367 Phil. 570
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
On 10 November 1992, this Office issued an order directing one of its staff, Ms. Dorisa Geluz, to `proceed with the conduct of the audit.'In their appeal to the Secretary of Labor, petitioners asserted that the Regional Director denied them due process, and that the audit was not only barred by prescription but also proscribed by Article 274 of the Labor Code in that union accounts cannot be examined during the sixty-day freedom period or within thirty days immediately preceding the date of election of union members.
The order was appealed to the Office of the Secretary, with the appeal being docketed as OS-MA-A-1-11-93 (BLR-AE No. 8-11-92). On 08 February 1993, through Undersecretary Laguesma, the Office of the Secretary set aside the order and dismissed the petition on the ground that it 'x x x is a duplication of the complaint earlier filed by the [private respondents] with the Office of the Regional Director.'
On 05 April 1993, upon motion for reconsideration of the [private respondents], the Office of the Secretary reconsidered its 08 February 1993 order. It thus reinstated the earlier order issued by this Office on 10 November 1992.
On 13 August 1993, upon motion of [petitioners], the Office of the Secretary modified its 08 February 1993 order and ruled that:'While we sustain the Order for the holding of an account examination of the union, we have deemed it proper to take valid cognizance of the argument that the Bureau of Labor Relations is an improper venue for the same. To give substance to Administrative Order 186 decentralizing line functions, the matter of the conduct for the union account examination is hereby endorsed to the Regional Office. Let the account examiner of DOLE Regional Office No. IV, perform this task.Pursuant to this order, the account examiner, regional Office No. IV initiated the conduct of audit by calling for a pre-audit conference. [Petitioners], however, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 111671, seeking to annul and set aside the order of the Office of the Secretary. In the conference of 30 September 1993, the audit was supposed to have been held in abeyance `until the petition for certiorari filed by the [petitioners] is resolved.'
Wherefore, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. The Order for the conduct of union account examination is affirmed, but modified to the extent that the same shall be conducted by DOLE Regional Office No. IV through its competent personnel.
`Let the records of the case be forwarded to the Regional Office for the appropriate proceedings therein.'
Subsequently, the Regional Office sent notices to both parties setting pre-audit conferences on 26 November 1993, 10 December 1993, and 23 December 1993. [Petitioners] did not appear in any of these conferences. On record, they formally filed a request dated 03 December 1993 to hold in abeyance the pre-audit conference because of the pendency of their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Parenthetically, the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the petition on 22 November 1993; the Court would later on dismiss the petition with finality on 24 January 1994.
In the meantime, on 01 December 1993, the Regional Office sent a letter to the employer of [petitioners] asking for `x x x a certification as to the amount of union dues checked-off and other deductions made from the salaries of union members.' On 28 December 1993, the Regional Office also sent a subpoena duces tecum to [petitioners], directing them to bring `x x x all the financial documents of the union for the period from July 1989 to July 1992.'
On 05 April 1994, [petitioners'] employer sent the Regional Office a summary of union collections and remittances from July 1989 to July 1992. On 18 April 1994, the Regional Office again sent [petitioners'] employer another request, this time asking for `x x x a certification as to the amount other than union dues deducted from the salaries of union members and as well as non-union members.' On 11 May 1994 [petitioners'] employer, through Mr. Antonio de las Alas, issued a certification complying with this request.
On 02 June 1994, the Regional Director issued an order based on the recommendations of the account examiner. The pertinent portion of the order states:`Since it is obvious that the incumbent officers do not want this Office to conduct the examination of the book of accounts x x x, the undersigned (the account examiner) shall have the certification furnished to us by Mr. Antonio De las Alas, Jr., as basis for the audit and no other way except to resolve this case, once and for all, the undersigned recommends the following:
"1. That the incumbent officers hold a general membership meeting and likewise explain the amount of P352,496.00 to the general membership and open the book of accounts to any member as well as the complainants and furnish this Office the minutes of the particular meeting.
"2. The incumbent officers are given 20 days to submit compliance report of the said meeting.
" x x x.
This Office finds the above-findings and recommendations in order, hence it is hereby adopted.
WHEREFORE, the responsible officers particularly, the union president, union treasurer, the retired former union treasurer, the former union auditor and the union auditor are ordered to comply with the foregoing recommendations. x x x
Consequently, the responsible officers are given twenty (20) days from receipt of this ORDER to convene a general meeting for the purpose of putting into effect the mandate of the ORDER and to make a report of compliance thereon.'[2]
The instant case allegedly is an internal dispute covered by Article 241 (p) of the Labor Code. Thus, the appellate procedure established in Article 259 of the Labor Code and Section 5, Rule VIII of the implementing rules should apply. Accordingly, the decision of the Regional Director should have been appealed to the Office of the Secretary, not to this office. Respondents further argue that Republic Act No. 6715 stripped this office of adjudicatory powers and transferred the same to the Office of the Secretary. Consequently, Administrative Order No. 186, which was issued by the Office of the Secretary itself and which served as basis for it to endorse the case to this Office, constitutes an unauthorized amendment of the law.[4]The BLR, however, denied the motion explaining that its appellate authority over complaints of union account examinations is explicit under the Rules of Procedure on Med-Arbitration issued on 10 April 1992. In addition, the BLR has the power to examine the financial records of legitimate labor organizations. This power is either (1) primary, inherent and expressed under Book IV, Title VII, Chapter 4, Section 16 of the Administrative Code of 1987 or (2) delegated upon the DOLE Secretary under Article 274 of the Labor Code, La Tondeña Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor, and Administrative Order No. 189 insofar as it is consistent with the latter case. The BLR also has original and exclusive authority to hear intra-union disputes (such as a petition to examine union accounts) under Articles 226 and 241 of the Labor Code. The BLR added that R.A. No. 6715 never stripped it of its quasi-adjudicatory powers particularly over internal union disputes, and Administrative Order No. 186 did not amend but precisely implemented Article 274 of the Labor Code.
