Labor Supreme Bpi

8/12/2019 Labor Supreme Bpi

1/32

G.R. No. 185556 March 28, 2011SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NMS!IND!APL",Respondent.D E C I S I O NNAC#URA, J.:This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals CA! Decision "dated Septe#$er%&, '&&(, and Resolution dated Dece#$er ), '&&(, which affir#ed the findin* of the National+a$or Relations Co##ission N+RC! that petitioner violated certain provisions of the Collectivear*ainin* A*ree#ent CA!.

Petitioner Supre#e Steel Pipe Corporation is a do#estic corporation en*a*ed in the $usiness of#anufacturin* steel pipes for do#estic and forei*n #ar-ets. Respondent Na*-a-aisan*an**a*awa n* Supre#e Independent /nion is the certified $ar*ainin* a*ent of petitioner0sran-1and1file e#plo2ees. The CA' in 3uestion was e4ecuted $2 the parties to cover the periodfro# 5une ", '&&% to a2 %", '&&(.The CaseOn 5ul2 '6, '&&7, respondent filed a notice of stri-e with the National Conciliation and ediationoard NC! on the *round that petitioner violated certain provisions of the CA. The partiesfailed to settle their dispute. Conse3uentl2, the Secretar2 of +a$or certified the case to the N+RCfor co#pulsor2 ar$itration pursuant to Article '8%*! of the +a$or Code.Respondent alle*ed eleven CA violations, delineated as follows9

A. Denial to four e#plo2ees of the CA1 provided wa*e increaseArticle :II, Section " of the CA provides9Section ". The COPAN; shall *rant a *eneral wa*e increase, over and a$ove to all e#plo2ees,accordin* to the followin* schedule9

A. Effective 5une ", '&&% P").&& per wor-in* da2ured e#plo2ees while still within the co#pan2 pre#ises and referrin*the in>ured e#plo2ee to the Chinese eneral ospital for treat#ent, $ut the travel e4pense in*oin* to the hospital is char*ed to the e#plo2ee. Thus, when Al$erto uevarra and 5o$Cani@ares, union #e#$ers, were in>ured, the2 had to pa2 PB&.&& each for transportatione4penses in *oin* to the hospital for treat#ent and *oin* $ac- to the co#pan2 thereafter. In thecase of Rodri*o Solitario, petitioner did not even shoulder the cost of the first aid #edicine,a#ountin* to P',""%.&&, even if he was in>ured durin* the co#pan2 sportsfest, $ut the a#ountwas deducted, instead, fro# his salar2. Respondent insisted that this violates the a$ove citedprovision of the CA."7

LABOR CASES: SUPREME STEEL- BPI | 1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt1


2/32

Petitioner insisted that it provided #edicine and first aid assistance to Rodri*o Solitario. 1avvphi1It alle*ed that the latter cannot clai# hospitali@ation $enefits under Article III, Section " "8of theCA $ecause he was not confined in a hospital. "6

E. ailure to co#pl2 with the ti#e1off with pa2 provisionArticle II, Section ( of the CA provides9Section (. Ti#e1Off with Pa2. The COPAN; shall *rant to the /NION0s dul2 authori@edrepresentativeFs or to an2 e#plo2ee who are on dut2, if su##oned $2 the /NION to testif2, ifhisFher presence is necessar2, a paid ti#e1off for the handlin* of *rievances, cases,investi*ations, la$or1#ana*e#ent conferences provided that if the venue of the case is outsideCo#pan2 pre#ises involvin* GtheH i#ple#entation and interpretation of the CA, two '!representatives of the /NION who will attend the said hearin* shall $e considered ti#e1off with

pa2. If an e#plo2ee on a ni*ht shift attends *rievance on la$or1related cases and could no t reportfor wor- due to ph2sical condition, he #a2 avail of union leave without need of the two '! da2sprior notice."(

Respondent contended that under the said provision, petitioner was o$li*ed to *rant a paid ti#e1off to respondent0s dul2 authori@ed representative or to an2 e#plo2ee who was on dut2, whensu##oned $2 respondent to testif2 or when the e#plo2ee0s presence was necessar2 in the*rievance hearin*s, #eetin*s, or investi*ations."B

Petitioner ad#itted that it did not honor the clai# for wa*es of the union officers who attended the*rievance #eetin*s $ecause these #eetin*s were initiated $2 respondent itself. It ar*ued thatsince the union officerswere perfor#in* their functions as such, and not as e#plo2ees of the co#pan2, the latter shouldnot $e lia$le. Petitioner further asserted that it is not lia$le to pa2 the wa*es of the union officerswhen the #eetin*s are held $e2ond co#pan2 ti#e %9&& p.#.!. It clai#ed that ti#e1off with pa2 isallowed onl2 if the venue of the #eetin* is outside co#pan2 pre#ises and the #eetin* involvesthe i#ple#entation and interpretation of the CA.'&

In repl2, respondent averred that the a$ove 3uoted provision does not #a-e a 3ualification thatthe #eetin*s should $e held durin* office hours 69&& a.#. to %9&& p.#.!< hence, for as lon* asthe presence of the e#plo2ee is needed, ti#e spent durin* the *rievance #eetin* should $epaid.'"

. isitors0 free access to co#pan2 pre#ises Respondent char*ed petitioner with violation ofArticle II, Section 6 of the CA which provides9Section 6. ree Access to Co#pan2 Pre#ises. +ocal /nion and ederation officers su$>ect toco#pan20s securit2 #easure! shall $e allowed durin* wor-in* hours to enter the COPAN;pre#ises for the followin* reasons9

a. To investi*ate *rievances that have arisenust across the street and serious illness of ani##ediate #e#$er of the fa#il2 of the e#plo2ee livin* with hi#Fher and no one in the house can$rin* the sic- fa#il2 #e#$er to the hospital, shall $e paid as follows9

a. At least half da2 if the wor- stoppa*e occurs within the first four )! hours of wor-oined that, under the principle of e>usde# *eneris, $rownouts or power outa*esco#e within the e#er*encies conte#plated $2 the CA provision. Althou*h $rownouts were notspecificall2 identified as one of the e#er*encies listed in the said CA provision, it cannot $edenied that $rownouts fall within the sa#e -ind or class of the enu#erated e#er*encies.Respondent #aintained that the intention of the provision was to co#pensate the e#plo2ees foroccurrences which are $e2ond their control, and power outa*e is one of such occurrences. Itinsisted that the list of e#er*encies is not an e4haustive list $ut #erel2 *ives an idea as to whatconstitutes an actual e#er*enc2 that is $e2ond the control of the e#plo2ee. '7

. Dis#issal of Diosdado ada2a*

Diosdado ada2a* was e#plo2ed as welder $2 petitioner. e was served a Notice ofTer#ination dated arch "), '&&7 which read9Please consider this as a Notice of Ter#ination of e#plo2#ent effective arch "), '&&7 under

Art. '() of the +a$or Code and its I#ple#entin* Rules.This is $ased on the #edical certificate su$#itted $2 2our attendin* ph2sician, +uc2 Anne E.a#$a, .D., 5ose R. Re2es e#orial edical Center dated arch 6, '&&7 with the followin*dia*nosis9JDia$etes ellitus T2pe '0Please $e *uided accordin*l2.'8

Respondent contended that ada2a*0s dis#issal fro# e#plo2#ent is ille*al $ecause petitionerfailed to o$tain a certification fro# a co#petent pu$lic authorit2 that his disease is of such natureor at such sta*e that it cannot $e cured within si4 #onths even after proper #edical treat#ent.Petitioner also failed to prove that ada2a*0s continued e#plo2#ent was pre>udicial to his healthor that of his collea*ues.'6

Petitioner, on the other hand, alle*ed that ada2a* was validl2 ter#inated under Art. '() '(of the

+a$or Code and that his le* was a#putated $2 reason of dia$etes, which disease is not wor-1related. Petitioner clai#ed that it was willin* to pa2 ada2a* "% da2s for ever2 2ear of service $utrespondent was as-in* for additional $enefits.'B

I. Denial of paternit2 leave $enefit to two e#plo2eesArticle :, Section ' of the CA provides9Section '. Paternit2 +eave. As per lawG,H GtHhe Co#pan2 shall, as #uch as possi$le, pa2 paternit2leave within ' wee-s fro# su$#ission of docu#ents.%&

Petitioner ad#itted that it denied this $enefit to the clai#ants for failure to o$serve there3uire#ent provided in the I#ple#entin* Rules and Re*ulations of Repu$lic Act No. ("(6Paternit2 +eave Act of "BB7!, that is, to notif2 the e#plo2er of the pre*nanc2 of their wives andthe e4pected date of deliver2. %"

