Inquillo vs. First Philippine Scales

 Inquillo vs. First Philippine Scales

G.R. No.165407

June 5, 2009

DOCTRINE:

Essentially, the Labor Code of the Philippines has several provisions under which an employee may be validly terminated, namely: (1) just causes under Article 282; (2) authorized causes under Article 283; (3) termination due to disease under Article 284; and (4) termination by the employee or resignation under Article 285. While the said provisions did not mention as ground the enforcement of the Union Security Clause in the CBA, the dismissal from employment based on the same is recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction.

FACTS:

First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI), a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of weighing scales, employed Bergante and Inguillo as assemblers on August 15, 1977 and September 10, 1986, respectively. In 1991, FPSI and First Philippine Scales Industries Labor Union (FPSILU) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the duration of which was for a period of five (5) years starting on September 12, 1991 until September 12, 1996. On September 19, 1991, the members of FPSILU ratified the CBA in a document entitled RATIPIKASYON NG KASUNDUAN. Bergante and Inguillo, who were members of FPSILU, signed the said document.  During the lifetime of the CBA, Bergante, Inguillo and several FPSI employees joined another union, the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM), which was affiliated with a federation called KATIPUNAN (NLM- KATIPUNAN, for brevity).

 

Subsequently, NLM-KATIPUNAN filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an intra-union dispute against FPSILU and FPSI. In said case, the Med-Arbiter decided  in favor of FPSILU. It also ordered the officers and members of NLM-KATIPUNAN to return to FPSILU the amount of P90,000.00 pertaining to the union dues erroneously collected from the employees. Upon finality of the Med-Arbiter's Decision, a Writ of Execution  was issued to collect the adjudged amount from NLM-KATIPUNAN. However, as no amount was recovered, notices of garnishment were issued to United Coconut Planters Bank (Kalookan City Branch)  and to FPSI  for the latter to hold for FPSILU the earnings of Domingo Grutas, Jr. (Grutas) and Inguillo, formerly FPSILU's President and Secretary for Finance, respectively, to the extent of P13,032.18. Resultantly, the amount of P5,140.55 was collected,  P1,695.72 of which came from the salary of Grutas, while the P3,444.83 came from that of Inguillo.

 

Meanwhile, on March 29, 1996, the executive board and members of the FPSILU addressed a document dated March 18, 1996 denominated as "Petisyon"  to FPSI's general manager, Amparo Policarpio (Policarpio), seeking the termination of the services of the following employees, namely: Grutas, Yolanda Tapang, Shirley Tapang, Gerry Trinidad, Gilbert Lucero, Inguillo, Bergante, and Vicente Go, on the following grounds:

(1) disloyalty to the Union by separating from it and affiliating with a rival Union, the NLM- KATIPUNAN;

(2) dereliction of duty by failing to call periodic membership meetings and to give financial reports;

(3) depositing Union funds in the names of Grutas and former Vice-President Yolanda Tapang, instead of in the name of FPSILU, care of the President;

(4) causing damage to FPSI by deliberately slowing down production, preventing the Union to even attempt to ask for an increase in benefits from the former; and

(5) poisoning the minds of the rest of the members of the Union so that they would be enticed to join the rival union.

 

On May 13, 1996, Inguillo filed with the NLRC a complaint against FPSI and/or Policarpio (respondents) for illegal withholding of salary and damages. On May 16, 1996, respondents terminated the services of the employees mentioned in the "Petisyon". The following day, two separate complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement and damages were filed against respondents.

 

In their Position Paper, Bergante and Inguillo claimed that they were not aware of a petition seeking for their termination, and neither were they informed of the grounds for their termination. They argued that had they been informed, they would have impleaded FPSILU in their complaints. Inguillo could not think of a valid reason for his dismissal except the fact that he was a very vocal and active member of the NLM-KATIPUNAN. Bergante, for her part, surmised that she was dismissed solely for being Inguillo's sister-in-law. She also reiterated the absence of a memorandum stating that she committed an infraction of a company rule or regulation or a violation of law that would justify her dismissal. Inguillo also denounced respondents' act of withholding his salary, arguing that he was not a party to the intra-union dispute from which the notice of garnishment arose. Even assuming that he was, he argued that his salary was exempt from execution.

