Batch After Midterm 2015 Labor Relation

8/21/2019 Batch After Midterm 2015 Labor Relation

1/76

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

G.R. No. 146728 February 11, 2004

GENERAL MLLNG CORPORATON, petitioner,vs!ON. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL MLLNG CORPORATON N"EPEN"ENT LA#OR UNON$GMC%LU&, a'( RTO MANGU#AT, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

Before us is a petition for certiorari assailin the decision! dated "ul# !$, %&&&, of the Court of 'ppeals inC'().R. SP No. *&++, -hich earlier reversed the decision% dated "anuar# +&, !$$ of the Nationalabor Relations Co//ission 0NRC1 in NRC Case No. 2(&!!%($3.

4he antecedent facts are as follo-s5

In its t-o plants located at Cebu Cit# and apu(apu Cit#, petitioner )eneral Millin Corporation0)MC1 e/plo#ed !$& -or6ers. 4he# -ere all /e/bers of private respondent )eneral MillinCorporation Independent abor 7nion 0union, for brevit#1, a dul# certified barainin aent.

On 'pril %, !$$, )MC and the union concluded a collective barainin aree/ent 0CB'1 -hichincluded the issue of representation effective for a ter/ of three #ears. 4he CB' -as effective forthree #ears retroactive to Dece/ber !, !$. 8ence, it -ould e9pire on Nove/ber +&, !$$!.

On Nove/ber %$, !$$!, a da# before the e9piration of the CB', the union sent )MC a proposedCB', -ith a re:uest that a counter(proposal be sub/itted -ithin ten 0!&1 da#s.

's earl# as October !$$!, ho-ever, )MC had received collective and individual letters fro/-or6ers -ho stated that the# had -ithdra-n fro/ their union /e/bership, on rounds of reliiousaffiliation and personal differences. Believin that the union no loner had standin to neotiate aCB', )MC did not send an# counter(proposal.

On Dece/ber !;, !$$!, )MC -rote a letter to the union


2/76

2

case -ith the reco//endation that a petition for certification election be held to deter/ine if the union stillen@o#ed the support of the -or6ers.lawphi1.nêt

4he union appealed to the NRC.

On "anuar# +&, !$$, the NRC set aside the labor arbiter


3/76

3

48E CO7R4 O 'PPE'S COMMI44ED )R'2E 'B7SE O DISCRE4ION IN RE2ERSIN) 48EDECISION O 48E N'4ION' 'BOR RE'4IONS COMMISSION IN 48E 'BSENCE O 'NINDIN) O S7BS4'N4I' ERROR OR )R'2E 'B7SE O DISCRE4ION 'MO7N4IN) 4O 'CF ORECESS O "7RISDIC4ION.

48E CO7R4 O 'PPE'S COMMI44ED SERIO7S ERROR IN NO4 'PPRECI'4IN) 48'4 48E NRC8'S NO "7RISDIC4ION 4O DE4ERMINE 48E 4ERMS 'ND CONDI4IONS O ' COEC4I2EB'R)'ININ) ')REEMEN4.A

4hus, in the instant case, the principal issue for our deter/ination is -hether or not the Court of 'ppealsacted -ith rave abuse of discretion a/ountin to lac6 or e9cess of @urisdiction in 0!1 findin )MC uilt#of unfair labor practice for violatin the dut# to barain collectivel# andGor interferin -ith the riht of itse/plo#ees to self(orani?ation, and 0%1 i/posin upon )MC the draft CB' proposed b# the union for t-o#ears to bein fro/ the e9piration of the oriinal CB'. lawphi1.nêt

On the first issue, 'rticle %*+(' of the abor Code, as a/ended b# Rep. 'ct No. ;A!*, states5

'R4. %*+('. Ter)* o+ a o--e/e bara/'/' aree)e'. H 'n# Collective Barainin 'ree/ent that the parties /a# enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect isconcerned, be for a ter/ of five 0*1 #ears. No petition :uestionin the /a@orit# status of theincu/bent barainin aent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conductedb# the Depart/ent of abor and E/plo#/ent outside of the si9t#(da# period i//ediatel# beforethe date of e9pir# of such five #ear ter/ of the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent. 'll otherprovisions of the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent shall be reneotiated not later than three 0+1#ears after its e9ecution....

