7/31/2019 Diokno

1/2

Diokno v. Cacdac (2007)Post under case digests, labor law at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Posted bySchizophrenic MindFacts: FLAMES, the Supervisor's Union for MERALCO, held a Union Election. Itformed its own COMELEC for the purpose of conducting fair elections, with DanteTong as its Chairman.

Jimmy Ong and others filed their certificates of candidacy (CoC). But these wererejected by the COMELEC on the ground that Ong was not a member of FLAMES,and that the others were confidential employees.

Another group, that of Edgardo Daya, also filed their CoCs. Other members ofFLAMES petitioned the COMELEC to have them disqualified. The COMELECdisqualified Daya on the ground that they were committing acts of disloyalty whichare inimical to the interest FLAMES, as provided for in their Constitution and By-Laws (CBL). It was alleged that, in their campaign, they had solicited support fromnon-union members, particularly from officers of the MEMABA and the MESALA.

The union elections proceeded, then COMELEC declared Diokno and otherpetitioners as the new President, etc. of FLAMES.

Ong's group filed a petition to annul the COMELEC's Order rejecting their CoCs.

Daya's group likewise filed their petition to annul their disqualification, to nullify theelection proceedings and counting of votes, to declare a failure of election, and todeclare the holding of a new election to be controlled and supervised by the DOLE.

And yet another group, that of Gaudencio Jimenez, filed another petition alleging thatthe union elections were not free, orderly and peaceful.

All of these petitions were filed separately before the Med-Arb Unit of the DOLE, andwere subsequently consolidated.

Meanwhile, a new election was held, this time with Daya's group participating.Eventually, the CA upheld the validity of the new elections, and the declaration ofDaya's group as the duly elected winners.

The Med-Arb ruled that Ong's petition was rendered moot and academic, and thatJimenez's petition was premature for non-exhaustion of administrative remedieswithin the COMELEC. With respect to Daya's petition, the Med-Arb ruled that Daya'sdisqualification was improper because it was not supported by substantial evidence,

and that the grounds used by the COMELEC as a basis for disqualifying Daya, Art.IV, Sec. 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES CBL, actually referred to the grounds for Expulsion ofa member from the union, and not Disqualification from the election.

In all cases, the Med-Arb asserted its jurisdiction.

The BLR and the CA affirmed the Med-Arb's decision.

Diokno and his group argued that the Med-Arb was without jurisdiction over thedisputes, because Art. 226 which grants power to the BLR to resolve inter- and intra-union disputes is dead law, and has been amended by Sec. 14, RA 6715 wherebythe conciliation, mediation and voluntary arbitration functions of the BLR had beentransferred to the NCMB. They also contended that the COMELEC had the sole andexclusive power to rule upon the qualification of any candidate, and therefore it has

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/labor%20lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/labor%20lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/labor%20lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/diokno-v-cacdac-2007.html

7/31/2019 Diokno

2/2

the correlative power to disqualify any candidate in accordance with its guidelines.

Issue: Whether or not the BLR has jurisdiction.

Held: Yes. Sec. 14, RA 6715 did not repeal the jurisdiction of the BLR. It only addedthe clause The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor casesbefore it, subject to extension by agreement of the parties.

The BLR has original and exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-unionconflicts. Since Art. 226 has declared that the BLR shall have original and exclusiveauthority to act on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, there should be no moredoubt as to its jurisdiction.

As defined, an intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a laborunion, while an inter-union conflict is one occuring or carried on between or amongunions.

The controversy in the case at bar is an intra-union dispute. There is no question thatthis is one which involves a dispute within or inside FLAMES, a labor union. At issueis the propriety of the disqualification of Daya by the FLAMES COMELEC in theunion elections.

It must also be stressed that even as the dispute involves allegations that Dayasought the help of non-union members in their election campaign, the same does notdetract from the real character of the controversy. It remains as one which involvesthe grievance over the CBL of a union, and it is a controversy involving members ofthe union.