CASE DIGEST: COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, Inc., petitioners, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION, respondents. G.R. No. 73681 June 30, 1988

Concept:

The Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes. When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.

Petitioner pointed out that the allegations regarding dismissal from employment due to union membership were false. It also averred that the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees were due to infractions committed by them and that the management reserves the right to discipline erring employees. Petitioner also assailed the legality of the Union, among others.

The minister rendered its decision, ruling that there was no merit in the Union’s complaint. It also ruled that the three dismissed employees were “not without fault” but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement of the same.  At the same time, respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the employees were first offenders.

Issue: W/ON  the minister erred in directly certifying the Union based on the latter’s self-serving assertion that it enjoys the support of the majority of the sales force in petitioner’s company and in ordering the reinstatement of the three dismissed employees.

Held: Yes.  the minister failed to determine with legal certainty whether the Union indeed enjoyed majority representation. The Court held that by relying only on the Notice of Strike, the minister had encouraged disrespect of the law. He had also erroneously vested upon himself the right to choose the collective bargaining representative which ought to have been upon the employees.

The Court held that the reinstatement of the three employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Ruling otherwise would only encourage unequal protection of the laws with respect to the rights of the management and the employees.

Source and Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/jun1988/gr_73681_1988.html