Labor Case 3

When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge
of his
life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave Ms faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of
any
KMP v Trajano
Facts:
Union officers of KMP are facing accusations such as disallowed expenditures and failure to keep records
of union accounts for several years among others.
Union Account Examiner Florencio Vicedo of the MOLE conducted the investigation.
Based on the findings, Florencio Silvestre and Cesar Alfaro filed with the Regional Office QC, MOLE, a
petition for the expulsion of the union officers.
The union officers denied the accusations claiming that the disallowed expenditures were made in good
faith and that the same redounded to the benefit of the union and its members.
They also claimed that they should not be held accountable for the non-production of books of accounts
of the Union for years 1977, 1978, and 1979 as they were not the officers then and the former officers of
the Union never turned the records over to them.
Further, they averred that the non-ratification of the constitution and by-laws of the Union occurred
before they became officers.
The Med-Arbiter Antonio Cabibihan ordered the holding of a referendum to decide on the issue of
whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their respective positions but the union officers
appealed the said order of Med-Arbiter Cabibihan to Director Trajano. Trajano dismissed the appeal and
affirmed in toto the order of Med-Arbiter Cabibihan
Private respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the appropriate action should be the expulsion of the
herein union officers.
Issue: W/N the court should expel the union officers.
Ruling: No.
Commission of faults or misconduct by the union officers cannot operate for to allow the court to overrule
the will of the people.
Moreover, the alleged falsification and misrepresentation of the union officers were not supported by
substantial evidence since the subsequent disallowance was merely due to their failure to attach
supporting papers, hence, do not constitute falsification and/or misrepresentation.
Moreover, the expenditures appeared to have been made in good faith and the amount spent for the
purpose mentioned in the report, if concurred in or accepted by the members, are reasonable.
The repudiation of both private respondents to the highly sensitive position of auditor at the October 4,
1982 election, is a convincing manifestation and demonstration of the union membership's faith in the
herein officers' leadership on one hand and a clear condonation of an act they had allegedly committed.
The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers.
Rodriguez v Director of BLR

Facts:
Free Telephone Workers Union’s bylaws provide that the election of officers are to be held every three
(3) years, in the month of July.
Pursuant thereto, the union's Legislative Council set the provincial elections on July 14 to 18, 1986, and
those for Metro Manila on July 25, 1986.
The elections for the provinces of Visayas and Mindanao and certain areas of Luzon were nevertheless
held on a different date, July 21 and 22, 1986.
The validity of the elections was immediately challenged on the ground of lack of (1) due notice and (2)
adequate ground rules.
A temporary restraining order was issued on July 23, 1986 prohibiting the holding of Manila elections
scheduled on July 25, 1986.
Nevertheless, Union COMELEC, headed by Benedicto Rodriguez proceeded with the general elections in
all the PLDT branches in Metro Manila on July 25, 1986. It then reported that the percentage of turn-out
went as high as 73%.
Separate motions praying that the COMELEC be declared guilty of contempt for defying the temporary
restraining order, and for the nullification not only of the Metro Manila elections of July 25, 1986 but also
the provincial elections of July 21 and 22, 1986 were filed.
Med-Arbiter denied the petitions to nullify the elections, as well as the motion for contempt.
This judgment was however overturned by the Officer-in-Charge of Labor Relations.
It nullified the general elections in the provinces and Metro Manila on the ground of (1) lack of notice to
the candidates and voters, (2) failure to disseminate the election ground rules to all parties concerned, and
(3) disregard of the temporary restraining order of the Med-Arbiter.
Issue: W/N the elections held were valid
Ruling: No.
Undue haste, lack of adequate safeguards ensuring the integrity of the voting, and absence of notice of the
dates of balloting attended the elections in the provinces and in Metro Manila. Due process was not
observed.
The dates for provincial elections were set for July 14 to 18, but they were held on July 21 to 22 without
prior notice to all voting members, and without ground rules duly prescribed therefor. The elections in
Metro Manila were even worse as they were conducted in stark disregard of the TRO issued by the Med-
Arbiter.
The claim that there had been a record-breaking voter turnout of 73% is of no occasion and cannot be
deemed to have cured and rid the elections of their grave infirmities and defects which attended them.
The sanctity of elections, being the clearest manifestation of democracy and an indispensable element of
the enjoyment by workers of their constitutionally protected right to self-organization, ought to be held in
a manner free of any defect and infirmities, both substantial and procedural.
That right "would be diluted if in the choice of the officials to govern union affairs, the election is not
fairly and honestly conducted," and the labor officers and the courts of law are duty bound "to see to it
that no abuse is committed by any official of a labor organization in the conduct of its affairs.
The results would obviously have been affected by the ballots of the 2,056 voters who had been unable to
cast their votes because of lack of notice of actual dates of the elections.

Labor Case 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Case 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Case 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge

Rodriguez v Director of BLR

You might also like