G.R. No. L-62306. January 21, 1985.
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGYAKAP (KMP), ISAGANI GUTIERREZ, FLORENCIA CARREON, JOSE FLORES, DENNIS ALINEA, ELADIO DE LUNA and CRISANTO DE VILLA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE CRESENCIANO TRAJANO, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, CATALINO SILVESTRE, and CESAR ALFARO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, union members, filed a petition for the expulsion of the petitioner union officers based on a Ministry of Labor examiner’s report. The report cited several alleged violations: disallowed expenditures totaling P1,278.00 for items like a sound system and travel, which lacked supporting receipts; failure to maintain and submit union account records for 1977-1979; failure to segregate union funds into distinct accounts as required; and the non-ratification of the union’s constitution and by-laws. The petitioners, who were elected officers in 1980, defended themselves by arguing the expenditures were made in good faith for the members’ benefit and offered reimbursement. They also contended they could not be accountable for pre-1980 record-keeping lapses, as the prior officers did not turn over the documents, and stated they were correcting the procedural errors regarding fund segregation.
The Med-Arbiter ordered a supervised general membership referendum to vote on the expulsion or suspension of the officers. Both parties appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). The petitioners argued the order was contrary to law and fact, while the private respondents argued expulsion was the proper remedy, not a referendum. BLR Director Trajano dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s order for a referendum. Subsequently, a general union election was held wherein all petitioner officers except two were re-elected, and the private respondents lost their bids for auditor positions. The petitioners then moved to dismiss the case as moot and academic, but the BLR denied their motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Bureau of Labor Relations Director committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the order for a referendum on the expulsion of the union officers and in not dismissing the petition after the officers’ re-election.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the BLR’s resolution and order and dismissed the expulsion petition. The legal logic is threefold. First, if the officers were indeed guilty of the serious charges under Article 242 of the Labor Code, such as fraud or falsification, the proper administrative action under established doctrine (Duyag vs. Inciong) would have been for the BLR to impose the penalty directly, not to delegate the decision to a membership referendum. Second, the evidence did not substantially support claims of falsification or misrepresentation. The disallowance of expenditures was primarily due to missing receipts, not proof of personal misappropriation; the expenses appeared made in good faith for union purposes. Third, and decisively, the officers’ re-election by the general membership rendered the issue moot and academic. Following the doctrine in Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, the court held that re-election signifies the electorate’s knowledge of the alleged acts and their subsequent condonation or forgiveness. To remove officers for pre-election acts after the people have re-elected them would override the democratic will of the union membership. Thus, the referendum order had no further legal purpose.