VOL.

185, MAY 8, 1990 177

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

*
G.R. No. 91086. May 8, 1990.

VIRGILIO S. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, HARRISON INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION and HARRISON INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS’ UNION, respondents.

Labor Law; Remedial Law; Appeal; It is a settled principle of

remedial law that reversal of a judgment obtained by a party
appealing from it also benefits a co-party who had not appealed or
who had appealed out of time, where the right and liabilities of
both parties under the modified decision are so interwoven and
inter-dependent as to be substantively unseparable.—Petitioner
Cariño contended that the NLRC had erred in taking cognizance
of the Union’s admittedly late appeal. We agree, however, with
the Solicitor General that it is a settled principle of remedial law
that reversal of a judgment obtained by a party appealing from it
also benefits a co-party who had not appealed, or who had
appealed out of time, where the rights and liabilities of both
parties under the modified decision are so interwoven and inter-
dependent as to be substantively inseparable.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Company having seasonably
appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and the Company’s and the
Union’s liability being closely intertwined, the National Labor
Relations Commission could properly take account of the Union’s
appeal even though not seasonably filed.—In the instant case, the
NLRC could take cognizance of the late appeal of the Union,
considering that the lawfulness of petitioner Cariño’s dismissal by
the Company could be determined only after ascertaining, among
other things, the validity of the Union’s act of expelling Cariño
from its membership. In other words, the Company having
seasonably appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and the
Company’s and the Union’s liability being closely intertwined, the
NLRC could properly take account of the Union’s appeal even
though not seasonably filed.
Same; Labor Union; Dismissal; Particular charges raised
against petitioner Cariño reasonably fall within the underscored
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.—It appears to
the Court that the particular charges raised against petitioner
Cariño, set out earlier, reasonably fall within the underscored
provisions of the foregoing

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

documents. The NLRC impliedly recognized this when it

described the charges of mismanagement against Cariño as
serious.
Same; Same; Same; Failure to comply within step (a) of
Article XVI, Section 2 of the Union’s Constitution regarded as non-
material; The prescribed impeachment and recall proceeding had
been more than substantially complied with.—It is true that the
impeachment of Cariño had not been initiated by a formal petition
or resolution signed by at least thirty percent (30%) of all the
bona fide members of the Union. A general meeting had, however,
been called to take up the charges against petitioner Cariño, who
had been given multiple opportunities to defend himself before
the investigating committee of the Union officers and before the
general Union members as well as before the Bureau of Labor
Relations. Petitioner Cariño, however, chose to disregard all calls
for him to appear and defend himself. At the general membership
meeting, therefore, petitioner Cariño was impeached and ordered
recalled by unanimous vote of the membership. Under these
circumstances, failure to comply literally with step (a) of Article
XVI, Section 2 of the Union’s Constitution must be regarded as
non-material: the prescribed impeachment and recall proceeding
had been more than substantially complied with.
Same; Same; Same; Due Processes; Company should have
given petitioner Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of the
controversy with the Union.—Turning now to the involvement of
the Company in the dismissal of petitioner Cariño, we note that
the Company upon being formally advised in writing of the
expulsion of petitioner Cariño from the Union, in turn simply
issued a termination letter to Cariño, the termination being made
effective the very next day. We believe that the Company should
have given petitioner Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of
the controversy with the Union. Notwithstanding the Union’s
Security Clause in the CBA, the Company should have reasonably
satisfied itself by its own inquiry that the Union had not been
merely acting arbitrarily and capriciously in impeaching and
expelling petitioner Cariño. From what was already discussed
above, it is quite clear that had the Company taken the trouble to
investigate the acts and proceedings of the Union, it could have
very easily determined that the Union had not acted arbitrarily in
impeaching and expelling from its ranks petitioner Cariño.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of an employee to
be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable
opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the
Company or his own Union not wiped away by a Union Security
Clause or a Union Shop

