G.R. No. L-20764 November 29, 1965.
SANTOS JUAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, BULAKLAK PUBLICATIONS and JUAN EVANGELISTA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Santos Juat, an employee of respondent Bulaklak Publications since August 1953, filed charges of unfair labor practice against the company and its Executive Officer, Juan N. Evangelista. The complaint alleged that around July 15, 1960, and thereafter, Juat was asked to join the Busocope Labor Union but refused; he was subsequently suspended without cause; and he was dismissed on March 15, 1961, after filing two separate cases against the respondents (one for unfair labor practice and another for overtime pay). Respondents countered that Juat was suspended for cause, his dismissal was not an act of reprisal as they learned of the cases after the employer-employee relationship had terminated, and that Juat caused his own separation by ignoring a letter ordering him to report back to work after his suspension, as he was preoccupied with his own business, the Juat Printing Press Co. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dismissed the complaint. The CIR found that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a closed-shop provision existed between Bulaklak Publications and the Busocope Labor Union, amended on December 27, 1960, requiring all employees not yet union members by January 1, 1961, to join the union as a condition of employment. Juat, an old employee but not a union member, refused to join. He was suspended for 15 days for this refusal and, after failing to report back to work despite an order, was dropped from the service. The CIR concluded the company was merely obeying the CBA and that Juat’s refusal to work showed disrespect and was inimical to the company’s interests, especially as he had his own printing business.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred or committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) applying the closed-shop provision of the CBA to petitioner, an old employee; (2) holding that respondent did not commit unfair labor practice by dismissing petitioner for refusing to join the union; and (3) dismissing the complaint for lack of substantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court held that:
1. The closed-shop proviso in a CBA is sanctioned by law (Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act No. 875 ) and its validity has been consistently upheld. The doctrine established in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations is that a closed-shop provision applies not only to new employees but also to old employees who were not members of any labor union at the time the CBA was entered into. Since petitioner Juat was an old employee but not a union member when the CBA was executed, he could be obliged to join the Busocope Labor Union.
2. Respondent Bulaklak Publications did not commit unfair labor practice. The dismissal was justified because petitioner refused to join the union as required by the valid closed-shop agreement, constituting a valid ground for dismissal. Additionally, the CIR correctly found that petitioner furnished another ground for dismissal by refusing to return to work after his suspension, as he was engaged in his own business.
3. The CIR did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of substantial evidence. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the CIR. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.