Victoriano v.

Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94 (September 12, 1974) [

Facts:
Benjamin Victoriano(Victoriano),a member of the religious sect known as the "Iglesia ni Cristo", had been in the
employment of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Company) since 1958. As such employee,
he was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as Union) which had with the Company
a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which reads as follows:

Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by this Agreement.

Under Section 4(a), paragraph 4, of Republic Act No. 875, the employer was not precluded "from making an
agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor
organization is the representative of the employees."

On June 18, 1961, however, Republic Act No. 3350 was enacted, introducing an amendment to — paragraph (4)
subsection (a) of section 4 of Republic Act No. 875, as follows: ... "but such agreement shall not cover members
of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization".

Being a member of Iglesia ni Kristo, which prohibits the affiliation of its members with any labor organization,
Victoriano presented his resignation to the Union in 1962. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company
asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a
member. The management of the Company in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that unless the Appellee could
achieve a satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to dismiss him from the service.
This prompted Appellee to file a case enjoining the company from doing so.

The Union invoked the "union security clause" of the collective bargaining agreement and assailed the constitutionality
of Republic Act No. 3350.

The CFI ruled in favor of Victoriano. Hence, this case.

The Union contended the following:

1. The Act infringes on the fundamental right to form lawful associations.
2. It impairs the obligation of contracts in that, while the Union is obliged to comply with its collective bargaining
agreement containing a "closed shop provision," the Act relieves the employer from its reciprocal obligation of
cooperating in the maintenance of union membership as a condition of employment. It also impairs the Union's rights
as it deprives the union of dues from members who, under the Act, are relieved from the obligation to continue as such
members.
3.It discriminatorily favors those religious sects which ban their members from joining labor unions, in violation of
Article Ill, Section 1 (7) of the 1935 Constitution.
4. It violates the constitutional provision that "no religious test shall be required for the exercise of a civil right.”
5. It violates the "equal protection of laws" clause of the Constitution, it being a discriminately legislation, inasmuch
as by exempting from the operation of closed shop agreement the members of the "Iglesia ni Cristo".
6. It violates the constitutional provision regarding the promotion of social justice.

Issue: W/N R.A 3350 is constitutional. (YES)

Held: Yes. It is constitutional.

It must be pointed out that the free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case
of conflict, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former… Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental
personal right and liberty, and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights, therefore, must
yield to freedom of religion. It is only where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the
security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest
extent necessary to avoid the danger.
The purpose of Republic Act No. 3350 is secular, worldly, and temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and
eternal. It was intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the free exercise of
religion, by averting that certain persons be refused work, or be dismissed from work, or be dispossessed of their right
to work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.

An INC member may refuse to join a labor union and despite the fact that there is a close shop agreement in the factory
where he was employed, his employment could not be validly terminated for his non-membership in the majority
therein. Further, the right to join a union includes the right not to join a union. The Act is far from infringing the
constitutional provision on freedom of association for it does not prohibit the members of said religious sects from
affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate,
with labor unions.

Moreover, RA 3350 did indeed impair the union security clause of the CBA embodied in its CBA with the Company.
However, the Company was partly absolved by law from the contractual obligation it had with the Union of employing
only Union members in permanent positions, for the R.A 3350 validly introduced a change into the express terms of
the union security clause. The SC reiterated that what is prohibited is the unreasonable impairment of contract.

Lastly, the contention of the Union that Republic Act No. 3350 violates the constitutional prohibition against requiring
a religious test for the exercise of a civil right or a political right, is not well taken. Republic Act No. 3350 only
exempts members with such religious affiliation from the coverage of closed shop agreements. So, under this Act, a
religious objector is not required to do a positive act — to exercise the right to join or to resign from the union. He is
exempted ipso jure without need of any positive act on his part. A conscientious religious objector need not perform
a positive act or exercise the right of resigning from the labor union — he is exempted from the coverage of any closed
shop agreement that a labor union may have entered into.