GMC lawyer belittles case vs. labor arbiter

The legal counsel of the General Milling Corporation (GMC) yesterday belittled the complaint filed against National Labor Relation Council executive arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug by former GMC workers before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.

The other day, members of Independent Labor Union of General Milling Corporation filed a complaint against Bantug for graft, ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and oppressive acts before the anti-graft office.

The disgruntled workers, who earlier won a labor case against the GMC management, filed the complaint against Bantug after she recalled her earlier writ of execution and notices of garnishment following their filing of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals questioning the computation of their award benefits and backwages.

"I hope the legal counsel of (GMC) employees (Armando Alforgue) should wait for the decision of the Court of Appeals kay bati man kaayo mag-speculate sila nganong gi-recall and writ of execution. In the first place how can you execute an order when they themselves (employees) filed the petition before the Court of Appeals," lawyer Joseph Baduel said.

"Karon lang sila moingon nga dili na fair si Bantug kay iyang gi-recall ang writ of execution. Pero kadtong sa una nga pabor nila (ang desisyon) wa gyud sila mosaway." Baduel added.

It was on November 8 when the labor case filed by former GMC employees against the management became final and executory with Bantug issued a writ of execution to the management.

On November 9, sheriff Matthias Navarro served the writ to the GMC management, including the notices of garnishment to different banks where GMC has an account.

However, the GMC management filed an urgent motion to quash the writ of execution on the grounds that the workers filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. It said the writ of execution allegedly violated the NLRC rule "because the company's counsel was not given a copy of the writ and (that) it was not given the opportunity to respond."

The complainants filed the case against Bantug before the anti-graft office after she issued an order on November 22 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, the counsel for the complainants.

Section 10 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC stated that, "a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision unless a temporary restraining order is issued by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court."

"In issuing the order, Bantug caused undue injury to us and our co-complainants in the case mentioned above as we were deprived of our claims or denied the right to enjoy the fruits or our struggle against the GMC for 14 years, she also gave unwarranted advantage to the company by her manifest partiality to further delay the execution of the complainants," the complainants said. - Ramil V. Ayuman/LPM