TITLE G.R. No.
158620
Del Monte v. Saldivar
PONENTE: Tinga, J. DATE: October 11, 2006
DOCTRINE:
A "closed-shop" may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees
or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless
he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union
entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. A CBA provision for a closed-shop is a
valid form of union security and it is not a restriction on the right or freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution.
FACTS:
The Associated Labor Union (ALU) is the exclusive bargaining agent of plantation workers of
petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (Del Monte) in Bukidnon. Respondent Nena Timbal (Timbal), as a
rank-and-file employee of Del Monte plantation in Bukidnon, is also a member of ALU. DelMonte and ALU
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with an effective term of five (5) years from 1
September 1988 to 31 August 1993.
Timbal, along with four other employees (collectively, co-employees), were charged by ALU for
disloyalty to the union, particularly for encouraging defections to a rival union, the National Federation of
Labor (NFL). Hence, have been expelled.
Timbal and her co-employees filed separate complaints against Del Monte and/or its Personnel Manager Warfredo
C. Balandra and ALU with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and damages. |||
The Labor Arbiter, in his favorable ruling to the dismissed employees, had noted that "complainant
Timbal's...accuser has an axe to grind against her for an unpaid debt so that her testimony cannot be given
credit." The NLRC, in reversing the Labor Arbiter, did not see it fit to mention the circumstances of the apparent
feud between Timbal and Artajo, except in the course of narrating Timbal's allegations.|||
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
whether there was sufficient cause for the dismissal of a rank-and-file employee effectuated through the
enforcement of a closed-shop provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the employer and
the union.|||
RULING
It bears elaboration that Timbal's dismissal is not predicated on any of the just or authorized causes for dismissal
under Book Six, Title I of the Labor Code, but on the union security clause in the CBA between Del Monte and
ALU. Stipulations in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory
provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code, since "[a] CBA is the law between the company and the union and
compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor."
Timbal's expulsion from ALU was premised on the ground of disloyalty to the union, which under Section 4(3),
Article II of the CBA, also stands as a ground for her dismissal from Del Monte. Indeed, Section 5, Article II of
the CBA enjoins Del Monte to dismiss from employment those employees expelled from ALU for disloyalty,
albeit with the qualification "in accordance with law."
However, the dismissal must follow substantive due process.
In the matter at bar, the Labor Arbiterthe proximate trier of factsand the Court of Appeals both duly appreciated
that the testimony of Artajo against Timbal could not be given credence, especially in proving Timbal's disloyalty
to ALU. This is due to the prior animosity between the two engendered by the pending civil complaint filed by
Timbal's husband against Artajo. Considering that the civil complaint was filed just six (6) days prior to the
execution of Artajo's affidavit against Timbal, it would be plainly injudicious to presume that Artajo possessed an
unbiased state of mind as she executed that affidavit. Such circumstance was considered by the Labor Arbiter, and
especially the Court of Appeals, as they rendered a favorable ruling to Timbal. The NLRC may have decided
against Artajo, but in doing so, it failed to provide any basis as to why Artajo's testimony should be believed,
instead of disbelieved. No credible disputation was offered by the NLRC to the claim that Artajo was biased
against Timbal; hence, we should adjudge the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals as more
cogent on that point.
Therefore, petition is dismissed.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 August
2002 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. AEDcIH||
ROCHELLE
