TOPIC closed shop agreements - free exercise of religion 

CASE NO. GR No. L-25246; September 12, 1974 

DOCTRINE
The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must yield
to the former.

FACTS
- Benjamin Victoriano, a member of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope factory
Inc since 1958. He was a member of Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union which had with the company a CBA
containing a closed shop provision which reads as follow “Membership union shall be required as a condition of
employment for all permanent employees worker covered by this agreement.” The collective bargaining
agreement expired on March 3, 1964 but was renewed the following day, March 4, 1964.

- Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 3350, the
employer was not precluded "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." On June 18,
1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4) subsection (a)
of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious
sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization".
- Being a member of the INC, a religious sect that prohibits affiliation with labor organizations, Victoriano wrote a
letter informing the Union of his resignation. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking
the latter to separate Victoriano from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a
member.
- The company notified Victoriano and his counsel that unless the appellee could achieve a satisfactory
arrangement with the union the company would be constrained to dismiss him from the service. This prompted
him to file an action for injunction to enjoin the company and the union from dismissing apallee. The CFI ruled in
his favor and enjoined the company from dismissing him.
- In its appeal, the Union claimed that RA 3350 was unconstitutional on the ground that the Act:
1) infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful associations;
2) impairs the obligation of contracts;
3) discriminates in favor of certain religious sects and affords no protection to labor unions;
4) violates the constitutional provision that no religious test shall be required for the exercise of a civil right;
5) violates the equal protection clause; and
6) the act violates the constitutional provision regarding the promotion of social justice.

ISSUE/S and HELD

RATIO

1
- On the issue of RA 3350’s constitutionality, the Court upheld it as constitutional in all aspects. It must be pointed
out that the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the
latter must, therefore, yield to the former.

- The purpose of RA 3350 is secular, worldly, and temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal. It was
intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, by
averting that certain persons be refused work, or be dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of their right to work
and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.
- In enacting RA 3350, Congress acted consistently with the spirit of the constitutional provision. It acted merely to
relieve the exercise of religion, by certain persons, of a burden that is imposed by union security agreements. It
was Congress itself that imposed that burden when it enacted the Industrial Peace Act (RA875), and, certainly,
Congress, if it so deems advisable, could take away the same burden. It is certain that not every conscience can be
accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when general laws conflict with scrupples of conscience,
exemptions ought to be granted unless some "compelling state interest" intervenes. In the instant case, We see no
such compelling state interest to withhold exemption.
- The constitutional provision only prohibits legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of
worship of any sect, thus forestalling compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any
form of worship, but also assures the free exercise of one's chosen form of religion within limits of utmost
amplitude.
- The Act does not require as a qualification, or condition, for joining any lawful association membership in any
particular religion or in any religious sect; neither does the Act require affiliation with a religious sect that
prohibits its members from joining a labor union as a condition or qualification for withdrawing from a labor
union. Joining or withdrawing from a labor union requires a positive act.
- RA 3350 only exempts members with such religious affiliation from the coverage of closed shop agreements.
What the exception provides is that members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor
unions even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed shop
agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.
- It does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said
members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with labor unions. If, notwithstanding their
religious beliefs, the members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do so. If in
deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so; the law does not coerce them to
join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer or labor union compel them
to join.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed, and the decision, dated August 26, 1965, of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 58894, appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant Union. It is so ordered.