View full case

ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTAׁO v. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES

FACTS:

Attorney Allan S. Montaño, a legal assistant at the FFW Legal Center, became the president of the FFW Staff Association in 1997. He was later designated as the officer-in-charge of the FFW Legal Center. During the 21st National Convention and Election of National Officers of FFW, Atty. Montaño was nominated for the position of National Vice-President. Despite opposition and a pending motion for reconsideration, his candidacy was allowed and he eventually won the election. Atty. Verceles protested Atty. Montaño's candidacy and filed a petition before the BLR to nullify his election as FFW National Vice-President. Atty. Montaño argued that the Regional Director of the DOLE has jurisdiction and that the petition was premature since the FFW COMELEC protest was still pending.

Atty. Montaño filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of National Vice-President of FFW. Atty. Verceles filed a petition with the BLR seeking to disqualify Atty. Montaño. The BLR dismissed Atty. Montaño's motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit an answer to the petition. The BLR eventually dismissed the petition for lack of merit, stating that Atty. Montaño possessed the required qualifications. Atty. Verceles filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

Atty. Verceles filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA set aside the BLR's decision and nullified Atty. Montaño's election. The CA ruled that Atty. Montaño did not possess the required qualification. Atty. Montaño filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The FFW Staff Association sought intervention in the case, but the CA denied both Atty. Montaño's motion for reconsideration and the FFW Staff Association's motion for intervention/clarification. Atty. Montaño then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, raising various grounds.

In his petition with the CA, Atty. Montaño questioned the jurisdiction of the BLR and sought the dismissal of the case against him. He argued that the petition was premature and violated the rule on non-forum shopping. He also claimed that the petition should be dismissed as moot since Atty. Verceles was appointed as Commissioner of the NLRC. Atty. Montaño further contended that the CA erred in annulling his election as FFW National Vice-President based on the legitimacy of the FFW Staff Association.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes involving a federation.

  2. Whether the petition to annul Atty. Montaño's election as VP was prematurely filed.

  3. Whether the requirement to seek redress within the organization itself before filing a petition is absolute.

  4. Whether the allegation regarding certification against forum shopping was belatedly raised.

  5. Whether the case should be resolved despite the issues having become moot.

  6. Whether Atty. Montaño is qualified to run as FFW National Vice-President during the May 26-27, 2001 elections.

RULING:

  1. The BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes involving a federation. Section 226 of the Labor Code provides that the BLR and the Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over inter-union and intra-union disputes, which include the conduct or nullification of election of union and workers' association officers.

  2. The petition to annul Atty. Montaño's election as VP was not prematurely filed. The petitioner exhausted the remedies under the constitution and by-laws to have his protest acted upon by the proper forum and only sought redress from the BLR after the FFW COMELEC failed to timely act on his protest.

  3. The requirement to seek redress within the organization itself before filing a petition is not absolute but yields to exception under varying circumstances. In this case, the petitioner followed the proper procedures within the organization and sought redress from the BLR to protect the rights of the union he represents.

  4. The allegation regarding certification against forum shopping was belatedly raised and therefore deserves no merit. New issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on a motion for reconsideration.

  5. Despite the issues becoming moot, the case should still be resolved if the issues are capable of repetition, yet evading review. In this case, the legitimacy of Atty. Montaño's leadership as National President is not in issue, but the qualification of the petitioner to run as VP is still a matter that needs resolution.

  6. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Montaño is not qualified to run as FFW National Vice-President due to the prohibition stated in Section 76, Article XIX of the 1998 FFW Constitution and By-Laws. Although the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in their findings, the Supreme Court affirmed their ruling that Atty. Montaño is disqualified to hold the position. The election of Atty. Montaño as FFW Vice-President is declared null and void.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes involving a federation.

  • The requirement to seek redress within the organization itself before filing a petition is not absolute.

  • New issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on a motion for reconsideration.

  • The case can still be resolved despite the issues becoming moot if they are capable of repetition, yet evading review.

  • The FFW COMELEC has the authority and power to determine the qualifications and eligibility of candidates for FFW elections, and its interpretation of the federation's constitution and by-laws shall prevail, unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • The proscription in the FFW Constitution and By-Laws, which prohibits federation employees from sitting on the Governing Board, must be adhered to.