Union of Supervisors (R.

B) – NATU
versus
Secretary of Labor and Republic
Bank

GR No. L-39889
November 12, 1981
 FACTS:

Republic Bank Provident Fund was established

pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement
between employees and respondent bank.

The fund is supposed to be managed by the Board of

Trustees compose of five members of which three
including the chairman are supposed to be designated as
bank president and the other two are the presidents of the
Republic Bank Union of Supervisors and of the Republic
Bank Employees’ Union
Mr. Norberto Luna, president of the Union
and member of the fund’s Board of
Trustees, became the fund’s administrator
and secretary.

Respondent bank decided to establish a

money market department.
Prior to the February meeting, Mr. Restituto
C. de Vera, assistant vice-president of
respondent bank, was designated to replace
Mr. Jose C. Lugod during the latter’s leave
of absence as member of the Board of
Trustees.
At the meeting, Mr. De Vera proposed
a reorganization of the fund to carry
out the instruction of the Board o
Directors.

Mr. Luna objected saying that the

Provident Fund does not belong to the
respondent but to the officers and
employees.
The reorganization move was carried
by a 3 o 2 vote, with all management-
appointed trustees voting for it
 To protect interests of the fund, Mr. Luna moved for a
Trust Agreement be executed between the trustees on one
hand and the members of the provident fund on the other,
and that the trustees should execute a bond.

It was during this discussion that Mr. Luna allegedly

uttered libelous remarks.

Mr. Luna and Mr. Canizares walked out of the meeting.

Mr. Mario Galicia, management-appointed trustee, was

unanimously elected as new administrator b the three
remaining trustees
Chairman of the Board of Directors submitted a
report on the February 12th incident and its
aftermath and recommended disciplinary action
against Luna.

A memorandum was sent to Luna which suspends

him as Branch manager.

The Committee Personnel sent Luna a copy of

the Resolution and memorandum-complaint.
Petitioner Luna filed with National Labor
Relations Commission a complaint against
respondent bank for unfair labor practice
committed against him for harassment, unjust
suspension from employment as manager and as
member of the Board of Trustees of the RB
Provident fund, as well as unlawful dismissal
According to Bank, the dismissal of Petitioner
Luna was based on the following:

1. Grave misconduct for making derogatory and libelous

remarks against the bank management
2. Insubordination for refusal to obey lawful order of his
superior, the Chairman of RB Provident Fund.
NLRC Decision: Dismissal was valid as
Luna actually made derogatory remarks
against the officers of the bank.

Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of

Labor but affirmed NLRC’s decision.
 ISSUE:

Whether or not Mr. Luna’s

utterances and alleged acts constitute
dismissal
RULING:

NO
According to Luna, the transcript of
stenographic notes was not accurate record
of the proceedings because Mrs. Unson was
not a court stenographer and her notes do
not truly reflect all that transpired during the
meeting.

These allegations were never refuted.

Mrs. Unson herself admitted hat she was a
clerk although it was part of her duties to
take down stenographic notes.

That it was routinary for her to submit her

subscribed notes to Luna as the secretary.

That during the said meeting, Luna

informed her of some errors but were never
corrected.
The minutes should have been signed by
Luna, as secretary, before being officially
released.

Without such signature, neither probative

value nor credibility could be accorded to
such minutes.
Nevertheless, his statements do not justify
Luna’s dismissal.

Luna’s remarks at the meeting of an official

board are privileged in nature as a valid
exercise of constitutional freedom of
expression.
It was intended to protect the interest
of the members of the Provident Fund
from what he honestly believed was a
risky venture on the part of the
management.

His utterances were made in capacity

as trustee to guard the interests of its
members.
Moreover, his remarks had factual basis.

As stated, the Central Bank took over the

management of the respondent Republic Bank
because it became distressed due to
mismanagement.

His remarks were also addressed to the Board of

Trustee which has jurisdiction over the matter.
.
Nevertheless, his statements do not justify Luna’s dismissal
Lua’s remarks at the meeting of an official board are preveliged in nature
as a valid exercise of constitutional freedom of expression.
It was intended to protect the interest of the members of the Provident
Fund from what he honestly believed was a risky venture on the part of the
management.

.
Nevertheless, his statements do not justify Luna’s dismissal
Lua’s remarks at the meeting of an official board are preveliged in nature
as a valid exercise of constitutional freedom of expression.
It was intended to protect the interest of the members of the Provident
Fund from what he honestly believed was a risky venture on the part of the
management.