179

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 179

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Clause in a CBA.—We conclude that the Company had failed to

accord to petitioner Cariño the latter’s right to procedural due
process. The right of an employee to be informed of the charges
against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a
controversy with either the Company or his own Union, is not
wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a Union Shop Clause
in a CBA. An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a
company which disregards his rights but also from his own Union
the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and
arbitrary expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from
his job.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Court does not believe that the
grant of separation pay to petitioner Cariño was an appropriate
response to the failure of the Company to accord him his full
measure of due process.—The Court does not believe, however,
that the grant of separation pay to petitioner Cariño was an
appropriate response (there having been just cause for the
dismissal) to the failure of the Company to accord him his full
measure of due process. Since petitioner Cariño had clearly
disdained answering the charges proferred against him within the
Union, there was no reason to suppose that if the Company had
held formal proceedings before dismissing him, he would have
appeared in a Company investigation and pleaded his defenses, if
he had any, against the charges against him. There was no
indication that the Company had in fact conspired with the Union
to bring about the expulsion and dismissal of petitioner Cariño;
indeed, the Union membership believed it was Cariño who had
conspired with the company in the course of negotiating the CBA.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Penalty of P5,000 payable to
petitioner Cariño quite adequate to be borne by the Company and
the Union solidarily.—Considering all the circumstances of this
case, and considering especially the nature of the charges brought
against petitioner Cariño before his own Union, the Court
believes that a penalty of P5,000 payable to petitioner Cariño
should be quite adequate, the penalty to be borne by the Company
and the Union solidarily. The Court also considers that because
the charges raised against petitioner and unanswered by him
have marked overtones of dishonesty, this is not a case where
“financial (humanitarian) assistance” to the dismissed employee
is warranted.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the

National Labor Relations Commission.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

     Federico C. Leynes for petitioner.

          Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Rañeses, Sy, Taquio &
Associates for respondent Union.
     Armando V. Ampil for respondent Harrison.

RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

Petitioner asks the Court to declare null and void a

Decision dated 26 May 1989 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. NCR-00-
09-03225-87 and to reinstate the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter which the NLRC had modified.
Petitioner Cariño was the former President of private
respondent Harrison Industrial Workers’ Union (“Union”).
Because he was widely believed to have grossly
mismanaged Union affairs, the other officers of the Union
formed an investigating committee and several times
invited petitioner Cariño to answer the complaints and
charges against him. These charges were, principally:

1. Conspiring with the company during the

negotiation of the CBA, resulting in, among other
things, Article 22 entitled “Retirement” which
provided for retirement pay of one (1) day’s basic
salary for every year of service.
2. Paying attorney’s fees to Atty. Federico Leynes,
Union counsel, out of Union funds without
obtaining corresponding receipts therefor.
3. Unilaterally increasing the membership dues by an
additional P17.00 per member in order to pay
increased attorney’s fees.
4. Concealing the CBA, failure to present and to
explain the provisions of the same prior to
ratification by the union membership.
5. Refusal to turn over the custody and management
of Union funds to the Union treasurer.

Petitioner Cariño, however, failed to respond to the calls or

invitations made by the investigating committee. Finally,
the investigating committee called a general membership
meeting on 11 June 1987. At this general membership
meeting, the
181

