8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 283

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

*
G.R. No. 108951. March 7, 2000.

JESUS B. DIAMONON, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; HON. BIENVENIDO E.1
LAGUESMA, as the Undersecretary of Labor; MANASES
T. CRUZ, in his capacity as the Med-Arbiter; ATTY. ZOILO
DE LA CRUZ, JR., and MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF
THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP) and PHILIPPINE
AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
WORKER’S UNION (PACIWU), respondents.

Administrative Law; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice;

Assignment of Errors; The rule that an appellate court may only
pass upon errors assigned, as well as its exceptions, is also
applicable to administrative bodies.—An appellate court may only
pass upon errors assigned. However, this rule is not without
exceptions. In the following instances, the Supreme Court ruled
that an appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to
waive the lack of assignment of errors and consider errors not
assigned: (a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; (b) Matters not
assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
errors within contemplation of law; (c) Matters not assigned as
errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in
arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or
to serve the interests of a justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal
justice; (d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal
but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having
some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to
raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) Matters not assigned as
errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; (f)
Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the
determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.
There is no reason why this rule should not apply to
administrative bodies as well, like the case before us, for the
instant controversy falls squarely under the exceptions to the
general rule.

_________________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

* SECOND DIVISION.

1 The petitioner in his petition spelled “Manases” as “Menesis.”

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

Same; Actions; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Labor

Law; Unions; When the Constitution and the by-laws of a labor
union dictate the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as a
complaint against union officers for unauthorized or illegal
disbursement of union funds, this should be resorted to before
recourse can be made to the appropriate administrative or judicial
body, not only to give the grievance machinery or appeals body of
the union the opportunity to decide on the matter by itself, but also
to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to administrative or
judicial bodies.—When the Constitution and by-laws of both
unions dictated the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as
petitioner’s complaint against private respondents for
unauthorized or illegal disbursement of unions funds, this should
be resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate
administrative or judicial body, not only to give the grievance
machinery or appeals’ body of the union the opportunity to decide
the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and
premature resort to administrative or judicial bodies. Thus, a
party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also
pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention. This rule clearly applies to the instant case. The
underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies rests on the presumption that when the administrative
body, or grievance machinery, as in this case, is afforded a chance
to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly.
Petitioner’s premature invocation of public respondent’s
intervention is fatal to his cause of action.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr. for petitioner.
     Raul E. Espinosa for private respondents.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking

2
to annul the
twin 3 Orders dated December 29, 1992 and January 25,
1993

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

________________

2 Annex “H” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 90-94.

3 Annex “K” of the Petition, Rollo, p. 103.

285

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 285

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

of public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, acting then

as Undersecretary, now the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and 4
Employment (DOLE), in his affirmance of the
dismissal by the Med-Arbiter of the complaint for
unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds filed
by petitioner Jesus B. Diamonon against private
respondent Atty. Zoilo V. de la Cruz and Sofia P. Mana-ay.
The facts of the case are the following:
Petitioner served as the National Executive Vice
President of the National Congress of Unions in the Sugar
Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP) and Vice President
for Luzon of the Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and
Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU). 5
In a letter dated March 23, 1991, petitioner learned of
his removal from the positions he held in 6
both unions in a
resolution approved during a meeting
7
of the National
Executive Boards of both unions. 8
On April 22, 1991, petitioner sought reconsideration of
the resolution on his9 removal. At the same time, he
initiated a complaint (hereafter referred to as FIRST)
before the DOLE against the National President of
NACUSIP and PACIWU, private respondent Atty. Zoilo V.
de la Cruz, Jr., and the members of the National Executive
Boards of NACUSIP and

_______________

4 Order dated November 5, 1991 and penned by Med-Arbiter Manases

T. Cruz, Annex “D” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 74-76.
5 Sub-Annexes “B” and “B-1” of Annex “A” of the Petition, Rollo, 32-33.
6 Record, pp. 48-52.
7 The decisions of the National Executive Boards of NACUSIP and
PACIWU were duly ratified and confirmed by the National Conventions of
both Unions held August 10, 1991 and August 11, 1991, Record at pp. 53-
54.
8 Annexes “F,” “F-1” and “G” of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 204, 205, 206-215.
9 Docketed as NCR-OD-M-91-04-053, Annex “A” of the Reply, Rollo, pp.
157-163.

