June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 171806 : June 16, 2010] RENATO REGALA V. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM)-SMC CHAPTERS AND THE UNION OFFICERS, NAMELY: WILLIAM MARENE, BENEDICTO DE JESUS, RENATO ROQUE, MANUEL GALINGANA, ROMEO BALATBAT, JUANITO MARTIN, ARLENE VILLANUEVA, REYNALDO BUENAVENTURA, ALFREDO ALCASID, ROQUE SARSONA, LAURO REYES, HERMENEGILDO BANDOLA, FLOREME RODAJE, GEORGE BOLIVAR, ILDEFONSO ACLE, NELSON COBINA AND RAMON SAMSON :
[G.R. No. 171806 : June 16, 2010]
RENATO REGALA V. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM)-SMC CHAPTERS AND THE UNION OFFICERS, NAMELY: WILLIAM MARENE, BENEDICTO DE JESUS, RENATO ROQUE, MANUEL GALINGANA, ROMEO BALATBAT, JUANITO MARTIN, ARLENE VILLANUEVA, REYNALDO BUENAVENTURA, ALFREDO ALCASID, ROQUE SARSONA, LAURO REYES, HERMENEGILDO BANDOLA, FLOREME RODAJE, GEORGE BOLIVAR, ILDEFONSO ACLE, NELSON COBINA AND RAMON SAMSON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 171806 - (Renato Regala v. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC Chapters and the Union Officers, Namely: William Marene, Benedicto De Jesus, Renato Roque, Manuel Galingana, Romeo Balatbat, Juanito Martin, Arlene Villanueva, Reynaldo Buenaventura, Alfredo Alcasid, Roque Sarsona, Lauro Reyes, Hermenegildo Bandola, Floreme Rodaje, George Bolivar, Ildefonso Acle, Nelson Cobina and Ramon Samson)
This resolves the petition for review for the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals on the enforcement of an intra-union dispute ruling.
Petitioner Renato Regala (petitioner) and several others sued their union, respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa and its officers (respondents), before the Department of Labor-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) for illegal expulsion and collection of fees. The DOLE-NCR ruled for the complaiants and ordered respondents to hold a general membership meeting for an accounting of union funds for 1999-2001. On appeal by both parties, the DOLE's Bureau of Labor Relations (DOLE-BLR) affirmed the DOLE-NCR's ruling and further ordered respondents to reinstate the complainants, restitute the fees and dues collected, and hold the general membership meeting within ten days from notice.[2] This ruling became final.
To execute the ruling, the DOLE-NCR issued the execution writ. In turn, the DOLE-NCR sheriff issued a notice of garnishment against 50% of the "bonuses, net salaries and other benefits convertible to cash" of the union's officers (individual respondents). The parties' employer, San Miguel Corporation, partially complied with the garnishment notice and turned over to the sheriff P159,279.55.
The individual respondents appealed to the DOLE-BLR for the quashal of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment, arguing that their salaries and benefits were exempt from execution, not to mention that their liability was not personal. In its Decision dated 25 November 2004, the DOLE-BLR found merit in the appeal, quashed both the writ of execution and notice of garnishment, ordered respondents to hold the general membership meeting within 30 days from notice and submit a compliance report, otherwise respondents "shall be held personally liable" for the restitution.[3]
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari, alleging that the DOLE-BLR acted with grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the notice of garnishment to execute a final ruling. In its Decision dated 27 October 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DOLE-BLR's quashal of the notice of garnishment.[4] The Court of Appeals upheld the DOLE-BLR's finding that the writ of garnishment levying individual respondents' salaries varied the terms of the DOLE-BLR's 24 July 2003 ruling finding individual respondents liable in their capacity as union officers not to mention that petitioner neither alleged nor proved that individual respondents mishandled the union funds in question. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals reinstated the writ of execution because unlike the notice of garnishment, it was not directed against individual respondents' personal funds.
Hence, this appeal.
We resolved to deny the petition.
We find no error in the Court of Appeals' decision that no grave abuse of discretion tainted the DOLE-BLR's ruling to set aside the notice of garnishment. In the first place, the law allows levying of laborers' wages only for "debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance."[5] Individual respondents incurred no debts here, much less debts for personal expenses. They were impleaded as union officers to answer claims of illegal expulsion and exaction of union fees and dues. At any rate, the records are bereft of proof that individual respondents misappropriated union funds for personal gain to justify personal liability. Indeed, the accounting of union funds was part of the remedies the DOLE ordered. Until the DOLE has passed upon this matter in the course of the enforcement proceedings, it is premature for any appellate court to traverse questions of misappropriation. On petitioner's assertion that the partial garnishment of individual respondents' salaries rendered the execution a "fait accompli," suffice it to say that the error is not irrevocable and certainly not binding on the courts.
