MONTAÑO v VERCELES G.R. No. 168583 July 26, 2010
The Federation/Union's Constitution and By‐Laws 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.
FACTS:
Atty. Montaño worked as legal assistant of FFW Legal Center on October 1, 1994. Subsequently, he joined the union of rank‐and‐file employees, the FFW Staff Association, and eventually became the employees' union president in July 1997. In November 1998, he was likewise designated officer‐in‐charge of FFW Legal Center.
During the 21st National Convention and Election of National Officers of FFW, Atty. Montaño was nominated and elected for the position of National Vice‐President despite the finding of FFW COMELEC that Atty. Montaño is not qualified to run for the position because Section 76 of Article XIX of the FFW Constitution and By‐Laws prohibits federation employees from sitting in its Governing Board and strong opposition and protest of respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Verceles (Atty. Verceles), a delegate to the convention and president of University of the East Employees' Association (UEEA‐FFW) which is an affiliate union of FFW.
On May 28, 2001, through a letter to the Chairman of FFW COMELEC, Atty. Verceles reiterated his protest over Atty. Montaño's candidacy which he manifested during the plenary session before the holding of the election in the Convention. On June 18, 2001, Atty. Verceles sent a follow‐up letter to the President of FFW requesting for immediate action on his protest.
On July 13, 2001, Atty. Verceles, as President of UEEA‐FFW and officer of the Governing Board of FFW, filed before the BLR a petition13 for the nullification of the election of Atty. Montaño as FFW National Vice‐ President.
Atty. Montaño filed his Comment with Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and not the BLR has jurisdiction over the case.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: * FFW COMELEC: Montano not qualified. * Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR): Montano qualified. it upheld its jurisdiction over the intra‐union dispute case and affirmed, as well, Atty. Verceles' legal personality to institute the action as president of an affiliate union of FFW, the BLR ruled that there were no grounds to hold Atty. Montaño unqualified to run for National Vice‐President of FFW. * BLR (motion for reconsideration): denied * CA: reversed BLR, montano not qualified. Atty. Montaño did not possess the qualification requirement under paragraph (d) of Section 26 that candidates must be an officer or member of a legitimate labor organization. According to the CA, since Atty. Montaño, as legal assistant employed by FFW, is considered as confidential employee, consequently, he is ineligible to join FFW Staff Association, the rank‐and‐file union of FFW. * CA (motion for reconsideration): denied.
ISSUES & RULING: 1. WON the CA was correct in upholding the jurisdiction of the BLR;
YES. The BLR has jurisdiction over intra‐union disputes involving a federation.
Section 226 of the Labor Code28 clearly provides that the BLR and the Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over inter‐union and intra‐union disputes. Such disputes include the conduct or nullification of election of union and workers' association officers. There is, thus, no doubt as to the BLR's jurisdiction over the instant dispute involving member‐unions of a federation arising from disagreement over the provisions of the federation's constitution and by‐laws.
Rule XVI lays down the decentralized intra‐union dispute settlement mechanism. Section 1 states that any complaint in this regard ‘shall be filed in the Regional Office where the union is domiciled.' The concept of domicile in labor relations regulation is equivalent to the place where the union seeks to operate or has established a geographical presence for purposes of collective bargaining or for dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.
The matter of venue becomes problematic when the intra‐union dispute involves a federation, because the geographical presence of a federation may encompass more than one administrative region. Pursuant to its authority under Article 226, this Bureau exercises original jurisdiction over intra‐union disputes involving federations. It is well‐settled that FFW, having local unions all over the country, operates in more than one administrative region. Therefore, this Bureau maintains original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of its constitution and by‐laws.
2. WON the CA was correct in not declaring as premature the petition in view of the pending protest before FFW COMELEC;
YES. The petition to annul Atty. Montaño's election as VP was not prematurely filed.
It is true that under the Implementing Rules, redress must first be sought within the organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by‐laws. However, this requirement is not absolute but yields to exception under varying circumstances. the FFW COMELEC failed to timely act thereon. Thus, Atty. Verceles had no other recourse but to take the next available remedy to protect the interest of the union he represents as well as the whole federation, especially so that Atty. Montaño, immediately after being proclaimed, already assumed and started to perform the duties of the position. Consequently, Atty. Verceles properly sought redress from the BLR so that the right to due process will not be violated.
3. WON the CA was correct in not finding that the petition violated the rule on non‐forum shopping;
Montano is estopped from raising this issue since he only raised this during this motion for reconsideration with the CA. The allegation regarding certification against forum shopping was belatedly raised. It is settled that new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration.
4. WON the CA was correct in not dismissing the case for being moot in view of the appointment of Atty. Verceles as NLRC Commissioner;
The CA is correct. There is necessity to resolve the case despite the issues having become moot. As manifested by Atty. Verceles, Atty. Montaño ran and won as FFW National President after his challenged term as FFW National Vice‐President had expired. It must be stated at this juncture that the legitimacy of Atty. Montaño's leadership as National President is beyond our jurisdiction and is not in issue in the instant case. The only issue for our resolution is petitioner's qualification to run as FFW National Vice‐President during the May 26‐ 27, 2001 elections. We find it necessary and imperative to resolve this issue not only to prevent further repetition but also to clear any doubtful interpretation and application of the provisions of FFW Constitution & By‐laws in order to ensure credible future elections in the interest and welfare of affiliate unions of FFW.
5. WON Montano is qualified to run as National Vice ‐ President
NO, the decision of FFW COMELEC is final and should have been given credence.
FFW COMELEC, undeniably, has sufficient authority to adopt its own interpretation of the explicit provisions of the federation's constitution and by‐laws 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 Board shall at the same time perform functions of the rank‐and‐file staff. The BLR erred in disregarding this clear provision. The FFW COMELEC's ruling which considered Atty. Montaño's candidacy in violation of the FFW Constitution is therefore correct.
6. WON the CA was correct in granting the petition to annul Montano's election as FFW National Vice‐ President on the ground that FFW Staff Association is not a legitimate labor organization.
NO. the CA's declaration of the illegitimate status of FFW Staff Association is proscribed by law, owing to the preclusion of collateral attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment