespublishingcompany
[33]