Rance VS NLRC

RANCE VS NLRC, GR NO.
68147 JUNE 30, 1998
Paras, J.
Facts: Petitioners were among the members of the respondent union who were expelled by the latter
for disloyalty in that they allegedly joined another larger union (NAFLU). Because of the expulsion, petitioners were
dismissed by respondent Corporation. During the investigation proceedings, the petitioners failed to appear before
the Board of Directors which prompted their dismissal from work. Petitioners sued for reinstatement and backwages
stating their dismissal was without due process.
Among the disputed portions of the NLRC decision is its finding that it has been substantially proven that
the petitioners committed acts of disloyalty to their union as a consequence of the filing by NAFLU for and in their
behalf of an illegal dismissal complaint.
Petitioners insist that their expulsion from the Union and consequent dismissal from employment have no
basis whether factual or legal, because they did not in fact affiliate themselves with another Union, the
NAFLU. They claim that there is a connivance between respondents Company and Union in their illegal dismissal
in order to avoid the payment of separation pay by respondent company.
Petitioners' contention that they did not authorize NAFLU to file the complaint for them is borne out by the
records which show that they did not sign the complaint, neither did they sign any document of membership
application with NAFLU. They insist the mere act of seeking help from the NAFLU cannot constitute disloyalty as
contemplated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Losing both in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
they elevated their cause to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the decision of the NLRC to dismiss the petitioner is proper?
Ruling: No, the decision of the NLRC to dismiss the petitioner is improper.
It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure" as provided by the
Constitution. The guarantee is an act of social justice. When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his
only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his
job. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of tenure as meaning that "the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by" the code.
This Court has reminded employers that while the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the
employer, the same is not without limitations. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services
of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, as in the instant case. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due process must be
observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood.
Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to labor
In the case at bar, the scandalous haste with which respondent corporation dismissed 125 employees lends
credence to the claim that there was connivance between respondent corporation and respondent Union. It is evident
that private respondents were in bad faith in dismissing petitioners. They, the private respondents, are guilty of
unfair labor practice.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR-
11-6881-82 dated April 26, 1984 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (2) respondent corporation is ordered: (1) to
reinstate petitioners to their former positions without reduction in rank, seniority and salary; (b) to pay petitioners
three-year backwages, without any reduction or qualification, jointly and solidarily with respondent Union; and (c)
to pay petitioners exemplary damages of P500.00 each. Where reinstatement is no longer feasible, respondent
corporation and respondent union are solidarily ordered to pay, considering their length of service their
corresponding separation pay and other benefits to which they are entitled under the law.

Rance VS NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Rance VS NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RANCE VS NLRC, GR NO.

68147 JUNE 30, 1998

You might also like