Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 437 views

    Villar vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    This case involved petitioners who were dismissed from their jobs after trying to disaffiliate their local union from the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' right to form an association was not violated. It held that a mere minority cannot disaffiliate a local union from its mother union, and the petitioners only comprised a minority. It also upheld the validity of a closed shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and PAFLU-affiliated union. The dismissal of the petitioners was affirmed because members who seek to destroy the union they belong to forfeit their right to membership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villar vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    437 views3 pages
    This case involved petitioners who were dismissed from their jobs after trying to disaffiliate their local union from the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' right to form an association was not violated. It held that a mere minority cannot disaffiliate a local union from its mother union, and the petitioners only comprised a minority. It also upheld the validity of a closed shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and PAFLU-affiliated union. The dismissal of the petitioners was affirmed because members who seek to destroy the union they belong to forfeit their right to membership.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved petitioners who were dismissed from their jobs after trying to disaffiliate their local union from the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' right to form an association was not violated. It held that a mere minority cannot disaffiliate a local union from its mother union, and the petitioners only comprised a minority. It also upheld the validity of a closed shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and PAFLU-affiliated union. The dismissal of the petitioners was affirmed because members who seek to destroy the union they belong to forfeit their right to membership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    437 views3 pages

    Villar vs. Inciong

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    This case involved petitioners who were dismissed from their jobs after trying to disaffiliate their local union from the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' right to form an association was not violated. It held that a mere minority cannot disaffiliate a local union from its mother union, and the petitioners only comprised a minority. It also upheld the validity of a closed shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the company and PAFLU-affiliated union. The dismissal of the petitioners was affirmed because members who seek to destroy the union they belong to forfeit their right to membership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Villar vs.

    Inciong
    G.R. No. L-50283-84, April
    20, 1983
    Facts:
    The main thrust of the petition is the alleged illegality of the dismissal of
    the petitioners by respondent company upon demand of the Philippine
    Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) which invoked the security clause
    of the CBA between Amigo Manufacturing Inc. and the local union, Amigo
    Employees Union-PAFLU. Petitioners contend that the respondent Deputy
    Minister acted in grave abuse of discretion when he granted the clearance
    to terminate them which was violative of their constitutional right to self-
    organization.

    Issue: 
    WON petitioners right to form association was violated when they were
    dismissed due to their disaffiliation from PAFLU.
     
    Ruling:
    NO. A mere minority of a local union’s membership cannot disaffiliate their union from its mother union.
    Records showed that petitioners numbering ten (10), were among the ninety-six (96) who signed the
    “Sama-Samang Kapasyahan,” whereas there are two hundred thirty-four (234) members of the local union.
    Hence, petitioners comprised a minority and could not disaffiliate the local union from PAFLU. As a
    corollary, an unregistered union has no legal personality and is not entitled to exercise the rights and
    privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organization upon issuance of the certificate of registration.
    The Court likewise rejected petitioners’ contention that the respondent Minister committed grave abuse of
    discretion when he upheld the security clause of a CBA. It held that a closed shop is a valid form of union
    security, and such provision in a CBA is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed
    by the Constitution.
    In the instant case, the Company and Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU entered into a CBA with a union
    security clause. Thus, PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners on the charges filed by their co-
    employees in the local union and after finding them guilty as charged, to expel them from the roll of
    membership of the local union under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the local union was affiliated.
    In affirming the dismissal of the petitioners, the Court held that inherent in every labor union or any
    organization, is the right of self- preservation. When members of a labor union seek the disintegration and
    destruction of the very union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their right to remain as members of
    the union which they seek to destroy. Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of law and justice,
    compel labor union to adopt corrective and remedial measures, in keeping with its laws and regulations, for
    its continued existence; lest by its own folly and inaction, the labor union crumble and fall.

    You might also like