Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21321. April 29, 1966.]

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellee.

Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioner and Appellant.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General E. Umali and Solicitor R. S. Goco, for respondent and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS; VISITORIAL POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR; CONVENTION No. 98 OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION NOT INFRINGED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1941. — There is no provision of Convention No. 98 of the International Labor Organization which is infringed by Republic Act No. 1941, except insofar as said Convention, like Convention No. 87, provides for the time and procedure for denunciation by any of the contracting parties, thus indicating that the latter, are, prior thereto, bound to comply with the provisions of both Conventions.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF LABOR. — There is no conflict between Republic Act No. 1941 and any of the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. There is nothing in said Republic Act No. 1941 that may authorize the Secretary of Labor either to interfere in the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions, to freely elect their representatives, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, or to dissolve or suspend said organizations, or to subject the acquisition of legal personality thereof to such conditions as to restrict or impair the rights aforementioned. His authority under said Act is limited to an inquiry into the financial activities of any legitimate labor organization and to the examination of "its book of accounts and other financial records to determine compliance or non-compliance with the laws and to aid in the prosecution for any violation thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY NOT DEPENDENT UPON REQUEST OF MEMBERS. — The authority of the Secretary of Labor to inquire into the financial activities of a labor organization in order "to determine compliance or non-compliance with the laws and to aid in the prosecution for any violation thereof" is not dependent upon the request of the members of the organization. Much less does it require a request backed up by 10% of said members.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURE OF FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF LABOR UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1941. — Violations of the laws in connection with financial activities of labor organizations may warrant prosecution before ordinary courts of Justice for crimes which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence, the functions of the Secretary of Labor under Republic Act No. 1941 are not merely complementary to those of the Court of Industrial Relations and to the right of inspection of members of labor organizations, except only in the broad abstract sense that every provision of Republic Act No. 875 tends to carry out or promote the accomplishment of its lofty objectives.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Herein petitioner, Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), is a duly registered labor federation. It instituted this action for a declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila, to overrule certain views entertained by respondent, Secretary of Labor. After appropriate proceedings said Court rendered judgment for the Respondent. Hence this appeal by petitioner, which maintains:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That a proviso in Section 23 (e) of Republic Act No. 875, as amended by Republic Act No. 1941, be declared unconstitutional and violative of Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization;

2. That the 10% minimum requirement in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875 is a condition sine quanon for the exercise of the visitorial powers of the respondent under Republic Act No. 1941;

3. That said visitorial power of respondent under this Act may be exercised only in aid or to complement the functions and powers of the Court of Industrial Relations under said Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875; and

4. That said visitorial power is merely an adjunct of the right of union members to inspect union books under said Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875.

Republic Act No. 1941, approved on June 22, 1957, amended Section 23 (e) of Republic Act No. 875 to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered Two Hundred and Thirteen providing for registration, licensing, and cancellation of registration of organizations, associations, or union of labor, as qualified and expanded by the preceding paragraphs of this Act, are hereby amended; Provided, however, that the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative is hereby empowered to inquire, from time to time, into the financial activities of any legitimate labor organization and to examine its books of accounts and other financial records to determine compliance or non-compliance with the laws and to aid in the prosecution for any violation thereof.

"The Secretary of Labor shall appoint such accounts examiners as may be necessary for carrying out the purpose of this section."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is argued by petitioner herein that this proviso is inconsistent with Articles 3, 4, 7 and 8 of said Convention 87, to which the Philippines is a party, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.

"2. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof." (Article 3).

"Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority." (Article 4)

"The acquisition of legal personality by workers’ and employers’ organizations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3, and 4 hereof." (Article 7)

"3. The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied to impair the guarantees provided for in this Convention." (Article 8)

We are not aware of, and petitioner has not cited, any provision of Convention No. 98, which is infringed by Republic Act No. 1941, except insofar as said Convention, like Convention No. 87, provides for the time and procedure for denunciation by any of the contracting parties, thus indicating that the latter, are, prior thereto, bound to comply with the provisions of both Conventions.

Moreover, petitioner assumes that an act of Congress is unconstitutional and/or invalid if it contravenes an international agreement to which the Philippines is a party. Without passing upon the validity or accuracy of this predicate, we find that petitioner’s contention is untenable. Indeed, we see no conflict between Republic Act No. 1941, on the one hand, and any of the provisions of said Conventions. There is in said Republic Act No. 1941 nothing that may authorize respondent either to interfere in the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions, to freely elect their representatives, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, or to dissolve or suspend said organizations, or to subject the acquisition of legal personality thereof to such conditions as to restrict or impair the rights aforementioned.