286

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

PACIWU questioning the validity of his removal from the

positions he held in the two unions.
While the FIRST case was pending with the Med-
Arbiter, petitioner
10
filed on May 16, 1991 a second
complaint (hereafter referred to as SECOND) against
private respondent Atty. Zoilo V. de la Cruz, Jr., and the
National Treasurer of NACUSIP and PACIWU, Sofia P.
Mana-ay. He accused them of three (3) offenses, namely: (a)
wanton violation of the Constitution and By-Laws of both
organizations, NACUSIP and PACIWU; (b) unauthorized
and illegal disbursements of union funds of both
organizations; (c) and abuse of authority as national
officers of both organizations. 11
On August 2, 1991, an Order was issued in the FIRST
case declaring that petitioner’s removal from the positions 12
he held is null and void. Private respondents appealed
this decision to the public respondent DOLE.
In view of the pendency of their appeal in the 13FIRST
case, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss dated
October 21, 199114
in the SECOND case.
In an Order dated November 5, 1991, the Med-Arbiter
dismissed the SECOND case on the ground of lack of
personality of petitioner to file the complaint in view of his
removal from the offices he held.
On December 27, 1991, public respondent Laguesma,
acting as the then Undersecretary of DOLE, decided 15
on the
FIRST case on appeal and issued a Resolution which
affirmed the assailed Order dated August 2, 1991 declaring
as null and void petitioner’s removal from the positions he
held.

_________________

10 The case, docketed as NCR-OD-M-91-05-052, was referred to the

Med-Arbitration Branch and assigned to Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz,
Annex “A” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 18-26.
11 Annex “C” of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 177-183.
12 Docketed as Case No. OS-A-9-290-91, appeal of Case No. NCR-OD-
M-91-04-053.
13 Annex “B” of the Petition, Rollo at pp. 64-72.
14 See Note No. 4, supra, at 75.
15 Annex “H” of the Reply, Rollo, pp. 216-225.

287

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 287

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

In view of the adverse Order dated November 165, 1991

dismissing the SECOND case, petitioner appealed to the
public respondent DOLE. 17Public respondent Laguesma,
issued the assailed Order dated December 29, 1992,
holding that petitioner’s failure to show in his complaint
that the administrative remedies provided for in the
constitution and by-laws of both unions, have been
exhausted or such18remedies are not available,
19
was fatal to
petitioner’s cause. Resultantly, he affirmed the dismissal
of the complaint. 20
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Order dated
December
21
29, 1992. However, public respondent in his
Order dated January 25, 1993 denied petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner anchors his petition on two (2) grounds, to
wit:

“I.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT HONORABLE BIENVENIDO V.

LAGUESMA HAS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISS [sic] THE APPEAL
INTERPOSED FROM THE ORDER OF THE MED ARBITER
MENESIS [sic] T. CRUZ, AND WHEN IT DENIED THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON FLIMSY GROUNDS.

II.

THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IS QUITE MERITORIOUS

AND TO DISREGARD THE SAME WOULD [sic]
TANTAMOUNT TO WILLFULLY [sic] CLOSING OUR EYES
22
TO
AVOID SEEING AND REALIZING THE NAKED TRUTH.”

_________________

16 Docketed as Case No. OS-MA-A-1-18-92, appeal of Case No. NCR-

OD-M-91-05-052, Annex “E” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 77-85.
17 See Note No. 2, supra.
18 Ibid.
19 See Note No. 2, supra at pp. 93-94.
20 Annex “I” of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 95-101.
21 See Note No. 3, supra.
22 Petition, Rollo, p. 10.

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

Petitioner emphatically stresses that the only issue on

appeal before the DOLE was petitioner’s alleged lack of
personality to file the complaint. When public respondent
“switched” the ground for dismissal of the complaint from
“lack of personality of the [petitioner] to file the complaint”
to “non-exhaustion of administrative remedies,” he
staunchly claims that the latter committed grave abuse 23
of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. For,
in doing so, the challenged orders “went outside the issues
and purported to adjudicate
24
something upon which the
parties were not heard.”
The petition lacks merit.
Generally,
25
an appellate court may only pass upon errors 26
assigned. However, this 27
rule is not without exceptions. In
the following instances, the Supreme Court ruled that an
appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to
waive the lack of assignment of errors and consider errors
not assigned:

(a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the

jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter;
(b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are
evidently plain or clerical errors within
contemplation of law;
(c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a
just decision and complete resolution of the case or
to serve the interests of a justice or to avoid
dispensing piecemeal justice;

________________

23 Id., p. 12.
24 Ibid.
25 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA
145, 153 [1997].
26 Logronio v. Taleseo, G.R. No. 134602, August 6, 1999, 312 SCRA 52;
Dando v. Frazer 227 SCRA 126, 133 [1993]; Espina v. Court of Appeals,
215 SCRA 484, 488 [1992]; Carillo v. De Paz, 18 SCRA 467, 471 [1966];
Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 196, 209-210 [1947].
27 Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181, 191-
192 [1996].

289

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 289

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

(d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on

appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters
of record having some bearing on the issue
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

submitted which the parties failed to raise or which

the lower court ignored;
(e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely
related to an error assigned;
(f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon
which the determination of a question properly
assigned, is dependent.

