PICOP RESOURCES, INC. (PRI) VS.

TAÑECA  They claimed that while it may be true that they signed the said authorization before the
G.R. No. 160828 / August 9, 2010 / PERALTA, J. / Automatic Renewal / EFHDy start of the freedom period, the petition of FFW was only filed on May 18, 2000, or 58 days
NATURE PETITION for review on certiorari after the start of the freedom period. They only desired to have a certification election
PETITIONERS PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI) among the rank-and-file employees of PRI with hopes of a CBA negotiation in due time;
RESPONDENTS Anacleto L. Tañeca, et al. and not to cause the downfall of NAMAPRI-SPFL.
 Respondents, likewise, argued that at the time NAMAPRI-SPFL demanded their
SUMMARY. Incumbent SEBA SPFL asked management to terminate respondent termination, it was no longer the bargaining representative of the rank-and-file workers of
employees pursuant to the union security clause for alleged acts of disloyalty for signing PRI, because the CBA had already expired on May 22, 2000. Hence, there could be no
the PCE of contending union FFW during the effectivity of the CBA. Respondents contend justification in PRI’s act of dismissing respondents due to acts of disloyalty.
that it may be true that they signed such PCE before the freedom period, but the petition  LA declared the respondents’ dismissal to be illegal and ordered PRI to reinstate them.
was filed w/n the freedom period. Also, by the time SPFL demanded their termination, the NLRC reversed. CA reinstated the decision of the LA.
CBA had already expired. SC ruled in favor of respondents, stating that the duty to
maintain the status quo is not applicable in this case since there was a pending PCE. ISSUES & RATIO.
DOCTRINE. The last sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains 1. WON the CBA can be given full force and effect (including the union security clause)
only to the economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect even beyond the 5-year period when no new CBA has yet been entered into. – NO.
of the CBA. An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certification PRI contends that they are enjoined to keep the status quo and continue in full force and
election. When there is a representational issue, the status quo provision in so far as the effect the terms and conditions of the existing CBA during the 60-day period and/or until a
need to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply. Otherwise, it will create an new agreement is reached by the parties.
absurd situation where the union members will be forced to maintain membership by
virtue of the union security clause existing under the CBA and, thereafter, support another The mere signing of the authorization in support of the PCE of FFW on March 19, 20 and 21,
union when filing a petition for certification election. If we apply it, there will always be an or before the “freedom period,” is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of
issue of disloyalty whenever the employees exercise their right to self-organization. The respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the freedom period.
holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented, or Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership
compromised. in good standing in the Union. Respondents did not resign or withdraw their membership
from the Union to which they belong. Respondents continued to pay their union dues and
FACTS. never joined the FFW.
 Respondents Anacleto Tañeca, et al. filed a Complaint for ULP, illegal dismissal and money
claims against petitioner PICOP (PRI), Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL), et Moreover, PRI anchored their decision to terminate respondents’ employment on Article
al. Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide members of 253 of the Labor Code which states that “it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI- status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
SPFL), the SEBA. The CBA was for 5 years (May 22, 1995 to May 22, 2000). The CBA had a agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
union security clause. parties.” It claimed that they are still bound by the Union Security Clause of the CBA even
 NAMAPRI-SPFL sent a letter to the management demanding the termination of employees after the expiration of the CBA; hence, the need to terminate the employment of
who allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the PCE of FFW during the effectivity respondents. SC says NO.
of the CBA. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of campaigning for and signing as acts of
disloyalty and a valid basis for termination for a cause. The management sent letters to the Applying Art 256 LC, it can be said that while it is incumbent for the employer to continue
concerned employees to explain in writing why their employment should not be terminated to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the
due to acts of disloyalty as alleged by their Union. After evaluation the Union found the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition for certification
member's explanations to be unsatisfactory and so they reiterated the demand for election was filed. The reason is, with a pending petition for certification, any such
termination. agreement entered into by management with a labor organization is fraught with the risk
 PRI served notices of termination for causes to the 31 out of the 46 employees on the that such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as the collective bargaining
ground of “acts of disloyalty”. representative.
 Respondents alleged that none of them ever withdrew their membership from NAMAPRI-
SPFL or submitted to PRI any union dues and check-off disauthorizations against Here, 4 petitions were filed and in fact, a petition for certification election was already
NAMAPRI-SPFL. They claimed that they continue to remain on record as bona fide ordered by the MA. Therefore, following Article 256, at the expiration of the freedom
members of NAMAPRI-SPFL. Mere affixation of their signatures on such authorization to period, PRI's obligation to recognize NAMAPRI-SPFL as the incumbent bargaining agent
file a petition for certification election was not per se an act of disloyalty. does not hold true when petitions for certification election were filed, as in this case.
 Moreover, the last sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains
only to the economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect
of the CBA. An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certification
election. When there is a representational issue, the status quo provision in so far as the
need to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply. Otherwise, it will create an
absurd situation where the union members will be forced to maintain membership by virtue
of the union security clause existing under the CBA and, thereafter, support another union
when filing a petition for certification election. If we apply it, there will always be an issue
of disloyalty whenever the employees exercise their right to self-organization. The holding
of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented, or
compromised.

Therefore, respondents were illegally dismissed and are entitled to payment of full
backwages and reinstatement. CA affirmed.

DECISION.
Petition DISMISSED.