Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Inguillo Vs First Phil Scales

    Uploaded by

    Gelyn Diaz
    First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI) employed Herminigildo Inguillo and Bergante as assemblers. FPSI and its labor union, FPSILU, had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring union membership. Inguillo and Bergante joined another union and were terminated upon a petition by FPSILU. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissals were valid under the CBA's union security clause but lacked procedural due process, as petitioners were dismissed by petition only without the required twin notice. The Court upheld CBA provisions but found terminations illegal without fulfilling due process requisites like sufficient evidence and notice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Inguillo Vs First Phil Scales

    Uploaded by

    Gelyn Diaz
    82 views1 page
    First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI) employed Herminigildo Inguillo and Bergante as assemblers. FPSI and its labor union, FPSILU, had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring union membership. Inguillo and Bergante joined another union and were terminated upon a petition by FPSILU. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissals were valid under the CBA's union security clause but lacked procedural due process, as petitioners were dismissed by petition only without the required twin notice. The Court upheld CBA provisions but found terminations illegal without fulfilling due process requisites like sufficient evidence and notice.

    Original Title

    Inguillo vs First Phil Scales

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI) employed Herminigildo Inguillo and Bergante as assemblers. FPSI and its labor union, FPSILU, had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring union membership. Inguillo and Bergante joined another union and were terminated upon a petition by FPSILU. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissals were valid under the CBA's union security clause but lacked procedural due process, as petitioners were dismissed by petition only without the required twin notice. The Court upheld CBA provisions but found terminations illegal without fulfilling due process requisites like sufficient evidence and notice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    Inguillo Vs First Phil Scales

    Uploaded by

    Gelyn Diaz
    First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI) employed Herminigildo Inguillo and Bergante as assemblers. FPSI and its labor union, FPSILU, had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring union membership. Inguillo and Bergante joined another union and were terminated upon a petition by FPSILU. The Supreme Court ruled the dismissals were valid under the CBA's union security clause but lacked procedural due process, as petitioners were dismissed by petition only without the required twin notice. The Court upheld CBA provisions but found terminations illegal without fulfilling due process requisites like sufficient evidence and notice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO v.

     FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES, Inc.


    [G.R. NO. 165407 June 5, 2009]
    THIRD DIVISION PERALTA, J.

    FACTS:

    First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI), a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of
    weighing scales, employed Bergante and Inguillo as assemblers.

    FPSI and FPSI Labor Union (FPSILU) entered into a CBA for a period of 5 years. Bergante &
    Inguillo , who were members signed the CBA. The provision of CBA requires that all members
    to maintain their membership with FPSILU during the lifetime of CBA. Failing to do so, and
    for any causes enumerated therein, the Union Directorate and/or FPSILU Executive Council
    may recommend to FPSI and employee/union members suspension or dismissal.

    During the lifetime of CBA, petitioner and several FPSI employees joined another union
    Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM). Respondents terminated the services of
    employees upon a “Petisyon” submitted by FPSILU.

    The Labor Arbiter held that Bergante & Inguillo were not illegally dismissed. The two clearly
    violated the Union Security Clause of the CBA when the joined another union and committed
    acts detrimental to the interest of FPSILU and respondents.

    The NLRC reversed the decision stating that respondents failed to present evidence to show
    that petitioners committed acts inimical to FPSILU’s interest.

    Respondents filed Motion for Reconsideration. The NLRC referred the case to Executive Labor Arbiter
    and set aside the previous resolution. This time, NLRC held that petitioners were illegally dismissed as
    respondents merely put in force the CBA provision on the termination of services of disaffiliating union
    members upon the recommendation of the union.

    The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the enforcement of the aforesaid Union Security Clause justified herein petitioner’s dismissal
    from service.

    HELD:

    The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissals of petitioners were valid pursuant to the enforcement of
    Union Security Clause, however did not comply with requisite procedural due process.

    In enforcing the Union Security Clause in the CBA, the Court was upholding the sanctity and
    inviolability of contract. But in doing, they cannot override an employee’s right to due process.

    The Supreme Court provides the requisites in terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing
    the Union Security Clause:
    1. The Union Security Clause is applicable;
    2. The Union is requesting for the enforcement of the Union Security provision in CBA;
    3. There is sufficient evidence to support the union’s decision to expel the employee from the union
    or company;

    All the requisites have been sufficiently met, but the twin notice rule requirement was not followed. The
    petitioners were dismissed by “petisyon” only. Thus, the petitioners were validly dismissed by
    enforcement of Union Security Clause, were declared illegally dismissed due to absence of procedural
    due process.

    You might also like