Respondent ar*ued that petitioner is rel2in* on technicalities $2 insistin* that the denial was dueto the two e#plo2ees0 failure to notif2 it of the pre*nanc2 of their respective spouses. It#aintained that the notification re3uire#ent runs counter to the spirit of the law. Respondentaverred that, on *rounds of social >ustice, the oversi*ht to notif2 petitioner should not $e dealt

with severel2 $2 den2in* the two clai#ants this $enefit .%'

5. Discri#ination and harass#entAccordin* to respondent, petitioner was conte#ptuous over union officers for protectin* the ri*htsof union #e#$ers. In an affidavit e4ecuted $2 Chito uada=a, union secretar2, he narrated that

Alfred Navarro, Officer1in1Char*e of the Pac-in* Depart#ent, had $een harsh in dealin* with hisfellow e#plo2ees and would even challen*e so#e wor-ers to a fi*ht. e averred that Navarrohad an over$earin* attitude durin* wor- and *rievance #eetin*s. In Nove#$er '&&), Navarrore#oved uada=a, a fore#an, fro# his position and installed another fore#an fro# anothersection. The action was alle*edl2 $rou*ht a$out $2 earlier *rievances a*ainst Navarro0s a$use.Petitioner confir#ed his transfer to another section in violation of Article I, Section 8 of theCA,%%which states in part9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt33


3/32

Section 8. Transfer of E#plo2#ent. K No per#anent positional transfer outside can $e effected$2 the COPAN; without discussin* the *rounds $efore the rievance Co##ittee. All transfershall $e with advance notice of two '! wee-s. No transfer shall interfere with the e#plo2ee0se4ercise of the ri*ht to self1or*ani@ation.%)

Respondent also alle*ed that Ariel ari*ondon, union president, was also penali@ed for wor-in*for his fellow e#plo2ees. One ti#e, ari*ondon in3uired fro# #ana*e#ent a$out #attersconcernin* ta4 discrepancies $ecause it appeared that non1ta4a$le ite#s were included as partof ta4a$le inco#e. Thereafter, ari*ondon was transferred fro# one area of operation to anotheruntil he was alle*edl2 forced to accept #enial >o$s of puttin* control ta*s on steel pipes, a -ind of

>o$ which did not re3uire his "8 2ears of e4pertise in e4a#inin* steel pipes.%7

Ed*ardo asan*ca2, respondent0s Second ice President, e4ecuted an affidavit wherein he cited

three instances when his salar2 was withheld $2 petitioner. The first incident happened on a2'(, '&&7 when petitioner refused to *ive his salar2 to his wife despite presentation of a proof ofidentification ID! and letter of authori@ation. On 5une "(, '&&7, petitioner also refused to releasehis salar2 to Pascual +a@aro despite su$#ission of a letter of authorit2 and his ID and, as a result,he was una$le to $u2 #edicine for his child who was sufferin* fro# asth#a attac-. The thirdinstance happened on 5une '7, '&&7 when his salar2 was short of P

)7&.&&< this a#ount washowever released the followin* wee-.%8

Petitioner e4plained that the transfer of the e#plo2ee fro# one depart#ent to another was theresult of downsi@in* the ? arehouse Depart#ent, which is a valid e4ercise of #ana*e#entprero*ative. In uada=a0s case, Navarro denied that he was $ein* harsh $ut clai#ed that he#erel2 wanted to stress so#e points. Petitioner e4plained that uada=a was transferred whenthe section where he was assi*ned was phased out due to the installation of new #achines.Petitioner pointed out that the other wor-ers assi*ned in said section were also transferred.%6

or the petitioner, E##anuel endiola, Production Superintendent, also e4ecuted an affidavitattestin* that the alle*ation of Ariel ari*ondon, that he was harassed and was a victi# of

discri#ination for $ein* respondent0s President, had no $asis. ari*ondon pointed out that afterthe >o$ order was co#pleted, he was reassi*ned to his ori*inal shift and *roup.%(

Petitioner also su$#itted the affidavits of Eli@a$eth +laneta A*uilar, dis$urse#ent cler- and hirin*staff, and Ro#eo T. S2, Assistant Personnel ana*er. A*uilar e4plained that she did not #ean toharass asan*ca2, $ut she #erel2 wanted to #a-e sure that he would receive his salar2. AffiantS2 ad#itted that he refused to release asan*ca20s salar2 to a wo#an who presented herself ashis asan*ca20s! wife since no$od2 could attest to it. e clai#ed that such is not an act ofharass#ent $ut a precautionar2 #easure to protect asan*ca20s interest.%B

L. Non1i#ple#entation of CO+A in ?a*e Order Nos. RIII1"& and ""Respondent posited that an2 for# of wa*e increase *ranted throu*h the CA should not $etreated as co#pliance with the wa*e increase *iven throu*h the wa*e $oards. Respondentclai#ed that, for a nu#$er of 2ears, petitioner has co#plied with Article :II, Section ' of the CAwhich provides9Section '. All salar2 increase *ranted $2 the COPAN; shall not $e credited to an2 futurecontractual or le*islated wa*e increases. oth increases shall $e i#ple#ented separate and

distinct fro# the increases stated in this A*ree#ent. It should $e understood $2 $oth parties thatcontractual salar2 increase are separate and distinct fro# le*islated wa*e increases, thus theincrease $rou*ht $2 the latter shall $e en>o2ed also $2 all covered e#plo2ees.)&

Respondent #aintained that for ever2 wa*e order that was issued in Re*ion %, petitioner neverhesitated to co#pl2 and *rant a si#ilar increase. Specificall2, respondent cited petitioner0sco#pliance with ?a*e Order No. RIII1"& and *rant of the #andated P"7.&& cost of livin*allowance CO+A! to all its e#plo2ees. Petitioner, however, stopped i#ple#entin* it to non1#ini#u# wa*e earners on 5ul2 '), '&&7. It contended that this violates Article "&& of the +a$orCode which prohi$its the di#inution of $enefits alread2 en>o2ed $2 the wor-ers and that such*rant of $enefits had alread2 ripened into a co#pan2 practice.)"

Petitioner e4plained that the CO+A provided under ?a*e Order No. RIII1"& applies to #ini#u#wa*e earners onl2 and that, $2 #ista-e, it i#ple#ented the sa#e across the $oard or to all its

e#plo2ees. After reali@in* its #ista-e, it stopped inte*ratin* the CO+A to the $asic pa2 of thewor-ers who were earnin* a$ove the #ini#u# wa*e.)'

The N+RC0s Rulin*Out of the eleven issues raised $2 respondent, ei*ht were decided in its favor< two denial ofpaternit2 leave $enefit and discri#ination of union #e#$ers! were decided in favor of petitionerect to li#itations foundin law, a CA, or the *eneral principles of fair pla2 and >ustice. It stressed that the CA providedsuch li#itation on #ana*e#ent prero*ative to contract1out la$or, and co#pliance with the CA is#andated $2 the e4press polic2 of the law.7"

inall2, the CA affir#ed the N+RC0s findin* that ada2a*0s dis#issal was ille*al. It e#phasi@edthat the $urden to prove that the e#plo2ee0s disease is of such nature or at such sta*e that itcannot $e cured within a period of si4 #onths rests on the e#plo2er. Petitioner failed to su$#it acertification fro# a co#petent pu$lic authorit2 attestin* to such fact< hence, ada2a*0s dis#issalis ille*al.7'

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt52


5/32

Petitioner #oved for a reconsideration of the CA0s decision. On Dece#$er ), '&&(, the CAdenied the #otion for lac- of #erit.7%

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari, contendin* that the CA erred infindin* that it violated certain provisions of the CA.The Court0s Rulin*The petition is partl2 #eritorious.It is a fa#iliar and funda#ental doctrine in la$or law that the CA is the law $etween the partiesand co#pliance therewith is #andated $2 the e4press polic2 of the law. If the ter#s of a CA areclear and there is no dou$t as to the intention of the contractin* parties, the literal #eanin* of itsstipulation shall prevail.7)oreover, the CA #ust $e construed li$erall2 rather than narrowl2 andtechnicall2 and the Court #ust place a practical and realistic construction upon it. 77An2 dou$t in

the interpretation of an2 law or provision affectin* la$or should $e resolved in favor of la$or.78/pon these well1esta$lished precepts, we sustain the CA0s findin*s and conclusions on all theissues, e4cept the issue pertainin* to the denial of the CO+A under ?a*e Order No. RIII1"& and"" to the e#plo2ees who are not #ini#u# wa*e earners.The wordin* of the CA on *eneral wa*e increase cannot $e interpreted an2 other wa29 TheCA increase should $e *iven to all e#plo2ees over and a$ove the a#ount the2 are receivin*,even if that a#ount alread2 includes an anniversar2 increase. Stipulations in a contract #ust $eread to*ether, not in isolation fro# one another.76Consideration of Article :III, Section ' non1creditin* provision!, $olsters such interpretation. Section ' states that GaHll salar2 increase*ranted $2 the co#pan2 shall not $e credited to an2 future contractual or le*islated wa*eincreases. Clearl2 then, even if petitioner had alread2 awarded an anniversar2 increase to itse#plo2ees, such increase cannot $e credited to the contractual increase as provided in theCA, which is considered separate and distinct.Petitioner clai#s that it has $een the co#pan2 practice to offset the anniversar2 increase with theCA increase. It however failed to prove such #aterial fact. Co#pan2 practice, >ust li-e an2 other

