Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    (Digest) Baptista V Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Quilala
    - Petitioners were former union members who filed complaints against the elected union officers for alleged mismanagement and violations of the union's constitution and bylaws. - The union investigated the complaints and recommended the expulsion of the petitioners. The recommendation was approved. - Petitioners then filed a case for unfair labor practice (ULP) against the union officers. However, the Court ruled that there was no ULP because the petitioners failed to exhaust all internal remedies within the union as required by the union's constitution and bylaws before filing external complaints. - For a case to be considered a ULP, the prohibited acts must relate to restricting a worker's right to organize. But the petitioners did

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (Digest) Baptista V Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Quilala
    199 views2 pages
    - Petitioners were former union members who filed complaints against the elected union officers for alleged mismanagement and violations of the union's constitution and bylaws. - The union investigated the complaints and recommended the expulsion of the petitioners. The recommendation was approved. - Petitioners then filed a case for unfair labor practice (ULP) against the union officers. However, the Court ruled that there was no ULP because the petitioners failed to exhaust all internal remedies within the union as required by the union's constitution and bylaws before filing external complaints. - For a case to be considered a ULP, the prohibited acts must relate to restricting a worker's right to organize. But the petitioners did

    Original Description:

    digest PQ

    Original Title

    [Digest]Baptista v Villanueva

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioners were former union members who filed complaints against the elected union officers for alleged mismanagement and violations of the union's constitution and bylaws. - The union investigated the complaints and recommended the expulsion of the petitioners. The recommendation was approved. - Petitioners then filed a case for unfair labor practice (ULP) against the union officers. However, the Court ruled that there was no ULP because the petitioners failed to exhaust all internal remedies within the union as required by the union's constitution and bylaws before filing external complaints. - For a case to be considered a ULP, the prohibited acts must relate to restricting a worker's right to organize. But the petitioners did

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    199 views2 pages

    (Digest) Baptista V Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Quilala
    - Petitioners were former union members who filed complaints against the elected union officers for alleged mismanagement and violations of the union's constitution and bylaws. - The union investigated the complaints and recommended the expulsion of the petitioners. The recommendation was approved. - Petitioners then filed a case for unfair labor practice (ULP) against the union officers. However, the Court ruled that there was no ULP because the petitioners failed to exhaust all internal remedies within the union as required by the union's constitution and bylaws before filing external complaints. - For a case to be considered a ULP, the prohibited acts must relate to restricting a worker's right to organize. But the petitioners did

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 194709 July 31, 2013 MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, an MA. !

    EDA"#N, P$%&%&on$'(, )(. R#SARI# *ILLANUE*A, JANETTE R#LDAN, DANIL# #LA"*AR, #N#!RE ESTRELLA, +ATALIN# LEDDA, MAN#L# GUBANG+#, GILBERT #RIBIANA, +#NSTAN+I# SANTIAG#, RUT, BA"-UEN, RUB" +AST ANEDA, AL!RED LANDAS, JR., R#SEL "N GAR+ES, EUGENE +RU., MENANDR# SAMS#N, !EDERI+# MUN#. an SAL*AD#R DI/A, R$(0on $n%(. !A+TS1 Petitioners were former union members of Radio Philippines Network Employees Union (RPNEU) and is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of Radio Philippines Network (RPN) while the respondents were the union s elected officers and members! "n suspicion of union mismanagement# petitioners# together with some other union members# filed a complaint for impeachment of their union president# Reynato $io%on# before the executive board of RPN# which was eventually abandoned. T2$y la%$' '$lo 3$ %2$ &40$a524$n% 5o40la&n%, %2&( %&4$, a3a&n(% all %2$ un&on o66&5$'( an 4$47$'( o6 RPNEU 7$6o'$ %2$ 8D#LE9 (&) written complaints# dated 'ay &(# &))* and 'ay &+# &))*# were filed a3a&n(% 0$%&%&on$'( and several others for alleged violation of the un&on:( +on(%&%u%&on an ByLa;( o ,rounds- .commission of an act which violates RPNEU /onstitution and 0y1aws# specifically# 2rticle 34# $ection &!& for 5oining or forming a union outside the sixty (()) days period and o 2rticle 34# $ection &!* for urging or advocating that a member start an action in any court of 5ustice or external investigative body against the Union or its officer without first exhausting all internal remedies open to him or available in accordance with the /01 Petitioners received a memorandum notice from 6eric $alinas# /hairman of the /ommittee# re7uesting them to answer the complaint and attend a hearing scheduled on "ctober 8# &))* "n November 9# &))*# the /ommittee submitted their recommendation of $<0ul(&on 6'o4 %2$ un&on to RPNEU s 0oard of :irectors! o ;he directors affirmed and approved the recommendation Petitioners filed for U1P

    3$$UE- <"N there was U1P! N"NE R2;3" T2$ &40o'%an5$ o6 a un&on:( 5on(%&%u%&on an 7yla;( 5anno% 7$ o)$'$402a(&=$ . T2$y $47o y a 5o)$nan% 7$%;$$n a un&on an &%( 4$47$'( an 5on(%&%u%$ %2$ 6un a4$n%al la; 3o)$'n&n3 %2$ 4$47$':( '&32%( an o7l&3a%&on(. A( (u52, %2$ un&on:( 5on(%&%u%&on an 7yla;( (2oul 7$ u02$l , a( lon3 a( %2$y a'$ no% 5on%'a'y %o la;, 3oo 4o'al( o' 0u7l&5 0ol&5y. <hen the /onstitution and bylaws of both unions dictated the remedy for intraunion dispute# such as petitioner s complaint against private respondents for unauthori%ed or illegal disbursement of union funds# this should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate administrative or 5udicial body# not only to give the grievance machinery or appeals body of the union the opportunity to decide the matter by itself# but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to administrative or 5udicial bodies! ;hus# a party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief# but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking 5udicial intervention! 3n essence# U1P relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers right to organi%e! 2s specified in 2rticles &=> and &=9 of the 1abor /ode# the prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers? right to self organi%ation and to the observance of a /02!8) 2bsent the said vital elements# the acts complained# although seemingly un5ust# would not constitute U1P! 3t is wellsettled that workers and employers organi%ations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom# to organi%e their administration and activities and to formulate their programs 3n this case# RPNEU s /onstitution and 0y1aws expressly mandate that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court# it is a pre@ condition that he should have availed of all the internal remedies within the organi%ation! Petitioners were found to have violated the provisions of the union s /onstitution and 0y1aws when they filed petitions for impeachment against their union officers and for audit before the :"1E without first exhausting all internal remedies available within their organi%ation Unfortunately# petitioners failed to discharge the burden re7uired to prove the charge of U1P against the respondents! 2side from their self@ serving allegations# petitioners were not able to establish how they were

    restrained or coerced by their union in a way that curtailed their right to selforgani%ation! ;he records likewise failed to sufficiently show that the respondents unduly persuaded management into discriminating against petitioners! other than to bring to its attention their expulsion from the union# which in turn# resulted in the implementation of their /02? s union security clause!

    You might also like