Supreme Court: Dismissal of VECO employees union leader valid

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has declared that the decision of the Visayan Electric Company in terminating the employment of the former head of its rank-and-file employees union in 2010 was "just and valid."

 The SC First Division, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, also denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by VECO Employees Union-Associated Labor Unions and its former president, Casmero Mahilum, seeking to reverse the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission declaring that the termination of employment was done in just and valid cause.

In 2009, union members led by Mahilum staged a protest against VECO for the latter’s refusal to comply with the political and economic provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and terminated the employment of active union members without undergoing the grievance machinery procedure.

 The VECO management also allegedly refused to implement profit-sharing scheme; took back the motorbikes issued to active union members; and revised the electricity privilege granted to its employees.

 On October 28, 2010, Mahilum was terminated from service allegedly on the ground of loss of trust and confidence and for violation of the company’s code of discipline due to the publication of a libelous article against the company.

 On June 30, 2011, the NLRC dismissed the charge of unfair labor practice against VECO for lack of merit and declared the dismissal of Mahilum from employment as legal.

 It ruled that the power firm acted within the bounds of law when it administratively investigated the suspended or terminated employees and union officers and members.

 It also held that there was no unfair labor practice to speak of since the administrative investigations conducted by VECO were found to have complied with the procedural due process requirements.

 It also found no substantial evidence to prove the imputation of union busting when VECO terminated Mahilum’s services and filed criminal charges against the union officers.

 On October 18, 2011, the petitioners elevated their case to the Court of Appeals and filed a certiorari petition alleging that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

 However, the appellate court dismissed the petition for failure to submit their appeal on time.

The petitioners then elevated their case to the SC and alleged that the CA erred in dismissing their petition despite the serious errors committed by NLRC in absolving VECO from the charge of unfair labor practice and Mahilum’s illegal dismissal.

In the decision, the SC denied the petition and ruled that the delay in the filing of petition even for one day is not a legal justification for non-compliance with the existing rule under the Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requiring that it be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.

The High Court further agreed with the NLRC in its ruling and held that VECO validly terminated Mahilum's employment due to loss of trust and confidence.

The SC said that Mahilum’s job as a frontliner of the power firm involved a high degree of responsibility and required a substantial amount of trust and confidence for his employer but was lost with the derogatory statements issued by Mahilum. — (FREEMAN)