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 181

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

charges against petitioner were presented and discussed

and the Union decided to file a petition for special election
of its officers.
On 16 June 1987, a petition for special election of
officers was filed by the Union with the Bureau of Labor
Relations, Department of Labor and Employment. Several
hearings were held at the BLR, always with due notice to
petitioner Cariño; petitioner, however, failed to appear
even once.
On 5 August 1987, a general Union membership
meeting was held for the impeachment of Cariño. The
general membership found Cariño guilty of the above-
mentioned charges and decided to expel him from the
Union and to recommend his termination from
employment. Atty. Federico Leynes also ceased to be
counsel for the Union.
 The Union accordingly informed private respondent
Harrison Industrial Corporation (“Company”) of the
expulsion of petitioner Cariño from the Union and
demanded application of the Union Security Clause of the
then existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on 15
September 1987. Petitioner Cariño received a letter of
termination from the Company, effective the next day.
Petitioner Cariño, now represented by Atty. Leynes, the
former lawyer of the Union, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
In a Decision dated 7 October 1988, the Labor Arbiter
held that there was no just cause for the dismissal of
petitioner Cariño, none of the causes for suspension or
dismissal of Union members enumerated in the Union’s
Constitution and By-Laws being applicable to petitioner’s
situation. The Labor Arbiter also held that the manner of
petitioner’s dismissal had been in disregard of the
requirements of notice and hearing laid down in the Labor
Code. The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner’s reinstatement
with full backwages and payment of attorney’s fees, the
monetary liability to be borne solidarily by the Company
and the Union.
The Company and the Union went on appeal before the
public respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). The NLRC, in a Decision promulgated on 26 May
1989, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s award. The NLRC noted
that petitioner Cariño had merely denied the serious
charges of mismanagement

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

proferred against him, as set out in the affidavit of Dante

Maroya, the incumbent President of the Union, which
affidavit had been adopted by the Union as its position
paper in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. The
NLRC held Cariño’s silence as “tantamount to [an]
admission of guilt” and as constituting the ultimate cause
for his dismissal. However, the NLRC agreed with the
Labor Arbiter’s finding that the manner of petitioner
Cariño’s dismissal was inconsistent with the requirements
of due process. The NLRC accordingly found the Company
and the Union solidarily liable, “by way of penalty and
financial assistance”, to petitioner Cariño for payment of
separation pay, at the rate of one-half (1/2) month’s salary
for each year of service.
 In the instant Petition for Certiorari, petitioner Cariño
basically seeks reinstatement of the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
1. Petitioner Cariño contended that the NLRC had erred
in taking cognizance of the Union’s admittedly late appeal.
We agree, however, with the Solicitor General that it is a
settled principle of remedial law that reversal of a
judgment obtained by a party appealing from it also
benefits a co-party who had not appealed, or who had
appealed out of time, where the rights and liabilities of
both parties under the modified decision are so interwoven
1
and inter-dependent as to be substantively inseparable.
In the instant case, the NLRC could take cognizance of
the late appeal of the Union, considering that the
lawfulness of petitioner Cariño’s dismissal by the Company
could be determined only after ascertaining, among other
things, the validity of the Union’s act of expelling Cariño
from its membership. In other words, the Company having
seasonably appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and the
Company’s and the Union’s liability being closely
intertwined, the NLRC could properly take account of the
Union’s appeal even though not seasonably filed.
2. The NLRC in effect held that there had been just
cause for petitioner Cariño’s dismissal. The Court considers
that the NLRC was correct in so holding, considering the
following documentary provisions:

_______________

1 Government of the Philippines v. Tizon, 20 SCRA 1186 (1967).

183

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 183

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

a) Article II, Sections 4 and 5 of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement between the Company and the Union provided
as follows:

“SECTION 4. Any employee or worker obliged to join the UNION

and/or maintain membership therein under the foregoing sections
who fails to do so and/or maintain such membership shall be
dismissed without pay upon formal request of the UNION.
SECTION 5. Any UNION member may be suspended and/or
expelled by the UNION for:
 a) Non-payment of dues or special assessment to the
UNION.
b) Organizing or joining another UNION or affiliating with a
labor federation.
c) Commission of a crime as defined by the Revised Penal
Code against any UNION officer in relation to activities
for and in behalf of the UNION.
d) Participation in an unfair labor practice or any derogatory
act against the UNION or any of its officers or members;
and
e) Involvement in any violation of this Agreement or the
UNION’s Constitution and By-Laws.

