Villar v. Inciong

G.R. No.
L-50283-84 April 20, 1983

DOLORES VILLAR, ROMEO PEQUITO, DIONISIO RAMOS, BENIGNO MAMARALDO, ORLANDO
ACOSTA, RECITACION BERNUS, ANSELMA ANDAN, ROLANDO DE GUZMAN and RITA
LLAGAS, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor, AMIGO
MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS
(PAFLU), respondents.
FACTS:
 Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, a duly registered labor organization
which, at the time of the present dispute, was the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private
respondent Amigo Manufacturing, Inc.
 The Company and the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU had a collective bargaining agreement governing
their labor relations, which agreement was then about to expire on February 28, 1977. Within the last sixty
(60) days of the CBA, events transpired giving rise to the present dispute.
 Upon written authority of at least 30% of the employees in the company, including the petitioners, the
Federation of Unions of Rizal filed a petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. The petition was, however, opposed by the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions with
whom, as stated earlier, the Amigo Employees Union was at that time affiliated.
 PAFLU's opposition cited the "Code of Ethics" governing inter-federation disputes among and between
members of the Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines. Consequently, the Med-Arbiter indorsed the
case to TUCP for appropriate action but before any such action could be taken thereon, the petitioners
deauthorized FUR from continuing the petition for certification election for which reason FUR withdrew
the petition.
 Petitioner Dolores Villar, representing herself to be the authorized representative of the Amigo Employees
Union, filed a petition for certification election in the Company.
 The Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU intervened and moved for the dismissal of the petition for
certification election filed by Dolores Villar, citing as grounds therefore:
(1) The petition lacked the mandatory requisite of at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining
unit;
(2) Dolores Villar had no legal personality to sign the petition since she was not an officer of the
union nor is there factual or legal basis for her claim that she was the authorized representative of
the local union;
(3) there was a pending case for the same subject matter filed by the same individuals;
(4) The petition was barred by the new CBA concluded on February 15, 1977;
(5) There was no valid disaffiliation from PAFLU; and
(6) The supporting signatures were procured through false pretenses.
 In these two cases filed before the Regional Office No. 4, the parties adopted their previous positions when
they were still arguing before the PAFLU trial committee.
 Regional Office No. 4, rendered a decision jointly resolving said two cases, that the application of Amigo
Manufacturing Inc., is GRANTED. While, the preliminary injunction to restrain Amigo Manufacturing for
their termination was DISMISSED.
 Hence, this instant petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not neither the disaffiliation of the Amigo Employees Union from PAFLU nor the act of filing the
petition for certification election constitute disloyalty as these are in the exercise of their constitutional right to self-
organization.
RULING:
It is true that disaffiliation from a labor union is not open to legal objection. It is implicit in the freedom of
association ordained by the Constitution. But this Court has laid down the ruling that a closed shop is a valid form
of union security, and such provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom
of association guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the present case, the Company and the Amigo Employees Union- PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union
security clause which is a reiteration of the old CBA. The quoted stipulation for closed-shop is clear and
unequivocal. Petitioners’ theory that their expulsion was not valid upon the grounds is untenable. PAFLU had the
authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by their co-employees in the local union and after finding
them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear
under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of
the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause.
Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound
by the laws and regulations of the parent organization. It is undisputable that oppositors were members of the Amigo
Employees Union at the time that said union affiliated with PAFLU; hence, oppositors are bound by the laws and
regulations of PAFLU. Inherent in every labor union, or any organization for that matter, is the right of self-
preservation. When members of a labor union seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they
belong; they thereby forfeit their rights to remain as members of the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and
equity, as well as the dictates of law and justice, therefore, compelling mandate the adoption by the labor union of
such corrective and remedial measures, in keeping with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued
existence; lest by its folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.

Villar v. Inciong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villar v. Inciong

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Villar v. Inciong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-50283-84 April 20, 1983

 Hence, this instant petition to the Supreme Court.

You might also like