SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs BENERANDO M.

NOYA
G.R. No. 232687
FACTS:

This is a petition for review wherein the NLRC declared that Noya committed an act of
disloyalty that caused his expulsion from the union and legal dismissal from work
pursuant to the closed shop provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Respondent's employment was covered by a CBA7 effective April 14, 2009 to April 15,
2014 between petitioner 'and Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa Katipunan (NLM-
Katipunan), the company's sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the regular rank-
and-file employees. Petitioner claimed that sometime in December 2013, respondent
asked several employees to affix their signatures on a blank sheet of yellow paper for
the purpose of forming a new union, prompting the president of NLM-Katipunan to file
expulsion proceedings against him for disloyalty. Subsequently, or on February 9, 2014,
respondent organized a new union named the Bantay Manggagawa sa SLORD
Development Corporation (BMSDC), which he registered with the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) on February 20, 2014. Consequently, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that he did not violate any CBA provision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent may be terminated pursuant to the Union Security Clause?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Article 259 (formerly Article 248), paragraph (e) of the Labor Code.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:

On February 9, 2014, the respondent organized a new union named the Bantay
Manggagawa sa SLORD Development Corporation (BMSDC), which he registered with
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on February 20, 2014. On February
27, 2014, the NLM-Katipunan issued a notice of expulsion to the respondent. On March
19, 2014, the respondent’s employment was terminated. On August 27, 2014, the LA
dismissed the case for lack of merit, ruling that respondent’s dismissal was neither
illegal nor an unfair labor practice. On September 30, 2014, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s
Decision with modification, ordering petitioner to pay respondent P10,000.00 as nominal
damages.

On November 14, 2014, the NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration. On
January 25, 2017, CA granted respondent’s petition, finding his dismissal to be illegal.
On July 7, 2017, CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

Yes. While not explicitly mentioned in the Labor Code, case law recognizes that
dismissal from employment due to the enforcement of the union security clause in the
CBA is another just cause for termination of employment. Similar to the enumerated just
causes in the Labor Code, the violation of a union security clause amounts to a
commission of a wrongful act or omission out of one's own volition. Pertinent is Article
259 (formerly 248), paragraph (e) of the Labor Code, which states that "nothing in this
Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the
collective bargaining agreement." The stipulation in a CBA based on this provision of
the Labor Code is commonly known as the "union security clause." Wherefore, the
petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2017 and the Resolution dated
July 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138705 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 30, 2014 and the Resolution dated
November 14, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No.
09-002333-14 are REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION increasing the award of
nominal damages to P30,000.00.
OPINION:

The Supreme Court's judgment is one in which I concur. Another legitimate reason to
terminate an employee's employment is the application of the CBA's union security
provision. Similar to the legitimate causes listed in the Labor Code, breaking a union
security clause constitutes committing a wrongdoing of one's own free will.
 Asian Institute of Management vs. Asian Institute of Management Faculty
Association
GR No. 207971

FACTS:

Respondent AFA is a duly registered labor organization composed of members of the

AIM faculty. AFA filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent a
bargaining unit in AIM consisting of forty (40) faculty members. AIM opposed the
petition, claiming that respondent's members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory,
but rather, managerial employees. Subsequently, AIM filed a petition for cancellation of
respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds of misrepresentation in
registration and that respondent is composed of managerial employees who are
prohibited from organizing as a union. In the first case, the Med-Arbiter of DOLE denied
the petition for certification election on the ground that AIM' s faculty members are
managerial employees. This Order was appealed by respondent before the SOLE who
reversed the same. Meanwhile, in the second case, the Regional Director of DOLE
granted AIM's petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration and
ordering its delisting from the roster of legitimate labor organizations. This Order was
appealed by AFA before the BLR which reversed the same and ordered AFA's retention
in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. AIM insists that the members of its
tenure-track faculty are managerial employees, and therefore, ineligible to join, assist or
form a labor organization. It ascribes grave abuse of discretion on SOLE for its rash
conclusion that the members of said tenure-track faculty are not managerial employees
solely because the faculty's actions are still subject to evaluation, review or final
approval by the board of trustees (BOT). AIM argues that the BOT does not manage the
day-to-day affairs, nor the making and implementing of policies of the Institute, as such
functions are vested with the tenure-track faculty. The first case remains pending before
the Supreme Court via Certiorari. As to the second case, the CA affirmed the decision
of the BLR to retain AFA in the list of legitimate labor organizations. This decision is
what’s being assailed in this case.
ISSUE:

Whether or not AFA’s members are all managerial employees who are disqualified from
joining, assisting, or forming a labor organization.

LAW APPLICABLE:

Article 239 and Article 245 of the Labor Code.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:

On December 20, 2004, the Department of Labor and Employment issued AFA a
Certificate of Registration, recognizing it as a legitimate labor organization. On May 16,
2007, AFA filed a Petition for Certification Election before the Department of Labor and
Employment-National Capital Region, praying that a certification election be conducted
to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of AIM's faculty members. On July 11,
2007, AIM filed a Petition for Cancellation of the Certificate of Registration issued to
AFA. On August 30, 2007, Mediator-Arbiter Michael T. Parado denied the Petition for
Certification Election, finding that all of AFA's members were managerial employees. On
February 16, 2009, the Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region
granted the Petition and directed AFA to be delisted from the roster of legitimate labor
organizations. On December 29, 2009, the Bureau of Labor Relations issued a Decision
ordering AFA to remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. On February 20,
2009, the Secretary reversed the Mediator-Arbiter's ruling and allowed the conduct of
the certification election after finding that AFA's members were not managerial
employees. On May 4, 2009, AIM filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but this was
denied by the Secretary. On October 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision
granting AIM's Petition for Certiorari, thus denying AFA's Petition for Certification
Election. On May 27, 2011, AFA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the Court of
Appeals denied this. On January 8, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision
affirming the Bureau of Labor Relations' ruling, which sustained AFA's registration as a
legitimate labor organization. On June 27, 2013, AIM's Motion for Reconsideration was
likewise denied in the Court of Appeals. AIM filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari
before the Supreme Court (SC). On January 23, 2017, the SC consolidated G.R. No.
207971 with G.R. No. 197089, finding that the outcome of G.R. No. 207971 would
depend on the resolution of the pending issue in G.R. No. 197089.

RULING:

Jurisprudence already provides that "in case of alleged inclusion of disqualified

employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like petitioner is to directly
file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in
Article 239 of the Labor Code.” AIM was therefore correct in filing a petition for
cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration. Petitioner's sole ground for
seeking cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration - that its members are
managerial employees and for this reason, its registration is thus a patent nullity for
being an absolute violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code which declares that
managerial employees are ineligible to join any labor organization --- is, in a sense, an
accusation that respondent is guilty of misrepresentation for registering under the claim
that its members are not managerial employees. WHEREFORE, considering that the
outcome of this case depends on the resolution of the issue relative to the nature of
respondent's membership pending in G.R. No. 197089, this case is ordered
CONSOLIDATED with G.R. No. 197089.

OPINION:

The Court made the right decision. The law states that the proper course of action for
an employer, such as the petitioner, in the case of an alleged inclusion of disqualified
employees in a union is to file a petition directly for the cancellation of the union's
certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud under the
circumstances listed in Article 239 of the Labor Code. Additionally, the assertion that
respondent registered under the pretense that its members are not management
workers amounts to a charge of deception because managerial personnel are not
permitted to join any labor organization.