Kapisanan v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner union sought reconsideration of a decision that remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for reception of evidence regarding certain resolutions supporting the union's claim on the regularity of collection of additional dues. The original decision noted that the certification of these resolutions was submitted after the hearing and without respondents being given an opportunity to cross-examine the certifying officers. Procedural History: The CIR had previously issued a resolution ordering the stoppage of monthly collection of P5.00 from members and a refund of excess fees. The Supreme Court, in its initial decision, remanded the case to the CIR for further reception of evidence concerning the resolutions. The Petition: The respondents (Hernandez, et al.) sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to remand the case. They manifested that they waived their right to inquire into the veracity of the facts alleged in the certification and were ready to assume the due execution, genuineness, and veracity of the certification and resolutions to avoid further delay. They argued that Resolution No. 1, which increased the members' contribution from P2.00 to P5.00, was null and void for not being approved in accordance with Article X, Section 6 of the union's constitution and by-laws, which requires a 2/3 vote for amendments to the by-laws.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolution No. 1, which increased union dues, is null and void for not being approved by the required two-thirds (2/3) vote of the convention delegates. Whether the accounting rendered by the union president concerning his trip abroad was validly approved.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is granted in part. The Court affirms the resolution of the CIR dated April 26, 1962, ordering the stoppage of the monthly collection of P5.00 from the members of the respondent union. The respondent union is also ordered to refund to the members the additional fees collected since the increased dues were made effective until their stoppage. The motion for reconsideration is denied with respect to the accounting of the union president's trip abroad.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court finds the respondents' motion for reconsideration well-taken regarding the validity of Resolution No. 1. The union's constitution and by-laws, specifically Article X, Section 6, provide that amendments to the by-laws require the approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the delegates attending the convention. Section 1, Article VI of the constitution originally pegged the members' contribution at P2.00 for retirement benefits. The collection of P5.00 was based on a circular from the union president, purportedly authorized by the board of directors. However, the board alone cannot amend the constitution and by-laws. Since Resolution No. 1, which increased the assessment, was passed by a mere majority of the convention members and not by the required 2/3 vote, it is considered illegally enacted and therefore null and void. This ruling is consistent with the Court's prior observation that the increased assessment required convention approval. On Issue 2: The Court denies the motion for reconsideration concerning the accounting of the union president's trip abroad. The records show that this accounting was rendered to and approved by the convention. The respondents' objection, premised on the alleged non-submission of corresponding receipts, is not supported by the available record. Therefore, the approval of the accounting stands.
Main Doctrine
While Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875 permits courts to consider evidence beyond the formal hearing, this power must be balanced with the fundamental right to due process, including the opportunity for cross-examination. The Court may, however, consider stipulations of fact made by the parties to expedite the resolution of the case and serve the ends of justice.