REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

FOURTH DIVISION
IRENEO LAGARDE, ROBERTO BARRIGA, CRISANTO PALADA and EDDIE RABINO, Petitioners, CA-G.R. SP NO. 100815

Members: -versusNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. and/or ENRIQUE K. RAZON, Respondents. REYES, JR., A.B., Chairman LAMPAS PERALTA, F., and BRUSELAS, JR., A.D., JJ.

Promulgated: JUL 22 2009

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
LAMPAS PERALTA, J.: Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the (i) Decision dated March 30, 20071 in NLRC NCR CA No. 049478-06 (NLRC NCR-00-09-08472 -05) of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which dismissed petitioners' appeal for failure to comply with the requisites of appeal and for lack of merit, and (ii) Resolution dated June 15, 20072 of public respondent NLRC which denied
1 pp. 21-24, Rollo 2 pp. 16-17, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated March 30, 2007.

THE ANTECEDENTS The Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pantalan ng ICTSI (NMPINAFLU) was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), with private respondent Enrique K. Razon as its president. Petitioners Ireneo Lagarde, Roberto Barriga, Crisanto Palada, and Eddie Rabino were stevedores of private respondent ICTSI who were members of NMPI-NAFLU. On July 28, 2005, officers of NMPI-NAFLU caught petitioner Roberto Barriga asking other union members to sign documents which sought the appointment of a new set of union officers and board members (which included petitioners Ireneo Lagarde, Crisanto Palada and Eddie Rabino, among others) and the expulsion of incumbent NMPI-NAFLU officers and board members, on the alleged ground of their having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. An investigation was conducted by NMPI-NAFLU on petitioners, together with other employees (collectively referred to as co-employees) who were included in the proposed new line-up of union officers and board members . Notices3 were sent, informing them that their acts constituted disloyalty to the union and requiring them to appear before the union's grievance committee to explain their side. After petitioners and their co-employees were given the opportunity to explain, they were found guilty of violating Section 4, Article VI, Amended Constitution and By-Laws of NMPI-NAFLU. In a
3 pp. 122-128, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

letter dated September 5, 2005,4 the grievance committee recommended to the NMPI-NAFLU the expulsion of petitioners and co-employees . Accordingly, the NMPI-NAFLU expelled petitioners and co-employees from union membership.5 On the basis of the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between private respondent ICTSI and NMPI-NAFLU, the president of NMPI-NAFLU recommended6 to the general manager and the executive vice president of private respondent ICTSI that petitioners and their co-employees be dismissed from employment. On September 15, 2005, separate memoranda7 were issued by private respondent ICTSI to petitioners and their co-employees, giving them the opportunity to explain why their employment should not be terminated. In their joint explanation addressed to private respondent ICTSI's general manager, petitioners and their coemployees denied committing any act of disloyalty to the union.8 In separate memoranda9 dated September 22, 2005, petitioners were dismissed by private respondent ICTSI. A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed with the labor arbiter by petitioners and their co-employees10 against private respondents, praying for reinstatement and the award of backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages and attorney's fees.11
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pp. 129-131, ibid. pp. 132-133, ibid. pp. 135-137, ibid. pp. 138-142, ibid. pp. 142-143, ibid. pp. 148-152, ibid. The rest of the complainants were Ernesto Dy, Urbano Lazona, Delio Aceron, Emmanuel

Lamparas and Gerardo Ibe. Only petitioners, together with Ernesto Dy, Urbano Lazona, Delio Aceron, appealed the labor arbiter's decision to public respondent NLRC. Later, Ernesto Dy, Urbano Lazona and Delio Aceron entered into an amicable settlement with private respondent ICTSI and executed a release, waiver and quitclaim. Emmanuel Lamparas did not appeal the labor arbiter's Decision. This left only petitioners as complainants. 11 pp. 25-26, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

