G.R. No. L-22456 September 27, 1967
FRANCISCO SALUNGA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. and MIGUEL NOEL; NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NABAILUP-PAFLU); JOHN DE CATILLO and CIPRIANO CID, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Salunga, an employee of San Miguel Brewery, Inc. (the Company) since 1948 and a member of the National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines (the Union) since 1953, was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Company and the Union containing a closed-shop provision (Section 3, Article II). This provision required union membership as a condition of employment and prohibited voluntary resignation from the Union earlier than thirty days before the CBA’s expiry, except for causes other than voluntary resignation or non-payment of dues.
On August 18, 1961, Salunga tendered his resignation from the Union due to his criticisms of certain union officers’ actions, including alleged illegal disbursements of union funds, his removal from his position as union steward without his knowledge, and the union’s failure to honor a power of attorney in his favor. The Union accepted his resignation on August 26, 1961, and transmitted it to the Company on August 29, 1961, requesting implementation of the closed-shop clause.
Upon being informed by the Company that his resignation would lead to termination, Salunga wrote to the Union on August 31, 1961, withdrawing his resignation and authorizing continued deduction of union dues, furnishing a copy to the Company. The Company notified the Union of this withdrawal and stated it would consider Salunga still a member. However, the Union insisted on his separation. The Company, after clarifying it had only informed Salunga of the consequences of resignation, ultimately dismissed him on September 22, 1961, effective September 30, 1961, upon the Union’s insistence.
Salunga sought review from the PAFLU (the federation to which the Union was affiliated), whose president, respondent Cipriano Cid, sustained the Union’s action. Salunga then announced an appeal to the PAFLU National Convention and requested maintenance of the status quo, but the Company discharged him on October 15, 1961.
Salunga filed unfair labor practice charges against the Union, its president John de Castillo, Cipriano Cid, the Company, and its vice-president Miguel Noel. The trial judge found all respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered Salunga’s reinstatement to union membership and to his job with back wages. On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc reversed the trial judge and dismissed the case, prompting Salunga’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents committed unfair labor practice in refusing to allow Salunga to withdraw his resignation from the Union and in effecting his dismissal from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc and modified the decision of the trial judge.
1. As to the Union and its officers (John de Castillo and Cipriano Cid): The Union was guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court found that Salunga’s resignation was tendered in a state of dejection due to the Union officers’ inaction on his grievances and his criticisms of their conduct. His subsequent withdrawal of the resignation upon learning of its employment consequences was timely. The Union’s refusal to consent to the withdrawal was arbitrary and without just cause, as it was motivated by Salunga’s criticisms, which were not acts of disloyalty but an exercise of his right as a member to comment on union transactions. The Union’s constitution and by-laws recognized members’ right to give views on all union transactions.
2. As to the Company and its officer (Miguel Noel): The Company was not guilty of unfair labor practice. The Company acted in good faith, initially seeking to maintain the status quo after Salunga’s withdrawal of resignation. It only proceeded with the dismissal upon the Union’s insistence and after the PAFLU officers sustained the Union’s action. The Company was justified in presuming the PAFLU had inquired into all relevant circumstances. The trial judge erred in faulting the Company for not waiting for the PAFLU National Convention’s action, as there was no evidence Salunga had actually brought his appeal to that Convention or that it had ruled in his favor.
3. Relief Granted: Since Salunga’s dismissal resulted from the Union’s unfair labor practice, he was entitled to reinstatement. The Court ordered:
* The Union, John de Castillo, and Cipriano Cid to readmit Salunga to union membership with all rights and privileges.
* The Company to reinstate Salunga to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and rights.
* Back wages to be paid to Salunga, to be borne exclusively by the Union. The Court authorized the industrial court to take necessary measures, including allowing the Company to make deductions from sums due to the Union, to effectuate this decision and the purposes of the Industrial Peace Act.
Costs were imposed against the respondents, except the Company.