UNITED POLYRESINS, INC. & ERNESTO UY SOON v.
MARCELINO PINEDA o Later, it was found out that Pinuela also failed to account for
G.R. No. 209555; July 31, 2017
FACTS:
 Petitioner United Polyresins, Inc. (UPI) is a registered domestic
corporation which employed respondent Marcelino Pinuela in 1987.
 Pinuela became a member of the labor union, Polyresins Rank and File
Association (PORFA) and was elected its President for May 2005 –
2007.
 In the CBA, the parties agreed that UPI shall grant PORFA P300,000.00,
interest-free, as the union’s capital for establishing a cooperative to
meet the needs of its members.
o In case of nonpayment, all officers and members of the union
will be personally liable.
o The CBA also contained a union security clause which provided
that employees who cease to be PORFA members in good
standing by reason of resignation or expulsion shall be
terminated by UPI.
 When Pinuela became Preisdent, he wrote the former union President,
Geoffrey Cielo, to turn over the records, papers, and financial
statements of the union.
o Cielo surrendered the union’s bank account documents, which
showed that the union had P78,723.60 in cash, and a financial
report, which indicated that the union had P208,623.60 in cash
and P159,500.00 in receivables.
o Since the two did not match, and Cielo was unable to explain
why, the union’s ExeComm headed by Pinuela hired a CPA to
audit the union’s finances. CPA concluded that finances for
2003-2004 were not properly documented.
 Meanwhile, during Pinuela’s term, UPI deducted P2,402,533.43 in
union dues and loan payments from PORFA members and turned the
amount over to PORFA in 58 crossed checks.
the union’s finances during his term.
 UPI demanded the payment of the P300,000 loan it granted PORFA.
Pinuela claimed they only had the amount that Cielo turned over.
o UPI then stated that it will not bargain a new CBA and that it
will deduct P1,500 from the salaries of the union members to
cover the loan.
 Pinuela filed a complaint before NCMB for refusal to bargain a new
CBA.
 PORFA members held a special election, accusing Pinuela and the other
officers of mismanagement, unduly hanging on to their positions, and
lack of accountability.
o The new officers then found that PORFA had little to no more
funds in its bank account. Pinuela said they were used to pay
legal fees.
 The new set of officers expelled Pinuela from PORFA in a resolution for
being guilty of several violations of the CBL which prohibit
misappropriation of union funds and property and give grounds for the
impeachment and recall of union officers.
 Upon PORFA’s request, UPI terminated Pinuela.
 Pinuela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before LA.
o LA: Dismissed complaint.
o NLRC: Reversed LA. On MR, it reversed itself and affirmed LA.
o CA: Ruled in favor of Pinuela, for lack of evidence to prove
misappropriation.
ISSUE: W/N Pinuela’s dismissal was proper – No.
 The impeachment provisions provide that the officers shall be
removed, impeached, or recalled from office, but not expelled or
stripped of union membership.
 PORFA and UPI were incorrect in terminating Pinuela based on Art. XV,
Sec. 1, pars. (e) and (f) of the union’s Constitution. Such a ground does
not constitute just cause for termination.
o The only provision authorizing removal from the union is in Art.
X, Sec. 6 – failure to pay union dues, special assessments, fines,
and other mandatory charges.
o Other grounds provided were professing subversive ideas,
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and not being
an employee of the company.
 These provisions do not apply to Pinuela.
o Thus, he may not be expelled from the union, since this is not
authorized by PORFA’s constitution.
 The failure to pay the loan of P300,000 is immaterial.
o Such a contribution by UPI to PORFA is illegal and constitutes
ULP.
 PORFA may not expel Pinuela from the union and assist in his dismissal
from UPI without just cause, since it is a ULP for a labor organization to
“cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee with respect to whom membership has been denied or to
terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and
conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is
made available to other members.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition denied. CA affirmed.