Latest Entries »

CASE 2017-0029: UNITED POLYRESINS, INC., ERNESTO UY SOON, JR., AND/OR JULITO UY SOON, PETITIONERS, VERSUS MARCELINO PINUELA, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 209555, G.R. NO. 209555, 31 JULY 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: EXPULSION FROM UNION AS CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL; DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPULSION FROM UNION AND IMPEACHMENT OF OFFICER; FILING OF ESTAFA CASE NOT GROUND FOR DISMISSAL) (BRIEF TITLE: UNITED POLYRESINS ET AL VS. MARCELINO PINUELA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The December 11, 2012 Decision and October 10, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115402 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

RESPONDENT PINUELA, FORMER UNION PRESIDENT, WAS EXPELLED FROM PETITIONER LABOR UNION. ON GROUND OF EXPULSION HE WAS DISMISSED. THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER HIS DISMISSAL WAS VALID. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT HIS DISMISSAL WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE HIS EXPULSION FROM THE UNION WAS NOT VALID. THE GROUND RELIED UPON FOR EXPULSION WAS CAUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT OF UNION OFFICERS AND NOT FOR EXPULSION. THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED CA DECISION.

 

RESPONDENT WAS EXPELLED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO ACCOUNT CERTAIN UNION FUND. WAS HIS EXPULSION VALID?

 

NO. BECAUSE HIS FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR CERTAIN FUNDS WAS NOT ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR EXPELLING A MEMBER. THESE GROUNDS PER THE CONSTITUTION  OF THE UNION ARE:


1.  SUBVERSIVE OR PERSONS WHO PROFESS SUBVERSIVE IDEAS.

 

2. PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.

 

3.  PERSONS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY.39

 

“A review of the PORF A Constitution itself reveals that the only provision authorizing removal from the union is found in Article X, Section 6, that is, on the ground of failure to pay union dues, special assessments, fines, and other mandatory charges. 38 On the other hand, grounds for disqualification from membership may be found in Article IV, which states that:

 

Section 3. The following are not eligible neither [sic] for membership nor to election or appointment to any position in the union:

 

 1. Subversive or persons who profess subversive ideas.

 

 2. Persons who have been convicted of crime involving moral turpitude.

 

 3. Persons who are not employees of the company.39”

 

BUT A CASE OF ESTAFA WAS ALREADY FILED AGAINST RESPONDENT. IS THIS NOT A GROUND FOR EXPULSION?

 

NO. BECAUSE RESPONDENT IS NOT YET CONVICTED.

 

SPECIFICALLY, THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO RETURN THE P300,000.00 GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE UNION. CAN THIS NOT BE A JUST GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL?

 

 NO. IN FACT THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE COMPANY TO THE UNION IS ILLEGAL.

 

“The matter of respondent’s alleged failure to return petitioners’ 1!300,000.00 which was lent to PORFA is immaterial as well. It may not be used as a ground to terminate respondent’s employment; under the Labor Code, such a contribution by petitioners to PORF A is illegal and constitutes unfair labor practice.

 

ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. -It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:

 

xx xx

 

(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters;42 (Emphasis supplied)”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0029-UNITED POLYRESINS, INC., ERNESTO UY SOON, JR. ANDOR JULITO UY SOON VS. MARCELINO PINUELA 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0028: REPRESENTATIVE TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REPRESENTATIVE RAUL A. DAZA, REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR R. ERICE, REPRESENTATIVE EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, REPRESENTATIVE TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, and REPRESENTATIVE GARY C. ALEJANO, Petitioners, -versus – SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO C. FARINAS, and REPRESENTATIVE DANILO E. SUAREZ, Respondents (G.R. NO. 227757, 25 JULY 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN WILL SUPREME COURT INTERFERE WITH PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS?)(BRIEF TITLE: REPR. BAGUILAT JR ET AL VS. SPEAKER ALVAREZ ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THIS CASE ALL ABOUT?

 

THIS CASE CONCERNS AN INTERNAL MATTER OF A COEQUAL, POLITICAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHICH, ABSENT ANY SHOWING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY INTERFERED WITH.

 

However, as may be gleaned from the circumstances as to how the House had conducted the questioned proceedings and its apparent deviation from its traditional rules, the Court is hard-pressed to find any attending grave abuse of discretion which would warrant its intrusion in this case. By and large, this case concerns an internal matter of a coequal, political branch of government which, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, cannot be judicially interfered with. To rule otherwise would not only embroil this Court in the realm of politics, but also lead to its own breach of the separation of powers doctrine.33 Verily, “[i]t would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set aside a legislative action as void [only] because [it] thinks [that] the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself.”

 

BUT CAN THE COURT STILL INTERFERE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS?

 

YES. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION. WHILE THE COURT IN TAKING JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS QUESTIONING AN ACT OF THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT, WILL NOT REVIEW THE WISDOM, MERITS OR PROPRIETY OF SUCH ACTION, IT WILL, HOWEVER, STRIKE IT DOWN ON THE GROUND OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

 

Of course, as in any general rule, there lies an exception. While the Court in taking jurisdiction over petitions questioning an act of the political departments of government, will not review the wisdom, merits or propriety of such action, it will, however, strike it down on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.29 This stems from the expanded concept of judicial power, which, under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, expressly “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Case law decrees that “[t]he foregoing text emphasizes the judicial department’s duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation in our political law. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion: 30

 

[T]he judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.31

 

Accordingly, this Court “will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the govemment.”32

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0028-Representative Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., et al. Vs. Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, et al. 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

CASE 2017-0027– DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DFA) VS. BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION & AD HOC ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (G.R. NO. 225051, 19 JULY 2017, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: APPLICATION OF CERTIORARI IN ARBITRATION) (BRIEF TITLE: DFA VS BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND AD HOC ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to observe the rules on court intervention allowed by RA No. 9285 and the Special ADR Rules, specifically Rule 19.36 and Rule 19.37 of the latter, in the pending arbitration proceedings of the parties to this case.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

THE AD HOC ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ADMITTED RESPONDENT’S AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIMS. PETITIONER FILED THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI  ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PROPER?

 

NO. THE ORDER BEING QUESTIONED IS NOT FROM A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER OR RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BUT ONLY FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

 

“It is clear that an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court is from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals and only questions of law may be raised. There have been instances when we overlooked the rule on hierarchy of courts and took cognizance of a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Regional Trial Court when it granted interim relief to a party and issued an Order assailed by the petitioner, considering the transcendental importance of the issue involved therein35 or to better serve the ends of justice when the case is determined on the merits rather on technicality.36 However, in this case, the appeal by certiorari is not from a final Order of the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court, but from an interlocutory order of the Arbitral Tribunal; hence, the petition must be dismissed.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0027-Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Vs. BCA International Corporation & Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.