SALUNGA V.
CIR, 21 SCRA 216 (1967)
Facts: San Miguel Brewery, Inc (Company) entered with the Union, of which respondent John de Castillo
is the president, into a CBA.
Section 3 of the CBA reads: The company agrees to require as a condition of employment of those workers
covered by this agreement who either are members of the UNION on the date of the signing of this
agreement, or may join the UNION during the effectivity of this agreement, that they shall not voluntarily
resign from the UNION earlier than thirty (30) days before the expiry date of this agreement as provided
in Article XIII hereof, provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require the
company to enforce any sanction whatsoever against any employee or worker who fails to retain his
membership in the UNION as hereinbefore stated, for any cause other than voluntary resignation or non-
payment of regular union dues on the part of said employee or worker.
Petitioner Francisco Salunga was a member of the National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union of
the Philippines (PAFLU). He tendered his resignation from the Union. The Union accepted the resignation,
and transmitted it to the Company, with a request for the immediate implementation of said Section 3.
The Company informed petitioner that his resignation would result in the termination of his employment,
in view of Section 3. Petitioner wrote to the Union a letter withdrawing or revoking his resignation and
advising the Union to continue deducting his monthly union dues. The Union told the Company that
petitioner's membership could not be reinstated and insisted on his separation from the service,
conformably with the stipulation above-quoted. The Company notified petitioner that, in view of said letter
and the aforementioned section, "we regret we have to terminate your employment for cause.” Petitioner
was discharged from the employment of the Company. A prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations
commenced the present proceedings for unfair labor practice against the Union, its president, respondent
John de Castillo, respondent Cipriano Cid, as PAFLU president, the Company, and its aforementioned Vice-
President Miguel Noel. The trial Judge rendered a decision directing them to readmit and to continue the
membership of Salunga in the membership rolls of the union after paying all union dues. However, the
decision was reversed by the CIR — sitting en banc. Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Francisco Salunga should be readmitted
Held: YES. Having been denied readmission into the Union and having been dismissed from the service
owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of the Union, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member
of the Union.
The appeal is well taken, for, although petitioner had resigned from the Union and the latter had accepted
the resignation, the former had, soon later — upon learning that his withdrawal from the Union would
result in his separation from the Company, owing to the closed-shop provision (Section 3) above referred
to — revoked or withdrawn said resignation, and the Union refused to consent thereto without any just
cause therefor. The Union had not only acted arbitrarily in not allowing petitioner to continue his
membership. The trial Judge found said refusal of the Union officers to be due to his critical attitude towards
certain measures taken or sanctioned by them. The officers of the Union tried to justify themselves by
characterizing said criticisms as acts of disloyalty to the Union, which, of course, is not true, not only
because the criticism assailed, not the Union, but certain acts of its officers, and, indirectly, the officers
themselves, but also because the Constitution and By-laws of the Union explicitly recognize the right of its
members to give their views on "all transactions made by the Union."
Although, generally, a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given
individual, because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege, the rule is
qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or
as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. The reason is that:
. . . The closed shop and the union shop cause the admission requirements of trade union to
become affected with the public interest. Likewise, a closed shop, a union shop, or
maintenance of membership clauses cause the administration of discipline by unions to be
affected with the public interest.
Consequently, it is well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants
for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging, or a union in
insisting upon the discharge of, an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership, without
any reasonable ground therefor. Needless to say, if said unions may be compelled to admit new members,
who have the requisite qualifications, with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive
power when the employee involved is a long standing union member, who, owing to provocations of union
officers, was impelled to tender his resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. Surely, he may,
at least, invoke the rights of those who seek admission for the first time, and cannot arbitrarily he denied
readmission.
