53 PICOP Resources v. Dequilla

CASE DIGEST
PICOP Resources Inc. v. Ricardo Dequilla & 3 others & NAMAPRI-SPFI

Labor II
Court Supreme Court
Citation G.R. No. 172666
Date Dec. 7, 2011
Petitioner PICOP Resources Inc.
Respondent Ricardo Dequilla & 3 others & NAMAPRI-SPFI
Ponente Mendoza, J.
Relevant topic II. Labor Relations E. Bargaining Representative
Prepared by Dany
CASE SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the union security clause, the union asked PICOP to terminate private respondents for acts of disloyalty,
as they allegedly supported another union before the freedom period. PICOP terminated private respondents after the
expiration of the CBA. PICOP argues that there was no illegal dismissal because the CBA, including the union security
clause, remained in force after its expiration since no new CBA was entered into. T
The Court held that the status quo provision in Art. 253 did not apply because it was conditioned on the fact that no
petition for CE was filed.
FACTS:
● Private respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of Picop Resources, Inc. and members of
NAMAPRI-SPFL, a duly registered labor organization and existing bargaining agent of the PICOP rank-and-
file employees.
○ PICOP and NAMAPRI-SPFL had a CBA which would expire on May 22, 2000.
● May 16, 2000 — Atty. Fuentes (National President of SPFL) advised the PICOP management to terminate
about 800 employees due to acts of disloyalty, specifically, for allegedly campaigning, supporting and signing
a petition for the certification of a rival union, FFW before the freedom period.
○ Such acts of disloyalty were construed to be a valid cause for termination under the CBA.
● Atty. Boniel (Manager, PICOP Legal and Labor Relations Dept.) issued a memo directing the employees
concerned to explain within 72hrs why they should not be terminated.
● Atty. Boniel received the explanation letters and endorsed them to Atty. Fuentes, who then requested the
termination of 46 employees found guilty of acts of disloyalty.
● Oct. 16, 2000 — PICOP served a notice of termination to 31/46 employees.
● Private respondents were among those dismissed. They filed a complaint before the NLRC Regional
Arbitration Branch No. XIII, Butuan City, for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal with money claims,
damages and attorney's fees.
● LA — Termination illegal.
● NLRC — Initially upheld the LA, but reversed upon MR by PICOP.
● CA — Reinstated LA decision.
○ No violation of CBA, no evidence that NAMAPRI-SPFL expressly defined “acts of disloyalty”
○ No evidence that the employees resigned or withdrew membership.
○ The termination also had no basis since it happened after the expiration of the CBA.
● PICOP’s argument —
○ Art. 253, not 256 applies. It provides that the terms and conditions of a CBA remain in full force and
effect even beyond the 5-year period when no new CBA has yet been reached.
○ Private respondents violated this when they supported FFW’s petition before the freedom period.
ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:
ISSUE HELD
W/N private respondents were illegally dismissed YES
RATIO:
● The acts of private respondents are not enough proof of a violation of the Union Security Clause which would
warrant their dismissal.
1
CASE DIGEST
PICOP Resources Inc. v. Ricardo Dequilla & 3 others & NAMAPRI-SPFI
Labor II
○ PICOP failed to show in detail how private respondents campaigned and supported FFW. Their mere
act of signing an authorization for a petition for certification election before the freedom period does
not necessarily demonstrate union disloyalty. It is far from being within the definition of "acts of
disloyalty" as PICOP would want the Court to believe.
● As correctly ruled by the CA, the records are bereft of proof of any contemporaneous acts of resignation
or withdrawal of union membership or non-payment of union dues. Neither is there proof that private
respondents joined FFW. The fact is, private respondents remained in good standing with their union,
NAMAPRI-SPFL.
● Art. 256 applies, not Art. 253.
o Art. 253: it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a
new agreement is reached by the parties.
▪ PICOP argues that since no new CBA was entered into when private respondents were
terminated, the old CBA which had a union security clause was still in force.
o Art. 256 (last par.): At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification
election is filed.
● While it is incumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition
for certification election was filed. The reason is, with a pending petition for certification, any such
agreement entered into by management with a labor organization is fraught with the risk that such a labor
union may not be chosen thereafter as the collective bargaining representative. The provision for status
quo is conditioned on the fact that no certification election was filed during the freedom period.
Any other view would render nugatory the clear statutory policy to favor certification election as the means
of ascertaining the true expression of the will of the workers as to which labor organization would
represent them.
o There were 4 petitions for CE that were filed in PICOP’s case.
● Moreover, the last sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the
economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect of the CBA.
o An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certification election.
Otherwise, it will create an absurd situation where the union members will be forced to
maintain membership by virtue of the union security clause existing under the CBA and,
thereafter, support another union when filing a petition for certification election.
o If we apply it, there will always be an issue of disloyalty whenever the employees exercise their
right to self-organization.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

53 PICOP Resources v. Dequilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

53 PICOP Resources v. Dequilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

53 PICOP Resources v. Dequilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST

PICOP Resources Inc. v. Ricardo Dequilla & 3 others & NAMAPRI-SPFI

Court Supreme Court

Citation G.R. No. 172666

Date Dec. 7, 2011

Petitioner PICOP Resources Inc.

Respondent Ricardo Dequilla & 3 others & NAMAPRI-SPFI

Relevant topic II. Labor Relations E. Bargaining Representative

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

You might also like