4he la- /andates that the representation provision of a CB' should last for five #ears. 4he relationbet-een labor and /anae/ent should be undisturbed until the last ;& da#s of the fifth #ear. 8ence, it isindisputable that -hen the union re:uested for a reneotiation of the econo/ic ter/s of the CB' onNove/ber %$, !$$!, it -as still the certified collective barainin aent of the -or6ers, because it -assee6in said reneotiation -ithin five 0*1 #ears fro/ the date of effectivit# of the CB' on Dece/ber !,!$. 4he union


4/76

4

'R4. %*%. Mea'/' o+ (uy o bara/' o--e/e-y. H 4he dut# to barain collectivel#/eans the perfor/ance of a /utual obliation to /eet and convene pro/ptl# ande9peditiousl# in ood faith for the purpose of neotiatin an aree/ent....

e have held that the crucial :uestion -hether or not a part# has /et his statutor# dut# tobarain in ood faith t#picall# turn on the facts of the individual case. 4here is no per se test of

ood faith in barainin.$

)ood faith or bad faith is an inference to be dra-n fro/ the facts.!&

4heeffect of an e/plo#er


5/76

5

4he Code provides5

'R4. %*+. "uy o bara/' o--e/e-y 3e' ere e5/** a o--e/e bara/'/'aree)e'. H .... It shall be the dut# of both parties to 6eep the status :uo and to continue in fullforce and effect the ter/s and conditions of the e9istin aree/ent durin the ;&(da# periodKprior to its e9piration dateL andGor until a ne- aree/ent is reached b# the parties. 07nderscorin

supplied.1

4he provision /andates the parties to 6eep the status quo -hile the# are still in the process of -or6inout their respective proposal and counter proposal. 4he eneral rule is that -hen a CB' alread# e9ists, itsprovision shall continue to overn the relationship bet-een the parties, until a ne- one is areed upon.4he rule necessaril# presupposes that all other thins are e:ual. 4hat is, that neither part# is uilt# of badfaith. 8o-ever, -hen one of the parties abuses this race period b# purposel# dela#in the baraininprocess, a departure fro/ the eneral rule is -arranted.

In Kiok Loy vs. NLRC ,!+ -e found that petitioner therein, S-eden Ice Crea/ Plant, refused to sub/it an#counter proposal to the CB' proposed b# its e/plo#ees< certified barainin aent. e ruled that thefor/er had thereb# lost its riht to barain the ter/s and conditions of the CB'. 4hus, -e did not hesitateto i/pose on the errin co/pan# the CB' proposed b# its e/plo#ees< union ( loc6, stoc6 and barrel. Our

findins in Kiok Loy are si/ilar to the facts in the present case, to -it5

petitioner Co/pan#


6/76

6

-ere properl# served and both parties reained e:ual footin, -hich -as lost -hen )MC th-arted theneotiations for ne- econo/ic ter/s of the CB'.

4he findins of fact b# the C', affir/in those of the NRC as to the reasonableness of the draft CB'proposed b# the union should not be disturbed since the# are supported b# substantial evidence. On thisscore, -e see no coent reason to rule other-ise. 8ence, -e hold that the Court of 'ppeals did not

co//it rave abuse of discretion a/ountin to lac6 or e9cess of @urisdiction -hen it i/posed on )MC,after it had co//itted unfair labor practice, the draft CB' proposed b# the union for the re/ainin t-o 0%1#ears of the duration of the oriinal CB'. airness, e:uit#, and social @ustice are best served in this caseb# sustainin the appellate court


7/76

7

Petition for certiorari to annul the decision 1 of the National abor Relations Co//ission 0NRC1 dated"ul# %&, !$A$ -hich found petitioner S-eden Ice Crea/ uilt# of unfair labor practice for un@ustifiedrefusal to barain, in violation of par. 01 of 'rticle %3$ 2 of the Ne- abor Code, and declared the draftproposal of the 7nion for a collective barainin aree/ent as the overnin collective baraininaree/ent bet-een the e/plo#ees and the /anae/ent.

4he pertinent bac6round facts are as follo-s5

In a certification election held on October +, !$A, the Pa/bansan Filusan Paa-a 07nion for short1,a leiti/ate late labor federation, -on and -as subse:uentl# certified in a resolution dated Nove/ber %$,!$A b# the Bureau of abor Relations as the sole and e9clusive barainin aent of the ran6(and(filee/plo#ees of S-eden Ice Crea/ Plant 0Co/pan# for short1. 4he Co/pan#s /otion for reconsiderationof the said resolution -as denied on "anuar# %*, !$A.

