PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RE­LATIONS, RESPONDENT.

On May 31, 1966,
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) filed administrative
charges against the respondent judge of the Court of Industrial Relations for
alleged serious misconduct and inefficiency. 
As the
complaint was properly verified, the same was given due course and on June 22, 1966, said respondent was
required to file his answer within fifteen days from notice.  Said answer was filed on August 15 of the
same year.  Thereupon, We
referred the case for proper in­vestigation, report and recommendation to Mr.
Justice Angel H. Mojica of the Court of Appeals.  After care­fully investigating the charges,
with both parties given an opportunity to present their respective evidence,
Justice Mojica submitted his report which contains
the following:

“SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

It appearing that the charges against
the respondent in connection with
Case No. 118-INJ entitled ‘Luzon Tinsmith Co. vs. PAFLU, et al’ have not been substantiated by clear and satisfactory evidence; that in Case No. 125-INJ, entitled ‘Goya Pro­ducts Co. vs. PAFLU’, respondent
issued a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction Ex-parte, after hearing the evidence of
the peti­tioner, in the exercise of his sound judi­cial discretion and only
after the filing of sufficient bond ‘in order to prevent untoward incidents in
the strike area’; that the allegations in paragraph 8 of the complaint in
connection with Case No. 1177-MC, entitled
‘In the Matter of the Certi­fication Election at Shell Refinery, PAFLU
Petitioner’ are unfounded and that res­pondent was not to blame for the alleged
delay; that as regards the allegations in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the
complaint, evidence is wanting that respondent employ­ed
all means within his power ‘to retaliate
against and persecute complainant’; that respondent has satisfactorily
explained his orders and dissents in the cases therein mentioned and we
find same to be in accord­ance with the evidence and law.  As to the allegations in paragraphs 12, 13,
14 and 15, the same were found to be without basis; the actuations of the
respondent in the cases mentioned in said paragraphs are fully justified by the
law and evidence, and as regards the allegations in the supplemental complaint,
it has been satisfacto­rily shown that respondent has resolved the motion for
the issuance of a writ of exe­cution four (4) days after it was submitted for
resolution; that complainant’s ‘Petition
for Examination of Debtor of Judgment Creditor’ was resolved by respondent
twelve (12) days ‘after Atty. Estacio showed that the
writ was returned unsatisfied’; and that complainant’s ‘Ex-parte
Petition to Cite Ko Kim to Appear in Court and
be Examined under Oath’ was decided to be moot and academic on the second day
after it was filed.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the respondent be
exonerated from the ‘complaint’ filed against him.”

After considering the case in the light of the evidence presented
by the parties, the report and recommendation of the investigator above named, We find that
the findings and conclusions contained in said report are fully justified by
the evidence.

WHEREFORE, approving the recommendation made by the investigator, We
hereby exonerate the respondent from the charges filed against him in the present case.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.