G.R. No. L-19420. January 31, 1964
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNION (PAFLU) AND CIPRIANO CID, PETITIONERS, VS. SERGIO BOGNOT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BARRERA, J.:
Court of Industrial Relations dated November 25, 1961 (in Case No.
2978-ULP), affirmed by its resolution in bane of January 9, 1962.
On September 20, 1961, Acting CIR Prosecutor Mirafuente filed (on
behalf of respondents Sergio Bognot and Renato Coronado) with
respondent Court a complaint for unfair labor practice, under the
provisions of Section 17[1] of Republic Act 875 (Industrial Peace Act),
against petitioners Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU)
and Cipriano Cid (as National President of PAFLU) alleging, inter alia
that respondents Bognot and Coronado were former members and employees
of herein petitioner PAFLU, both having been assigned to the legal
staff of PAFLU prior to their dismissal; that despite the provisions of
PAFLU’s constitution and by-laws, petitioners failed to call the
National Executive Committee of PAFLU to its regular meetings to
formulate and implement policies for the better administration of PAFLU
and its various affiliates, in violation of said constitution and
by-laws; that petitioners, in violation of PAFLU’s constitution and
by-laws, knowingly allowed and authorized a person not elected or
appointed as union treasurer to keep in her possession and control
union funds and documents the custody of which, is not vested in her;
that petitioner PAFLU through its officers, despite repeated demands
from its members or officers, failed to properly discharge the
administration of union matters, neglected rendering reports of its
financial activities or status to its members, refused to implement or
device measures to serve its local affiliates during strikes, refused
to produce its book of accounts for examination of its members,
officers, or government authorities, thereby, discouraging its members
and affiliates to remain as such, resulting in gradual disintegration
of its other affiliates; that petitioners failed to inform and report
to its members the true and correct amount of receipts, expenditures or
disposition of union funds, assets and liabilities possessed, and to
present accurate report of its internal affairs to the members, thereby
causing discontent and prejudice to them; that due to such
maladministration and irregularities, a committee on reformation was
organized by certain officers, assisted by respondents Bognot and
Coronado; that because of respondents “vigorous and militant
participation” in the drive for implementation of reforms, petitioners
“unjustly expelled, and ultimately dismissed them from membership with
PAFLU and as officers of its legal staff, without benefit of previous
hearing, investigation or charges filed, against them; that since their
dismissal, respondents have not been reinstated despite demands on
petitioners; that petitioners’ acts are contrary to paragraphs (b),
(f), (i), (k), and (l), Section 17, of Republic Act No. 875. The
complaint prayed that judgment be rendered declaring petitioners guilty
of unfair labor practice, directing them to cease from further acts of
unfair labor practice, to reinstate respondents to their former
positions with back wages, and to comply and discharge faithfully the
obligations imposed on them by PAFLU’s constitution and by-laws.
To this petition, petitioners (on September 25 and 26, 1961,
respectively) filed a motion to dismiss alleging that respondent Court
has no jurisdiction over their person and the subject matter of the
action, because the alleged basis of the complaint (paragraph 11) is
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875, but said action requires a report
by a minimum of 10% of the members of a labor organization before there
can be an unfair labor practice case, and there are only two
complainants in the case; that the complaint states no cause of action,
because PAFLU is a labor organization and is not an “employer” with the
purview of Section 2(c) of Republic Act No. 875 and, granting that it
is an employer, there is no employer-employee relationship between
respondents and petitioners, for respondents were related to
petitioners as lawyers; and further, no element of unionism or
self-organization is claimed as involved in the activities of
respondents and, therefore, the charge of unfair labor practice cannot
stand. Petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Acting on said motions to dismiss, filed by herein petitioners,
respondent Court (on November 25, 1961) issued an order of this tenor:
“ORDER
“Two motions to dismiss this case were separately
filed by Atty. Cipriano Cid and the PAFLU. Both motions raise questions
of law and of acts that are not beyond doubt.
Hence, the Court defers the determination of said motions until the trial. So ordered.”
Petitioners (on December 5, 1961) filed a motion for reconsideration
of said order, contending that the grounds contained in their motions
to dismiss “are indubitable, both as to the facts and to the law”, but
said motion was denied by respondent Court in its resolution in banc of January 9, 1862.
Hence, this petition for review.
This petition is meritorious. Petitioners’ motion to dismiss is
predicated on alleged lack of jurisdiction of respondent Court, and/or
lack of cause of action because on the face of the complaint, the basis
thereof is Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875. And since this section
requires “a minimum of ten per cent of the members of a labor
organization (who) may report an alleged violation of these procedures
in their labor organization to the Court”, and only two members of
PAFLU (herein respondents Bognot and Coronado) are complainants in this
case, clearly the complaint is short of the requisite, ten per cent
minimum requirement of the law. In other words, on its face, the
complaint showed indubitably it was a matter beyond the cognizance of
respondent Court. Accordingly, it should have dismissed the case
outright instead of deferring the determination of petitioners” motions
to dismiss until the trial. (See Administrator of Hacienda Luisita
Estate vs. Alberto, et al., G. R. No. L-12133, prom. October 31, 1958).
Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted. The order and resolution
of respondent Court complained of are set aside and the complaint filed
in this case is dismissed. No costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] Authorizing investigation by
the Court of Industrial Relations, of complaints for violations of
internal labor organization procedures, and dispose of them as in
“unfair labor practice” cases.