The UNION assumes full and complete responsibility for all

dismissals of any worker/employee effected by the UNION and
conceded in turn, by the COMPANY pursuant to the provisions
hereof.
The UNION shall defend and hold the COMPANY free and
harmless against any and all claims the dismissed
worker/employee2 might bring and/or obtain from the Company for
such dismissal.” (Italics supplied)

b) The Constitution of the Union contains the following

provisions:

(i) Article X Section 5 reads:

“ARTICLE X—FEES, DUES, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, FINES AND

OTHER PAYMENTS
x x      x x x      x x x x

SECTION 5. Special assessments or other extraordinary fees

such as for payment of attorney’s fees shall be made only upon a
resolution duly ratified by the general membership by secret
balloting.

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 82.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission
3
x x x      x x x      x x x”
(Italics supplied.)
(ii) Article XV entitled “Discipline” provides in Section 1
thereof that:
 “SECTION 1. Any individual union members and/or union
officer may be disciplined or expelled from the UNION by the
Executive Board if the latter should find the former guilty of
charges, based on the following grounds proferred officially
against him:

a) Non-payment of dues and other assessments for two (2)

months;
b) Culpable violation of the Constitution and By-Laws;
c) Deliberate refusal to implement policies, rules and
regulations, decisions and/or support the programs or
projects of the UNION as laid down by its governing
organs or its officers; and
d) Any act inimical to the interest of the UNION and/or its
officers, such as but not limited to rumor mongering which
tends to discredit the name and integrity of the UNION
and/or its officers and creating or causing to4 create
dissension among the UNION members thereof.” (Italics
supplied.)

Article XVI entitled “Impeachment and Recall” specified, in

Section 1 thereof, the grounds for impeachment or recall of
the President and other Union officers, in the following
terms:

“a) Committing or causing the commission directly or

indirectly of acts against the interest and welfare of
the UNION;
b) Malicious attack against the UNION, its officers or
against a fellow UNION officer or member;
c) Failure to comply with the obligation to turn over
and return to the UNION Treasurer within three
(3) days are [sic] unexpected sum or sums of money
received an authorized UNION purpose;
d) Gross misconduct unbecoming of a UNION officer;
e) Misappropriation of UNION funds and property.
This is without prejudice to the filing of an
appropriate criminal or civil action against the
responsible officer or officers by any interested
party;
f) Willful violation of any provisions on this
Constitution or rules, regulations, measures,
resolution and decisions of the UNION.”5 (Italics
supplied.)

_______________
 3 Rollo, p. 151.
4 Rollo, p. 153.
5 Rollo, p. 154.

185

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 185

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

It appears to the Court that the particular charges raised

against petitioner Cariño, set out earlier, reasonably fall
within the underscored provisions of the foregoing
documents. The NLRC impliedly recognized this when it
described the charges of mismanagement against Cariño as
serious.
The Labor Arbiter, however, also held that petitioner
Cariño had been deprived of procedural due process on the
union level in view of alleged failure to comply with the
required procedure governing impeachment and recall
proceedings set out in Article XVI, Section 2, of the
Constitution of the Union. Article XVI, Section 2 reads as
follows:

“a) Impeachment or recall proceedings shall be

initiated by a formal petition or resolution signed
by at least thirty (30%) percent of all bona fide
members of the UNION and addressed to the
Chairman of the Executive board.
b) The Board Chairman shall then convene a general
membership meeting to consider the impeachment
or recall of an officer or a group of officers, whether
elective or appointive.
c) UNION officers against whom impeachment or
recall charges have been filed shall be given ample
opportunity to defend themselves before any
impeachment or recall vote is finally taken.
d) A majority of all members of the UNION shall be
required to impeach or recall UNION officers.
e) The UNION officers impeached shall ipso facto be
considered resigned or ousted from office and shall
no longer be elected nor appointed to any position
in the UNION.
f) The decision of the general membership on the
impeachment6
or recall charge shall be final and
executory.”
The NLRC, for its part, noted that while the prescribed
procedural steps had not all been followed or complied
with, still,

“Be that as it may, the general membership of the Union had

spoken and decided to expel complainant as Union President and
member and ultimately, requested the company to terminate his
services per CBA prescription. It is worthy to note that the charges
aired by Mr. Dante Maroya are serious enough for complainant to
specifically respond and explain his side at the arbitral
proceedings below. While it appears that due process was lacking
at the plant level, this was

_______________

6 Rollo, pp. 154-155.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

cured by the arbitration process conducted by the Labor Arbiter.

