Baptista vs. Villanueva

A union's expulsion of members for violating its Constitution and By-Laws — specifically, for resorting to external bodies without exhausting internal remedies — does not constitute unfair labor practice where the members were notified of the charges and given the opportunity to be heard, and where no substantial evidence shows that the expulsion was intended to restrain or coerce them in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

Petitioners were former members of the Radio Philippines Network Employees Union (RPNEU), a legitimate labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Radio Philippines Network (RPN), a government-sequestered corporation engaged in commercial radio and television broadcasting. Respondents were RPNEU's elected officers and members. The parties' relationship was governed by RPNEU's Constitution and By-Laws (CBL) and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing a union security clause providing that any employee whose union membership was terminated would likewise be deemed terminated from the company.

Petitioners Minette Baptista, Bannie Edsel San Miguel, and Ma. Fe Dayon were former members of the Radio Philippines Network Employees Union (RPNEU), a legitimate labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Radio Philippines Network (RPN), a government-sequestered corporation involved in commercial radio and television broadcasting. Respondents were the union's elected officers and members. The relationship between the parties was governed by RPNEU's Constitution and By-Laws (CBL) and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that included a union security clause providing that any employee whose union membership was terminated would likewise be deemed terminated from the company.

On April 26, 2005, on suspicion of union mismanagement, petitioners and other union members filed a complaint for impeachment of their union president, Reynato Siozon, before the executive board of RPN, but this was eventually abandoned. They later re-lodged the impeachment complaint, this time against all the union officers and members of RPNEU, before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). They likewise filed various petitions for audit covering the period from 2000 to 2004. Thereafter, two written complaints dated May 26 and May 27, 2005 were filed against petitioners and several others for alleged violation of the union's CBL. Months later, on September 19, 2005, a different group of union members filed a third complaint against petitioners and 12 others before the Chairman of RPNEU's Committee on Grievance and Investigation, citing as grounds the commission of acts violating Article IX, Section 2.2 of the CBL (joining or forming a union outside the sixty-day period) and Section 2.5 (urging or advocating that a member start an action in any court of justice or external investigative body against the Union or its officers without first exhausting all internal remedies). These complaints were consolidated.

Petitioners received a memorandum notice from the Committee Chairman requesting them to answer the complaint and attend a hearing scheduled for October 3, 2005. Through an exchange of communications with the Committee, petitioners denied the charges and contested the procedure adopted in the investigation. On November 9, 2005, the Committee submitted its recommendation of expulsion to RPNEU's Board of Directors. On December 21, 2005, the Board affirmed the recommendation in Board Resolution No. 018-2005. Petitioners were served an expulsion notice on December 27, 2005, effective December 29, 2005. On January 2, 2006, petitioners wrote to RPNEU's President and Board of Directors asserting that their expulsion was ultra vires because the Committee failed to observe due process, as they were not given the chance to physically confront and examine their complainants.

On January 24, 2006, RPNEU's officers informed RPN management of the expulsion and requested that notices of termination be served on petitioners in compliance with the CBA's union security clause. On February 17, 2006, RPN's HRD Manager informed petitioners of the termination of their employment effective March 20, 2006, enforcing Article II, Section 2 of the CBA. Aggrieved, petitioners filed three separate complaints for unfair labor practice against respondents, which were later consolidated, questioning the legality of their expulsion from the union and their subsequent termination from employment. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, finding respondents guilty of ULP and ordering reinstatement as bona fide union members. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC, finding that petitioners were accorded due process and that no substantial evidence supported the ULP charge.

• Misappreciation of the Real Issue: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the real issue in the case.
• Error in Applying Law and Jurisprudence: Petitioner maintained that the CA decision and resolution were not in accord with law and applicable jurisprudence, thereby gravely abusing its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Unfair Labor Practice: Petitioner submitted that respondents committed ULP under Article 289(a) and (b) of the Labor Code (corresponding to Article 249(a) and (b)) by restraining or coercing them in the exercise of their right to self-organization and by causing the employer to discriminate against them.
• Denial of Due Process: Petitioner insisted that they were denied substantive and procedural due process when they were expelled from RPNEU, as they were not given the opportunity to personally face and confront their accusers.
• Wrong Procedure Applied: Petitioner posited that the procedure that should have been followed was Article XVII, Section 2 of the CBL, requiring grievances to be submitted in writing to the union president for amicable settlement before referral to the committee.

