Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs.
ATTY.
NATURE:
Petition for Review
SUMMARY:
Montao was a legal assistant of the FFW Legal
Center. He was later nominated for the position
of National VP. The FFW COMELEC sent him a
letter stating that he was not qualified for the
position as his candidacy violated the FFW CBL
(see footnote 1). During the election, pending
Montaos MR and despite opposition from
Verceles, the convention delegates allowed his
candidacy. Montao won the election as
National VP. Verceles filed a Petition for the
nullification of Montaos election before the
BLR. The BLR dismissed the Petition. On
Certiorari, the CA nullified Montaos election for
violation of Art. VIII, Sec. 26 of the FFW CBL
(see footnote 3). Hence, the instant Petition for
Review. The SC upheld the CAs decision but on
the ground that Montao was barred from sitting
in the Governing Board while he was employed
as a staff of the FFW (the same ground used by
the FFW COMELEC).
DOCTRINE:
The Federation/Union's Constitution and ByLaws govern the relationship between and
among its members. They are akin to
ordinary contracts in that their provisions
have obligatory force upon the federation/
union and its member. What has been
expressly stipulated therein shall be strictly
binding on both.
Under Book V, Rule XV, Section 2 (b) and (i)
of the IRR, the Committee [referring to the
FFW COMELEC] shall have the power to
prescribe rules on the qualification and
eligibility of candidates and such other rules
as may facilitate the orderly conduct of
elections.
The Committee [referring to the FFW
COMELEC] is also regarded as the final
arbiter of all election protests.
The FFW COMELEC, undeniably, has
sufficient authority to adopt its own
8 See footnote 4.
MAIN ISSUE
ISSUE 5: Whether or not Montao is qualified to
run as National VP (NO)
RATIO 5:
Art. XIX, Sec. 76 of the FFW CBL provides
that no member of the Governing Board
shall at the same time be an employee in
the staff of the federation.
It is not disputed that Montao, at the time of
his nomination and election for the position
in the Governing Board, is the head of FFW
Legal Center and the President of FFW Staff
Association. Even after he was elected,
albeit challenged, he continued to perform
his functions as staff member of FFW
and no evidence was presented to show
that he tendered his resignation.
The SC held that the CA and BLR erred in
their findings.
To begin with, FFW COMELEC is vested
with authority and power, under the FFW
CBL, to screen candidates and determine
their qualifications and eligibility to run in the
election and to adopt and promulgate rules
concerning the conduct of elections. (Art.
XIII, Sec. 56 (c) and (g) of FFW CBL)
Under Book V, Rule XV, Section 2 (b) and
(i) of the IRR, the Committee shall have
the power to prescribe rules on the
qualification and eligibility of candidates
and such other rules as may facilitate the
orderly conduct of elections.
o The Committee is also regarded
as the final arbiter of all election
protests.
From the foregoing, FFW COMELEC,
undeniably, has sufficient authority to
adopt its own interpretation of the
explicit provisions of the federation's
CBL and unless it is shown to have
committed grave abuse of discretion, its
decision and ruling will not be interfered
with.
The FFW Constitution and By-laws are
clear that no member of the Governing
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition denied.