Emmanuel Kempis, et al. vs. Manila Public School Teachers Association Election Commission, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3691. April 8, 1992.] EMMANUEL KEMPIS, ET AL. , petitioners , vs .MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ELECTION COMMISSION, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This a petition for injunction, mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction alleging, among others, that the respondent Manila Public School Teachers Association, Inc. Election Commission (ELECOM for brevity) is an adjunct office of the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA for brevity);that the individual respondents were allowed by the ELECOM to be candidates for the MPSTA Annual Election despite their disqualification and ineligibility; that the petitioners, except Federico Ricafort, filed their certificate of candidacy for election with the Board of Directors whose certificates of candidacy were approved by the ELECOM, that respondent Federico Ricafort, a "life member" of the MPSTA was illegally refused registration as delegate and was curtailed of his request to vote and be voted in the annual election on February 27, 1991; that petitioners Kempis, Acua, Alegre and Saclamitao were arbitrarily disqualified as candidates despite the approval of their certificates of candidacy by respondent ELECOM; that the ELECOM approved the candidacy of the individual respondents who were among those dismissed and separated from the service by the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports as early as 1990, who had not been replaced, not teaching anymore and not receiving their salaries since September 17, 1990: that ELECOM violated the provisions of the MPSTA. Constitution and By-laws and the Amended Election Guidelines of the MPSTA which provides: LLjur "2. Only nominee whose designation is a classroom teacher and is actually performing the duties and functions of classroom teacher is entitled to be nominated in either Elementary or Secondary Classroom teacher category." "4. He must be a member of good standing in her school chapter ....He must be a member of good standing of MPSTA for at least 5 years." "5. Nominee who is on official leave for at least one month immediately preceding the filing of his candidacy or on detail with any entity outside the Division of High Schools, Manila is considered disqualified." that petitioner Kempis and members of this MLQ High School Official delegates were required to pay a convention fee of P400.00 but were denied the opportunity to become delegates and were likewise, not allowed to vote and be voted for; that respondent ELECOM held a rigged election based on the illegal amendments to the MPSTA By-Laws ratified on the same day of the February 27, 1991, in violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the Corporation Code which provides: "Whenever any amendment or new by-laws are adopted, such amendment or new by-laws shall be attached to the original by-laws in the office of the corporation and a copy thereof duly certified under oath by the Corporate Secretary and a majority of the directors or trustees, shall be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The same to be attached to the original Articles of Incorporation and original by-laws. The amended or new by-laws shall only be effective upon the issuance by the Securities and Exchange Commission of a Certification that the same are not inconsistent with this Code." that the said amendment disallowed and disqualified principals and supervisors to run for any office in the association much less to become members of the Board of Directors; and that because of the unlawful manner the respondents held the election contrary to the By-laws and the Amended Election Code and the proclamation of disqualified candidates, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order enjoining the oath taking of the respondents and/or discharging the function of the Board of Directors during the pendency of the issue. Hearing on preliminary injunction was set on April 3, 1991, which was cancelled by agreement of the parties and reset to April 10 and 16, 1991 both in the afternoon. Counsel for the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on April 10, 1991. On April 16, 1991, petitioner presented two (2) witnesses, petitioners Saclamitao and Kempis, who testified on the candidacy of dismissed teachers, among others. On April 29, 1991, respondents filed their answer admitting certain allegations and denying generally and specifically material averments in the petition and by way of special and affirmative defenses, contended that the petitioners have no cause of action; respondent MPSTA Election Commission cannot be sued because it does not have personality of its own; that the refusal of petitioner Ricafort's accreditation as delegate was in accordance with the By-laws and the Rules of the MPSTA and its ELECOM; that the dismissal of individual respondents is not yet final and executory; that the said assembly voted to allow teachers subject of administrative cases to attend, vote and be voted for in the assembly of February 27, 1991; that the only reason petitioners filed this case was their desire to control MPSTA despite the fact the they are not teachers; and that the amendments to the By-laws of MPSTA has been discussed and approved in accordance with the terms of said by-laws. Respondents also interposed a counterclaim claiming for moral and exemplary damages for petitioners' bad faith in filing the petition, plus attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. On May 17, 1991, respondents filed a motion to invalidate proceedings and to dismiss the instant case. It was alleged in the said motion that Atty. Federico Ricafort, being a public school teacher, is not allowed to practice law without permission of the Head of her Department, the Secretary of Education. Counsel for the petitioners asked for ten (10) days within which to submit the comment on the said motion. In the meantime, Atty. Themistocles A. Sano, Jr. entered his appearance as counsel for the petitioners on May 21, 1991 in collaboration with Atty. Federico Ricafort who, instead of proceeding or continuing with the hearing on preliminary injunction filed on June 3, 1991, a motion for additional time to file motion to amend petition and comments to respondents' motion to invalidate proceedings. On June 13, 1991, petitioners filed a motion to admit amended petition solely to include Rosalinda Linzag as one of the respondents. As a result of the supervening incidents which somehow caused delay in the continuation of the hearing on preliminary injunction, hearing resumed on August 6, 1991, where the petitioners presented documentary and testimonial evidence not only on their application for preliminary injunction but also on the merits of the case, particularly on the qualifications of the candidates for election, the application of the amendments to the By-laws which allegedly has been ratified at the same meeting and immediately implemented by the respondents. Also considered during the hearing was the election to the Board of Directors and Officers of teachers dismissed by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports. After a careful evaluation and consideration of the arguments of the contending parties as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, the principal issue to be resolved is whether or not the elections of February 27, 1991 were called, conducted and held in accordance with the By-laws of MPSTA. Based on the evidence presented at the hearings, it would appear that the elections were held and the qualifications of the candidates were considered in accordance with the provisions of the amended By-laws which was ratified during the February 27, 1991 election. However, the said amendments to the By-laws have not yet been approved by this Commission. Hence, the election held cannot be considered valid. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the amended By-laws shall be effective only upon the issuance by the Securities and Exchange Commission of a certification that the same are not inconsistent with this code. The amendments have not been effective and therefore, the elections held, and the qualifications of candidates considered in accordance therewith cannot also be considered valid. Evidence presented by the parties in support of other collateral issues, like the candidacy of dismissed teachers need not be resolved in this case in view of the fact that a ruling could already be had based, on the implementation of the amendments to the by-laws which is considered as invalid. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the elections held on February 27, 1991. MPSTA is hereby directed to hold their elections based on the approved By-laws of MPSTA within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. NO PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO COSTS. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MANUEL P. PEREA Hearing Officer