Case Digest (G.R. No. 91086)
Facts:
Virgilio S. Carino v. National Labor Relations Commission, Harrison Industrial Corporation and Harrison Industrial Workers Union, G.R. No. 91086, May 08, 1990, the Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Virgilio S. Carino was the elected President of the Harrison Industrial Workers' Union. Other union officers, believing Carino had grossly mismanaged union affairs, formed an investigating committee and repeatedly invited him to answer specific charges: alleged conspiracy with the company during CBA negotiations (including a retirement provision viewed as unfavorable to members), payment of the union lawyer from union funds without receipts, unilateral increase of membership dues, concealment of the CBA and failure to explain it to members prior to ratification, and refusal to turn over union funds to the treasurer. Carino repeatedly failed to appear or respond.
A general membership meeting was called on 11 June 1987; charges were discussed and the membership decided to seek a special election. On 16 June 1987 the union filed a petition for special election with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), where hearings were scheduled with notice to Carino, who did not attend. On 5 August 1987 a general membership meeting impeached and expelled Carino and recommended his termination. The union notified Harrison Industrial Corporation on 15 September 1987 and, invoking the union-security clause in the CBA, the Company terminated Carino effective the next day.
Carino, represented by the former union counsel, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. In a Decision dated 7 October 1988 the Labor Arbiter found no just cause for dismissal, ruled the dismissal procedurally defective for lack of notice and hearing, and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and attorney's fees, to be borne solidarily by the Company and the Union. The Company and the Union appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In its 26 May 1989 Decision (NLRC Case No. NCR-00-09-03225-87) the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter: it found that Carino’s failure to answer the serious charges was “tantamount to admission of guilt” and therefore there was just cause for dismissal, but it also found procedural due process deficiencies at the plant level and, as a remedial measure, awarded separation pay of one-half month’s salary per year of service, to be paid by the Company and the Union solidarily.
Peti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Could the NLRC properly take cognizance of the Union’s late appeal where the Company had timely appealed — i.e., may reversal on appeal benefit a co-party who failed to appeal timely?
- Was there just cause to expel and dismiss petitioner Carino based on the charges and the applicable provisions of the CBA and the Union Constitution?
- Did the Company deny petitioner procedural due process in effecting his dismissal, and if so, was separation pay the appropriate reme...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)