4hereafter, and /ore specificall# on Dece/ber A, !$A, the 7nion furnished 4 the Co/pan# -ith t-ocopies of its proposed collective barainin aree/ent. 't the sa/e ti/e, it re:uested the Co/pan# forits counter proposals. Elicitin no response to the aforesaid re:uest, the 7nion aain -rote the Co/pan#reiteratin its re:uest for collective barainin neotiations and for the Co/pan# to furnish the/ -ith itscounter proposals. Both re:uests -ere inored and re/ained unacted upon b# the Co/pan#.

eft -ith no other alternative in its atte/pt to brin the Co/pan# to the barainin table, the 7nion, onebruar# !3, !$A$, filed a =Notice of Stri6e=, -ith the Bureau of abor Relations 0BR1 on round ofunresolved econo/ic issues in collective barainin.

Conciliation proceedins then follo-ed durin the thirt#(da# statutor# coolin(off period. But all atte/ptsto-ards an a/icable settle/ent failed, pro/ptin the Bureau of abor Relations to certif# the case to theNational abor Relations Co//ission 0NRC1 for co/pulsor# arbitration pursuant to Presidential DecreeNo. %+, as a/ended. 4he labor arbiter, 'ndres idelino, to -ho/ the case -as assined, set the initialhearin for 'pril %$, !$A$. or failure ho-ever, of the parties to sub/it their respective position papers asre:uired, the said hearin -as cancelled and reset to another date. Mean-hile, the 7nion sub/itted itsposition paper. 4he Co/pan# did not, and instead re:uested for a resettin -hich -as ranted. 4heCo/pan# -as directed ane- to sub/it its financial state/ents for the #ears !$A;, !$AA, and !$A.

4he case -as further reset to Ma# !!, !$A$ due to the -ithdra-al of the Co/pan#s counsel of record, 'tt#. Rodolfo dela Cru?. On Ma# %3, !$A, 'tt#. ortunato Pananiban for/all# entered his appearanceas counsel for the Co/pan# onl# to re:uest for another postpone/ent alleedl# for the purpose ofac:uaintin hi/self -ith the case. Mean-hile, the Co/pan# sub/itted its position paper on Ma# %,!$A$.

hen the case -as called for hearin on "une 3, !$A$ as scheduled, the Co/pan#s representative, Mr.Chin, -ho -as supposed to be e9a/ined, failed to appear. 'tt#. Pananiban then re:uested for anotherpostpone/ent -hich the labor arbiter denied. 8e also ruled that the Co/pan# has -aived its riht topresent further evidence and, therefore, considered the case sub/itted for resolution.

On "ul# !, !$A$, labor arbiter 'ndres idelino sub/itted its report to the National abor RelationsCo//ission. On "ul# %&, !$A$, the National abor Relations Co//ission rendered its decision, thedispositive portion of -hich reads as follo-s5

8EREORE, the respondent S-eden Ice Crea/ is hereb# declared uilt# of un@ustifiedrefusal to barain, in violation of Section 01 'rticle %3 0no- 'rticle %3$1, of P.D. 33%, asa/ended. urther, the draft proposal for a collective barainin aree/ent 0E9h. =E =1hereto attached and /ade an interal part of this decision, sent b# the 7nion 0Privaterespondent1 to the respondent 0petitioner herein1 and -hich is hereb# found to be


8/76

8

reasonable under the pre/ises, is hereb# declared to be the collective aree/ent -hichshould overn the relationship bet-een the parties herein.

SO ORDERED. 0E/phasis supplied1

Petitioner no- co/es before 7s assailin the aforesaid decision contendin that the National abor

Relations Co//ission acted -ithout or in e9cess of its @urisdiction or -ith rave abuse of discretiona/ountin to lac6 of @urisdiction in renderin the challened decision. On 'uust 3, !$&, this Courtdis/issed the petition for lac6 of /erit. 7pon /otion of the petitioner, ho-ever, the Resolution of dis/issal-as reconsidered and the petition -as iven due course in a Resolution dated 'pril !, !$!.

Petitioner Co/pan# no- /aintains that its riht to procedural due process has been violated -hen it -asprecluded fro/ presentin further evidence in support of its stand and -hen its re:uest for furtherpostpone/ent -as denied. Petitioner further contends that the National abor Relations Co//issionsfindin of unfair labor practice for refusal to barain is not supported b# la- and the evidence considerinthat it -as onl# on Ma# %3, !$A$ -hen the 7nion furnished the/ -ith a cop# of the proposed CollectiveBarainin 'ree/ent and it -as onl# then that the# ca/e to 6no- of the 7nions de/ands> and finall#,that the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent approved and adopted b# the National abor RelationsCo//ission is unreasonable and lac6s leal basis.