In a Decision dated April 5, 2006,12 the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners and their co-employees filed an appeal before public respondent NLRC, but the same was dismissed in a Decision dated March 30, 200713 for petitioners' failure to comply with the requisites of appeal and also for lack of merit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but public respondent NLRC denied the same in a Resolution dated June 15, 2007. Hence, petitioners filed this petition, written partly in English and partly in Filipino, which is premised on the following arguments:
I. DAHIL SA GINAWANG PAGSUNOD NG ICTSI MANAGEMENT SA REQUEST NG NMPI-NAFLU NA TANGGALIN ANG MGA COMPLAINANT DAHIL SA DISLOYALTY DAW? ITO ANG DAHILAN KUNG BAKIT ILLEGAL AND DISMISSAL NA GINAWA NG RESPONDENT ICTSI SA MGA COMPLAINANT.14 II. ANG MGA COMPLAINANT AY MGA FIELD PERSONNEL. AT DAHIL DITO, ANG REGULAR NA 12 ORAS NILANG TRABAHO AY WALANG OVERTIME. III. ANG MGA COMPLAINANT AY MGA STEVEDORE NA ANG TRABAHO AY SA ITAAS NG BARKO, IBABA NG BARKO, PARA MAG-LOAD AT MAG-UNLOAD NG MGA CARGO. HINDI SILA BINABAYARAN NG ECOLA NG RESPONDENT. 8 HOURS LAMANG ANG BINABAYARAN SA KANILA PARA SA KANIKANILANG 13TH MONTH PAY.15
12 13 14 15 p. 33, ibid. pp. 21-24, ibid. p. 10, ibid. P. 11, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

THE ISSUE Whether public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the labor arbiter's finding on the legality of petitioners' dismissal from employment.

THE COURTS RULING At the outset, a perusal of the petition readily shows that it does not clearly point out any grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent NLRC when it affirmed the labor arbiter's finding on the legality of petitioners' dismissal from employment. Instead, petitioners pray for full implementation of Article 279, Labor Code of the Philippines16 and the payment of the alleged four (4) hours of work they rendered beyond the eight (8) hours of their regular work, to wit:
Kahilingan 1. 2. Full implementation of Art 279 Labor Code; at Pabayaran sa respondent ang underpayment na apat (4) na base sa itinakda ng Art 82 ng Labor Code.17

It is well-settled that in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65,1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the inquiry is limited essentially to
16 Article 279 of the Labor Code provides: Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by the Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. 17 p. 12, Rollo

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

whether public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.18 Hence, factual issues cannot be raised. As enunciated:
xxx Factual issues are beyond the scope of certiorari because they do not involve any jurisdictional issue. As a rule, only jurisdictional questions may be raised in a petition for certiorari, including matters of grave abuse of discretion which are equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The office of the writ of certiorari has been reduced to the correction of defects of jurisdiction solely and cannot legally be used for any other purpose.19

Moreover, the age-old rule is that the highest consideration is accorded to the factual findings of the labor arbiter especially when they are affirmed by public respondent NLRC.20 In this case, both the labor arbiter and public respondent NLRC were unanimous in their factual finding that the dismissal was valid, as there was compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process. As the labor arbiter stressed:
xxx There was just cause for the termination of complainants and they were afforded due process. It is very obvious that complainants committed acts of disloyalty to the union warranting no less than their dismissal from employment pursuant to Section 4, Article 4, Membership, of the Constitution and ByLaws. Complainants disregarded the present set of officers of the union by unlawfully electing a new set of officers mostly coming from their group. Furthermore, complainants refused to recognize the legal personality of the union by exerting efforts to reactivate
18 Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 17 (2005) 19 China Banking Corporation vs. Asian Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 158271.,

April 8, 2008
20 C. Planas Commercial and Marcial Cohu vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 49 (1999)

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x NMPI Independent despite the fact that the Secretary of Labor already issued a Resolution dated 13 July 2001 attesting that NMPI, as an independent union, ceased to exist and that from that time on and up to the present only NMPI-NAFLU validly exists. The latter therefore had the right to recommend the dismissal of complainants from employment in accordance with the Union Security Clause provided in the CBA.21

But even setting technicalities aside, the petition must still fail for lack of merit. Petitioners essentially argue that their dismissal violated their security of tenure. This is unfounded as their dismissal was in accordance with the union security clause in the CBA between NMPI-NAFLU and private respondent ICSTI. They were first investigated by NMPI-NAFLU for disloyalty and expelled therefrom pursuant to its Amended Constitution and By-Laws. On the basis of the recommendation of the president of NMPI-NAFLU that petitioners be dismissed from employment, private respondent ICTSI gave petitioners the opportunity to explain their position. Thereafter, petitioners were dismissed from employment pursuant to the union security clause in the CBA between NMPI-NAFLU and private respondent ICSTI. Thus, petitioners' expulsion from NMPI-NAFLU was brought about by their acts of seeking to revive the former union NMPIIndependent which fostered disunity among the union members and disrespect to NMPI-NAFLU. Such acts warranted their expulsion under the Amended Constitution and By-Laws of NMPI-NAFLU which provides:
ARTICLE IV- MEMBERSHIP Section 4- A member of this Union may be expelled by the President with the concurrence of the majority vote of Board of Directors for any of the causes herein below specified:
21 pp. 31-32, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x a) Utter disrespect (in any form) to any of the members of the Executive, Board of Directors and Shop Stewards xxx xxx xxx

