Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8150)
Facts:
- A group of drivers, including Ramon Angeles, Felix Mapili, Manuel Salvador, and Dominador Bolinao, filed a complaint against their union, Bisig Manggagawa Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., for unfair labor practices.
- Angeles was dismissed from his employment and membership in the union without a proper investigation.
- Mapili, Salvador, and Bolinao were dismissed from their employment due to their expulsion from the union.
- The drivers claimed that their expulsion was a result of their attempt to inquire into the financial activities of the union.
- The drivers sought for the petitioners to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, reinstatement with back pay, and an order for an election of union officers.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Court of Industrial Relations ruled in favor of the drivers.
- The court declared the expulsion of the drivers from the union as unfair and discriminatory.
- The court ordered the reinstatement of the drivers with back pay.
- The court affirmed the cease and desist order against the union.
- The court modified the...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court held that the expulsion of the drivers from the union without a proper investigation was unlawful and discriminatory.
- The drivers' complaint to inquire into the financial activities of the union was not a violation of the union's rules and regulations and did not constitute misconduct, negligence, or disloyalty.
- The court found that the closed-shop agreement between the company an...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8150)
Facts:
In the case of Tolentino v. Angeles, a group of drivers filed a complaint against their union for unfair labor practices. The drivers claimed that they were unfairly expelled from the union without a proper investigation and that their dismissal from their employment was a result of a closed-shop agreement between the company and the union. The case was brought before the Court of Industrial Relations.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case were:
- Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the closed-shop agreement.
- Whether Republic Act No. 875, which penalizes unfair labor practices, could be applied retroactively to acts committed before its enactment.
- Whether the expulsion of the drivers from the union was lawful.
Ruling:
The court ruled on the following:
- The Court of Industrial Relations had the power and jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the closed-shop agreement if it resulted in unfair labor practices.
- Republic Act No. 875 could be applied retroactively to acts that would cause or bring about industrial unrest.
- The expulsion of the drivers from the union was unlawful and constituted unfair labor practice.
Ratio:
The court explained its reasoning as follows:
The Court of Industrial Relations had the power and jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the closed-shop agreement if it resulted in unfair labor practices. The court emphasized that the purpose of the Court of Industrial Relations is to promote and maintain ...