Title
Source: Supreme Court
Slord Development Corp. vs. Noya
Case
G.R. No. 232687
Decision Date
Feb 4, 2019
A welder was dismissed for violating a CBA's union security clause by forming a rival union. SC upheld dismissal but awarded nominal damages for procedural lapses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232687)

Facts of the Case

Respondent was employed at Slord Development Corporation under a collective bargaining agreement with the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa-Katipunan (NLM-Katipunan). This agreement included a union security clause that mandated union membership as a condition for continued employment. In December 2013, respondent allegedly solicited signatures from fellow employees to form a new union, which led to his expulsion from NLM-Katipunan for disloyalty. Following this expulsion, NLM-Katipunan demanded the termination of respondent's employment on March 16, 2014, resulting in his dismissal on March 19, 2014. Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices against petitioner.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

The Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent's case, affirming that the dismissal was lawful due to the closed shop provision in the CBA. The Arbiter ruled that petitioner was obliged to terminate respondent's employment following his expulsion from the union for organizing a rival union. Respondent appealed this decision.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) similarly upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision but modified it to include an award of nominal damages of ₱10,000 for the violation of procedural due process, as respondent was not given a sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the expulsion process. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, ruling that his dismissal was illegal. It ordered petitioner to reinstate respondent and to pay him full back wages and allowances up to reinstatement, along with attorney's fees. The CA found that there was insufficient evidence supporting the justification for respondent's expulsion and that his rights to procedural due process were violated.

Issue for Resolution

The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that respondent was illegally dismissed by his employer.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, stating that the CA had erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC. The Court reaffirmed that just cause for termination under the union security clause existed due to respondent's actions in soliciting signatures for a rival union outside the permissible period. The union security clause was deemed valid and reflective of the rights established under the Labor Code.

Requirements for Termination Under Union Security Clause

The Court specified that valid termination under the union security clause requires:

  1. Applicability of the clause.
  2. A request from the union for enforcement.
  3. Sufficient evidence supporting the union's decision to expel the employee.

In this instance, all three requirements were satisfied.

Procedural Due Process

Despite affirming the legality of the dismissal based on just cause, the Supreme Cou

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.