Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Cruz V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Mish
    The court found that the union officer arbitrarily and unfairly forced through a settlement with the company on behalf of union members, without their knowledge or consent. The officer did not have the proper authority from the members to negotiate or agree to the settlement terms, which compromised the members' estimated judgment of P423,756.74 down to P110,000. Approving the settlement without verifying the union board's authority was improper. The court set aside the settlement and restored the case to its prior status, with payments made considered partial payments subject to final adjustment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cruz V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Mish
    74 views4 pages
    The court found that the union officer arbitrarily and unfairly forced through a settlement with the company on behalf of union members, without their knowledge or consent. The officer did not have the proper authority from the members to negotiate or agree to the settlement terms, which compromised the members' estimated judgment of P423,756.74 down to P110,000. Approving the settlement without verifying the union board's authority was improper. The court set aside the settlement and restored the case to its prior status, with payments made considered partial payments subject to final adjustment.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Cruz v CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court found that the union officer arbitrarily and unfairly forced through a settlement with the company on behalf of union members, without their knowledge or consent. The officer did not have the proper authority from the members to negotiate or agree to the settlement terms, which compromised the members' estimated judgment of P423,756.74 down to P110,000. Approving the settlement without verifying the union board's authority was improper. The court set aside the settlement and restored the case to its prior status, with payments made considered partial payments subject to final adjustment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    74 views4 pages

    Cruz V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Mish
    The court found that the union officer arbitrarily and unfairly forced through a settlement with the company on behalf of union members, without their knowledge or consent. The officer did not have the proper authority from the members to negotiate or agree to the settlement terms, which compromised the members' estimated judgment of P423,756.74 down to P110,000. Approving the settlement without verifying the union board's authority was improper. The court set aside the settlement and restored the case to its prior status, with payments made considered partial payments subject to final adjustment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    COURT OF INDUSTRIAL

    RELATIONS
    officer placed the union members, unassisted as they were by counsel,
    on an equal footing in negotiating with respondent by a mere stroke of
    his pen by ordering the enforcement of his final P200,000.00 deposit
    order, as to which there no longer existed any obstacle. We find the
    forcing through of the settlement, under such circumstances, arbitrary,
    unfair and unconscionable. Any acts of the union officer represents the
    union member thus actions must known to the members before signing
    an agreement.
    G.R. No. L-23331-32
    December 27, 1969
    Facts:
    • Petitioners in Cases L-23331-32 are the retained lawyers of the Santiago Labor Union who question
    respondent Court's approval of respondent firm's settlement of the union members' judgment claims
    with the union board of directors, without their knowledge and consent, notwithstanding their duly
    recorded attorneys' lien, and over the objection of a board member that the union board had no
    authority to compromise or quit-claim the judgment rights of the union members.
    • Petitioners in Cases L-23361-62 are forty-nine (49) claimants-members of the Santiago Labor
    Union who assail respondent Court's approval of the questioned settlement, without their authority
    as the real parties in interest, and who denounce the settlement as unconscionable and having
    been entered into by the majority of the union board "under circumstances of fraud, deceit,
    mispresentation and/or concealment, especially where a member of the Court has actively used his
    official and personal influence to effect the settlement which is manifestly unjust to laborers who by
    reason of their financial disadvantages in a conflict with their employers need all the aid of the Court
    for their protection, consonant with law, justice and equity.“
    • June 21, 1952, when the Santiago Labor Union, composed of workers of the Santiago Rice Mill, a
    business enterprise engaged in the buying and milling of palay at Santiago, Isabela, and owned
    operated by King Hong Co., filed before the respondent Court of Industrial Relations Cases Nos.
    709-V and V-1 hereof, a petition for overtime pay, premium pay for night, Sunday and holiday work,
    and for reinstatement of workers illegally laid off.
    • Whether the relationship between Union officers and union members
    may be a valid reason to decide on behalf of the latter for settlement
    of claims without the presence of counsel/s
    • No. As correctly contended by petitioners, officer could have placed the union
    members, unassisted as they were by counsel, on an equal footing in negotiating
    with respondent by a mere stroke of his pen by ordering the enforcement of his
    final P200,000.00 deposit order, as to which there no longer existed any obstacle.
    We find the forcing through of the settlement, under such circumstances,
    arbitrary, unfair and unconscionable.
    • Another vital reason for striking down the settlement is the lack of any express or
    specific authority of the president and majority of the union board of directors to
    execute the same and scale down the estimated P423,756.74-judgment liability
    of respondent firm in favor of the individual union members to P110,000.00.
    • settlement was precipitately approved without verification of the union board's
    authority to execute the compromise settlement, and find that there was no such
    authority. The said settlement is therefore set aside and the cases below are
    restored to the status quo, as of October 30, 1963, with the payments already
    made to the union members to be considered as partial payments on account,
    subject to final liquidation and adjustment. It is directed that an order for the
    enforcement of the P200,000.00

    You might also like