Sec.

3—Any employee who is expelled from the UNION for joining another federation or
forming another union, or who fails or refuses to maintain his membership therein as
required, . . . shall, upon written request of the UNION be discharged by the COMPANY.

4. May 21, 1971, respondent company and THEU-NATU entered into a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement which ended on March 31, 1974. This new CBA incorporated the
previous union-shop security clause and the attached check off authorization form.
5. NATU received a letter dated December 15, 1973, jointly signed by the
incumbent officers of the local

requirement is concerned)

Held:
YES
The SC reversed the decision of BLR, it appearing that the 31 union m em bers
has withdrawn their support to the petition BEFORE the filing of said petition.

It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made AFTER the filing of the petition for it would then
be presumed that the said withdrawal was not free and voluntary (may be procured through
duress, coercion or for valuable consideration).

In other words, distinction must be made whether the withdrawals were made before or after filing
of the petition. Before= presumed to be voluntary. After=involuntary
of PSI and were lured into endorsing a collective bargaining agreement which was
detrimental to their interests.

PAFLU amended its complaint by including the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU as

additional party respondents. PAFLU averred that the local officers of PSEA-PAFLU,
namely Macario Cabanias, Pepito Rodillas, Sharon Castillo, Danilo Carbonel, Manuel
Eda, Rolando Felix, Jocelyn Fronda, Ricardo Lumba, Joseph Mirasol, Nerisa Mortel,
Teofilo Quirong, Leonardo Reyes, Manuel Cadiente, and Herminia Riosa, were equally
guilty of unfair labor practice since they brazenly allowed themselves to be manipulated
and influenced by petitioner Francisco Dakila.