Title
Philippine Airlines Employees Association vs. Cacdac
Case
G.R. No. 155097
Decision Date
Sep 27, 2010
PALEA's contested 2002 election, nullified for fraud, was upheld by courts after appeals; SC affirmed CA's dismissal of certiorari, validating the election's compliance with BLR's final decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155097)

Antecedents of the Case

PALEA served as the exclusive bargaining representative for regular rank-and-file employees at Philippine Airlines. Following the expiration of its officers' terms in 1995, PALEA held elections for new officers in February 2000. However, a resolution on June 15, 2000, from the Regional Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations nullified the elections due to allegations of fraud and irregularities, mandating a new election under the supervision of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Appeals and Legal Proceedings

The Regional Director's decision was upheld by the BLR Director on July 28, 2000, leading to a legal challenge from the proclaimed president, Jose Peñas III, who sought annulment of this resolution. The Court of Appeals confirmed the necessity of a new election on March 28, 2001. Following this, the DOLE commenced pre-election procedures but faced interruptions due to a petition from PALEA members seeking to amend the association's Constitution, which was ultimately dismissed by the BLR Regional Director on February 15, 2002.

Contention Leading to Certiorari

In response to the dismissal of the appeal against the February 15 order, PALEA filed a petition for certiorari on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion, seeking to prevent the scheduled election on April 5, 2002. On the day of the election, the Court of Appeals granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), but it was received too late to halt the election proceedings.

Court of Appeals' Dismissal and Rationale

The Court of Appeals dismissed PALEA's petition for lack of merit, emphasizing that the petition did not properly address the earlier rulings but instead attempted to forestall the already mandated election process. The Court highlighted that the petition aimed to dispute procedural aspects of the election rather than the substantive issue at hand, which was the necessity of conducting a new election as ordered by prior legal judgments.

Analysis of Legal Parameters and Findings

The Supreme Court's subsequent review found that PALEA's petition did not meet the necessary legal requisites for certiorari, namely that the petition must involve an authentic exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, which was not present in the act

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.