Biased

Dismissal of employees must be predicated on grounds provided in the Labor Code. But stipulations in the CBA authorizing dismissals are also recognized as valid grounds like a "closed shop" agreement mandating as a condition of employment, membership in the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent. So if an employee ceases to be a member of the Union, the Company may be required to dismiss him. Even then the dismissal must observe substantive due process. This is illustrated in the case of Tina.

Tina was a rank and file employee of a plantation company (DMPI). She was also a member of the Labor Union (ALU) which was the exclusive bargaining agent of plantation workers of DMPI. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between ALU and DMPI (Sections 4 and 5 Article II) stipulates that all present and subsequent employees shall be required to become a member of ALU as a condition of continued employment and that upon request of ALU, DMPI shall dismiss from its service, any employee who loses his membership in ALU due to voluntary resignation as member, non-payment of duly approved and ratified union dues and disloyalty to the union.

On March 25, 1993, Tina was charged by ALU for disloyalty to the union because of acts done nearly two years earlier or on July 13, 1991 when Tina allegedly personally recruited other bona fide members of ALU to attend as she herself had attended seminars given by a rival union. The charge was supported by an affidavit of a co-employee, Ana executed on March 17, 1993. Ana alleged in her affidavit that nearly two years earlier, on July 13, 1991, she was personally informed by Tina of a seminar to be conducted by a rival union; that when she demurred, Tina assured her that she would be given an honorarium of P500 if she would attend and bring new recruits. In said affidavit Ana admitted that she did attend together with her recruits by virtue of which Tina gave her P500.

In answer, Tina denied Ana’s allegations. She claimed that Ana executed that affidavit motivated by hatred and revenge because of the filing of a civil complaint by her husband and herself against Ana for collection of sum of money just six days before she executed affidavit. In support of her claim about Ana’s motive, Tina pointed out that the allegations against her were committed nearly two years earlier but Ana executed the affidavit only after she and her husband sued her for sum of money.

But the Disloyalty Board created by ALU to investigate the charge nevertheless concluded that Tina was guilty of acts or conduct inimical to its interest and recommended her expulsion from membership in ALU and her dismissal from DMPI in accordance with the Union Security Clause in the CBA. Thus on May 21, 1993, Tina was expelled by ALU and on June 17, 1993 DMPI terminated her services upon demand of ALU and pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 of the CBA. Was DMPI correct?

No. Even if the dismissal of an employee is conditioned not on the grounds for termination under the Labor Code but pursuant to the provisions of a CBA, it is still necessary to observe substantive due process in order to validate the dismissal. Substantive due process as it applies to all forms of dismissals encompasses the proper presentation and appreciation of evidence to establish that the cause for the dismissal under the law or the CBA exists.

In this case, the testimony of Ana against Tina as contained in her affidavit could not be given credence especially in proving Tina’s disloyalty to ALU. This is due to the prior animosity between the two engendered by the pending civil complaint filed by Tina’s husband against Ana. Considering that said civil complaint was filed just six days prior to the execution of Ana’s affidavit against Tina, it would be plainly injudicious to presume that Ana possessed an unbiased state of mind when she executed that affidavit. There is no basis why Ana’s testimony should be believed instead of disbelieved. No credible disputation was offered to Tina’s claim that Ana was biased against her and was motivated by hatred and revenge. DMPI did not even present any serious argument that Ana’s testimony against Tina was free from prejudice. Hence Tina’s claim was more cogent on that point.

The Disloyalty Board cannot be considered as a wholly neutral or dispassionate tribunal since it was constituted by the very organization that stood as the offended party in the disloyalty charge. Without impugning the integrity of ALU and the mechanisms it has employed for the internal discipline of its members, it is still necessary that the grounds for dismissal of an employee are justified by substantial evidence as duly appreciated by an impartial trier of facts in order that said dismissal may be validated (Del Monte et. al. vs. Timbal et. al. G.R. 158620, October 11, 2006)

E-mail to: [email protected] or jose@ sisonph.com