Respondent’s authority under said Act is limited to an inquiry into the financial activities of any legitimate labor organization and to the examination of "its books of accounts and other financial records to determine compliance or non-compliance with the laws and to aid in the prosecution for any violations thereof." Certainly, none of the provisions of Convention 87 and 98 seek to protect or shield labor organizations which violate said laws. Upon the other hand, Republic Act 1941 merely tries to forestall the misuse of funds of the union by officers thereof, by restoring to the Secretary of Labor a visitorial power he had under Commonwealth Act No. 213, which had not been included in Republic Act No. 875. Needless to say, if respondent should use the powers under Republic Act No. 1941 in such arbitrary or oppressive manner as to impair the rights of the workers or of their organization, then the remedy would be to challenge the action thus taken, "not to invalidate the law." — in the language used in Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education (51 Off. Gaz., 6230).

With respect to the second, third and fourth points raised by herein petitioner, the opening paragraph of Section 17 of Republic Act No. 875 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the Philippines to encourage the following internal labor organization procedures. A minimum of ten per cent of the members of a labor organization may report an alleged violation of those procedures in their labor organization to the Court. If the Court finds, upon investigation, evidence to substantiate the alleged violations and that efforts to correct the alleged violation through the procedures provided by the labor organization’s constitution or by-laws have been exhausted, the Court shall dispose of the complaint as in unfair labor practice cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

Then paragraph (a) prohibits arbitrary or excessive initiation fees; paragraph (b) grants to members the right to full and detailed reports for all financial transactions; paragraph (e) disqualifies those convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude for any position involving the collection, custody, management, control or disbursement of funds; paragraph (f) forbids the collection of fees or dues, or the disbursement of any funds of the organization without authority therefor pursuant to its constitutions and by-laws; paragraph (g) requires that every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member be evidenced by a receipt signed by the person making the collection and entered upon the records of the organization; paragraph (h) prohibits the application of funds for any purpose or object other than those expressly stated in the constitution or by laws of the organization of those expressly authorized by resolution of a majority of its members, paragraph (i) directs that every expenditure of funds be evidence by a receipt of the payee, with specification of the date, place and purpose of the payment, and that said receipt be part of the records of the organization; paragraph (j) forbids the payment to the officers of any other compensation, in addition to the salaries and expenses specifically provided in the constitution and by-laws, except in pursuance of a resolution approved in a meeting by a majority vote; paragraph (k) regulates the duties of the treasurer and every officer responsible for the accounts of the organization or for the collection, disbursement, custody or control of its funds, moneys and other properties; and paragraph (l) provides that the books of accounts and other records of financial activities shall be open to inspection by any officer or member of the organization.

Section 17 of said Act deals with the "Rights and Conditions of Membership in Labor Organizations." Pursuant thereto, the members of a labor organization may, upon petition of at least ten per cent of the members thereof, predicated upon an alleged violation of the "procedures" prescribed in said section, compel the Court of Industrial Relations to investigate whether or not the organization has in fact committed such violation and to take appropriate measures in connection therewith. Upon the other hand, Republic Act No. 1941 is concerned with the authority of the Department of Labor to inquire into the financial activities of said organization in order "to determine compliance or non-compliance with the laws and to aid in the prosecution for any violation thereof." This authority is not dependent upon the request of said members. Much less does it require a request backed up by 10% of the members of the organization.

Indeed, Section 17 refers to proceedings before the Court of Industrial Relations, whereas violations of the laws in connection with financial activities of labor organizations may warrant prosecution before ordinary courts of justice for crimes which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence, the functions of respondent under Republic Act No. 1941 are not merely complementary to those of the Court of Industrial Relations and to the right of inspection of members of labor organizations, except only in the broad abstract sense that every provision of Republic Act No. 875 tends to carry out or promote the accomplishment of its lofty objectives.

It may not be amiss to note that the authority of the Department of Labor to cancel the registration and permit of a labor organization upon the ground that the same does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c) of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875, is based upon paragraph (d) of said section, not upon paragraph (e) thereof as amended by Republic Act No. 1941. Moreover, the order of cancellation of the registration and permit, which may not be issued except after due notice and hearing, is appealable to the Court of Appeals, or to the Supreme Court, depending upon the issues raised in the appeal.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner herein. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.