SEC. 3. Jurisdiction of the Regional Director. - the Regional Director shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over application for union registration, petitions for cancellation of union registration and complaints for examination of union's books of accounts (italics supplied).The language of the law is categorical. Any additional explanation on the matter is superfluous.
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau.-
x x x
(b) The Bureau shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases originating from the Regional Director involving union registration or cancellation of certificates of union registration and complaints for examination of union books of accounts (italics supplied).
Article 274. Visitorial power. - The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative is hereby empowered to inquire into the financial activities of legitimate labor organizations upon the filing of a complaint under oath and duly supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of the total membership of the labor organization concerned and to examine their books of accounts and other records to determine compliance or non-compliance with the law and to prosecute any violations of the law and the union constitution and by-law; Provided, That such inquiry or examination shall not be conducted during the sixty (60)-day freedom period nor within the thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of election of union officers.While the provision did not explicitly mention the BLR, and only made a cryptic reference to the DOLE Secretary's "duly authorized representative", the latter was identified by the Court as the BLR in La Tondeña Workers Union vs. Secretary of Labor when it ruled that "union accounts examiners of the Bureau mentioned in Rule 1, Sec. 1 (ff) of "Book V of) the implementing rules as having the power to audit the books of accounts of unions are actually officials of the BLR because the word `Bureau' is defined in Rule 1, Sec. 1 (b) of the same rules as the Bureau of Labor Relations." The Court additionally declared therein that the DOLE Secretary authorized the BLR to examine union accounts for and in his behalf when he endorse the case to the latter, thus:
[T]he delegation of authority to union accounts examiners in Rule 1, sec. 1 (ff) is not exclusive. By indorsing the case to the BLR, the Secretary of Labor and Employment must be presumed to have authorized the BLR to act on his behalf. Xxxx, the Secretary made two indorsements: first, when he referred to the BLR the letter dated July 27, 1989 of Ramon de la Cruz and Norma Marin seeking the annulment of the audit report of the DOLE NCR, and second, on September 4, 1990, when, instead of acting on the petition for review of the union, he endorsed it to the BLR.[9]The DOLE Secretary can also delegate his other functions and duties pursuant to Section 40, Chapter 8, Book IV of the Administrative Code provided that the delegation is in writing, indicating the officer or class of officers or employees to whom the delegation is made and only insofar as the delegation is necessary for the latter to implement plans and programs adequately.
Art. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. - The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, x x x. (italics supplied)As already held by the Court in La Tondeña Workers Union vs. Secretary of Labor, intra-union conflicts such as examinations of accounts are under the jurisdiction of the BLR. However, the Rules of Procedure on mediation-Arbitration purposely and expressly separated or distinguished examinations of union accounts from the genus of intra-union conflicts and provided a different procedure for the resolution of the same. Original jurisdiction over complaints for examinations of union accounts is vested on the Regional Director and appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the former is lodged with the BLR. This is apparent from Sections 3 and 4 of the Med-Arbitration Rules as already mentioned. Contrast these two sections from Section 2 and Section 56 of the same rules. Section 2 expressly vests upon Med-Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide inter alia "all other inter-union or internal union disputes." Section 5 states that the decisions of the Med-Arbiter shall be appealable to the DOLE Secretary. These are the provisions consistent with Section 5 of Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code but as already explained inapplicable to the same at bar.
Section 16. Bureau of Labor Relations - The Bureau of Labor Relations shall set policies, standards, and procedures on the registration and supervision of legitimate labor union activities including denial, cancellation and revocation of labor union permits. It shall also set policies, standards, and procedure relating to collective bargaining agreements, and examination of financial records of accounts of labor organizations to determine compliance with relevant laws. (italics supplied)In sum, the BLR did not exceed its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of petitioners' appeal. At any rate, this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 111671 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners in their quest to nullify the 13 August 1993 order of the office of the DOLE Secretary requiring the Regional office to proceed with the audit constitutes res judicata. This should put an end to this litigation already prolonged by procedural ploys which this Court will no longer tolerate. This case involves a simple matter of auditing union accounts which should have been conducted with dispatch eons ago.