fact, ha$its, custo#s, usa*e or patterns of conduct #ust $e proven. The offerin* part2 #ustalle*e and prove specific, repetitive conduct that #i*ht constitute evidence of ha$it, 7(or co#pan2practice. Evidentl2, the pa2 slips of the four e#plo2ees do not serve as sufficient proof.Petitioner0s e4cuse in not providin* a shuttle service to its e#plo2ees is unaccepta$le. In fact, itcan hardl2 $e considered as an e4cuse. Petitioner si#pl2 sa2s that it is difficult to i#ple#ent theprovision. It relies on the fact that no ti#e ele#ent GisH e4plicitl2 stated Gin the CAH within whichto fulfill the underta-in*. ?e cannot allow petitioner to dill2dall2 in co#pl2in* with its o$li*ationand ta-e undue advanta*e of the fact that no period is provided in the CA. Petitioner shouldrecondition the co#pan2 vehicle at once, lest it $e char*ed with and found *uilt2 of unfair la$orpractice.Petitioner *ave a narrow construction to the wordin* of the CA when it denied a!rei#$urse#ent for the first1aid #edicines ta-en $2 Rodri*o Solitario when he was in>ured durin*the co#pan2 sportsfest and the transportation cost incurred $2 Al$erto uevara and 5o$Cani@ares in *oin* to the hospital, $! pa2#ent of the wa*es of certain e#plo2ees durin* the ti#ethe2 spent at the *rievance #eetin*s, and c! pa2#ent of the e#plo2ees0 wa*es durin* the

$rownout that occurred on 5ul2 '7, '&&'. As previousl2 stated, the CA #ust $e construedli$erall2 rather than narrowl2 and technicall2. It is the dut2 of the courts to place a practical andrealistic construction upon the CA, *ivin* due consideration to the conte4t in which it isne*otiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. A$surd and illo*ical interpretationsshould $e avoided.7BA CA, li-e an2 other contract, #ust $e interpreted accordin* to theintention of the parties.8&

The CA was correct in pointin* out that the concerned e#plo2ees were not see-in*hospitali@ation $enefits under Article III, Section " of the CA, $ut under Section ) thereofo2ed $2the e#plo2ees. There is di#inution of $enefits when it is shown that9 "! the *rant or $enefit isfounded on a polic2 or has ripened into a practice over a lon* period of ti#e< '! the practice isconsistent and deli$erate< %! the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of adou$tful or difficult 3uestion of law< and )! the di#inution or discontinuance is done unilaterall2$2 the e#plo2er.8B

To recall, the CA arrived at its rulin* $2 rel2in* on the fact that there was no a#$i*uit2 in thewordin* of the wa*e order as to the e#plo2ees covered $2 it. ro# this, the CA concluded thatpetitioner actuall2 #ade no error or #ista-e, $ut acted voluntaril2, in *rantin* the CO+A to all itse#plo2ees. It therefore too- e4ception to the lo$e ac-a2 case which, accordin* to it, appliesonl2 when there is a dou$tful or difficult 3uestion involved.The CA failed to note that lo$e ac-a2 pri#aril2 e#phasi@ed that, for the *rant of the $enefit to

$e considered voluntar2, it should have $een practiced over a lon* period of ti#e, and #ust $eshown to have $een consistent and deli$erate. 6&The fact that the practice #ust not have $eendue to error in the construction or application of a dou$tful or difficult 3uestion of law is a distinctre3uire#ent.The i#ple#entation of the CO+A under ?a*e Order No. RIII1"& across the $oard, which onl2lasted for less than a 2ear, cannot $e considered as havin* $een practiced over a lon* period ofti#e. ?hile it is true that >urisprudence has not laid down an2 rule re3uirin* a specific #ini#u#nu#$er of 2ears in order for a practice to $e considered as a voluntar2 act of the e#plo2er, undere4istin* >urisprudence on this #atter, an act carried out within less than a 2ear would certainl2 not3ualif2 as such. ence, the withdrawal of the CO+A ?a*e Order No. RIII1"& fro# the salaries ofnon1#ini#u# wa*e earners did not a#ount to a di#inution of $enefits under the law.There is also no $asis in en>oinin* petitioner to i#ple#ent ?a*e Order No. RIII1"" across the$oard. Si#ilarl2, no proof was presented showin* that the i#ple#entation of wa*e orders acrossthe $oard has ripened into a co#pan2 practice. In the sa#e wa2 that we re3uired petitioner toprove the e4istence of a co#pan2 practice when it alle*ed the sa#e as defense, at this instance,

we also re3uire respondent to show proof of the co#pan2 practice as it is now the part2 clai#in*its e4istence. A$sent an2 proof of specific, repetitive conduct that #i*ht constitute evidence of thepractice, we cannot *ive credence to respondent0s clai#. The isolated act of i#ple#entin* awa*e order across the $oard can hardl2 $e considered a co#pan2 practice, 6"#ore so when suchi#ple#entation was erroneousl2 #ade.?EREORE, pre#ises considered, the petition is PARTIA++; RANTED. The CA DecisionSepte#$er %&, '&&( and Resolution dated Dece#$er ), '&&( are AIRED withODIICATION that the order for petitioner to continue i#ple#entin* ?a*e Order No. RIII1"&and "" across the $oard is SET ASIDE. Accordin*l2, ite# "& of the N+RC Decision dated arch%&, '&&6 is #odified to read dis#iss the clai# for i#ple#entation of ?a*e Order Nos. RIII1"&and "" to the e#plo2ees who are not #ini#u# wa*e earners.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_185556_2011.html#fnt71


7/32

G.R. No. 1$005% &a'(ar) 21, 201*GO+A, INC., Petitioner,vs.GO+A, INC. EMPLO+EES UNION!W, Respondent.D E C I S I O NPERALTA, J.:This petition for review on certiorari under Rule )7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure see-s toreverse and set aside the 5une "8, '&&7 Decision "and Octo$er "', '&&7 Resolution'of the Courtof Appeals in CA1.R. SP No. (6%%7, which sustained the Octo$er '8, '&&) Decision% ofoluntar2 Ar$itrator ienvenido E. +a*ues#a, the dispositive portion of which reads9?EREORE, >ud*#ent is here$2 rendered declarin* that the Co#pan2 is NOT *uilt2 of unfair

la$or practice in en*a*in* the services of PESO.The co#pan2 is, however, directed to o$serve and co#pl2 with its co##it#ent as it pertains tothe hirin* of casual e#plo2ees when necessitated $2 $usiness circu#stances.)

The facts are si#ple and appear to $e undisputed.So#eti#e in 5anuar2 '&&), petitioner o2a, Inc. Co#pan2!, a do#estic corporation en*a*ed inthe #anufacture, i#portation, and wholesale of top 3ualit2 food products, hired contractuale#plo2ees fro# PESO Resources Develop#ent Corporation PESO! to perfor# te#porar2 andoccasional services in its factor2 in Paran*, ari-ina Cit2. This pro#pted respondent o2a, Inc.E#plo2ees /nionK? /nion! to re3uest for a *rievance conference on the *round that thecontractual wor-ers do not $elon* to the cate*ories of e#plo2ees stipulated in the e4istin*Collective ar*ainin* A*ree#ent CA!.7?hen the #atter re#ained unresolved, the *rievancewas referred to the National Conciliation and ediation oard NC! for voluntar2 ar$itration.Durin* the hearin* on 5ul2 ", '&&), the Co#pan2 and the /nion #anifested $efore oluntar2

