Diamonon v. Department of Labor and Employment

G.R. No. 108951 · 2000-03-07 · J. DE LEON, JR., J.: · Primary: Labor; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesus B. Diamonon, National Executive Vice President of NACUSIP and Vice President for Luzon of PACIWU, learned of his removal from these positions via a resolution approved by the National Executive Boards of both unions. He sought reconsideration and simultaneously filed a complaint (FIRST) against the National President and members of the National Executive Boards questioning his removal. Procedural History: While the FIRST case was pending, petitioner filed a second complaint (SECOND) against Atty. Zoilo V. de la Cruz, Jr. and Sofia P. Mana-ay, accusing them of wanton violation of the Constitution and By-Laws, unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds, and abuse of authority. An Order in the FIRST case declared petitioner's removal null and void, which was appealed by private respondents. In the SECOND case, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the complaint based on petitioner's lack of personality to file due to his removal. Petitioner appealed this dismissal. The DOLE Undersecretary, in the FIRST case, affirmed the nullity of petitioner's removal. However, in the SECOND case, the Undersecretary issued an Order dated December 29, 1992, affirming the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 25, 1993. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Orders dated December 29, 1992, and January 25, 1993, arguing that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion by switching the ground for dismissal from "lack of personality" to "non-exhaustion of administrative remedies," thereby adjudicating matters upon which the parties were not heard.

Issue(s)

Whether the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the appeal and denied the motion for reconsideration. Whether the dismissal of the complaint for unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds was proper on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Ruling

The petition is dismissed, and the twin Orders dated December 29, 1992, and January 25, 1993, are affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court held that while an appellate court generally passes only upon assigned errors, exceptions exist where the court may consider unassigned errors to serve the interests of justice. This rule applies to administrative bodies as well. In this case, the public respondent, in dismissing the complaint for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, committed no grave abuse of discretion. On the Issue of Non-Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The Court emphasized that when the constitution and by-laws of unions dictate a remedy for intra-union disputes, such as the alleged unauthorized disbursement of funds, these internal remedies must be pursued to their appropriate conclusion before resorting to administrative or judicial bodies. This principle ensures that the union's grievance machinery has the opportunity to resolve the matter and prevents premature litigation. Petitioner's failure to exhaust these internal remedies rendered his action premature and fatal to his cause of action. The petitioner failed to comply with the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code and, more importantly, failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in the constitution and by-laws of both NACUSIP and PACIWU. The records showed that petitioner did not raise his complaint regarding the disbursement of union funds during the National Conventions of PACIWU and NACUSIP, where such matters could have been addressed.

Main Doctrine

A complaint for unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds is dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided for in the union's constitution and by-laws, as such intra-union disputes must be resolved within the organization before resorting to administrative or judicial bodies.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →