Title
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union
Case
G.R. No. L-25246
Decision Date
Sep 12, 1974
A worker resigned from a union due to religious beliefs, leading to a legal battle over the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3350, which exempts religious sect members from mandatory union membership. The Supreme Court upheld the law, prioritizing religious freedom over union security clauses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121157)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union
Respondent: Benjamin Victoriano

Key Dates

• 1958 – Victoriano begins employment and union membership.
• March 3–4, 1964 – Renewal of collective bargaining agreement with closed‐shop clause.
• June 18, 1961 – Republic Act No. 3350 amends RA 875 to exempt members of sects prohibiting union affiliation.
• September 3, 1964 – Victoriano reiterates resignation from the Union.
• August 26, 1965 – Court of First Instance (CFI) issues injunction preventing dismissal and awards P500 attorney’s fees.
• September 12, 1974 – Supreme Court decision affirming CFI.

Applicable Law

• Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) Section 4(a)(4) as amended by RA 3350.
• 1973 Philippine Constitution provisions on freedom of association (Art III §1(6), Art IV §7), religious freedom (Art III §1(7), Art IV §8), contract impairment, equal protection, social justice, and protection of labor (Art II §5).

Facts

The collective bargaining agreement required union membership as a condition of employment (closed shop). Victoriano, bound by his sect’s prohibition against union affiliation, tendered resignation in 1962 and again in 1964. The Union demanded his dismissal under the closed‐shop clause; the company warned Victoriano he would be terminated unless he rejoined or reached an arrangement with the Union. Victoriano secured a CFI injunction against both the Union and the company.

Procedural History

CFI Manila enjoined the company from dismissing Victoriano and ordered the Union to pay P500 attorney’s fees. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law: (1) constitutionality of RA 3350; (2) propriety of attorney’s fees award.

Constitutional Presumptions

Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality; challengers must prove invalidity beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable legislative exercises of police power that serve general welfare may modify or abrogate existing contract terms without violating constitutional contract clauses.

Freedom of Association

RA 3350 does not forbid sect members from joining unions; it merely exempts them from closed‐shop enforcement. This upholds the dual right to join or abstain from associations, as guaranteed by the Constitution and RA 875, by preventing coercion where religious belief opposes union membership.

Contract Impairment

The amendment to RA 875 altered closed‐shop obligations by exempting certain sect members, thereby impairing existing contracts. However, the impairment is justifiable under police power to protect religious freedom and the right to work. Contracts are made subject to valid future legislation of general welfare.

Establishment and Free Exercise

RA 3350 serves a secular purpose—preventing religious discrimination in employment—and its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. Incidental benefits to religious sect members do not violate the Establishment Clause. The law balances collective labor rights with the fundamental right to free exercise of religion.

Religious Test

No religious test is imposed as a condition to join or resign from any association. Sect members are ipso jure exempted from closed‐shop coverage without any required positive act, thereby avoiding any religious qualification for civil rights.

Equal Protection

Classification based on membership in sects that prohibit union affiliation is reasonable and germane to the law’s purpose. It rests on substantial distinctions in religious beliefs and applies equally to all within the defined class. Inequality inherent in classification does not offend

...continue reading

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