Ar$itrator A! ienvenido E. +a*ues#a that a#ica$le settle#ent was no lon*er possi$le< hence,the2 a*reed to su$#it for resolution the solitar2 issue of GwHhether or not the Co#pan2 is *uilt2 of

unfair la$or acts in en*a*in* the services of PESO, a third part2 service provider, under thee4istin* CA, laws, and >urisprudence.8oth parties thereafter filed their respective pleadin*s.The /nion asserted that the hirin* of contractual e#plo2ees fro# PESO is not a #ana*e#entprero*ative and in *ross violation of the CA tanta#ount to unfair la$or practice /+P!. It notedthat the contractual wor-ers en*a*ed have $een assi*ned to wor- in positions previousl2 handled$2 re*ular wor-ers and /nion #e#$ers, in effect violatin* Section ), Article I of the CA, whichprovides for three cate*ories of e#plo2ees in the Co#pan2, to wit9Section ). Cate*ories of E#plo2ees.K The parties a*ree on the followin* cate*ories ofe#plo2ees9a! Pro$ationar2 E#plo2ee. K One hired to occup2 a re*ular ran-1and1file position in theCo#pan2 and is servin* a pro$ationar2 period. If the pro$ationar2 e#plo2ee is hired or co#esfro# outside the Co#pan2 non1o2a, Inc. e#plo2ee!, he shall $e re3uired to under*o apro$ationar2 period of si4 8! #onths, which period, in the sole >ud*#ent of #ana*e#ent, #a2 $eshortened if the e#plo2ee has alread2 ac3uired the -nowled*e or s-ills re3uired of the >o$. If thee#plo2ee is hired fro# the casual pool and has wor-ed in the sa#e position at an2 ti#e durin*

the past two '! 2ears, the pro$ationar2 period shall $e three %! #onths.$! Re*ular E#plo2ee. K An e#plo2ee who has satisfactoril2 co#pleted his pro$ationar2 periodand auto#aticall2 *ranted re*ular e#plo2#ent status in the Co#pan2.c! Casual E#plo2ee, K One hired $2 the Co#pan2 to perfor# occasional or seasonal wor-directl2 connected with the re*ular operations of the Co#pan2, or one hired for specific pro>ectsof li#ited duration not connected directl2 with the re*ular operations of the Co#pan2.It was averred that the cate*ories of e#plo2ees had $een a part of the CA since the "B6&s andthat due to this provision, a pool of casual e#plo2ees had $een #aintained $2 the Co#pan2 fro#which it hired wor-ers who then $eca#e re*ular wor-ers when ur*entl2 necessar2 to e#plo2the# for #ore than a 2ear. +i-ewise, the Co#pan2 so#eti#es hired pro$ationar2 e#plo2ees whoalso later $eca#e re*ular wor-ers after passin* the pro$ationar2 period. ?ith the hirin* ofcontractual e#plo2ees, the /nion contended that it would no lon*er have pro$ationar2 and

casual e#plo2ees fro# which it could o$tain additional /nion #e#$ers< thus, renderin* inutileSection ", Article III /nion Securit2! of the CA, which states9Section ". Condition of E#plo2#ent. K As a condition of continued e#plo2#ent in the Co#pan2,all re*ular ran-1and1file e#plo2ees shall re#ain #e#$ers of the /nion in *ood standin* and thatnew e#plo2ees covered $2 the appropriate $ar*ainin* unit shall auto#aticall2 $eco#e re*ulare#plo2ees of the Co#pan2 and shall re#ain #e#$ers of the /nion in *ood standin* as acondition of continued e#plo2#ent.The /nion #oreover advanced that sustainin* the Co#pan20s position would easil2 wea-en andulti#atel2 destro2 the for#er with the latter0s resort to retrench#ent andFor retire#ent ofe#plo2ees and not fillin* up the vacant re*ular positions throu*h the hirin* of contractual wor-ersfro# PESO, and that a possi$le scenario could also $e created $2 the Co#pan2 wherein it could

i#port wor-ers fro# PESO durin* an actual stri-e.In counterin* the /nion0s alle*ations, the Co#pan2 ar*ued that9 a! the law e4pressl2 allowscontractin* and su$contractin* arran*e#ents throu*h Depart#ent of +a$or and E#plo2#entDO+E! Order No. "(1&'< $! the en*a*e#ent of contractual e#plo2ees did not, in an2 wa2,pre>udice the /nion, since not a sin*le e#plo2ee was ter#inated and neither did it result in areduction of wor-in* hours nor a reduction or splittin* of the $ar*ainin* unit< and c! Section ),

Article I of the CA #erel2 provides for the definition of the cate*ories of e#plo2ees and does notput a li#itation on the Co#pan20s ri*ht to en*a*e the services of >o$ contractors or its#ana*e#ent prero*ative to address te#porar2Foccasional needs in its operation.On Octo$er '8, '&&), A +a*ues#a dis#issed the /nion0s char*e of /+P for $ein* purel2speculative and for lac-in* in factual $asis, $ut the Co#pan2 was directed to o$serve and co#pl2with its co##it#ent under the CA. The A opined9?e e4a#ined the CA provision Section ), Article I of the CAalle*edl2 violated $2 the Co#pan2and indeed the a*ree#ent prescri$es three %! cate*ories of e#plo2ees in the Co#pan2 andprovides for the definition, functions and duties of each. aterial to the case at hand is the

definition as re*ards the functions of a casual e#plo2ee descri$ed as follows9Casual E#plo2ee K One hired $2 the COPAN; to perfor# occasional or seasonal wor- directl2connected with the re*ular operations of the COPAN;, or one hired for specific pro>ects ofli#ited duration not connected directl2 with the re*ular operations of the COPAN;.?hile the fore*oin* a*ree#ent $etween the parties did eli#inate #ana*e#ent0s prero*ative ofoutsourcin* parts of its operations, it serves as a li#itation on such prero*ative particularl2 if itinvolves functions or duties specified under the afore3uoted a*ree#ent. It is clear that the partiesa*reed that in the event that the Co#pan2 needs to en*a*e the services of additional wor-erswho will perfor# occasional or seasonal wor- directl2 connected with the re*ular operations ofthe COPAN;, or specific pro>ects of li#ited duration not connected directl2 with the re*ularoperations of the COPAN;, the Co#pan2 can hire casual e#plo2ees which is a-in tocontractual e#plo2ees. If we note the Co#pan20s own declaration that PESO was en*a*ed toperfor# te#porar2 or occasional services See the Co#pan20s Position Paper, at p. "!, then itshould have directl2 hired the services of casual e#plo2ees rather than do it throu*h PESO.It is evident, therefore, that the en*a*e#ent of PESO is not in -eepin* with the intent and spirit of

the CA provision in 3uestion. It #ust, however, $e stressed that the ri*ht of #ana*e#ent tooutsource parts of its operations is not totall2 eli#inated $ut is #erel2 li#ited $2 the CA. iventhe fore*oin*, the Co#pan20s en*a*e#ent of PESO for the *iven purpose is indu$ita$l2 aviolation of the CA.6

?hile the /nion #oved for partial reconsideration of the A Decision,(the Co#pan2 i##ediatel2filed a petition for reviewB$efore the Court of Appeals CA! under Rule )% of the Revised Rules ofCivil Procedure to set aside the directive to o$serve and co#pl2 with the CA co##it#entpertainin* to the hirin* of casual e#plo2ees when necessitated $2 $usiness circu#stances.Professin* that such order was not covered $2 the sole issue su$#itted for voluntar2 ar$itration,the Co#pan2 assi*ned the followin* errors9TE ONORA+E O+/NTAR; ARITRATOR E:CEEDED IS PO?ER ?IC ?ASE:PRESS+; RANTED AND +IITED ; OT PARTIES IN R/+IN TAT TE

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt9


8/32


9/32

a la$or controvers2 has >urisdiction to render the 3uestioned ar$itral awards, deserves ourconcurrence, thus9In *eneral, the ar$itrator is e4pected to decide those 3uestions e4pressl2 stated and li#ited in thesu$#ission a*ree#ent. owever, since ar$itration is the final resort for the ad>udication ofdisputes, the ar$itrator can assu#e that he has the power to #a-e a final settle#ent. Thus,assu#in* that the su$#ission e#powers the ar$itrator to decide whether an e#plo2ee wasdischar*ed for >ust cause, the ar$itrator in this instance can reasona$l2 assu#e that his powerse4tended $e2ond *ivin* a 2es1or1no answer and included the power to reinstate hi# with orwithout $ac- pa2.In one case, the Supre#e Court stressed that 444 the oluntar2 Ar$itrator had plenar2

>urisdiction and authorit2 to interpret the a*ree#ent to ar$itrate and to deter#ine the scope of his

own authorit2 su$>ect onl2, in a proper case, to the certiorari >urisdiction of this Court. TheAr$itrator, as alread2 ind icated, viewed his authorit2 as e#$racin* not #erel2 the deter#inationof the a$stract 3uestion of whether or not a perfor#ance $onus was to $e *ranted $ut also, in theaffir#ative case, the a#ount thereof.2 the sa#e to-en, the issue of re*ulari@ation should $e viewed as two1tiered issue. ?hile thesu$#ission a*ree#ent #entioned onl2 the deter#ination of the date or re*ulari@ation, law and

>urisprudence *ive the voluntar2 ar$itrator enou*h leewa2 of authorit2 as well as ade3uateprero*ative to acco#plish the reason for which the law on voluntar2 ar$itration was created Kspeed2 la$or >ustice. It $ears stressin* that the underl2in* reason wh2 this case arose is to settle,once and for all, the ulti#ate 3uestion of whether respondent e#plo2ees are entitled to hi*her$enefits. To re3uire the# to file another action for pa2#ent of such $enefits would certainl2under#ine la$or proceedin*s and contravene the constitutional #andate providin* full protectionto la$or.'%

