Catura vs.

CIR | Fernando (1971) agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute, in this case intended to
protect the rights of union members against its officers.
FACTS - The matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary to give it
- A complaint was lodged against Catura and Salvador, the President and Treasurer, force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the power sought to be
respectively, of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees exercised is so arbitrary. No such showing has been made; no such showing can be
Association, a legitimate labor organization. made. To repeat, there should be no question about the correctness of the order
- The principal complainants are respondent Tabaniag as well as other employees herein challenged.
constituting more than ten percent of the entire membership of such labor - Nor is the validity of the order in question to be impugned by the allegation that
organization. there was a denial of procedural due process. If the books and records were the
- It was charged that during the tenure of office of petitioners, they were private property of petitioners, perhaps the allegation of the absence of due process
responsible for "unauthorized disbursement of union funds". would not be entirely lacking in plausibility. Such is not the case however.
- Complainants filed a case with the DOLE. - The pertinent section of the Industrial Peace Act makes clear that such books of
- Associate Judge Salvador of the CIR required and directed Catura and Salvador to accounts and other records of the financial activities are open to inspection by any
deliver and deposit to the Court all the said Association's book of accounts, bank member of a labor organization.
accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related - For the court to require their submission at the hearing of the petition is, as above
to the finances of the said labor union at the hearing. noted, beyond question, and no useful purpose would be served by first hearing
- There was a motion for reconsideration by petitioners on the ground that they petitioners before an order to that effect can be issued. Moreover, since as was
were not heard before such order was issued, which moreover in their opinion was shown in the very brief of petitioners, there was a motion for reconsideration, the
beyond the power of the CIR. With Associate Judge Paredes dissenting, the order absence of any hearing, even if on the assumption purely for argument's sake that
was sustained in a resolution by the Court en banc. there was such a requirement, has been cured.
- What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute
ISSUE/S & HELD: absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard.
WON the CIR had the power to issue such Order. YES. - The hearing on a motion for reconsideration meets the strict requirement of due
process.
RATIONALE
- Paragraphs (b), (h), and (l) of Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act provide:
"The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and
representatives of all financial transactions as provided in the constitution and by-
laws of the organization." ... "The books of accounts and other records of the
financial activities of a legitimate labor organization shall be open to inspection by
any officer or member thereof."
- All that the challenged order did was to require petitioners, as President and
Treasurer of the labor organization, to "deliver and deposit" with respondent Court
all of its book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts,
vouchers and other documents related to its finances at the hearing of the petition
- On its face, it cannot be said that such a requirement is beyond the statutory
power conferred. If it were otherwise, the specific provisions of law allegedly
violated may not be effectively complied with. The authority to investigate might
be rendered futile.
- To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the power to investigate, to be conscientious and
rational at the very least, requires an inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The
documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character
as to whether or not there was a failure to comply with the mandates of the law.
- It is not for this Court to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative