MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has upheld the election of Basketball Association of the Philippines-Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas Inc. officials, led by Misamis Oriental Gov. Oscar Moreno and businessman Manny Pangilinan, and junked the petition of Camarines Sup Rep. Luis Villafuerte asking for a reversal of an earlier Court of Appeals ruling.
In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the Court’s third division said the election of the SBP officials for the term 2008 to 2012 during convention called by the SBP group on June 12 last year was valid.
The decision also affirmed the Nov. 18, 2008 ruling of the CA, which reversed the decision of Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 24 stopping the camp of Pangilinan from further assuming their posts in BAP-SBP merger and ordering them to turn over the leadership to the BAP faction led by former Rep. Prospero Pichay.
Villafuerte and Pichay had questioned the election held by the SBP group before the SC, arguing that only 19 out of the 87 member-associations attended the assembly. They claimed that the valid election was the one they initiated on June 4, which was supposedly authorized by majority of the stakeholders that attended the National Congress and where Villafuerte was elected BAP-SBP chairman.
Petitioners’ bare denial deserves short shrift in light of the documentary evidence attesting to their active participation during BAP-SBP’s validation of its members’ credentials leading to the confirmation of active membership status to 19 members. Hence, respondents, who were elected by 17 of the 19 active and voting members of the BAP-SBP during the meeting held on June 12, 2008, are the legitimate officers of the organization, their election in accordance with the applicable rules on the said exercise,” said the High Court ruling.
The decision also put to rest as to which group has the right to run the affairs of basketball in the country.
Petitioners argued that the election of the SBP group was not valid since the then members of the BAP-SBP were not entitled to vote and be voted under their rules, including the Bangkok Agreement which was forged by a three-man panel in Feb. 2007 after the merger.
But the Court said that the CA correctly held that Clause 3 of the Bangkok Agreement merely intended to recognize the associations affiliated with BAP and PB as “members” and that such recognition does not dispense with the need to classify said members in accordance with the provisions of BAP-SBP’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. It added that Clause 3 of the Bangkok Agreement must be read not in isolation but in conjunction with the merger agreement and the BAP-SBP’s Article of Incorporation and By-Laws.