ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
FLORO
BUENCONSEJO,
G. R. No. L-22508 November 25, 1968 -versus-THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNION OBRERA DE TABACO AND TITO BILANGEL, Respondents.
In a Petition filed before this Court on February 26, 1964 petitioner alleged that prior to the biennial election of officers of the Union Obrera de Tabaco on the first Sunday of March which, in 1964 fell on March 1, he filed his certificate of candidacy for President thereof in accordance with the union's constitution and by-laws; that on February 14, 1964 the union returned to petitioner his certificate of candidacy, advising him that he could not participate in the forthcoming election for certain unstated reasons allegedly already known to petitioner; that because of circulating rumors that respondent Tito Bilangel would control the election since he was the sole candidate for the top post, petitioner filed a charge of unfair labor practice against the union and Bilangel before the Court of Industrial Relations on February 10, 1964. In paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the petition it is pointed out:
"9. That because the election is only a few days off, and considering the time required to hear the main case of unfair labor practice the petitioner filed, incident to the said unfair labor practice case, an Urgent Petition for Preliminary Injunction, asking the respondent Court for preliminary remedy to command and/or enjoin the respondent' union to include the petitioner Floro Buenconsejo as a candidate for the presidency of the union in the election to be held on March 1, 1964; "10. That because of the urgency of the situation, on February 20, 1964 and again a few days later the petitioner filed urgent motions for the immediate resolution of the incidental case involving his inclusion as a candidate for March 1, 1964 election; "11. That in spite of these urgent matters, and in spite of the fact that there are less than five [5] days remaining before the union election involving 1,500 employees, the respondent Court of Industrial Relations has not acted on said petition."
|
|
|