4he petition lac6s /erit. Conse:uentl#, its dis/issal is in order.

Collective barainin -hich is defined as neotiations to-ards a collective aree/ent, 6 is one of thede/ocratic fra/e-or6s under the Ne- abor Code, desined to stabili?e the relation bet-een labor and/anae/ent and to create a cli/ate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a /utual responsibilit# ofthe e/plo#er and the 7nion and is characteri?ed as a leal obliation. So /uch so that 'rticle %3$, par.01 of the abor Code /a6es it an unfair labor practice for an e/plo#er to refuse =to /eet and convenepro/ptl# and e9peditiousl# in ood faith for the purpose of neotiatin an aree/ent -ith respect to-aes, hours of -or6, and all other ter/s and conditions of e/plo#/ent includin proposals for ad@ustinan# rievance or :uestion arisin under such an aree/ent and e9ecutin a contract incorporatin sucharee/ent, if re:uested b# either part#.

hile it is a /utual obliation of the parties to barain, the e/plo#er, ho-ever, is not under an# leal dut#to initiate contract neotiation. 7 4he /echanics of collective barainin is set in /otion onl# -hen thefollo-in @urisdictional preconditions are present, na/el#, 0!1 possession of the status of /a@orit#representation of the e/plo#ees representative in accordance -ith an# of the /eans of selection ordesination provided for b# the abor Code> 0%1 proof of /a@orit# representation> and 0+1 a de/and tobarain under 'rticle %*!, par. 0a1 of the Ne- abor Code . ... all of -hich preconditions are undisputedl#present in the instant case.

ro/ the over(all conduct of petitioner co/pan# in relation to the tas6 of neotiation, there can be nodoubt that the 7nion has a valid cause to co/plain aainst its 0Co/pan#s1 attitude, the totalit# of -hich isindicative of the latters disreard of, and failure to live up to, -hat is en@oined b# the abor Code tobarain in ood faith.

e are in total confor/it# -ith respondent NRCs pronounce/ent that petitioner Co/pan# is )7I4 ofunfair labor practice. It has been indubitabl# established that 0!1 respondent 7nion -as a dul# certifiedbarainin aent> 0%1 it /ade a definite re:uest to barain, acco/panied -ith a cop# of the proposedCollective Barainin 'ree/ent, to the Co/pan# not onl# once but t-ice -hich -ere left unans-eredand unacted upon> and 0+1 the Co/pan# /ade no counter proposal -hatsoever all of -hich conclusivel#indicate lac6 of a sincere desire to neotiate. 8 ' Co/pan#s refusal to /a6e counter proposal ifconsidered in relation to the entire barainin process, /a# indicate bad faith and this is speciall# true-here the 7nions re:uest for a counter proposal is left unans-ered. : Even durin the period ofco/pulsor# arbitration before the NRC, petitioner Co/pan#s approach and attitude(stallin the


9/76

9

neotiation b# a series of postpone/ents, non(appearance at the hearin conducted, and undue dela# insub/ittin its financial state/ents, lead to no other conclusion e9cept that it is un-illin to neotiate andreach an aree/ent -ith the 7nion. Petitioner has not at an# instance, evinced ood faith or -illinnessto discuss freel# and full# the clai/s and de/ands set forth b# the 7nion /uch less @ustif# its oppositionthereto. 10

4he case at bar is not a case of first i/pression, for in the &erald Delivery Carriers Union '()*LU+ vs.&erald (u"lications11 the rule had been laid do-n that =unfair labor practice is co//itted -hen it is sho-nthat the respondent e/plo#er, after havin been served -ith a -ritten barainin proposal b# thepetitionin 7nion, did not even bother to sub/it an ans-er or repl# to the said proposal 4his doctrine -asreiterated ane- in ,rad%an vs. Court o -ndustrial Relations 12 -herein it -as further ruled that =-hile thela- does not co/pel the parties to reach an aree/ent, it does conte/plate that both parties -illapproach the neotiation -ith an open /ind and /a6e a reasonable effort to reach a co//on round ofaree/ent

's a last(ditch atte/pt to effect a reversal of the decision souht to be revie-ed, petitioner capitali?es onthe issue of due process clai/in, that it -as denied the riht to be heard and present its side -hen theabor 'rbiter denied the Co/pan#s /otion for further postpone/ent.

