GR 232687; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232687 February 4, 2019
SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. BENERANDO M. NOYA, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Benerando M. Noya was a welder employed by petitioner Slord Development Corporation. His employment was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing a union security clause, which mandated the dismissal of any employee expelled from the exclusive bargaining agent, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katipunan (NLM-Katipunan). The union initiated expulsion proceedings against Noya, alleging he solicited signatures on a blank paper to form a rival union and subsequently organized and registered the Bantay Manggagawa sa SLORD Development Corporation (BMSDC). After Noya failed to appear at the union’s investigation hearings, NLM-Katipunan expelled him for disloyalty and demanded his termination from the company. Petitioner Slord complied, dismissing Noya on March 19, 2014.
Noya filed an illegal dismissal complaint, arguing his actions were valid as they occurred during the CBA’s freedom period. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, upholding the dismissal under the closed shop agreement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed but awarded nominal damages for procedural lapses. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the dismissal illegal, finding insufficient evidence of disloyalty and a denial of due process, and ordering reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Noya was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Noya’s dismissal was for a just cause under the union security clause of the CBA. A closed shop provision validly obligates an employer to dismiss an employee upon the union’s demand following expulsion for disloyalty. The evidence, including sworn statements from union members detailing Noya’s solicitation activities and his subsequent formation of a rival union, constituted substantial proof of his disloyal acts, which undermined the incumbent union. These acts were not protected activities during the freedom period, as they constituted raiding, a valid ground for expulsion under the union’s constitution and bylaws.
Regarding procedure, the Court found that while the employer failed to provide its own hearing, the due process requirement was satisfied through the union’s investigation. The law does not mandate a separate company hearing when the dismissal is pursuant to a union security clause, provided the union afforded the employee a chance to be heard. The union conducted investigations with proper notice to Noya, who chose not to participate. Therefore, his dismissal was both substantively and procedurally valid. The NLRC’s award of nominal damages for procedural defect was consequently set aside.