Title
La Tondena Workers Union vs. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment
Case
G.R. No. 96821
Decision Date
Dec 9, 1994
A labor union audit dispute where officers were held liable for unaccounted funds after a re-audit, upheld by the Supreme Court due to procedural compliance and due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 13312)

Petitioner’s Background

The LTWU is a duly registered labor organization that had served as the bargaining agent for La Tondena Inc.’s rank-and-file workers for over thirty years. However, on May 31, 1989, it lost a certification election to a rival union, Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa. Subsequently, approximately 200 of its 1,015 members requested an audit of the union’s funds, leading to the issuance of an audit report by the Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) on April 17, 1989.

Audit Findings and Actions Taken

The audit report indicated that Ramon de la Cruz and Norma Marin, president and treasurer of the LTWU, were responsible for a total of P367,553.00 in union dues. In response to the findings, these officers appealed to the Secretary of Labor, claiming they had not been given a hearing prior to the issuance of the audit report. The Bureau of Labor Relations subsequently set aside the original findings and ordered another audit.

Legal Arguments and Rejections

The LTWU filed a motion for reconsideration against the audit and examination, asserting that the requirements set forth in Article 274 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, had not been satisfied. This included stipulations regarding the need for a sworn written complaint backed by at least 20% of the union's membership and the prohibition of such examinations during the "freedom period."

Jurisdictional Dispute

The BLR rejected the motion, affirming the validity of the ordered audits and examinations. The LTWU subsequently raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that the authority to order such examinations rested solely with the Secretary of Labor or his representative, not the BLR. The BLR, however, demonstrated sufficient authority based on the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Labor Code, which empower the Bureau to supervise labor organizations and include it within the framework of intra-union disputes.

Procedural Validity of the Examination

Key to the disputes was whether the examination was valid despite the alleged non-compliance with the 20% membership support requirement for the complaint. The court established that the request for examination was validly made based on the timing of when the petition was filed, which preceded the enactment of the amendments requiring 20% support, allowing the BLR to conduct the examination based on the pre-existing framework.

Due Process Considerations

The petitio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.