 

In their Position Paper, respondents maintained that Bergante and Inguillo's dismissal was justified, as the same was done upon the demand of FPSILU, and that FPSI complied in order to avoid a serious labor dispute among its officers and members, which, in turn, would seriously affect production. They also justified that the dismissal was in accordance with the Union Security Clause in the CBA, the existence and validity of which was not disputed by Bergante and Inguillo. In fact, the two had affixed their signatures to the document which ratified the CBA. In his Decision24 dated November 27, 1997, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the remaining complaints of Bergante and Inguillo and held that they were not illegally dismissed. He explained that the two clearly violated the Union Security Clause of the CBA when they joined NLM-KATIPUNAN and committed acts detrimental to the interests of FPSILU and respondents.

 

Bergante and Inguillo appealed before the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision in a Resolution 26 dated June 8, 2001. In reversing the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC ratiocinated that respondents failed to present evidence to show that Bergante and Inguillo committed acts inimical to FPSILU's interest. It also observed that, since the two (2) were not informed of their dismissal, the justification given by FPSI that it was merely constrained to dismiss the employees due to persistent demand from the Union clearly proved the claim of summary dismissal and violation of the employees' right to due process. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was referred by the NLRC to Executive Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bose for report and recommendation. In its Resolution dated August 26, 2002, the NLRC adopted in toto the report and recommendation of Arbiter Bose which set aside its previous Resolution reversing the Labor Arbiter's Decision. This time, the NLRC held that Bergante and Inguillo were not illegally dismissed as respondents merely put in force the CBA provision on the termination of the services of disaffiliating Union members upon the recommendation of the Union. Not satisfied with the disposition of their complaints, Bergante and Inguillo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. 32 In affirming the legality of the dismissal, the CA ratiocinated, thus: “. . . on the merits, we sustain the view adopted by the NLRC “

ISSUE: 

Whether the enforcement of the aforesaid Union Security Clause justified herein petitioners' dismissal from the service.

HELD: 

YES. We hold that all the requisites have been sufficiently met and FPSI was justified in enforcing the Union Security Clause, for the following reasons:

 

First. FPSI was justified in applying the Union Security Clause, as it was a valid provision in the CBA, the existence and validity of which was not questioned by either party. Moreover, petitioners were among the 93 employees who affixed their signatures to the document that ratified the CBA. They cannot now turn their back and deny knowledge of such provision.

 

Second. FPSILU acted on its prerogative to recommend to FPSI the dismissal of the members who failed to maintain their membership with the Union. Aside from joining another rival union, FPSILU cited other grounds committed by petitioners and the other employees which tend to prejudice FPSI's interests, i.e., dereliction of duty — by failing to call periodic membership meetings and to give financial reports; depositing union funds in the names of Grutas and former Vice-President Yolanda Tapang, instead of in the name of FPSILU care of the President; causing damage to FPSI by deliberately slowing down production, preventing the Union from even attempting to ask for an increase in benefits from the former; and poisoning the minds of the rest of the members of the Union so that they would be enticed to join the rival union.

 

Third. FPSILU's decision to ask for the termination of the employees in the "Petisyon" was justified and supported by the evidence on record. Bergante and Inguillo were undisputably former members of FPSILU. In fact, Inguillo was the Secretary of Finance, the underlying reason why his salary was garnished to satisfy the judgment of the Med-Arbiter who ordered NLM- KATIPUNAN to return the Union dues it erroneously collected from the employees. Their then affiliation with FPSILU was also clearly shown by their signatures in the document which ratified the CBA. Without a doubt, they committed acts of disloyalty to the Union when they failed not only to maintain their membership but also disaffiliated from it. They abandoned FPSILU and even joined another union which works against the former's interests. This is evident from the intra-union dispute filed by NLM- KATIPUNAN against FPSILU. Once affiliated with NLM-KATIPUNAN, Bergante and Inguillo proceeded to recruit other employees to disaffiliate from FPSILU and even collected Union dues from them.