Indu$ita$l2, +udo fortifies, not di#inishes, the soundness of the 3uestioned A Decision. Saidcase reaffir#s the plenar2 >urisdiction and authorit2 of the voluntar2 ar$itrator to interpret the CA

and to deter#ine the scope of hisFher own authorit2. Su$>ect to >udicial review, the leewa2 ofauthorit2 as well as ade3uate prero*ative is ai#ed at acco#plishin* the rationale of the law onvoluntar2 ar$itration K speed2 la$or >ustice. In this case, a co#plete and final ad>udication of thedispute $etween the parties necessaril2 called for the resolution of the related and incidentalissue of whether the Co#pan2 still violated the CA $ut without $ein* *uilt2 of /+P as, needlessto state, /+P is co##itted onl2 if there is *ross violation of the a*ree#ent.+astl2, the Co#pan2 -ept on harpin* that $oth the A and the CA conceded that its en*a*e#entof contractual wor-ers fro# PESO was a valid e4ercise of #ana*e#ent prero*ative. It isconfused. To e#phasi@e, declarin* that a particular act falls within the concept of #ana*e#entprero*ative is si*nificantl2 different fro# ac-nowled*in* that such act is a valid e4ercise thereof.?hat the A and the CA correctl2 ruled was that the Co#pan20s act of contractin*outFoutsourcin* is within the purview of #ana*e#ent prero*ative. oth did not sa2, however, thatsuch act is a valid e4ercise thereof. O$viousl2, this is due to the reco*nition that the CAprovisions a*reed upon $2 the Co#pan2 and the /nion deli#it the free e4ercise of #ana*e#entprero*ative pertainin* to the hirin* of contractual e#plo2ees. Indeed, the A opined that the

ri*ht of the #ana*e#ent to outsource parts of its operations is not totall2 eli#inated $ut is #erel2li#ited $2 the CA, while the CA held that this #ana*e#ent prero*ative of contractin* outservices, however, is not without li#itation. 4 4 4 These cate*ories of e#plo2ees particularl2 withrespect to casual e#plo2ees serve as li#itation to the Co#pan20s prero*ative to outsource partsof its operations especiall2 when hirin* contractual e#plo2ees.

A collective $ar*ainin* a*ree#ent is the law $etween the parties9It is fa#iliar and funda#ental doctrine in la$or law that the CA is the law $etween the partiesand the2 are o$li*ed to co#pl2 with its provisions. ?e said so in onda Phils., Inc. v. Sa#ahann* ala2an* an**a*awa sa onda9

A collective $ar*ainin* a*ree#ent or CA refers to the ne*otiated contract $etween a le*iti#atela$or or*ani@ation and the e#plo2er concernin* wa*es, hours of wor- and all other ter#s andconditions of e#plo2#ent in a $ar*ainin* unit. 1wphi1As in all contracts, the parties in a CA

#a2 esta$lish such stipulations, clauses, ter#s and conditions as the2 #a2 dee# convenientprovided these are not contrar2 to law, #orals, *ood custo#s, pu$lic order or pu$lic polic2. Thus,where the CA is clear and una#$i*uous, it $eco#es the law $etween the parties andco#pliance therewith is #andated $2 the e4press polic2 of the law.oreover, if the ter#s of a contract, as in a CA, are clear and leave no dou$t upon the intentionof the contractin* parties, the literal #eanin* of their stipulations shall control. 4 4 4 .')

In this case, Section ), Article I on cate*ories of e#plo2ees! of the CA $etween the Co#pan2and the /nion #ust $e read in con>unction with its Section ", Article III on union securit2!. othare interconnected and #ust $e *iven full force and effect. Also, these provisions are clear anduna#$i*uous. The ter#s are e4plicit and the lan*ua*e of the CA is not suscepti$le to an2 otherinterpretation. ence, the literal #eanin* should prevail. As repeatedl2 held, the e4ercise of

#ana*e#ent prero*ative is not unli#ited< it is su$>ect to the li#itations found in law, collective$ar*ainin* a*ree#ent or the *eneral principles of fair pla2 and >ustice '7Evidentl2, this case hasone of the restrictions1 the presence of specific CA provisions1unli-e in San i*uel CorporationE#plo2ees /nion1PT?O v. ersa#ira,'8De Oca#po v. N+RC,'6Asian Alcohol Corporation v.N+RC,'(and Serrano v. N+RC'Bcited $2 the Co#pan2. To reiterate, the CA is the nor# ofconduct $etween the parties and co#pliance therewith is #andated $2 the e4press polic2 of thelaw.%&

?EREORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed 5une "8, '&&7 Decision, as well as theOcto$er "', '&&7 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which sustained the Octo$er '8, '&&)Decision of the oluntar2 Ar$itrator, are here$2 AIRED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_170054_2013.html#fnt30


10/32

G.R. No. 18*122 &('- 15, 2011GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION!INDEPENDENT LAOR UNION GMC!ILU", Petitioner,vs.GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION,Respondent.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14G.R. No. 18*88/GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION!INDEPENDENT LAOR UNION GMC!ILU", ET. AL,Respondents.D E C I S I O N

PERE, J.:Assailed in these petitions for review on certiorari filed pursuant to Rule )7 of the "BB6 Rules ofCivil Procedure are the Court of Appeals0CA! resolution of the separate petitions for certiorari3uestionin* the '& 5ul2 '&&8 Decision"rendered and the '% Au*ust '&&8 Resolution'issued $2the ourth Division of the National +a$or Relations Co##ission N+RC!, Ce$u Cit2, in N+RCCase No. 1&&&8%'1'&&7. In .R. No. "(%"'', petitioner eneral illin* Corporation1Independent +a$or /nion the /nion! see-s the reversal of the "& Octo$er '&&6 Decisionrendered $2 the Special Twentieth Division of the CA in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &'''8,% thedispositive portion of which states9?EREORE, all the fore*oin* pre#ises considered, the instant Petition is here$2 PARTIA++;RANTED.The 5ul2 '&, '&&8 Decision of respondent N+RC in N+RC Case No. 1&&&8%'1'&&7 is here$2

AIRED insofar as it affir#ed the Octo$er '6 , '&&7 Order of E4ecutive +a$or Ar$iter Orti@ inRA Case No. II1&81&)671"BB' with the #odification of9 a! e4cludin* the vacation leave salar2rate differentials, sic- leave salar2 rate differentials, $! e4cludin* e#plo2ees who have e4ecuted

3uitclai#s which are here$2 declared valid, and c! deductin* salar2 increases and othere#plo2#ent $enefits voluntaril2 *iven $2 respondent C in the co#putation of $enefits.

Accordin*l2, the instant case is here$2 REERRED to the RIEANCE ACINER; under thei#posed CA for the reco#putation of $enefits clai#ed $2 petitioner C1I+/ under the saidi#posed CA ta-in* into consideration the *uidelines laid down $2 the Court in this Decision aswell as the validit2 of the su$>ect 3uitclai#s herein$efore discussed.SO ORDERED.)

In .R. No. "(%((B, petitioner eneral illin* Corporation C! pra2s for the settin* aside ofthe "8 Nove#$er '&&6 Decision rendered $2 the Ei*hteenth Division of the CA in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &''%',7the decretal portion of which states9?EREORE, the Decision dated 5ul2 '&, '&&8 and the Resolution dated Au*ust '%, '&&8 ofpu$lic respondent N+RC are here$2 AIRED IN TOTO and the instant petition is DISISSED.SO ORDERED.8

The actsOn '( April "B(B, C and the /nion entered into a collective $ar*ainin* a*ree#ent CA!

which provided, a#on* other ter#s, the latter0s representation of the collective $ar*ainin* unit fora three12ear ter# #ade to retroact to " Dece#$er "B((. On 'B Nove#$er "BB" or one da2$efore the e4piration of the su$>ect CA, the /nion sent a draft CA proposal to C, with are3uest for counter1proposals fro# the latter, for the purpose of rene*otiatin* the e4istin* CA$etween the parties. In view of C0s failure to co#pl2 with said re3uest, the /nion co##encedthe co#plaint for unfair la$or practice which, under doc-et of RA Case No. II1&81&)671B', wasdis#issed for lac- of #erit in a decision dated '" Dece#$er "BB% issued $2 the Re*ional

Ar$itration ranch1II RA1II! of the National +a$or Relations Co##ission N+RC!.6 Onappeal, however, said dis#issal was reversed and set aside in the %& 5anuar2 "BB( decisionrendered $2 the ourth Division of the N+RC in N+RC Case No. 1&""'1B),( the dispositiveportion of which states9

?EREORE, pre#ises considered, the instant appeal is here$2 RANTED. The Decisiondated Dece#$er '", "BB% is here$2 ACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one issued orderin*the i#position upon the respondent co#pan2 of the co#plainant unionGJsH draft CA proposal forthe re#ainin* two 2ears duration of the ori*inal CA which is fro# Dece#$er ", "BB" toNove#$er %&, "BB%< and for the respondent to pa2 attorne20s fees.SO ORDERED.B

