Inguillo v First Phil.
Scales dismissed the complaints and declared that Bergante and
FACTS
- The respondent Company employed Bergante and Inguillo as
assemblers on August 1977 and September 1986,
respectively.
- In 1991, FPSI entered into a CBA, with a duration for 5 years
from 1991 to 1996.
- During the lifetime of the FPSI, Begante, Inguillo and other
members of the FPSI joined another union,NLM.
- Subsequently, NLM filed with the DOLE an intra-union
dispute against FPSI and the company. The management
decided in favor of FPSI.
- Meanwhile, the FPSI filed a petition with the company
seeking the termination of the services certain employees,
which included Inguillo, on the ground of: (1) disloyalty to the
FPSI by separating from it and affiliating with NLM; (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 FPSI, 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 1996, Inguillo filed with the NLRC a complaint against
the Company for illegal withholding of salary and damages.
- Later, the company terminated the services of the employees
mentioned in the petition. The following day, separate
complaints for illegal dismissal were filed by NLM and Inguillo
which were consolidated.
- The LA dismissed the complaints against those complainants
that entered in an amicable settlement. The remaining
complainants were Bergante and Inguillo. In its decision, LA
Inguillo were legally dismissed it being that they clearly
violated the Union Security Clause of the CBA when they
joined NLM.
- On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the LA. Upon MR,
the NLRC set aside its decision and held that Bergante and
Inguillo were legally dismissed. CA affirmed. Hence, this
petition
ISSUE and RULING
WON Bergante and Inguilla were legally dismissed
YES. Under the LC, therein provided are several provisions under
which an employee may be validly terminated, namely: (a) just
causes under Art. 282; (b) authorized causes under Art. 283; (c)
termination due to disease under Art. 284; and (d) termination by the
employee or resignation under Art.285. While the said provisions
didnt mention as a 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.
In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the
Union Security Clause, the employer needs only to determine and
prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the
CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the union's
decision to expel the employee from the union or company. Herein,
all of the said requisites were complied with. The 1st was complied
with as the said USC was a valid provision in the CBA. The 2nd was
met when FPSI acted on its prerogative to recommend the dismissal
of the members who failed to maintain their membership with it on
the ground of, among others, joining NLM. Lastly, the 3rd was
complied with when FPSI presented evidence that Inguillo were its
former members; Inguillo was its Sec. of Finance. Thus, it being
apparent that the petitioners herein committed acts of disloyalty to
FPSI when they failed not only to maintain their membership, but also
by disaffiliating from it, their dismissal on the ground of violation of
the USC was valid and for cause.