The RTC Branch 93 of Quezon City has dismissed the complaint filed against our BOT, questioning the validity of its election held during the midyear convention last year.
Unfortunately, defeated group seem to entertain the idea that they could still do as they please saying
that since the case is still up for appeal, the case is not yet final, leaving no legitimate group to act as BOT in the process.
This is misleading.
While it is true that the other group could still appeal their case, -hence giving us the notion that PAMS leadership is still up for grabs – our BOT is currently the presumptive board, lawfully authorized to act for and in behalf of PAMS, based on the court’s decision.
What the court does is to consider us the status quo, which should mean the recognition of our board to act for PAMS is the current actual, peaceable, uncontested status which should be subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the other group.
Sa madaling salita, habang nakabinbin ang kanilang isinumiteng apela, ang ating BOT ang inatasang kumatawan sa PAMS at magsagawa ng mga aktibidades nito. Ang nabanggit na estado ay pwedeng pagtibayin o ibasura ng korte depende sa magiging desisyon nito hinggil sa isinampang apela.
Sadly, what the other group does now is to continue acting out as a board, scheduling series of activities, calling for meetings, asking for payment of fees, gathering funds and other resources, and spending them in the process, blatantly going against what said RTC court pronounced in its decision.
Their contention is that since the appeal is still pending, there is no legitimate board yet and both groups can discharge their functions in behalf of the organization –a sheer case of misguided adventurism, if not ignorance.
Logic tells us that this presumption is clearly flawed because it will lead to chaos and further exacerbate our situation.
Consider this.
Assuming certain disgruntled members of say the PMA for flimsy reason filed a case against its BOT, questioning its validity and the court subsequently dismisses it. Does it mean said board cannot function until after the decision in the appeal becomes final? What if it takes years before it is finally resolved?
Makatwiran ba ito? Kung gayon, kung gusto mong guluhin ang isang organisasyon magsampa ka lang ng kabi-kabilang kaso at sabihin na hanggat hindi pa pinal ang desisyon walang pwedeng kumilos.
This is the reason why the law allows recognition of a status quo to preserve order. Otherwise, it will be problematic for any organization, having two boards contending for leadership.
The recent annual convention is a paradigmatic case. Since both groups decided to hold their respective events, members got confused as regards which of the two they should attend or participate in. Worse, some even attended both just so to make sure.
There should not have been any problem if the other group is willing to cooperate. The court’s decision, for one, is even with prejudice, which means they could not question the composition of our BOT anymore. But they do not respect it.
When the case was first filed, the other group submitted a motion for issuance of a TRO, seeking to prevent our board from functioning. At that time, they said the court would side with them, as evidenced by the text messages which circulated. Sabi nga sa mensahe, panalo na sila at pinagbigyan ang TRO
When the court did not issue the TRO, they said it should not affect them because the main complaint is yet to be settled. Yet when the court finally disposes of the case, dismissing their petition, they now said they would still have to wait for the finality of the case since appeal is still pending.
Truth be told, there is crisis because the other group blatantly disregard the court’s verdict. What they should have done is to atop what they’re doing as if they can still represent PAMS as a board, and await the finality of the case, while allowing our board should be gracious enough to accept defeat and hand them over the much coveted leadership. If it’s the other way around, they in turn should accept their fate.
Beside, section 4 of the Rules on Intra-Corporate Controversy specifically states that all orders of the court, even pending appeal, shall be deemed immediately executory.
Therefore, even if there is a pending appeal, our BOT should be allowed to work. This is the only way to protect the interest of PAMS and its members. There are so many things to be done. There are so many issues to be resolved. There are so many activities to be implemented.
This issue on leadership should not get in the way.
Besides, the court has spoken.