VILLAR vs. INCIONG

VILLAR vs.
INCIONG
Villar, Pequito, Ramos, Mamaraldo, Acosta, Bernus, Andan, De Guzman, Llagas

Vs. The Hon. Inciong, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor; Amigo Manufacturing Incorporated and
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU)
G.R. No. L-50283-84 April 20, 1983
Facts:
Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor
organization which was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo
Manufacturing Inc. (Company).
The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a CBA governing their labor relations,
which agreement was then about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last 60 days of the CBA, upon
written authority of at least 30% of the employees in the company, including the petitioners, the
Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) filed a petition for certification election with MOLE. The petition was
opposed by the PAFLU with whom the Amigo Employees Union was at the time affiliated. The same
employees who had signed the petition filed by FUR signed a joint resolution disaffiliating from PAFLU.
Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the authorized representative of the Amigo Employees
Union, filed a petition for certification election in the Company. The Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
intervened and moved for the dismissal of the petition for certification election filed by Villar had no legal
personality to sign the petition since she was not an officer of the union nor is there factual or legal basis
for her claim that she was the authorized representative of the local union.
Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition filed by Villar, which dismissal is still pending appeal before
BLR. Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU called a special meeting of its general membership. A Resolution was
thereby unanimously approved which called for the investigation by PAFLU national president, of all the
petitioners and one Felipe Manlapao, for continuously maligning the union spreading false propaganda
that the union officers were merely appointees of the management; and for causing divisiveness in the
union. PAFLU formed a Trial Committee to investigate the local union’s charges against the petitioners for
acts of disloyalty.
PAFLU and the Company concluded a new CBA which also reincorporated the same provisions of
the existing CBA, including the Union Security Clause. PAFLU President rendered a decision finding the
petitioners guilty of charges. PAFLU demanded the Company to terminate the employment of the
petitioners pursuant to the security clause of the CBA. Acting on PAFLU’s demand, the Company informed
PAFLU that it will first secure the necessary clearances to terminate petitioners. PAFLU requested the
Company to put petitioners under preventive suspension pending the application for said clearances to
terminate the petitioners. The Company filed the request for clearance to terminate the petitioners
before DOLE which was granted. DOLE Secretary Inciong denied the appeal. Hence, this petition for
review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PAFLU had the authority to investigate oppositors and, thereafter, expel them
from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU
RULING:
Yes. It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in
the freedom of association ordained by the Constitution. But the Court has laid down the ruling that a
closed-shop is a valid form of union security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of
freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the case at bench, the Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA
with a union security clause which is a reiteration of the old CBA. The quoted stipulation for closed-shop
is clear and unequivocal. Petitioners’ theory that their expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is
untenable. PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by their co-employees
in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of
the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the Constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union
was affiliated.
Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of self-preservation.
When members of a labor union, therefore, sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union; when
they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit
their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well
as the dictates of law and justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of such
corrective and remedial measures in keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and
continued existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.
PAFLU, therefore, correctly and legally acted when, pursuant to its Constitution and By-Laws, it
conducted and proceeded with the investigation of the charges against the oppositors and found them
guilty of acts prejudicial and inimical to the interests of the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU, to wit: that
of falsely and maliciously slandering the officers of the union; spreading false propaganda among the
members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU; calling the incumbent officers as mere appointees and
robots of management; calling the union company-dominated or assisted union; committing acts
unbecoming of the members of the union and destructive of the union and its members.

VILLAR vs. INCIONG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VILLAR vs. INCIONG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VILLAR vs. INCIONG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VILLAR vs.

Villar, Pequito, Ramos, Mamaraldo, Acosta, Bernus, Andan, De Guzman, Llagas

You might also like