• Unfair Labor Practice: Whether respondents, as union officers, committed unfair labor practice under Article 249(a) and (b) of the Labor Code by expelling petitioners from the union and causing their termination from employment.
• Due Process in Expulsion Proceedings: Whether petitioners were denied due process in the internal proceedings leading to their expulsion from the union.
• Validity of Union Security Clause Enforcement: Whether the termination of petitioners' employment pursuant to the CBA's union security clause was valid.
• Proper Procedure Under the CBL: Whether the Committee on Grievance and Investigation, rather than the union president, was the proper body to receive and investigate the charges against petitioners.

• Unfair Labor Practice: No. Petitioners failed to adduce substantial evidence that respondents restrained or coerced them in the exercise of their right to self-organization or unduly persuaded management to discriminate against them. The expulsion was triggered by petitioners' violation of the CBL, not by a deliberate attempt to curtail their right to organize.
• Due Process in Expulsion Proceedings: No violation occurred. Petitioners were properly notified of the charges and afforded the opportunity to present their side through written submissions. The absence of a one-on-one confrontation with complainants does not automatically invalidate administrative proceedings.
• Validity of Union Security Clause Enforcement: Valid. The termination of employment pursuant to the CBA's union security clause was recognized in Philippine jurisdiction, as it fortifies the union and averts disunity in the bargaining unit.
• Proper Procedure Under the CBL: The Committee on Grievance and Investigation was the proper body. The charges were not mere internal squabbles but violations that, if proven, constituted grounds for expulsion, making Article X (Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process) of the CBL — not Article XVII (Settlement of Internal Disputes) — the applicable provision.

• Unfair Labor Practice: ULP relates to acts that transgress the workers' right to organize, as specified in Articles 248 and 249 of the Labor Code. The prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Absent these vital elements, acts complained of — although seemingly unjust — would not constitute ULP. Petitioners' expulsion was triggered by their filing of impeachment and audit petitions with DOLE without first exhausting internal remedies, an act expressly sanctioned by Section 2.5 of Article IX of the union's CBL. The expulsion was thus not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to organize. The burden of proving ULP rests on the party alleging it, requiring substantial evidence. Petitioners failed to establish how they were restrained or coerced, or how respondents unduly persuaded management into discriminating against them, other than by bringing to management's attention their expulsion, which resulted in the implementation of the CBA's union security clause.

• Due Process in Expulsion Proceedings: Due process in administrative proceedings is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The filing of charges and giving a reasonable opportunity to answer constitute the minimum requirements. Petitioners were properly notified of the charges and were afforded the opportunity to present their side through written communications with the Committee. Any supposed procedural flaw was deemed cured by this opportunity to be heard. The mere absence of a one-on-one confrontation does not automatically affect the validity of the proceedings, as not all cases necessitate a trial-type hearing. What is indispensable is the right to explain one's side, which was adequately afforded.

• Validity of Union Security Clause Enforcement: The termination of employment by virtue of a union security clause is recognized in Philippine jurisdiction. The practice fortifies the union and averts disunity in the bargaining unit within the duration of the CBA. RPNEU's CBA expressly provided that any employee whose membership in the union was terminated would likewise be deemed terminated from the company. Since petitioners' expulsion from the union was valid under the CBL, management's enforcement of the union security clause was likewise valid.

• Proper Procedure Under the CBL: Petitioners argued that Article XVII, Section 2 (Settlement of Internal Disputes) should have governed, requiring grievances to be submitted to the union president for amicable settlement before referral to the committee. The Court rejected this, holding that the charges against petitioners were not mere internal squabbles but violations demanding proper investigation because, if proven, they would constitute grounds for expulsion. Article X (Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process) was therefore correctly applied, as it expressly provides that charges against any member or officer shall be submitted to the Board of Directors in writing, which shall refer the same to the Committee on Grievance and Investigation. The union's CBL expressly mandates exhaustion of internal remedies before seeking external intervention, and petitioners were found to have violated this requirement by filing petitions with DOLE without first availing of internal remedies.

• Unfair Labor Practice — Essential Elements — ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize. The prohibited acts under Articles 248 and 249 of the Labor Code must necessarily relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Absent these vital elements, the acts complained of, although seemingly unjust, would not constitute ULP. The Court applied this by finding that petitioners' expulsion was triggered by their CBL violation, not by any attempt to curtail their right to self-organization.

• Due Process in Administrative Proceedings — Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving a reasonable opportunity to answer constitute the minimum requirements. The essence of due process is simply to be heard — an opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration. A trial-type hearing is not always indispensable; the absence of a one-on-one confrontation does not automatically invalidate proceedings.

