Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

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 the union’s finances during his term.
 UPI demanded the payment of the P300,000 loan it granted PORFA.
FACTS: Pinuela claimed they only had the amount that Cielo turned over.
 Petitioner United Polyresins, Inc. (UPI) is a registered domestic o UPI then stated that it will not bargain a new CBA and that it
corporation which employed respondent Marcelino Pinuela in 1987. will deduct P1,500 from the salaries of the union members to
 Pinuela became a member of the labor union, Polyresins Rank and File cover the loan.
Association (PORFA) and was elected its President for May 2005 –  Pinuela filed a complaint before NCMB for refusal to bargain a new
2007. CBA.
 In the CBA, the parties agreed that UPI shall grant PORFA P300,000.00,  PORFA members held a special election, accusing Pinuela and the other
interest-free, as the union’s capital for establishing a cooperative to officers of mismanagement, unduly hanging on to their positions, and
meet the needs of its members. lack of accountability.
o In case of nonpayment, all officers and members of the union o The new officers then found that PORFA had little to no more
will be personally liable. funds in its bank account. Pinuela said they were used to pay
o The CBA also contained a union security clause which provided legal fees.
that employees who cease to be PORFA members in good  The new set of officers expelled Pinuela from PORFA in a resolution for
standing by reason of resignation or expulsion shall be being guilty of several violations of the CBL which prohibit
terminated by UPI. misappropriation of union funds and property and give grounds for the
 When Pinuela became Preisdent, he wrote the former union President, impeachment and recall of union officers.
Geoffrey Cielo, to turn over the records, papers, and financial  Upon PORFA’s request, UPI terminated Pinuela.
statements of the union.  Pinuela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before LA.
o Cielo surrendered the union’s bank account documents, which o LA: Dismissed complaint.
showed that the union had P78,723.60 in cash, and a financial o NLRC: Reversed LA. On MR, it reversed itself and affirmed LA.
report, which indicated that the union had P208,623.60 in cash o CA: Ruled in favor of Pinuela, for lack of evidence to prove
and P159,500.00 in receivables. misappropriation.
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 ISSUE: W/N Pinuela’s dismissal was proper – No.
audit the union’s finances. CPA concluded that finances for  The impeachment provisions provide that the officers shall be
2003-2004 were not properly documented. removed, impeached, or recalled from office, but not expelled or
 Meanwhile, during Pinuela’s term, UPI deducted P2,402,533.43 in stripped of union membership.
union dues and loan payments from PORFA members and turned the
amount over to PORFA in 58 crossed checks.
 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.