Petitioners aforesaid sub/ittal failed to i/press 7s. Considerin the various postpone/ents ranted inits behalf, the clai/ed denial of due process appeared totall# bereft of an# leal and factual support. 'sherein earlier stated, petitioner had not even honored respondent 7nion -ith an# repl# to the latterssuccessive letters, all eared to-ards brinin the Co/pan# to the barainin table. It did not even bother to furnish or serve the 7nion -ith its counter proposal despite persistent re:uests /ade therefor.Certainl#, the /oves and overall behavior of petitioner(co/pan# -ere in total deroation of the polic#enshrined in the Ne- abor Code -hich is ai/ed to-ards e9peditin settle/ent of econo/ic disputes.8ence, this Court is not prepared to affi9 its i/pri/atur to such an illeal sche/e and dubious/aneuvers.

Neither are E persuaded b# petitioner(co/pan#s stand that the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent -hich-as approved and adopted b# the NRC is a total nullit# for it lac6s the co/pan#s consent, /uch less itsaru/ent that once the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent is i/ple/ented, the Co/pan# -ill face the

prospect of closin do-n because it has to pa# a staerin a/ount of econo/ic benefits to the 7nionthat -ill e:ual if not e9ceed its capital. Such a stand and the evidence in support thereof should havebeen presented before the abor 'rbiter -hich is the proper foru/ for the purpose.

e aree -ith the pronounce/ent that it is not obliator# upon either side of a labor controvers# toprecipitatel# accept or aree to the proposals of the other. But an errin part# should not be tolerated andallo-ed -ith i/punit# to resort to sche/es feinin neotiations b# oin throuh e/pt# estures. 1 Moreso, as in the instant case, -here the intervention of the National abor Relations Co//ission -asproperl# souht for after conciliation efforts underta6en b# the BR failed. 4he instant case bein acertified one, it /ust be resolved b# the NRC pursuant to the /andate of P.D. A+, as a/ended, -hichauthori?es the said bod# to deter/ine the reasonableness of the ter/s and conditions of e/plo#/ente/bodied in an# Collective Barainin 'ree/ent. 4o that e9tent, ut/ost deference to its findins ofreasonableness of an# Collective Barainin 'ree/ent as the overnin aree/ent b# the e/plo#ees

and /anae/ent /ust be accorded due respect b# this Court.

8EREORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. 4he te/porar# restrainin order issued on 'uust %A,!$&, is I4ED and SE4 'SIDE.

No pronounce/ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.


10/76

10


Manila

G.R. No. 1186 See)ber 7, 1::8

SAMA!ANG MANGGAGAA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURNG UNTE" OR;ERS OF T!EP!LPPNES $SMTFM%UP&, /* o++/er* a'( )e)ber*, petitioners,vs.NATONAL LA#OR RELATONS COMMSSON, !ON. 9OSE G. "E =ERA a'( TOP FORMMANUFACTURNG P!L., NC., respondents.

4he issue in this petition for certiorari is -hether or not an e/plo#er co//itted an unfair labor practice b#barainin in bad faith and discri/inatin aainst its e/plo#ees. 4he chare arose fro/ the e/plo#ersrefusal to rant across(the(board increases to its e/plo#ees in i/ple/entin ae Orders Nos. &! and&% of the Reional 4ripartite aes and Productivit# Board of the National Capital Reion 0R4PB(NCR1. Such refusal -as aravated b# the fact that prior to the issuance of said -ae orders, thee/plo#er alleedl# pro/ised at the collective barainin conferences to i/ple/ent an# overn/ent(/andated -ae increases on an across(the(board basis.

Petitioner Sa/ahan Manaa-a sa 4op or/ Manufacturin 7nited or6ers of the Philippines0SM4M1 -as the certified collective barainin representative of all reular ran6 and file e/plo#ees ofprivate respondent 4op or/ Manufacturin Philippines, Inc. 't the collective barainin neotiation heldat the Mil6# a# Restaurant in Ma6ati, Metro Manila on ebruar# %A, !$$&, the parties areed to discussunresolved econo/ic issues. 'ccordin to the /inutes of the /eetin, 'rticle 2II of the collectivebarainin aree/ent -as discussed. 4he follo-in appear in said Minutes5

'rt. 2II, aes

Sect. !. Defer

Sect. %. #tatus quo

Sec. +. 7nion proposed that an# future -ae increase iven b# the overn/ent shouldbe i/ple/ented b# the co/pan# across(the(board or non(conditional.

