CATURA V CIR

FACTS:
Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador (petitioners) are the President and Treasurer, respectively, of the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees Association, a duly registered labor organization. On December 27,
1966, a complaint against them under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act was filed by the CIR and the principal
complainants, being Celestino Tabaniag and other employees constituting more than 10 percent of the membership
of the labor organization (respondents). Petitioners were charged of unauthorized disbursement of union funds.
Complainants demand a full and detailed report of all financial transactions of the union as well as to make the book
of accounts and other records of the financial activities of the union open to inspection by the members. The
demands were refused.
The executive board of the organization also passed a resolution calling for a general membership meeting
to pass on the issue regarding the union funds. Catura cancelled the meeting. Another meeting was called, but there
was still no response. Members were the forced to elevate the matter to the Department of Labor which issued
subpoenas for the presentation of the account books, but to no avail.
Having exhausted all the remedies provided in the unions constitution and by-laws, the complaint sought to
declare petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act, to cease and desist from further
committing unfair labor practice, and to render a dull and detailed report of all financial transactions of the union as
well as to make the book of accounts and other records of financial activities open to inspection by the members.
On December 28, 1966, private respondents sought an injunction to prevent Catura, who turned out to be
re-elected as President on November 15, 1966, from taking oath of his office
Then came the order of December 29, 1966 by Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador which, instead of
granting the injunction sought, limited itself to requiring and directing the petitioners to deliver and deposit documents
related to finances at the hearing of the petition.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners alleging that they were not heard before such order
was issued. The order was sustained. Hence, this petition for review of the resolution of the CIR.
ISSUE:
Whether the CIR, in the exercise of its power of investigation to assure compliance with the internal labor
organization procedures under the Industrial Peace Act, can require a labor organizations books of accounts, bank
account, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related to finances be delivered and
deposited with it at the hearing to conduct such investigation.
HELD:
The controlling provisions of law concerning the power of investigation of the CIR may be found in
paragraphs (b), (h), and (l) of Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act. 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.
Clearly, the matter was deemed serious enough by the prosecutor of CIR to call for the exercise of the statutory
power of investigation. All the challenged order did was to require petitioner to deliver and deposit the documents.
The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether there was a
failure to comply with the mandates of law. The matter was properly within its cognizance and the means necessary
to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied unless such is arbitrary. Wherefore, petition for certiorari
is denied.