WHEREFORE, we resolved to DENY the petition.
SO ORDERED. (Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., no part; Villarama and Perez, JJ., designated additional members per Raffle dated 2 June 2010.)
G.R. No. 171806 - (Renato Regala v. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC Chapters and the Union Officers, Namely: William Marene, Benedicto De Jesus, Renato Roque, Manuel Galingana, Romeo Balatbat, Juanito Martin, Arlene Villanueva, Reynaldo Buenaventura, Alfredo Alcasid, Roque Sarsona, Lauro Reyes, Hermenegildo Bandola, Floreme Rodaje, George Bolivar, Ildefonso Acle, Nelson Cobina and Ramon Samson)
This resolves the petition for review for the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals on the enforcement of an intra-union dispute ruling.
Petitioner Renato Regala (petitioner) and several others sued their union, respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa and its officers (respondents), before the Department of Labor-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) for illegal expulsion and collection of fees. The DOLE-NCR ruled for the complaiants and ordered respondents to hold a general membership meeting for an accounting of union funds for 1999-2001. On appeal by both parties, the DOLE's Bureau of Labor Relations (DOLE-BLR) affirmed the DOLE-NCR's ruling and further ordered respondents to reinstate the complainants, restitute the fees and dues collected, and hold the general membership meeting within ten days from notice.[2] This ruling became final.
To execute the ruling, the DOLE-NCR issued the execution writ. In turn, the DOLE-NCR sheriff issued a notice of garnishment against 50% of the "bonuses, net salaries and other benefits convertible to cash" of the union's officers (individual respondents). The parties' employer, San Miguel Corporation, partially complied with the garnishment notice and turned over to the sheriff P159,279.55.
The individual respondents appealed to the DOLE-BLR for the quashal of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment, arguing that their salaries and benefits were exempt from execution, not to mention that their liability was not personal. In its Decision dated 25 November 2004, the DOLE-BLR found merit in the appeal, quashed both the writ of execution and notice of garnishment, ordered respondents to hold the general membership meeting within 30 days from notice and submit a compliance report, otherwise respondents "shall be held personally liable" for the restitution.[3]
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari, alleging that the DOLE-BLR acted with grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the notice of garnishment to execute a final ruling. In its Decision dated 27 October 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DOLE-BLR's quashal of the notice of garnishment.[4] The Court of Appeals upheld the DOLE-BLR's finding that the writ of garnishment levying individual respondents' salaries varied the terms of the DOLE-BLR's 24 July 2003 ruling finding individual respondents liable in their capacity as union officers not to mention that petitioner neither alleged nor proved that individual respondents mishandled the union funds in question. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals reinstated the writ of execution because unlike the notice of garnishment, it was not directed against individual respondents' personal funds.
Hence, this appeal.
We resolved to deny the petition.
We find no error in the Court of Appeals' decision that no grave abuse of discretion tainted the DOLE-BLR's ruling to set aside the notice of garnishment. In the first place, the law allows levying of laborers' wages only for "debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance."[5] Individual respondents incurred no debts here, much less debts for personal expenses. They were impleaded as union officers to answer claims of illegal expulsion and exaction of union fees and dues. At any rate, the records are bereft of proof that individual respondents misappropriated union funds for personal gain to justify personal liability. Indeed, the accounting of union funds was part of the remedies the DOLE ordered. Until the DOLE has passed upon this matter in the course of the enforcement proceedings, it is premature for any appellate court to traverse questions of misappropriation. On petitioner's assertion that the partial garnishment of individual respondents' salaries rendered the execution a "fait accompli," suffice it to say that the error is not irrevocable and certainly not binding on the courts.
WHEREFORE, we resolved to DENY the petition.
SO ORDERED. (Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., no part; Villarama and Perez, JJ., designated additional members per Raffle dated 2 June 2010.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Dated 27 October 2005, penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Mendoza, concurring.
[2] In the Resolution dated 24 July 2003.
[3] In a separate incident, the DOLE-BLR, on petitioner's application, cited respondents in contempt, the basis for which cannot be determined from the records.
[4] The Court of Appeals also nullified a contempt citation the DOLE-BLR issued against respondents (see note 2).
[5] Article 1708 of the Civil Code provides: "The laborer's wages shall not be subject to execution or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance."
