Lopez vs. Chronicle Publications Employees Asso.

(Efect of Mixture of Rank and File, Supervisory, and Managerial Employees in one union)
Facts:
On June 8, 1958, the complaining employees, in cooperation with Virgilio F. Reyes, who at the
time was the News Eitor o! the newspaper "he #anila $hronicle, organi%e the $hronicle
&u'lication Employees (ssociation)
"hat therea!ter or in *eptem'er, 1958, complainants were +groune, or not gi-en any
assignments in the pu'lication.
"hat in 1958 an 1959, sai complainants were not gi-en the traitional $hristmas 'onus, as
well as the increase o! salaries grante to all employees on (pril 1, 1959.
"hat complainants Orlano (.uino an $armelito Vicente were ismisse !rom employment on
*eptem'er 9, 19/0 a!ter they cause the pu'lication in the union paper, +"he Newsman,, o! an
article entitle +&olitical &ressure1,.
2erein petitioners o not seriously contest such !acts in this proceeing, 'ut conten that the
acts complaine o! were ta3en as measures o! sel!4preser-ation, the complainants, 'y their
participation in the alleged illegal organization of a rankand!le union "ith a
supervisor, ha-ing there'y inulge in inimical an isloyal acti-ities against the 4employer.
5t is also claime that although Virgilio &. Reyes, one o! the organi%ers o! the union, resigne !rom
his position as News Eitor o! the #anila $hronicle on June 6, 1958 or 'e!ore he was electe
union presient in the organi%ational meeting hel on June 8, 1958, the union was actually
conceived or planned by him while he was still holding a supervisory position in the
establishment. "hus, the petitioners allege that the union was !orme in -iolation o! Repu'lic
(ct 865 an, conse.uently, the acti-ities o! its mem'ers are 'eyon the protection o! the law.
5n assailing the legality o! the responent union, petitioners cite *ection 7 o! Repu'lic (ct 865
which reas8
SE! "! Employees Rig#t to Self$%rgani&ation!'Employees s#all #ave t#e rig#t of self$organi&ation and to
form, (oin, or assist la)or organi&ations of t#eir o*n c#oosing and to engage in concerted activities for t#e
purpose of collective )argaining and ot#er mutual aid or protection! +ndividuals employed as supervisors
s#all not )e eligi)le for mem)ers#ip in a la)or organi&ation of employees under t#eir supervision )ut may
form separate organi&ations of t#eir o*n,- (+talics supplied!)
#ssue:
9hether or not the ineligi'ility o! one o! the organi%ers, Virgilio &. Reyes, a:ects the legality o!
the ;nion1
$eld:
%o. *ec. 7 o! R( 865 grante to all employees, whether 'elonging to the so4calle ran34an4<le
or those occupying super-isory positions, the right to organi%e, !orm or =oin la'or unions o! their
own choosing, with the only pro-iso that super-isors are not eligi'le !or mem'ership in the
organi%ation o! employees uner their super-ision. 5t may 'e o'ser-e that nothing is sai o! the
e:ect o! such ineligi'ility upon the union itsel! or on the status o! the other .uali<e mem'ers
thereo! shoul such prohi'ition 'e isregare. $onsiering that the law is speci<c where it
intens to i-est a legitimate la'or union o! any o! the rights an pri-ileges grante to it 'y law,
the a'sence o! any pro-ision on the e:ect o! the is.uali<cation o! one o! its organi%ers upon the
legality o! the union, may 'e construe to con<ne the e:ect o! such ineligi'ility only upon the
mem'ership o! the super-isor. #n other "ords& the invalidity of membership of one of the
organizers does not make the union illegal& "here the re'uirements of the la" for the
organization thereof are& nevertheless& satis!ed and met.
5n the instant case, the union was !ormally organi%e 'y Virgilio &. Reyes an the herein
complainants a!ter the !ormer ha cease 'eing a super-isory employee. >ut e-en i! Reyes too3
part in the organi%ation o! the responent ran34an4<le union while holing a super-isory
position in the company an, there!ore, is.uali<e to 'ecome a mem'er thereo!, still the nullity
o! his mem'ership i not ma3e the union itsel! in-ali nor epri-e it an the mem'ers thereo!
o! the protection grante to them 'y law.