Workers file case vs. NLRC-7 arbiter
December 5, 2006 | 12:00am
Members of Independent Labor Union of General Milling Corporation yesterday filed four anti-graft complaints against National Labor Relations Commission-7 executive labor arbiter Violeta Bantug for not implementing the writ of execution of a garnishment case.
The complaints against Bantug were alleged violations of Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and oppressive acts.
Last November 8 Bantug awarded the complainants, headed by Victor Lastimosa, P36 million in a labor case against GMC.
"Ambot nganong nikalit lang nga gi-recall niya ang writ of execution," Lastimosa said.
On November 9, sheriff Matthias Navarro served the writ to the management of GMC including the notices of garnishment to different banks where GMC has an account.
However, GMC filed an urgent motion to quash the writ of execution on the grounds that it allegedly violated the NLRC rule of execution because the company's counsel was not given a copy of the writ and the opportunity to respond.
Last November 22, Bantug issued an order recalling the writ of execution and ordered the sheriff to recall the notices of garnishment.
"In issuing the order, despite the fact that there is no temporary restraining order issued by the court of appeals, executive labor arbiter Bantug brazenly defied the revised rules of procedure of the NLRC," said Armando Alforque, lawyer of the former employees. - Ramil V. Ayuman
The complaints against Bantug were alleged violations of Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and oppressive acts.
Last November 8 Bantug awarded the complainants, headed by Victor Lastimosa, P36 million in a labor case against GMC.
"Ambot nganong nikalit lang nga gi-recall niya ang writ of execution," Lastimosa said.
On November 9, sheriff Matthias Navarro served the writ to the management of GMC including the notices of garnishment to different banks where GMC has an account.
However, GMC filed an urgent motion to quash the writ of execution on the grounds that it allegedly violated the NLRC rule of execution because the company's counsel was not given a copy of the writ and the opportunity to respond.
Last November 22, Bantug issued an order recalling the writ of execution and ordered the sheriff to recall the notices of garnishment.
"In issuing the order, despite the fact that there is no temporary restraining order issued by the court of appeals, executive labor arbiter Bantug brazenly defied the revised rules of procedure of the NLRC," said Armando Alforque, lawyer of the former employees. - Ramil V. Ayuman
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest
Trending
Latest
Recommended