7/24/2019 11 Colgate Palmolive Philippines

1/2

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc., vs. Ople

G.R. No. 73681; Jne 3!, 1"88

#$CON% %I&I#ION' P(R(#, J.'

)acts'

On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union fled a Notice o Strike with the Bureau o

Laor !elations "BL!# on $round o unair laor practice consistin$ o alle$ed reusal

to ar$ain,dis%issal o union o&cers'%e%ers( and coercin$ e%plo)ees to retract

their %e%ership withthe union and restrainin$ non*union %e%ers ro% +oinin$

the union-ter e.orts at a%icale settle%ent pro/ed una/ailin$, the O&ce o the

MOL0, upon petition o petitioner assu%ed +urisdiction o/er the dispute pursuant to

-rticle 23 "$# o the Laor 4oden its position paper, the petitioner pointed out

that the inractions co%%itted ) the threesales%en ull) con/inced the co%pan),

ater in/esti$ation o the e6istence o +ust cause or their dis%issal, that their

dis%issal was carried out pursuant to the inherent ri$ht and prero$ati/e

o %ana$e%ent to disciplne errin$ e%plo)ees Moreo/er, the petitioner reuted the

union7s char$ethat the %e%ership in union and reusal to retract precipitated

their dis%issal was totall) alseand a%ounted to %alicious i%putation o union

ustin$ hre respondent union on hte other hand assailed its answers to the

petitioner7s position paperOn -u$ust 9,1985, respondent Minister rendered a

decision whichound no %erit in the Unions4o%plaint or unair laor practice

alle$edl) co%%itted ) petitioner and that the the threesales%en, :ere$rino

Sa)son, Sal/ador !e)nante ; 4ornelio Me+ia,

7/24/2019 11 Colgate Palmolive Philippines

2/2

inco%patile with a fndin$ o $uilt @here the totalit) o the e/idence was su&cient

to warrant the dis%issal o the e%plo)eesthe law warrants their dis%issal without

%akin$ an) distinction etween a frst o.ender and ahaitual delinuent Under the

law, respondent Minister is dul) %andated to euall) protect andrespect not onl)

the laor or workers side ut also the %ana$e%ent and'or e%plo)ers sidehe law,

in protectin$ the ri$hts o the laorer, authoriCes neither oppression nor sel*destructiono the e%plo)er o order the reinstate%ent o the errin$ e%plo)ees

would in e.ect encoura$euneual protection o the laws as a %ana$erial e%plo)ee

o petitioner co%pan) in/ol/ed in thesa%e incident was alread) dis%issed and was

not ordered to e reinstated -s stated ) Us inthe case o San Mi$uel Brewer) /s

National Laor Union,