?ith the reconsideration and settin* aside of the fore*oin* decision in the N+RC0s resolutiondated 8 Octo$er "BB(,"&the /nion filed the petitions for certiorari doc-eted $efore the CA as CA1.R. SP Nos. 7&%(% and 7"68%. In a decision dated "B 5ul2 '&&&, the then ourteenth Division ofthe CA reversed and set aside the N+RC0s 8 Octo$er "BB( resolution and reinstated theaforesaid %& 5anuar2 "BB( decision, e4cept with respect to the undeter#ined award of attorne20s

fees which was deleted for lac- of state#ent of the $asis therefor in the assailed decision. ""A**rieved $2 the CA0s '8 Octo$er '&&& resolution den2in* its #otion for reconsideration, Celevated the case to this Court via the petition for review on certiorari doc-eted $efore this Courtas .R. No. ")86'(. In a decision dated "" e$ruar2 '&&) rendered $2 the Court0s then SecondDivision, the CA0s %& 5anuar2 "BB( decision and '8 Octo$er '&&& resolution were affir#ed, "'

upon the followin* findin*s and conclusions, to wit9C0s failure to #a-e a ti#el2 repl2 to the proposals presented $2 the union is indicative of itsutter lac- of interest in $ar*ainin* with the union. Its e4cuse that it felt the union no lon*errepresented the wor-er, was #ainl2 dilator2 as it turned out to $e utterl2 $aseless.?e hold that C0s refusal to #a-e a counter proposal to the union0s proposal for CAne*otiation is an indication of its $ad faith. ?here the e#plo2er did not even $other to su$#it ananswer to the $ar*ainin* proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the dut2 to $ar*aincollectivel2.ailin* to co#pl2 with the #andator2 o$li*ation to su$#it a repl2 to the union0s proposals, Cviolated its dut2 to $ar*ain collectivel2, #a-in* it lia$le for unfair la$or practice. Perforce, the

Court of Appeals did not co##it *rave a$use of discretion a#ountin* to lac- or e4cess of>urisdiction in findin* that C is, under the circu#stances, *uilt2 of unfair la$or practice.4 4 4 44 4 4 I!t would $e unfair to the union and its #e#$ers if the ter#s and conditions contained in theold CA would continue to $e i#posed on C0s e#plo2ees for the re#ainin* two '! 2ears ofthe CA0s duration. ?e are not inclined to *ratif2 C with an e4tended ter# of the old CAafter it resorted to dela2in* tactics to prevent ne*otiations. Since it was C which violated thedut2 to $ar*ain collectivel2, $ased on Lio- +o2 and Divine ?orld /niversit2 of Taclo$an, it hadlost its statutor2 ri*ht to ne*otiate or rene*otiate the ter#s and conditions of the draft CAproposed $2 the union.4 4 4 4/nder ordinar2 circu#stances, it is not o$li*ator2 upon either side of a la$or controvers2 toprecipitatel2 accept or a*ree to the proposals of the other. ut an errin* part2 should not $eallowed with i#punit2 to sche#es fei*nin* ne*otiations $2 *oin* throu*h e#pt2 *estures. Thus,$2 i#posin* on C the provisions of the draft CA proposed $2 the union, in our view, the

interests of e3uit2 and fair pla2 were properl2 served and $oth the parties re*ained e3ual footin*,which was lost when C thwarted the ne*otiations for new econo#ic ter#s of the CA. "%

?ith the ensuin* finalit2 of the fore*oin* decision, the /nion filed a #otion for issuance of a writof e4ecution dated '" arch '&&7, to enforce the clai#s of the covered e#plo2ees which itco#puted in the su# of P)%%,6(8,6(8.%8 and to re3uire C to produce said e#plo2ee0s ti#ecards for the purpose of co#putin* their overti#e pa2, ni*ht shift differentials and la$or standard$enefits for wor- rendered on rest da2s, le*al holida2s and special holida2s.")On "( April '&&7,however, C opposed said #otion on the *round, a#on* other #atters, that the $ar*ainin* unitno lon*er e4ist in view of the resi*nation, retrench#ent, retire#ent and separation fro# service ofwor-ers who have additionall2 e4ecuted waivers and 3uitclai#s ac-nowled*in* full settle#ent oftheir clai#s< that the covered e#plo2ees have alread2 received salar2 increases and $enefits forthe period "BB" to "BB%< and, that aside fro# the aforesaid supervenin* events which precluded

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt14


11/32

the enforce#ent thereof, the decision rendered in the case si#pl2 called for the e4ecution of aCA incorporatin* the /nion0s proposal, not the outri*ht co#putation of $enefits thereunder."7

In a Su$#ission dated '6 a2 '&&7, C further #anifested that the /nion #e#$ership in the$ar*ainin* unit did not e4ceed '(8 and that followin* e#plo2ees should $e e4cluded fro# thecovera*e of the decision sou*ht to $e enforced9 a! )6 e#plo2ees who were hired after "BB'< $!'%) e#plo2ees who had $een separated fro# the service< c! %6 e#plo2ees who, as dail2 paidran- and file e#plo2ees, were represented $2 another union and covered $2 a different CAectin* the ar*u#ent that the N+RC erred in upholdin* the E4ecutive +a$or Ar$iter0sco#putation of onl2 "& out of the "7 $enefits provided under the i#posed CA, the CA went onto ta-e appropriate note of the fact that no proof was su$#itted $2 the /nion to >ustif2 the *rant ofsaid $enefits. ?hile rulin* that the i#posed CA had the sa#e force and effect as a ne*otiatedCA, the CA, however, faulted the /nion for its hast2 and pre#ature filin* of its #otion forissuance of a writ of e4ecution, instead of first de#andin* the enforce#ent of the i#posed CAfro# C and, failin* the sa#e, referrin* the #atter to the *rievance #achiner2 or voluntar2ar$itration provided under the i#posed CA, in accordance with Articles '8& and '8" of the+a$or Code. Ac-nowled*in* the difficult2 of co#putin* the $enefits de#anded $2 the /nion in thea$sence of evidence upon which to $ase the sa#e, the CA referred the case to the rievanceachiner2 under the i#posed CA and directed the e4clusion of the followin* ite#s fro# saidco#putation9 a! the /nion0s clai#s for vacation leave salar2 rate differentials and sic- leave

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt27


12/32

salar2 rate differentials< $! the $enefits in favor of the e#plo2ees who have alread2 e4ecuted3uitclai#s in favor of C< and c! the salar2 increases and other e#plo2#ent $enefits Chad, in the #eanti#e, e4tended its e#plo2ees.'( Discontented with the CA0s ") a2 '&&(resolution den2in* its #otion for reconsideration of the fore*oin* decision,'B the /nion filed itsRule )7 petition currentl2 doc-eted $efore this Court as .R. No. "(%"''. %&

On the other hand, C0s petition for certiorari assailin* the N+RC0s '& 5ul2 '&&8 decision wasdoc-eted as CA1.R. SP No. CE1SP No. &''%' $efore the CA0s Ei*hteenth Division%"whichsu$se3uentl2 rendered the decision dated on "8 Nove#$er '&&6, dis#issin* the sa#e for lac- of#erit. indin* that $oth parties were *iven an opportunit2 to present their respective positionsdurin* the pre1e4ecution conference conducted a 3uo, the CA ruled that the E4ecutive +a$or

Ar$iter0s '6 Octo$er '&&7 order had attained finalit2 insofar as C is concerned, in view of its

failure to perfect an appeal therefro# $2 pa2in* the re3uired appeal fee and postin* the cash orsuret2 $ond in an a#ount e3uivalent to the $enefits co#puted. In addition to re>ectin* C0sar*u#ent that the 3uitclai#s e4ecuted $2 its e#plo2ees were in the nature of a supervenin*event which rendered e4ecution proceedin*s i#possi$le, the CA held that said 3uitclai#s did note4tend to the $enefits provided under the i#posed CA and that the additional $enefitssupposedl2 received $2 C0s e#plo2ees should not $e deducted therefro#, for lac- ofsufficient evidence to prove the sa#e.%'A**rieved $2 the denial of i ts #otion for reconsiderationof the fore*oin* decision in the CA0s resolution dated "& 5ul2, '&&(, %%C filed the petition forreview on certiorari doc-eted $efore us as .R. No. "(%((B. %)

The IssuesIn .R. No. "(%"'', the /nion proffers the followin* *rounds for the *rant of its petition, to wit9

I. TE CO/RT O APPEA+S RAE+; A/SED ITS DISCRETION ANDCOITTED REERSI+E ERROR IN AIRIN TE COP/TATION O TEN+RC IN ITS DECISION DATED 5/+; '&, '&&8 AND DISTORTIN TE