Despite the ample opportunity to explain his side, complainant
failed to do so and instead, relied completely on alleged denial of
due process. Complainant’s
7
silence in this respect is tantamount to
[an] admission of guilt.” (Italics supplied.)

It is true that the impeachment of Cariño had not been

initiated by a formal petition or resolution signed by at
least thirty percent (30%) of all the bona fide members of
the Union. A general meeting had, however, been called to
take up the charges against petitioner Cariño, who had
been given multiple opportunities to defend himself before
the investigating committee of the Union officers and
before the general Union members as well as before the
Bureau of Labor Relations. Petitioner Cariño, however,
chose to disregard all calls for him to appear and defend
himself. At the general membership meeting, therefore,
petitioner Cariño was impeached and ordered recalled by
unanimous vote of the membership. Under these
circumstances, failure to comply literally with step (a) of
Article XVI Section 2 of the Union’s Constitution must be
regarded as non-material: the prescribed impeachment and
recall proceeding had been more than substantially
complied with.
4. Turning now to the involvement of the Company in
the dismissal of petitioner Cariño, we note that the
Company upon being formally advised in writing of the
expulsion of petitioner Cariño from the Union, in turn
simply issued a termination letter to Cariño, the
termination being made effective the very next day. We
believe that the Company should have given petitioner
Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of the controversy
with the Union. Notwithstanding the Union’s Security
Clause in the CBA, the Company should have reasonably
satisfied itself by its own inquiry that the Union had not
been merely acting arbitrarily and capriciously in
impeaching and expelling petitioner Cariño. From what
was already discussed above, it is quite clear that had the
Company taken the trouble to investigate the acts and
proceedings of the Union, it could have very easily
determined that the Union had not acted

_______________

7 Decision of the NLRC, Rollo, pp. 27-28.

187

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 187

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

arbitrarily in impeaching and expelling from its ranks

petitioner Cariño. The Company offered the excuse that the
Union had threatened to go on strike if its request had not
been forthwith granted. Assuming that such a threat had
in fact been made, if a strike was in fact subsequently
called because the Company had insisted on conducting its
own inquiry, the Court considers that such would have
been prima facie an illegal strike. The Company also
pleaded that for it to inquire into the lawfulness of the acts
of the Union in this regard would constitute interference by
the Company in the administration of Union affairs. We do
not believe so.
In Liberty Cotton8
Mills Worker’s Union, et al. v. Liberty
Cotton Mills, et al. the Court held respondent company to
have acted in bad faith in dismissing the petitioner workers
without giving them an opportunity to present their side in
their controversy with their own union.

“x x x      x x x      x x x
It is OUR considered view that respondent company is equally
liable for the payment of backwages for having acted in bad faith
in effecting the dismissal of the individual petitioners. Bad faith
on the part of respondent company may be gleaned from the fact
that the petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily.
At best, it was guilty of a tortious act, for which it must assume
solidary liability, since it apparently chose to summarily dismiss
the workers at the union’s instance secure in the union’s
contractual undertaking that the union would hold it “free from
any liability” arising from such dismissal.
x x x      x x x      x x x
While respondent company, under the Maintenance of
Membership provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, is
bound to dismiss any employee expelled by PAFLU for disloyalty,
upon its written request, this undertaking should not be done
hastily and summarily. The company acted in bad faith in
dismissing petitioner workers without giving them the benefit of a
hearing. It did not even bother to inquire from the workers
concerned and from PAFLU itself about the cause of the expulsion
of the petitioner workers. Instead, the company immediately
dismissed the workers on May 29, 1964___in a span of only one day
—stating that it had no alternative but to comply

_______________

8 90 SCRA 391 (1979).

