Scribd
Upload
226 views4 pages

Alex Ferrer vs. NLRC, July 5, 1993: A Case Digest For The Topic of

- Petitioners were dismissed from their jobs at Occidental Foundry Corporation after a dispute within their union, Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry Corporation-FFW (SAMAHAN). - Petitioners were not given a hearing by the union to explain their actions, which violated the union's own rules. - The court ruled that petitioners' dismissal was illegal because they were not afforded due process, as required. The company and union were ordered to jointly compensate petitioners.

Uploaded by

Kiem Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
226 views4 pages

Alex Ferrer vs. NLRC, July 5, 1993: A Case Digest For The Topic of

- Petitioners were dismissed from their jobs at Occidental Foundry Corporation after a dispute within their union, Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry Corporation-FFW (SAMAHAN). - Petitioners were not given a hearing by the union to explain their actions, which violated the union's own rules. - The court ruled that petitioners' dismissal was illegal because they were not afforded due process, as required. The company and union were ordered to jointly compensate petitioners.

Uploaded by

Kiem Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

A CASE DIGEST FOR THE TOPIC OF

ALEX FERRER vs. NLRC , JULY 5, 1993

SUBMITTED BY:

SANTOS, KIM FRANZ F.

SUBMITTED TO:

MRS. BURIEL

MARCH 2021
I. CAPTION

G.R. No. 100898 July 5, 1993

ALEX FERRER, RAFAEL FERRER HENRY DIAZ, DOMINGO


BANCOLITA, GIL DE GUZMAN, and FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC
LABOR UNIONS, (FEDLU), Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HUI KAM CHANG (In his capacity as
General Manager of Occidental Foundry Corporation), OCCIDENTAL
FOUNDRY CORPORATION, MACEDONIO S. VELASCO (In his capacity as
representative of the Federation of Free Workers), GENARO CAPITLE, JESUS
TUMAGAN, ERNESTO BARROGA, PEDRO LLENA, GODOFREDO
PACHECO, MARCELINO CASTILLO, GEORGE IGNAS, PIO DOMINGO,
and JAIME BAYNADO, Respondents.

Genrosa P. Jacinto and Raymundo D. Mallilin for private respondents.

II. FACTS
Petitioners were regular and permanent employees of the Occidental Foundry Corporation
(OFC) in Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro Manila which was under the management of Hui
Kam Chang. As piece workers, petitioners’ earnings ranged from P110 to P140 a day. They
had been in the employ of OFC for about ten years at the time of their dismissal in 1989.
Samahang Manggagawa ng Occidental Foundry Corporation-FFW (SAMAHAN) and the
OFC entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which would be effective for the
three-year period between October 1, 1988 and September 30, 1991.
Sec. 1 —The company agrees that all permanent and regular factory workers in the company
who are members in good standing of the union or who thereafter may become members,
shall as a condition of continued employment, maintain their membership in the union in
good standing for the duration of the agreement.
Sec. 3 —The parties agree that failure to retain membership in good standing with the
UNION shall be ground for the operation of paragraph 1 hereof and the dismissal by the
company of the aforesaid employee upon written request by the union. The aforesaid request
shall be accompanied by a verified carbon original of the Board of (sic) Resolution by the
UNION signed by at least a majority of its officers/directors.
On May 6, 1989, petitioner Alex Ferrer and the SAMAHAN, filed in the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), a complaint for the expulsion from SAMAHAN of the
following officers: Genaro Capitle (president), Jesus Tumagan (vicepresident), Godofredo
Pacheco (auditor), and Marcelino Pacheco (board member). The complaint was founded on
said officers’ alleged inattentiveness to the economic demands of the workers. However, on
September 4, 1989, petitioners Diaz and Alex Ferrer withdrew the petition. On September
10, 1989, petitioners conducted a special election of officers of the SAMAHAN. Said
election was, however, later questioned by the FFW. Nonetheless, the elected set of officers
tried to dissuade the OFC from remitting union dues to the officers led by Capitle who were
allied with the FFW. Later, however, Romulo Erlano, one of the officers elected at the
special election, manifested to the DOLE that he was no longer objecting to the remittance of
union dues to the officers led by Capitle. Petitioners’ move to stage a strike based on
economic demands was also later disowned by members of the SAMAHAN.
The intr union dispute led the union in requesting that Ferrer and others be dismissed.
petitioners sent individual letters to Hui Kam Chang professing innocence of the charges
levelled against them by the SAMAHAN and the FFW and pleading that they be reinstated,
to no avail.
Thus, contending that their dismissal was without cause and in utter disregard of their right to
due process of law, petitioners, through the FEDLU, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and unfair labor practice before the NLRC against Hui Kam Chang, OFC, Macedonio S.
Velasco (as representative of the FFW) the FFW, and the SAMAHAN officers headed by
Capitle.
Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint.
labor arbiter concluded, the dismissal of petitioners was an exercise of legitimate
management prerogative which cannot be considered as an unfair labor practice.
Appealed to NLRC. affirmed in toto.

III. ISSUES
whether or not, after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor
organization, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations merely becomes a
ministerial function.
IV. RULING

CBA is the law between the company and the union and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor. Said policy should be
given paramount consideration unless otherwise provided for by law.

Sec. 4. Ang sinumang kasapi ay maaring itwalag (sic) ng Samahan pangsamantala o


tuluyan sa pamamagitan (sic) ng tatlo’t ikaapat (¾) na bahagi ng dami ng bilang ng
Pamunuang Tagapagpaganap.Pagkaraan lamang sa pandinig sa kanyang kaso.Batay
sa sumusunod: (a) Sinumang gumawa ng mga bagay bagay na labag at lihis sa
patakaran ng Samahan. (b) Sinumang gumawa ng mga bagay na maaaring ikabuwag
ng Samahan. (c) Hindi paghuhulog ng butaw sa loob ng tatlong buwan na walang
sakit o Doctor’s Certificate. (d) Hindi pagbibigay ng abuloy na itinatadhana ng
Samahan. (e) Sinumang kasapi na natanggal sa kapisanan at gustong, sumapi uli ay
magpapanibago ng bilang, mula sa taon ng kanyang pagsapi uli sa Samahan.

No hearing (“pandinig”) was ever conducted by the SAMAHAN to look into


petitioners’ explanation of their moves to oust the union leadership under Capitle, or
their subsequent affiliation with FEDLU. The Samahan did not comply with their
own law even if the employees are the erring parties.

While the law recognizes the right of an employer to dismiss employees in warranted
cases, it frowns upon arbitrariness as when employees are not accorded due process.
an employee may be considered illegally dismissed because he was not accorded fair
investigation.

The prerogative of OFC to dismiss petitioners should not have been whimsically done
for it unduly exposed itself to a charge of unfair labor practice for dismissing
petitioners in line with the closed shop provision of the CBA, without a proper
hearing.

Under Rule XIV, Sections 2, 5, and 6 of the rules implementing Batas Pambansa Blg.
130, the OFC and the SAMAHAN should solidarity indemnify petitioners for the
violation of their right to procedural due process.

Hence, while petitioners’ act of holding a special election to oust Capitle, et al. may
be considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members, and,
perhaps, disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt with by the
union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting
disloyalty to the union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried to
remove as officials, it was but a natural act of self-preservation that petitioners fled to
the arms of the FEDLUafterthe union and the OFC had tried to terminate their
employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act

You might also like