APP+ICATION O ARTIC+E '7% O TE +AOR CODE IN TE E:EC/TION O

TE DECISION O TIS ONORA+E CO/RT IN .R. NO. ")86'(.II. TE CO/RT O APPEA+S RAE+; A/SED ITS DISCRETION ANDCOITTED REERSI+E ERROR IN E:C+/DIN RO TE COP/TATIONTE EP+O;EES ?O AE E:EC/TED M/ITC+AIS, IN E:C+/DIN ROTE COP/TATION ACATION AND SICL +EAE SA+AR; DIERENTIA+S, ANDIN DED/CTIN A++EED SA+AR; INCREASES AND OTER ENEITS IEN ;GCH.III. TE CO/RT O APPEA+S RAE+; A/SED ITS DISCRETION ANDCOITTED REERSI+E ERROR IN REERRIN TE INSTANT CASE TO TERIEANCE ACINER; OR COP/TATION O TE ENEITS D/E /NDERTE IPOSED CA.I. TE DECISION IN TE INSTANT CASE IS IN DIRECT CON+ICT ?IT TEDECISION O ANOTER DIISION O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S INO+IN TESAE ISS/ES.%7

In .R. No. "(%((B, C pra2s for the settin* aside of the CA0s "8 Nove#$er '&&6 decision in

CA1.R. CE1SP No. &''%', on the followin* *rounds, to wit9A. TE DECISION O NOEER "8, '&&6 AND TE RESO+/TION O 5/+; "&,'&&( O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S ARE CONTRAR; TO +A?.. TE DECISION O NOEER "8, '&&6 AND TE RESO+/TION O 5/+; "&,'&&( O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S ARE NOT IN ACCORD ? IT TE APP+ICA+EDECISIONS O TIS ONORA+E CO/RT.C. TE DECISION O NOEER "8, '&&6 AND TE RESO+/TION O 5/+; "&,'&&( O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S ARE CONTRAR; TO TE ESTA+ISEDACTS.D. TE DECISION O NOEER "8, '&&6 AND TE RESO+/TION O 5/+; "&,'&&( O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S IO+ATE TE +A? O TE CASE.

E. TE DECISION O NOEER "8, '&&6 AND TE RESO+/TION O 5/+; "&,'&&( O TE CO/RT O APPEA+S CONTRAENE TEIR O?N DECISION IN ANE:ACT+; SII+AR CASE INO+IN TE SAE PARTIES.%8

As #a2 $e *leaned fro# the *rounds C and the /nion interpose in support of their respectivepetitions, it is evident that we are called upon to deter#ine the followin* #atters9 a! the period ofeffectivit2 of the i#posed CA< $! the e#plo2ees covered $2 the i#posed CA< and, c! the$enefits to $e included in the e4ecution of the "" e$ruar2 '&&) decision rendered in .R. No.")86'(. Preli#inar2 to the fore*oin* considerations is the effect of the rendition of dia#etricall2opposed decisions in CA1.R. CE. SP Nos. &'''8 and &''%' $2 the CA0s Special Twentiethand Ei*hteenth Divisions on the parties0 conflictin* clai#s.The Court0s Rulin*

?e find the reversal of the assailed decisions in order.oth C and the /nion call our attention to the fact that the "& Octo$er '&&6 decision rendered$2 the CA0s Special Twentieth Division in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &'''8 is in conflict with the "8Nove#$er '&&6 decision rendered $2 the sa#e court0s Ei*hteenth Division in CA1.R. CE1SPNo. &''%'. In .R. No. "(%"'', the /nion ar*ues that, *iven the identit2 of parties and issuesraised in said cases, the "8 Nove#$er '&&6 decision in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &''%' should have$een ta-en considered and adopted $2 the CA0s Special Twentieth Division in resolvin* its#otion for reconsideration of the "& Octo$er '&&6 decision in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &'''8. %6In.R. No. "(%((B, on the other hand, C #aintains that, havin* $een rendered ahead of the "8Nove#$er '&&6 decision in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &''%', the CA0s Special Twentieth Division0s"& Octo$er '&&6 in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &'''8 is the law of the case which the Ei*hteenthDivision erroneousl2 contravened when it dis#issed its petition for certiorari.%(

The conflictin* decisions in CA1.R. CE1SP Nos. &'''8 and &''%' would have $een, in the firstplace, avoided had the CA consolidated said cases pursuant to Section %, Rule III of its '&&'Internal Rules IRCA!.%B ein* inti#atel2 and su$stantiall2 related cases, their consolidation

should have $een ordered to avert the possi$ilit2 of conflictin* decisions in the two cases.)&

Althou*h rendered on the #erits $2 a court of co#petent >urisdiction actin* within its authorit2,neither one of said decisions can, however, $e invo-ed as law of the case insofar as the othercase is concerned. The doctrine of law of the case #eans that whatever is once irrevoca$l2esta$lished as the controllin* le*al rule or decision $etween the sa#e parties in the sa#e casecontinues to $e the law of the case, whether correct on *eneral principles or not, )"so lon* as thefacts on which such decision was predicated continue to $e the facts of the case $efore thecourt.)' Considerin* that a decision $eco#es the law of the case once it attains finalit2, )% it isevident that, without havin* achieved said status, the herein assailed decisions cannot $einvo-ed as the law of the case $2 either C or the /nion.

Anent its period of effectivit2, Article :I of the i#posed CA provides that t!his A*ree#entshall $e in full force and effect for a period of five 7! 2ears fro# " Dece#$er "BB", provided thatsi4t2 8&! da2s prior to the lapse of the third 2ear of effectivit2 hereof, the parties shall openne*otiations on econo#ic aspect for the fourth and fifth 2ears effectivit2 of this A*ree#ent. ))

Considerin* that no new CA had $een, in the #eanti#e, a*reed upon $2 C and the /nion,

we find that the CA0s Special Twentieth Division correctl2 ruled in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &'''8that, pursuant to Article '7% of the +a$or Code,)7the provisions of the i#posed CA continues tohave full force and effect until a new CA has $een entered into $2 the parties. Article '7%#andates the parties to -eep the status quoand to continue in full force and effect the ter#s andconditions of the e4istin* a*ree#ent durin* the 8&1da2 period prior to the e4piration of the oldCA andFor until a new a*ree#ent is reached $2 the parties. )8In the sa#e #anner that it doesnot provide for an2 e4ception nor 3ualification on which econo#ic provisions of the e4istin*a*ree#ent are to retain its force and effect,)6 the law does not distin*uish $etween a CA dul2a*reed upon $2 the parties and an i#posed CA li-e the one under consideration.The fore*oin* dis3uisition notwithstandin*, it $ears e#phasi@in*, however, that the dispositiveportion of the %& 5anuar2 "BB( decision rendered $2 the ourth Division of the N+RC in N+RCCase No. 1&""'1B) specificall2 ordered the i#position upon GCH of the G/nion0sH draft CA

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt47


13/32

proposal for the re#ainin* two 2ears duration of the ori*inal CA which is fro# " Dece#$er "BB"to %& Nove#$er "BB%.)(Initiall2 set aside in the 8 Octo$er "BB( resolution issued in the sa#ecase $2 the N+RC)B and reinstated in the "B 5ul2 '&&& decision rendered $2 the CA0s thenourteenth Division in CA1.R. SP Nos. 7&%(% and 7"68%, 7&said %& 5anuar2 "BB( decision wasupheld in the "" e$ruar2 '&&) decision rendered $2 this Court in .R. No. ")86'( which, inturn, affir#ed the CA0s "B 5ul2 '&&& decision as aforesaid. 7" Considerin* that the %& 5anuar2"BB( decision sou*ht to $e enforced confined the application of the i#posed CA to there#ainin* two12ear duration of the ori*inal CA, we find that the co#putation of the $enefits dueC0s covered e#plo2ees was correctl2 li#ited to the period " Dece#$er "BB" to %& Nove#$er"BB% in the '6 Octo$er '&&7 order issued $2 E4ecutive +a$or Ar$iter ioleta Orti@1antu* andthe '& 5ul2 '&&8 decision rendered $2 the N+RC in N+RC Case No. 1&&&8%'1'&&7.