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

with its obligation under the Security Agreement in the Collective

Bargaining Agreement, thereby disregarding the right of the
workers to due process, self-organization and security of tenure.
x x x      x x x      x x x
The power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer.
However, this is not without limitations. The employer is bound to
exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees
especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union
pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as in the instant
case. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due
process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it
affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood.
Employers should therefore respect and protect the rights of their
employees, which include9 the right to labor. x x x
x x x      x x x      x x x”

(Italics supplied.)

In Manila Cordage 10
Company v. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., the Court stressed the requirement of
good faith on the part of the company in dismissing the
complainant and in effect held that precipitate action in
dismissing the complainant is indication of lack of good
faith.

“x x x      x x x      x x x
The contention of the petitioners that they acted in good faith
in dismissing the complainants and, therefore, should not be held
liable to pay their back wages has no merit. The dismissal of the
complainants by the petitioners was precipitate and done with
undue haste. Considering that the so-called ‘maintainance of
membership’ clause did not clearly give the petitioners the right to
dismiss the complainants if said complainants did not maintain
their membership in the Manco Labor Union, the petitioners
should have raised the issue before the Court of Industrial
Relations in a petition for11permission to dismiss the complainants.
x x x      x x x      x x x”

(Italics supplied.)

5. We conclude that the Company had failed to accord to

pe-

_______________

9 90 SCRA at pp. 393-395.

10 78 SCRA 398 (1977).
11 78 SCRA at p. 410.

189

VOL. 185, MAY 8, 1990 189

Cariño vs. National Labor Relations Commission

titioner Cariño the latter’s right to procedural due process.

The right of an employee to be informed of the charges
against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his
side in a controversy with either the Company or his own
Union, is not wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a
Union Shop Clause in a CBA. An employee is entitled to be
protected not only from a company which disregards his
rights but also from his own Union the leadership of which
could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary
expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from his
job.
The Court does not believe, however, that the grant of
separation pay to petitioner Cariño was an appropriate
response (there having been just cause for the dismissal) to
the failure of the Company to accord him his full measure
of due process. Since petitioner Cariño had clearly
disdained answering the charges proferred against him
within the Union, there was no reason to suppose that if
the Company had held formal proceedings before
dismissing him, he would have appeared in a Company
investigation and pleaded his defenses, if he had any,
against the charges against him. There was no indication
that the Company had in fact conspired with the Union to
bring about the expulsion and dismissal of petitioner
Cariño; indeed, the Union membership believed it was
Cariño who had conspired with the company in the course
of negotiating the CBA. Considering all the circumstances
of this case, and considering especially the nature of the
charges brought against petitioner Cariño before his own
Union, the Court believes that a penalty of P5,000 payable
to petitioner Cariño should be quite adequate, the penalty
to be borne by the Company and the Union solidarily. The
Court also considers that because the charges raised
against petitioner and unanswered by him have marked
overtones of dishonesty, this is not a case where “financial
(humanitarian)
12
assistance” to the dismissed employee is
warranted.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSED the Petition for
Certiorari for lack of merit but MODIFIED the Decision of
the public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission dated

_______________

12 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 164 SCRA

671 at p. 681 (1988).

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Kimberly Independent Labor Union For Solidarity,
Activism And Nationalism-Organized Labor Association In
Line Industries And Agriculture vs. Drilon

26 May 1989 by eliminating the grant of separation pay

and in lieu thereof imposing a penalty of P5,000.00 payable
to the petitioner to be borne solidarily by the Company and
the Union. No pronouncement as to costs.

     Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and

Cortés, JJ., concur.

Decision modified. Petition dismissed.

Note.—Prerogative of Management to dismiss an

employee must be done without abuse of discretion. (Euro-
 Linea, Phils. Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
156 SCRA 78.)

———o0o———

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.