001 UMANDAP Alabang Country Club v. NLRC
001 UMANDAP Alabang Country Club v. NLRC
001 UMANDAP Alabang Country Club v. NLRC
DOCTRINE: In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the 4. Pizarro, for his part, blamed Castueras for his unpaid and uncollected
union security clause, the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) loan and cash advances. He claimed his salaries were regularly deducted
the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the to pay his loan and he did not know why these remained unpaid in the
enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is records. Nonetheless, he likewise agreed to continuous salary
sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel the employee from deductions until all his accountabilities were paid.
the union. These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee
based on the CBA's union security provision. 5. Castueras also denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the irregular
entries in the records were unintentional and were due to inadvertence
FACTS: because of his voluminous work load. He offered that his unpaid
1. Petitioner Alabang Country Club, Inc. (ACC) and respondent Alabang personal loan of PhP 27,500 also be deducted from his salary until the
Country Club Independent Employees Union (Union), the EBA of the
Club’s R&F employyes, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement loans were fully paid. Without admitting any fault on his part, Castueras
(CBA), which provided for a Union shop and maintenance of suggested that his salary be deducted until the unaccounted difference
membership shop. between the loans and the amount collected amounting to a total of
PhP 22,000 is paid.
2. Subsequently, an election was held and a new set of officers was
elected. Soon thereafter, the new officers conducted an audit of the 6. Despite their explanations, respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras
Union funds. They discovered some irregularly recorded entries, were expelled from the Union, and, on October 16, 2001, were
furnished individual letters of expulsion for malversation of Union ISSUE/s:
funds. Attached to the letters were copies of the Panawagan ng mga 1. Whether the three respondents were illegally dismissed? NO
Opisyales ng Unyon signed by 37 out of 63 Union members and
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 5,
officers, and a Board of Directors' Resolution7 expelling them from the 2005 of the CA and the Decision dated February 26, 2004 of the NLRC are
Union. hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 27, 2003 of
the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-01-00130-02 is hereby
7. In a letter, the Union, invoking the Security Clause of the CBA, REINSTATED.
demanded that the Club dismiss respondents Pizarro, Braza, and
Castueras in view of their expulsion from the Union. The Club required RATIO:
the three respondents to show cause in writing within 48 hours from Issue 1
1. Under the Labor Code, an employee may be validly terminated on the
notice why they should not be dismissed.
following grounds: (1) just causes under Art. 282; (2) authorized causes
8. After weighing the verbal and written explanations of the three under Art. 283; (3) termination due to disease under Art. 284; and (4)
respondents, the Club concluded that said respondents failed to refute termination by the employee or resignation under Art. 285.
the validity of their expulsion from the Union. Thus, it was constrained
2. Another cause for termination is dismissal from employment due to the
to terminate the employment of said respondents. Said respondents
enforcement of the union security clause in the CBA. Here, Art. II of
later received their notices of termination from the Club.
the CBA on Union security contains the provisions on the Union shop
9. Respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras challenged their dismissal and maintenance of membership shop. There is union shop when all
from the Club in an illegal dismissal complaint with the NLRC. The new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Club, and found that there was period as a condition for their continued employment. There is
justifiable cause in terminating said respondents. He dismissed the maintenance of membership shop when employees who are union
complaint for lack of merit. members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter
become members, must maintain union membership as a condition for
10. On appeal, the NLRC ruled that there was no justifiable cause for the continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of
termination of respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras. According to the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. Termination of
the NLRC, said respondents' expulsion from the Union was illegal employment by virtue of a union security clause embodied in a CBA is
since the DOLE had not yet made any definitive ruling on their liability recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction.
regarding the administration of the Union's funds.
3. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union
11. The CA Upheld the NLRC Ruling that the Three Respondents were security clause, the employer needs only to determine and prove that:
Deprived Due Process. The appellate court rendered a decision denying (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for
the petition and upholding the Decision of the NLRC. The CA's the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3)
Decision focused mainly on the Club's perceived failure to afford due there is sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel the
process to the three respondents. It found that said respondents were employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for
not given the opportunity to be heard in a separate hearing as required terminating an employee based on the CBA's union security provision.
by Sec. 2(b), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code. 4. The language of Art. II of the CBA that the Union members must
maintain their membership in good standing as a condition sine qua
non for their continued employment with the Club is unequivocal. It is Union, requested said respondents to submit written explanations, and
also clear that upon demand by the Union and after due process, the thereafter afforded them reasonable opportunity to present their side.
Club shall terminate the employment of a regular rank-and-file After it had determined that there was sufficient evidence that said
employee who may be found liable for a number of offenses, one of respondents malversed Union funds, the Club dismissed them from
which is malversation of Union funds. their employment conformably with Sec. 4(f) of the CBA.
5. Below is the letter sent to respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras, 10. Considering the foregoing circumstances, we are constrained to rule
informing them of their termination: that there is sufficient cause for the three respondents' termination
from employment.
6. On October 18, 2001, the Club received a letter from the Board of
Directors of the Alabang Country Club Independent Employees'
Union ("Union") demanding your dismissal from service by reason of
your alleged commission of act of dishonesty, specifically malversation
of union funds.
9. Gleaned from the above, the three respondents were expelled from and
by the Union after due investigation for acts of dishonesty and
malversation of Union funds. In accordance with the CBA, the Union
properly requested the Club to enforce the Union security provision in
their CBA and terminate said respondents. Then, in compliance with
the Union's request, the Club reviewed the documents submitted by the