Santos Juat v. Bulaklak Publications

SANTOS JUATvs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, BULAKLAK PUBLICATIONS and

JUAN EVANGELISTA
G.R. No. L-20764
November 29, 1965 ZALDIVAR, J.:
In December 1959 a CBA was entered into between the Bulaklak Publications and the
BUSOCOPE LABOR UNION, to remain in effect for 3 years, and renewable for another term of 3
years. Section 4 of said agreement contains a closed shop proviso which states that All
employees and/or workers who on January 1, 1960 are members of the Union in good standing in
accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws and all members who become members after that
date shall, as a condition of employment, maintain their membership in the Union for the duration
of this Agreement. All employees and/or workers who on January 1, 1961 are not yet members of
the Union shall, as a condition of maintaining their employment, become members of such
union."
CIR Acting Prosecutor Alberto Cruz after investigation of charges made by employee Juat, filed a
complaint charging Bulaklak Publications and/or Juan N. Evangelista of ULP under Section 4 (a)
subsections 1, 4 and 5 of Republic Act 875, alleging that Santos Juat was suspended for 15 days
without justifiable cause by his employer because of his refusal to join the Busocope Labor Union.
2 cases were filed one for ULP and another for payment of wages for overtime work and work on
Sundays and holidays. Afterwards, the company dismissed Juat. Company answered stating that
his dismissal was not an act of reprisal because it was Juat who ignored the letter sent to him by
Juan N. Evangelista to report for work and that he was working for Juat Printing Press Co. of
which he was stockholder and treasurer. Company made a counterclaim for damages. CIR
dismissed the complaint stating that the company only complied with the closed shop proviso in
the CBA. MR was denied. Hence this petition for certiorari.
1. WON the closed shop proviso in the CBA is valid- YES!
The closed-shop proviso in a collective bargaining agreement between employer and employee is
sanctioned by law. Section 4, subsection [a] par. 4 of Republic Act No. 875, known as the
Industrial Peace Act states:Provided, that nothing in this Act or in any Act or statute of the
Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor
organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor
organization is the representative of the employees as provided in said section twelve.
In National Labor Union vs. Aguinaldo's Echague, SC held that Congress, in the exercise of its
policy-making power, has chosen to approve the closed-shop, when it legalized in Sec. 4, subsection (a) paragraph 4 of Republic Act 875 (Magna Charta of Labor) "any agreement of the
employer with a labor organization requiring membership in such organization as condition of
employment," provided such labor organization properly represents the employees. A closedshop agreement has been considered as one form of union security whereby only union
members can be hired and workers must remain union members as a condition of continued
employment. The requirement for employees or workers to become members of a union as a
condition for employment redounds to the benefit and advantage of said employees because by
holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop the union wields group
solidarity. In fact, it is said that "the closed-shop contract is the most prized achievement of
unionism"
2. WON the closed-proviso agreement should apply to Juat- YES!
Juat: should not be applied to him because he is an old employee of the Bulaklak Publications.
SC: It is not disputed that Juat had been employed with the Bulaklak Publications since 1953,
and the collective bargaining agreement embodying the closed-shop proviso in question was
entered into only on December 1, 1959 and amended on December 27, 1960. It has been
established, however, that said petitioner was not a member of any labor union when that
collective bargaining agreement was entered into, and in fact he had never been a member of
any labor union. In Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. vs. CIR, SC held that the closedshop agreement authorized under Sec. 4 sub-sec. a (4) of the Industrial Peace Act should apply
only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It
is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. To hold
otherwise, i.e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority union may be
compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render
nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, joint or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial Peace Act (sec. 3, Rep.
Act No. 875) as well as by the Constitution (Art. III, see. 1 [6]).
Section 12 of the Industrial Peace Act, providing that when there is reasonable doubt as to who
the employees have chosen as their representative the Industrial Court can order a certification
election, would also become useless. For once a union has been certified by the court and enters
into a collective bargaining agreement with the employer a closed-shop clause applicable to all
employees be they union or non-union members, the question of majority representation among
the members would be closed forever. Certainly, there can no longer exist any petition for
certification election, since eventually the majority or contracting union will become a perpetual
labor union. This alarming result could not have been the intention of Congress. The Industrial
Peace Act was enacted precisely for the promotion of unionism in this country.
But in this case, since Juat was not a member of any labor union at the time when the collective
bargaining agreement in question was entered into, he could be obliged by Bulaklak Publications
to become a member of the Busocope Labor Union. And because petitioner refused to join the
Busocope Labor Union respondent Bulaklak Publications was justified in dismissing him from the
service on the ground that he had refused to join said union. He also furnished another ground for
his dismissal- refused to return to work after the end of his suspension even when he was
ordered to do so by his employer, the respondent Bulaklak Publications.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision and resolution appealed from are affirmed, with
costs against the petitioner.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and
Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.Barrera, J., took no part.

Santos Juat v. Bulaklak Publications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos Juat v. Bulaklak Publications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos Juat v. Bulaklak Publications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANTOS JUATvs.

COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, BULAKLAK PUBLICATIONS and

November 29, 1965 ZALDIVAR, J.:

You might also like