GR 68619; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-68619 March 16, 1989
LOURDES SORIANO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL., (NLRC Commissioners), SHELLWOOD INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were employees of Shellwood Industries and members of the Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Shellwood Industries union. The union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company containing a union security clause. On April 4, 1982, union president Concepcion Nuguid resigned. Subsequently, on July 29, 1982, in a meeting conducted by the resigned Nuguid, a resolution was passed expelling the petitioners from the union. Relying on this resolution and the CBA’s union security clause, Nuguid requested the company to terminate the petitioners. Shellwood Industries dismissed the petitioners on August 16, 1982.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissals illegal, ordering reinstatement without backwages but granting financial assistance equivalent to six months’ salary. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the reinstatement order but deleted the award of financial assistance. The petitioners filed this certiorari action, assailing the NLRC’s deletion of the financial assistance as a grave abuse of discretion, arguing the company was negligent in acting on the request of a president who had already resigned.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deleting the Labor Arbiter’s award of financial assistance to the illegally dismissed employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the NLRC’s ruling that the award lacked legal and factual basis. Legally, financial assistance, akin to separation pay, is not warranted where the employer is ordered to reinstate the employee, as reinstatement is the primary relief for illegal dismissal. Factually, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that Shellwood Industries acted in good faith. The company complied with the union’s written request for dismissal as mandated by the CBA’s union security clause, which is considered the law between the parties. The company was not in a position to question the internal status of Nuguid as that was a matter for the union and its members.
The Court cited jurisprudence stating that an employer is not guilty of unfair labor practice for complying in good faith with a union request under a union security clause. To award financial assistance would unjustly penalize the company for its lawful compliance with the CBA. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The NLRC’s decision, based on the established good faith of the company and the inapplicability of financial assistance upon reinstatement, was a proper exercise of its judgment and not tainted with arbitrariness.