c) Member/s who foster acts/action to divide/disunity among the union members; xxx xxx xxx

e) For subscribing to a cause against the declared principles laid down in the constitution; f) For gross misconduct unbecoming highly of a union member; xxx xxx xxx

j) Sinumang gumawa ng mga bagay na maaring ikabuwag ng Samahan.22

On the other hand, the dismissal of petitioners from employment was in accordance with the CBA between NMPI-NAFLU and private respondent ICTSI which contained a closed-shop provision requiring membership in the exclusive bargaining agent as a condition for continued employment. Sections 1 and 4, Article III of the CBA read:
Article III UNION SECURITY Section 1. Subject to company policy, rules and regulations respecting hiring, the company agrees that during the lifetime of this Agreement, the UNION shall supply the COMPANY with sufficient help to perform present and future work contemplated within the position coverage listed under Article II above, and only
22 p. 120, ibid.

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x members of the UNION shall be engaged by the COMPANY to fill such positions. Membership in the UNION shall not be a condition for employment at the time of hiring of office employees who shall occupy positions covered by this Agreement. However, memberships in the UNION shall commence from their first day of regular employment and shall be a condition for their continued employment.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Section 4. The COMPANY shall within thirty (30) days after such notice, discharge any employee or worker who ceased to be a union member in good standing upon the UNION's proof of prior compliance with the due process requirement of the law. The COMPANY reserves the right to deny the request if in its judgment, the requirement of due process has not been adequately complied with by the UNION.23

It is settled that stipulations in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code, since [a] CBA is the law between the company and the union and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor.24 The validity of closedshop provisions in the CBA as well as dismissals made pursuant thereto have been upheld as follows:
The CBA obviously adopts a closed-shop policy which mandates, as a condition of employment, membership in the exclusive bargaining agent. A "closed-shop" may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. A CBA provision for a
23 pp. 111-112, Rollo 24 Ferrer v. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410 (1993)

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x closed-shop is a valid form of union security and it is not a restriction on the right or freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. 25

10

(Underlining supplied) There is also no denying that petitioners were dismissed from employment after compliance with procedural due process. Petitioners were terminated by private respondent ICTSI at the instance of NMPI-NAFLU and only after conducting a separate and independent investigation. Petitioners were also given ample opportunity to answer the charges against them.26 As noted by the labor arbiter:
On the requirement of due process, noteworthy is the fact that the union and ICTSI conducted their own respective administrative investigation on the matter. On the part of the union, it sent Notices to Explain to all the complainants (Annexes 5 to 5-0 of ICTSI's Position Paper). The complainants, however, failed to appear before the Grievance Committee to explain their side on the charge of union disloyalty. Thus, on 14 September 2005, the respondent union sent a Letter-Recommendation to respondent ICTSI for the dismissal of the complainants from employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause of the CBA (Annex 8 of ICTSI's Position Paper). ICTSI, for its part, also conducted its own independent investigation of the matter. On 15 September 2005, respondent ICTSI sent several memos to the complainants to give them the opportunity to explain why they should not be dismissed from employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause of the CBA (Annexes 9 to 9-F of ICTSI's Position Paper). On 19 September 2005, complainants submitted their joint explanation (Annex 10 of ICTSI's Position Paper). On the same date, ICTSI sent a Letter to Comment (Annex 11 of ICTSI's Position Paper) to the union requesting the latter to comment on the Joint Explanation. On 21 September 2005, the union submitted its Letter-Comment (Annex 12 of ICTSI's Position Paper). Only after a thorough investigation of the incident did ICTSI decide to dismiss the complainants from
25 Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs Mariano Saldivar, 504 SCRA 192 26 pp. 138-141, Rollo (2006 )

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x Employment (Annexes 13 to 13-H of ICTSI's Position Paper).27

11

Clearly, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent NLRC when it affirmed the labor arbiter's Decision which is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. For in order to establish grave abuse of discretion, there must be capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,28 which does not obtain in the present case. WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Associate Justice

APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. Associate Justice

27 pp. 31-32, Rollo 28 Planters Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 563 ( 1991)

Lagarde, et al. vs. NLRC, et al. CA-GR SP No. 100815 Decision x- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x

12

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Associate Justice Chairman, Fourth Division