GR 165407; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165407 ; June 5, 2009
HERMINIGILDO INGUILO and ZENAIDA BERGANTE, Petitioners, vs. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES, INC. and/or AMPARO POLICARPIO, Manager, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Herminigildo Inguillo and Zenaida Bergante were assemblers employed by respondent First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI). They were members of the exclusive bargaining agent, First Philippine Scales Industries Labor Union (FPSILU), and signed the ratification of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing a union security clause. During the CBA’s term, petitioners joined a rival union, the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM-KATIPUNAN). FPSILU filed an intra-union dispute against NLM-KATIPUNAN, which was decided in FPSILU’s favor. Subsequently, FPSILU submitted a “Petisyon” to FPSI management demanding the termination of petitioners and others for disloyalty, specifically for separating from FPSILU and affiliating with the rival union. Relying on this union demand, FPSI dismissed petitioners.
Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal. They argued they were not informed of the petition for their termination or the specific grounds, claiming dismissal was due to union activity or, in Bergante’s case, familial relation to Inguillo. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed their complaints, ruling the dismissal was valid under the CBA’s union security clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
RULING
No, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court upheld the application of the union security clause in the CBA. A union security clause is a valid stipulation in a CBA, and dismissal pursuant to it is allowed under Article 248(e) of the Labor Code, provided the union’s request for termination is in accordance with its constitution and by-laws. The clause aims to ensure the union’s viability as the bargaining representative by requiring continued membership. Petitioners, as union members who ratified the CBA, were bound by its terms. Their act of disaffiliating from FPSILU and joining a rival union constituted a breach of this contractual obligation, constituting disloyalty which furnished a valid cause for termination under the security clause.
The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of lack of due process. The essence of due process in such cases is the opportunity to be heard. The union proceedings that led to the “Petisyon” for dismissal constituted the requisite hearing. Petitioners, as members, were bound by the union’s internal decision-making process. FPSI, upon the union’s valid demand, had a contractual obligation to dismiss them. The dismissal was therefore for a just cause and effected with due process. The petition was denied.