There is no reason why this rule should not apply to

administrative bodies as well, like the case before us, for
the instant controversy falls squarely under the exceptions
to the general rule.
In the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to comply
with Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing 28
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code as amended but
also the 29record reveals that neither did he exhaust the
remedies set

________________

28 Section 2, Rule VIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations of the Labor Code as amended states:

“Sec. 2. Who may file. If the issue involves the entire membership of the union, the
complaint shall be signed by at least 30% of the membership of the union.
In addition to the above requirement, the petition on its face must show that the
administrative remedies provided for in the constitution and by-laws have been
exhausted or such remedies are not readily available to the complaining members
through no fault of their own. x x x” (italics supplied)

29 Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution and By-Laws of NACUSIP

states:

“Section 4.—The actions of the National Executive Board shall be subjected [sic] to
review only by the National Convention and /or the General Council.” (Italics
supplied, Record, p. 23.)
Article XII of the Constitution and By-Laws of PACIWU states:
“Article XII—PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING INTERNAL DISPUTE

290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

forth by the Constitution and by-laws of both unions. In the

National Convention of PACIWU and NACUSIP held on
August 10 and 11, 1991, respectively, nothing was heard of
petitioner’s complaint against private respondents on the
latter’s alleged unauthorized and illegal disbursement of
union funds. In fact, what the National Convention
resolved was to approve and adopt the resolution of the
National Executive Board removing petitioner from the
30
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327
30
positions he held. His failure to seek recourse before the
National Convention on his complaint against private
respondents taints his action with prematurity.

______________

Section 1.—In consonance with Article IV, Section d, in relation to Article VII,
paragraph F if, any officer or member of the Union will be tried in accordance with
the following trial procedures:
a) The accusation may be brought by any officer or member in the form of a
written complaint duly signed and attested by two (2) witnesses, addressed to the
National president of the Union. The complaint shall state the date and place of
the commission of act or acts done or committed by the offenders with
specifications of the part or the provision of the Constitution violated;
b) The National President, upon receipt of said complaint shall immediately
appoint an investigating committee who shall conduct an immediate investigation
of the charges;
c) The Investigating Committee thus appointed shall then investigate the
charges by requiring the accuser and/or complainant as well as the accused and all
the witness to appear in person. Failure of any party to appear shall be construed
as a waiver of his/her right to be present in such investigation. After the
investigation, the Committee shall then submit its report or recommendation to
the Executive Board for the latter’s review of the decision rendered;
d) The Executive Board may conduct a re-investigation or re-hearing of the case
should it find compelling reasons therefor, and the decision of the Executive Board
shall be final.” (Record, p. 6.)

30 See Note 7, supra.

291

VOL. 327, MARCH 7, 2000 291

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

When the Constitution and by-laws of both unions dictated

the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as petitioner’s
complaint against private respondents for unauthorized or
illegal disbursement of unions funds, this should be
resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate
administrative or judicial body, not only to give the
grievance machinery or appeals’ body of the union the
opportunity to decide the matter by itself, but also to
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to
administrative or judicial bodies. Thus, a party with an
administrative remedy must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but
also pursue it to its appropriate
31
conclusion before seeking
judicial intervention. This rule clearly applies to the
instant case. The underlying principle of the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the
presumption that when the administrative body, or
grievance machinery, as in this case, is afforded a chance to
32
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327
32
pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly.
Petitioner’s premature invocation of public 33
respondent’s
intervention is fatal to his cause of action.
Evidently, when petitioner brought before the DOLE his
complaint charging private respondents with unauthorized
and illegal disbursement of union funds, he overlooked or
deliberately ignored the fact that the same is clearly
dismissible for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Thus, public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, in
dismissing petitioner’s complaint, committed no grave
abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, and
the twin Orders dated December 29, 1992 and January 25,
1993 by public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma
affirming dis-

________________

31 Carale v. Abarintos, 269 SCRA 132, 141 [1997].

32 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198,
219 [19981; University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., 272 SCRA 221,
240 [1997].
33 Paat v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167, 175 [1997], National
Development Company v. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 520, 529 [1987].

292

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment

missal of the complaint dated May 15, 1991 filed by

petitioner against private respondents are AFFIRMED. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza and Buena, JJ.,

concur.
     Quisumbing, J., No part. Close relation to a party.

Petition dismissed, orders affirmed.

Notes.—Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is

not jurisdictional—it only renders the action premature,
i.e., the claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial
determination and for that reason a party has no cause of
action to ventilate in court. (Carale vs. Abarintos, 269
SCRA 132 [1997])
Only judicial review of decisions of administrative
agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine. (Association
of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. Philippine Coconut
Authority, 286 SCRA 109 [1998])
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
8/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 327

The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of

administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to
pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.
(Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 290
SCRA 198 [1998])

——o0o——

293

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f26d799206108018003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10