Conse3uentl2, insofar as the e4ecution of the %& 5anuar2 "BB( decision is concerned, the /nionis out on a li#$ in espousin* a co#putation which e4tends the $enefits of the i#posed CA$e2ond the re#ainin* two12ear duration of the ori*inal CA. The rule is, after all, settled that anorder of e4ecution which varies the tenor of the >ud*#ent or e4ceeds the ter#s thereof is anullit2.7'Since e4ecution not in har#on2 with the >ud*#ent is $ereft of validit2, 7%it #ust confor#,#ore particularl2, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision sou*ht to$e enforced. Considerin* that the decision sou*ht to $e enforced pertains to the period "Dece#$er "BB" to %& Nove#$er "BB%, it necessaril2 follows that the co#putation of $enefitsunder the i#posed CA should $e li#ited to covered e#plo2ees who were in C0s e#plo2durin* said period of ti#e. ?hile it is true that the provisions of the i#posed CA e4tend $e2ondsaid re#ainin* two12ear duration of the ori*inal CA in view of the parties0 ad#itted failure toconclude a new CA, the correspondin* co#putation of the $enefits accruin* in favor of C0scovered e#plo2ees after the ter# of the ori*inal CA was correctl2 e4cluded in the aforesaid '6Octo$er '&&7 order issued in RA II1&81&)671"BB'. Rather than the a$$reviated pre1e4ecutionproceedin*s $efore E4ecutive +a$or Ar$iter ioleta Orti@1antu*, the co#putation of the sa#e

$enefits $e2ond %& Nove#$er "BB% should, instead, $e threshed out $2 C and the /nion inaccordance with the rievance Procedure outlined as follows under Article :II of the i#posedCA, to wit9

Article :IIRIEANCE PROCED/RESection ". ?henever an e#plo2ee covered $2 the ter#s of this A*ree#ent $elieves that theCOPAN; has violated the e4press ter#s thereof, or is a**rieved on the enforce#ent orapplication of the COPAN;0s personnel policies, heFshe shall $e re3uired to follow theprocedure hereinafter set forth in processin* the *rievance. The COPAN; will not $e re3uiredto consider a *rievance unless it is presented within 6 da2s fro# the alle*ed $reach of thee4press ter#s of this A*ree#ent or the COPAN; personnel policies,STEP I. The e#plo2ee, throu*h the /NION Steward, shall present the alle*ed *rievance inwritin* to the i##ediate superior and the2 shall endeavor to settle the *rievance within ten "&!da2s.STEP II. ailin* the settle#ent in Step I, the /NION President and the Personnel Officer shall

#eet and ad>ust the *rievance within fifteen "7! da2s.STEP III. An2 unresolved *rievance shall $e referred to the Ar$itration Co##ittee providedhereunder.Section '. Procedure $efore the rievance Co##ittee.

A. In the event a dispute arises concernin* the application or interpretation ofthe ter#s of this A*ree#ent or enforce#entFapplication of the COPAN;personnel policies which cannot $e settled pursuant to Section I and II,Section " hereof, an Ar$itration Co##ittee shall $e for#ed for the purpose ofsettlin* that particular dispute onl2. The rievance Co##ittee shall $eco#posed of three %! #e#$ers, one to $e appointed $2 the COPAN; as itsrepresentative, another to $e appointed $2 the /NION, and the third to $eappointed $2 co##on a*ree#ent of the two representatives selected fro#

a#on* the list of accredited voluntar2 ar$itrators in the Province of Ce$u, orfro# *overn#ent officials or civic leaders and responsi$le citi@ens in theco##unit2.. In all #eetin*s of the rievance Co##ittee or*ani@ed for the purpose ofresolvin* a particular dispute, all #e#$ers #ust $e present and no $usinessshall $e deli$erated upon if an2 #e#$er thereof is a$sent. owever, if an2#e#$er is una$le to attend the #eetin*, heFshe shall i##ediatel2 appoint oneto represent hi#Fher, $ut if the one appointed $2 a*ree#ent of $othrepresentatives of the COPAN; and the /NION is the one a$sent, the tworepresentatives present shall a*ree $etween the#selves on an2 person tota-e the place of the a$sent #e#$er. An2 $usiness or #atter shall $e

considered as passed and approved $2 the Co##ittee when there is a votethereoGnH $2 at least two '! #e#$ers present and the sa#e shall $e final and$indin* on the parties concerned.C. All decisions of the Co##ittee shall $e final9 provided, however, that alldecisions of the Co##ittee shall $e li#ited to the ter#s and provisions of this

A*ree#ent and in no event #a2 the ter#s and provisions of this A*ree#ent$e altered, a#ended or #odified $2 the Co##ittee.7)

Article II of the i#posed CA, relatedl2, provides that t!he e#plo2ees covered $2 thisA*ree#ent are those e#plo2ed as re*ular #onthl2 paid e#plo2ees at the GCH offices in Ce$uCit2 and +apulapu Cit2, includin* cadet en*ineers, sales#en, veterinarians, field and la$orator2wor-ers, with the e4ception of #ana*erial e#plo2ees, supervisor2 e#plo2ees, e4ecutive andconfidential secretaries, pro$ationar2 e#plo2ees and the e#plo2ees covered $2 a separateCollective ar*ainin* A*ree#ent at the Co#pan20s ill in +apulapu Cit2. 77au*ed fro# thee4press lan*ua*e of the fore*oin* provision, we find that E4ecutive +a$or Ar$iter ioleta Orti@1antu* correctl2 e4cluded the followin* e#plo2ees fro# the list of )%8 e#plo2ees su$#itted $2

the /nion78

and the co#putation of the $enefits for the period " Dece#$er "BB" to %& Nove#$er"BB%, to wit9 a! 66 e#plo2ees who were hired or re*ulari@ed after %& Nove#$er "BB%< $! %8dail2 paid ran- and file e#plo2ees who were covered $2 a separate CA< c! )"#ana*erialFsupervisor2 e#plo2ees< and, d! " e#plo2ee for who# no salar21rate infor#ation wassu$#itted in the pre#ises.76owever, we find that the '%) e#plo2ees who had alread2 $eenseparated fro# C0s e#plo2 $2 the ti#e of the rendition of the "" e$ruar2 '&&) decision in.R. No. ")86'( should further $e added to these e4cluded e#plo2ees.The record shows that said '%) e#plo2ees were union #e#$ers whose e#plo2#ent with Cceased as a conse3uence of death, ter#ination due to redundanc2, ter#ination due to closure ofplant, ter#ination for cause, voluntar2 resi*nation, separation or dis#issal fro# service as well asretire#ent.7( /pon co#pliance with C0s clearance re3uire#ents7B and in consideration ofsu#s ran*in* fro# P%(,B(&."' to P8%",(B(.6', due pa2#ent and receipt of which were dul2ac-nowled*ed, it appears that said e#plo2ees e4ecuted deeds of waiver, release and 3uitclai# 8&

which unifor#l2 stated as follows9TAT, for and in consideration of the said pa2#ent, I have re#ised, released and do here$2

dischar*e, and $2 these presents do for #2self, #2 heirs, e4ecutors and ad#inistrators, re#ise,release and forever dischar*e said ENERA+ I++IN CORPORATION, its successors andassi*ns, andFor an2 of its officers or e#plo2ees of and fro# an2 and all #anner of actions, causeor causes of actions, su# or su#s of #one2, account da#a*es, clai#s and de#ands whatsoever$2 wa2 of separation pa2, $enefits, $onuses, and all other ri*hts to co#pensation, salar2, wa*e,e#olu#ent, rei#$urse#ent, or #onetar2 $enefits, which I ever had, now have or which #2 heirs ,e4ecutors and ad#inistrators hereafter can, shall or #a2 have, upon or $2 reason of an2 #atter,cause or thin*s whatsoever in connection with #2 for#er e#plo2#ent in and retire#ent fro# thesaid ENERA+ I++IN CORPORATION.1avvphi1TAT, I have si*ned this Deed of ?aiver, Release and Muitclai# after I have read the contentsthereof and understood the sa#e and its le*al effects.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_183122_2011.html#fnt60


14/32

In its assailed "8 Nove#$er '&&6 decision in CA1.R. CE1SP No. &''%', the CA0s thenEi*hteenth Division $rushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and 3uitclai# on the *round,a#on* other #atters, that the sa#e onl2 covered the e#plo2ees0 separation pa2 and retire#ent$enefits $ut did not e4tend to the $enefits which had accrued in their favor under the i#posedCA< and, that to $e valid, the waiver should $e couched in clear and une3uivocal ter#s leavin*no dou$t as to the intention of those *ivin* up a ri*ht or a $enefit that le*all2 pertains to the#. 8"

In so doin*, however, the CA0s Ei*hteenth Division e*re*iousl2 disre*arded the clear intent onthe part of the e#plo2ees who e4ecuted said deeds of waiver, release and 3uitclai# to relin3uishall present and future clai#s arisin* out of their e#plo2#ent with C. Althou*h *enerall2loo-ed upon with disfavor,8' it cannot $e *ainsaid that le*iti#ate waivers that represent avoluntar2 and reasona$le settle#ent of la$orers clai#s should $e so respected $2 the Court as

the law $etween the parties.8%

It is onl2 where there is clear proof that the waiver was wan*ledfro# an unsuspectin* or *ulli$le person, or the ter#s of settle#ent are unconsciona$le on itsface, that the law will step in to annul the 3uestiona$le transaction. 8)The a$sence of showin* ofthese factors in the case at $ench i#pels us to uphold the vali

Documents

Labor Supreme Bpi