Title
Soriano vs. Atienza
Case
G.R. No. 68619
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1989
Workers dismissed after union expulsion under CBA; SC upheld NLRC, ruling no unfair labor practice or financial assistance due to company's good faith compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 68619)

Factual Background

The petitioners filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and moral damages against their employer, Shellwood Industries, and union officials. On February 5, 1981, a compromise agreement was reached where Shellwood agreed to provide P20,000 in financial assistance to the union in exchange for withdrawing a previous case. Following internal issues within the union, including the resignation of Concepcion Nuguid, tensions escalated, leading the union to expel the complainants and request their dismissal from the company, resulting in their termination on August 16, 1982.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On October 28, 1983, Labor Arbiter Pelagio A. Carpio ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering their reinstatement to their prior positions without back wages and forcing the company to provide financial assistance equivalent to six months of their salaries. However, the Arbiter dismissed the complaints for unfair labor practice and moral damages for lack of merit.

NLRC's Ruling

Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of reinstatement but deleted the order for financial assistance, citing a lack of legal and factual basis. They determined that the company acted in good faith upon the request of the union president and that the union had the authority to request the termination of the complainants' employment. Therefore, the NLRC concluded that the company did not participate in the illegal dismissal and could not be held liable for financial assistance.

Petitioners' Argument

The petitioners argued that the company had full awareness of Nuguid's resignation and her lack of authority to act on behalf of the union, thereby asserting that the company was liable for their dismissal and the financial assistance awarded by the Labor Arbiter. They contended that the company's negligence in this regard warranted compensation for their suffering and damages.

Respondents' Justification

Respondents countered that there was no legal basis for the financial assistance since the Labor Arbiter’s order for reinstatement was inconsistent with an award of such assistance. They asserted that the company had acted in good faith in complying with the union’s requests and emphasized that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) stipulated the company's obligation to dismiss any employee who had been resigned or expelled from the union.

Legal Findings and Con

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.