PICOP Resources Inc. v Taneca 8.

Respondents asserted that the act of PRI in giving in

to the wishes of the Union in discharging them on the
Contract Bar Rule | G.R. No. 160828 | August 9, 2010 | ground of disloyalty to the Union amounted to
Peralta, J. | Emma interference with, restraint or coercion of respondents'
exercise of their right to self-organization. The act
FACTS: indirectly required petitioners to support and maintain
their membership with NAMAPRI-SPFL as a condition
1. On February 13, 2001, respondents Tañeca and 14 for their continued employment.
others filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice, 9. The Labor Arbiter declared the respondents' dismissal
illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner to be illegal and ordered PRI to reinstate respondents
PICOP Resources , Inc. (PRI). Respondents were to their former or equivalent positions without loss of
regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide seniority rights and to jointly and solidarily pay their
members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI backwages.
Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI- 10. PRI and NAMAPRI-SPFL appealed to the NLRC
SPFL), which is the collective bargaining agent for the which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter; thus,
rank-and-file employees of petitioner PRI. declaring the dismissal of respondents from
2. PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with employment as legal. Respondents filed a motion for
NAMAPRI-SPFL for a period of five (5) years from reconsideration, but it was denied for lack of merit.
May 22, 1995 until May 22, 2000. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
3. On May 16, 2000, Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes, VP of 65 before the CA.
PRI sent a letter to the management of PRI 11. The CA reversed and set aside the assailed
demanding the termination of employees who Resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated the Decision
allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the of the Labor Arbiter.
Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of
Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of ISSUE/RATIO:
the CBA.
4. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of campaigning 1. Whether or not an error in the interpretation of law fall
for and signing the petition for certification election of within the ambit of Extraordinary Remedy of Certiorari
FFW as an act of disloyalty and a valid basis for under Rule 65 –
termination for a cause in accordance with its  PRI perceived an error in the mode of appeal
Constitution and By-Laws, and the terms and by respondents in assailing the decision of the
conditions of the CBA. NLRC. It claimed that assuming that the NLRC
5. On October 16, 2000, PRI served notices of erred in its judgment on the legal issues, its
termination for causes to the 31 out of the 46 error, if any, is not tantamount to abuse of
employees whom NAMAPRIL-SPFL sought to be discretion falling within the ambit of Rule 65.
terminated on the ground of "acts of disloyalty"  The power of the CA to review NLRC
committed against it. A Notice was also served on the decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari
DOLE, Caraga Region. has been settled as early as in our decision in
6. Respondents alleged that none of them ever withdrew St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC.
their membership or submitted to PRI any union dues  This Court held that the proper vehicle for
and check-off disauthorizations against NAMAPRI- such review was a Special Civil Action for
SPFL. They claimed that they continue to remain on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
record as bona fide members. They insisted that and that this action should be filed in the CA in
mere affixation of signature on such authorization was strict observance of the doctrine of the
not per se an act of disloyalty. They claimed that hierarchy of courts.
while it may be true that they signed the said 2. Whether or not a CBA can be given its effectivity in all
authorization before the start of the freedom period, its Terms and Conditions, even beyond the 5-year
the petition of FFW was only filed with the DOLE on period when no CBA has yet been entered into,
May 18, 2000, or 58 days after the start of the possessing just cause to terminate on the grounds
freedom period. herein
7. Respondents, likewise, argued that at the time  PRI argued that the dismissal of the
NAMAPRI-SPFL demanded their termination, it was respondents was valid and legal. It claimed
no longer the bargaining representative of the rank- to have acted in good faith at the instance of
and-file workers of PRI, because the CBA had the incumbent union pursuant to the Union
already expired on May 22, 2000. Hence, there could Security Clause of the CBA. Citing Article
be no justification in PRI's act of dismissing 253 of the Labor Code, PRI contends that as
respondents due to acts of disloyalty.
 parties to the CBA, they are enjoined to keep o Nothing in the records would show
the status quo and continue in full force and that respondents failed to maintain
effect the terms and conditions of the their membership in good standing
existing CBA during the60- in the Union.
dayperioduntilanewagreementisreachedbyth o Respondents did not resign or
eparties. withdraw their membership from the
 The Court found such contention to be Union to which they belong.
untenable. o Respondents continued to pay their
 "Union security" is a generic term, which is union dues and never joined the
applied to and comprehends "closed shop," FFW.
"union shop," "maintenance of membership,"  An "authorization letter to file a petition for
or any other form of agreement which certification election" is different from an
imposes upon employees the obligation to actual "Petition for Certification Election."
acquire or retain union membership as a  Likewise, as per records, it was clear that the
condition affecting employment. actual Petition for Certification Election of
 However, in terminating the employment of FFW was filed within the ambit of the
an employee by enforcing the union security freedom period. Strictly speaking, what is
clause, the employer needs to determine prohibited is the filing of a petition for
and prove that: certification election outside the 60-day
o (1) the union security clause is freedom period.
applicable;  It can be said that while it is incumbent for
o (2) the unionis requesting for the the employer to continue to recognize the
enforcement of the union security majority status of the bargaining agent even
provision in the CBA; and after the expiration of the freedom period,
o (3) there is sufficient evidence to they could only do so when no petition for
support the decision of the union to certification election was filed. The reason is,
expel the employee from the union. with a pending petition for certification, any
 These requisites constitute just cause for such agreement entered into by
terminating an employee based on the union management with a labor organization is
security provision of the CBA. fraught with the risk that such a labor union
 As to the first requisite, there is no question may not be chosen thereafter as the
that the CBA between PRI and respondents collective bargaining representative.
included a union security clause. Following  The provision for statusquo is conditioned on
the same provision, PRI, upon written the fact that no certification election was filed
request from the Union, can indeed during the freedom period.
terminate the employment of the employee  Time and again, the Court has ruled that it
who failed to maintain its good standing as a adheres to the policy of enhancing the
union member. welfare of the workers. Their freedom to
 Secondly, it is likewise undisputed that choose who should be their bargaining
NAMAPRI-SPFL, in two (2) occasions representative is of paramount importance.
demanded from PRI, in their letters, to  The Court emphasized anew that the power
terminate the employment of respondents to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the
due to their acts of disloyalty to the Union. employer, but with limitations.
 However, as to the third requisite, there is no  The employer is bound to exercise caution in
sufficient evidence to support the decision of terminating the services of his employees
PRI to terminate the employment of the especially so when it is made upon the
respondents. request of a labor union pursuant to the
 The Court is unconvinced by PRI’s allegation CBA.
that respondents were terminated based on  Dismissals must not be arbitrary and
the alleged acts of disloyalty. It contends that capricious. Due process must be observed in
their acts are a violation of the Union dismissing an employee, because it affects
Security Clause, as provided in their CBA. not only his position but also his means of
 The mere signing of the authorization in livelihood.
support of the Petition before the "freedom  Employers should, therefore, respect and
period," is not sufficient ground to terminate protect the rights of their employees, which
the employment. include the right to labor.
RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.