• Exhaustion of Internal Remedies in Union Disputes — When a union's Constitution and By-Laws dictate the remedy for intra-union disputes, such remedies must be resorted to before recourse to administrative or judicial bodies. This gives the grievance machinery or appeals body of the union the opportunity to decide the matter itself and prevents unnecessary and premature resort to external bodies. A party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed procedure but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention.

• Union Security Clause — A CBA provision stating that any employee whose union membership is terminated shall likewise be deemed terminated from the company is a valid and recognized union security clause. Its enforcement fortifies the union and averts disunity in the bargaining unit within the duration of the CBA.

• Burden of Proof in ULP Cases — For a charge of ULP against a labor organization to prosper, the onus probandi rests on the party alleging it. In labor cases, substantial evidence — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion — is required.

• Factual Findings of the NLRC — Absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness, the findings of fact by the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.

• "In essence, ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize. As specified in Articles 248 and 249 of the Labor Code, the prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Absent the said vital elements, the acts complained, although seemingly unjust, would not constitute ULP." — This passage articulates the essential elements of ULP and explains why the expulsion, though seemingly unjust, did not constitute ULP.

• "Due process, as a constitutional precept, is satisfied when a person was notified of the charge against him and was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process." — This defines the minimum requirements of due process in administrative proceedings and is the basis for rejecting petitioners' claim of procedural violation.

• "When the Constitution and by-laws of both unions dictated the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as petitioner's complaint against private respondents for unauthorized or illegal disbursement of union funds, this should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate administrative or judicial body, not only to give the grievance machinery or appeals' body of the union the opportunity to decide the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to administrative or judicial bodies." — This quotation from Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment, adopted by the Court, establishes the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies in union disputes.

• Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 376 — Cited for the proposition that ULP relates to acts transgressing the workers' right to organize and that prohibited acts must relate to self-organization and CBA observance.
• General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-Tupas vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 178647, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 414 — Cited (via Philcom Employees Union vs. Philippine Global Communication) for the principle that absent the vital elements relating to self-organization, acts complained of would not constitute ULP.
• Diamonon vs. Department of Labor and Employment — Cited for the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies in union disputes, affirming that a union's CBL-prescribed remedies must be pursued before resorting to external administrative or judicial bodies.
• Cayago vs. Lina, 489 Phil. 735 (2005) — Cited for the minimum requirements of due process in administrative proceedings.
• Libres vs. NLRC, 367 Phil. 181 (1999) — Cited for the principle that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard and to seek reconsideration.
• Mariveles Shipyard Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 249 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that not all cases necessitate a trial-type hearing.
• Acevedo vs. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279 (2005) — Cited for the doctrine that NLRC factual findings, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive absent abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness.

• Article 247, Labor Code — Defines the concept of unfair labor practice as acts that violate the constitutional right of workers to self-organization, disrupt industrial peace, and hinder stable labor-management relations. The Court used this provision to frame the essential elements of ULP.
• Article 249(a) and (b), Labor Code — Enumerates unfair labor practices of labor organizations, including restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. The Court found that petitioners failed to prove these prohibited acts.
• Article IX, Section 2.5, RPNEU Constitution and By-Laws — Punishes the act of urging or advocating that a member start an action in any court of justice or external investigative body against the Union or its officers without first exhausting all internal remedies. Petitioners were found to have violated this provision by filing impeachment and audit petitions with DOLE.
• Article X, RPNEU Constitution and By-Laws (Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process) — Provides that charges against any member or officer shall be submitted to the Board of Directors in writing, which shall refer the same to the Committee on Grievance and Investigation. The Court held this was the correctly applied provision governing the charges against petitioners.
• Article XVII, Section 2, RPNEU Constitution and By-Laws (Settlement of Internal Disputes) — Requires grievances to be submitted in writing to the union president for amicable settlement. Petitioners argued this should have governed, but the Court rejected this contention.
• Article II, Section 2, CBA (Union Security Clause) — Provides that all covered employees shall become and remain members in good standing of the union, and that any employee whose membership is terminated shall likewise be deemed terminated from the company. The Court upheld the enforcement of this clause.
• Article 3, ILO Convention No. 87 — Recognizes the right of workers' and employers' organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, elect representatives, organize administration, and formulate programs in full freedom. The Court cited this to support the union's right to prescribe its own rules.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen — all concurred with no separate concurring opinions noted.