La Tondena v.

Secretary (1994)
Facts:

1989, members of petitioner Union petitioned with NCR DoLE for audit of the
funds and financial records of the union, and an audit was ordered
Audit examiner Leano found that a Ramon de la Cruz and Norma Marin
accountable for P367k union dues remitted by La Tondena to the Union
De la Cruz and Marin appealed with DOLE secretary Franklin Drilon claiming
they were not heard before the report was made and it was indorsed to BLR
director.
Respondent Director found that De la Cruz and Marin had not been heard
before they were held liable and the findings were set aside.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration for the order to audit claiming that Art.
274 of the LC had requirements before an audit: (1) there must be a sworn
written complaint, (2) it must be supported by at least 20% of the total
membership of the union and (3) it must not have been conducted during the
freedom period nor within the 30 days immediately preceding the date of
election of union officials
BLR denied the motion; petitioner again moved for reconsideration raising
jurisdiction claiming that the audit is only vested to the secretary of labor and
the BLR cannot be its representative.
BLR denied the motion
Union filed a petition for review to the DOLE secretary, but BLR proceeded
with its examination, the union refused to comply and BLR based the audit on
the certification of the company and they found that Union members
personally accountable and liable.
Secretary of labor referred the petition to BLR which denied it.
Hence this petition for GAD by respondent Secretary of Labor

ISSUES:
1. WON the power was vested to the BLR
2. WON the examination was validly ordered
3. WON findings was right
HELD
1. Yes. The 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 must be
presumed to have authorized the BLR to act on his behalf. Independently of
any delegation, the BLR had power of its own to conduct the examination of
accounts under the Administrative code and also through the LC to deal with
intra-union disputes
2. Yes, the letter of the union sent for the request was before the amendment
giving requirements for the auditing, and thus the previous provision will be
applicable through the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor.
3. Yes, the officers were given enough time to defend themselves but refused to
do so.