Alabang Country Club, Inc. vs.

NLRC
G.R. no. 170287 Feb. 14, 2008
Velasco, Jr., J.

Facts:

- 1999: Petitioner Alabang Country Club, Inc. (Club) entered a CBA with the respondent Alabang
Coountry Club Independent Employees Union (Union), which provided for a union shop and a
maintenance of membership shop.
o Some of the provisions in the CBA include that the regular rank-and-file employees shall
maintain their membership in good standing as a condition for their continued
employment by the Club; that new regular rank-and-file employees shall join the Union
else it would be a ground for their dismissal; and that among the grounds for the
dismissal of a member in the Union is the malversation of Union funds.
- 2001: a new set of officers were elected in the Union. These new officers conducted an audit of
the Union funds, and discovered some irregular entries, unaccounted expenses and disbursements,
and uncollected loans from the Union funds. It then asked respondents Christopher Pizarro,
Michael Braza, and Nolasco Castuerasthe Unions former officersto explain the
discrepancies in writing.
o Despite their explanations, however, the three were expelled from the Union for
malversation of Union funds.
- The Union then informed and demanded the Club that as per the security clause in their CBA, the
dismissal of the three should follow.
o The Club required the three to show cause in writing why they should not be dismissed.
An informal conference was then held between the Clubs manager and the three with
regard to the issue.
o Nonetheless, the Club concluded that the said employees failed to refute the validity of
their expulsion from the Union and hence, are terminated from their employment.
o The respondents then raised their alleged illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter.
- LA: dismissed the complaint.
- NLRC: reversed.
- CA: affirmed the reversal; held that the respondents were deprived of due process. It alleged that
the Club failed to give opportunity for the respondents to respond to the charge, present evidence
or rebut the evidence presented against them, as per Sec.2(b), Rule XXIII, Book V of the IRR.
o CA also relied on the ruling in Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greefield
v. Ramos, which held that even if the union had valid grounds to expel the member, due
process requires that the said member be accorded a separate hearing by the employer.
Hence, this petition.

Held:

- Under the LC, an employee may be validly dismissed by: 1.) Just causes under Art. 282 2.)
Authorized causes under Art. 283 3.) termination due to disease under Art. 284 4.) termination by
the employee or resignation under Art. 285. 5.) dismissal from employment due to the
enforcement of the union security clause in the CBA.
o In the CBA present between the Club and the Union, both union shop and maintenance of
membership shop are present.
 Union shop when all the new regular employees are required to join the union
within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment.
Maintenance of membership shop when employees who are union members as
of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter becomes members, must
maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they
are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is
terminated.
o These are accepted in our jurisdiction as means to strengthen the union and prevent
disunity in the bargaining unit within the duration of the CBA. (prevents disaffiliation).
o In terminating an employee by enforcement of the union security clause, the
employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is
applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security
provision in the CBA; (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions decision
to expel the employee from the union.
- In the present case, the three respondents were expelled from and by the Union after due
investigation for acts of dishonesty and malversation of Union funds.
o In compliance with the Unions request, the Club, in turn, reviewed the documents and
the written explanation of the three, and also held an informal conference for the three to
air out their side. Nonetheless, the Club held that there was substantial evidence for the
respondents termination from the Union, and thereafter dismissed them from service as
per the security clause.
o Considering the foregoing circumstances, there was sufficient cause for the termination
of the respondents employment. Likewise, there was also substantial compliance with
due process.
o Malayang Samahan case cannot apply here because in the said case, the union members
who were expelled from the union were immediately dismissed from the company
without any semblance of due process. In the present case, the Club both reviewed the
evidence and heard the side of the respondents.

Decision Reversed.