Manae/ent re:uested the union to retain this provision since their sincerit# -as alread#proven -hen the P%*.&& -ae increase -as ranted across(the(board. 4he unionac6no-ledes /anae/ents sincerit# but the# are -orried that in case there is a ne-set of /anae/ent, the# can @ust sho- their CB'. 4he union decided to defer thisprovision. 1

In their @oint affidavit dated "anuar# +&, !$$%, 2 union /e/bers Salve . Barnes, Eulisa Mendo?a,ourdes Barbero and Concesa Ibae? affir/ed that at the subse:uent collective barainin neotiations,

the union insisted on the incorporation in the collective barainin aree/ent 0CB'1 of the union proposalon =auto/atic across(the(board -ae increase.= 4he# added that5

!!. On the strenth of the representation of the neotiatin panel of the co/pan# and theabove underta6inGpro/ise /ade b# its neotiatin panel, our union areed to drop saidproposal rel#in on the underta6ins /ade b# the officials of the co/pan# -honeotiated -ith us, na/el#, Mr. illia/ Re#nolds, Mr. Sa/uel on and Mrs. Re/edioseli?ardo. 'lso, in the past #ears, the co/pan# has ranted to us overn/ent /andated-ae increases on across(the(board basis.


11/76

11

On October !*, !$$&, the R4PB(NCR issued ae Order No. &! rantin an increase of P!A.&& perda# in the salar# of -or6ers. 4his -as follo-ed b# ae Order No. &% dated Dece/ber %&, !$$&providin for a P!%.&& dail# increase in salar#.

's e9pected, the union re:uested the i/ple/entation of said -ae orders. 8o-ever, the# de/anded thatthe increase be on an across(the(board basis. Private respondent refused to accede to that de/and.

Instead, it i/ple/ented a sche/e of increases purportedl# to avoid -ae distortion. 4hus, privaterespondent ranted the P!A.&& increase under ae Order No. &! to -or6ersGe/plo#ees receivinsalar# of P!%*.&& per da# and belo-. 4he P!%.&& increase /andated b# ae Order No. &% -as rantedto those receivin the salar# of P!3&.&& per da# and belo-. or e/plo#ees receivin salar# hiher thanP!%*.&& or P!3&.&& per da#, private respondent ranted an escalated increase ranin fro/ P;.$$ toP!3.+& and fro/ P;.&& to P!&.&&, respectivel#.

On October %3, !$$!, the union, throuh its leal counsel, -rote private respondent a letter de/andinthat it should =fulfill its plede of sincerit# to the union b# rantin an across(the(board -ae increases0sic 1 to all e/plo#ees under the -ae orders.= 4he union reiterated that it had areed to =retain the oldprovision of CB'= on the strenth of private respondents =pro/ise and assurance= of an across(the(board salar# increase should the overn/ent /andate salar# increases. 4Several conferences bet-eenthe parties not-ithstandin, private respondent ada/antl# /aintained its position on the salar# increases

it had ranted that -ere purportedl# desined to avoid -ae distortion.

Conse:uentl#, the union filed a co/plaint -ith the NCR NRC allein that private respondents act of=renein on its underta6inGpro/ise clearl# constitutes act of unfair labor practice throuh barainin inbad faith.= It chared private respondent -ith acts of unfair labor practices or violation of 'rticle %3A of theabor Code, as a/ended, specificall# =barainin in bad faith,= and pra#ed that it be a-arded actual,/oral and e9e/plar# da/aes. In its position paper, the union added that it -as charin privaterespondent -ith =violation of 'rticle !&& of the abor Code.= 6

Private respondent, on the other hand, contended that in i/ple/entin ae Orders Nos. &! and &%, ithad avoided =the e9istence of a -ae distortion= that -ould arise fro/ such i/ple/entation. Ite/phasi?ed that onl# =after a reasonable lenth of ti/e fro/ the i/ple/entation= of the -ae orders =thatthe union surprisinl# raised the :uestion that the co/pan# should have i/ple/ented said -ae orders

on an across(the(board basis.= It asserted that there -as no aree/ent to the effect that future -aeincreases /andated b# the overn/ent should be i/ple/ented on an across(the(board basis. Other-ise,that aree/ent -ould have been incorporated and e9pressl# stipulated in the CB'. It :uoted theprovision of the CB' that reflects the parties intention to =full# set forth= therein all their aree/ents thathad been arrived at after neotiations that ave the parties =unli/ited riht and opportunit# to /a6ede/ands and proposals -ith respect to an# sub@ect or /atter not re/oved b# la- fro/ the area ofcollective barainin.= 4he sa/e CB' provided that durin its effectivit#, the parties =each voluntaril# andun:ualifiedl# -aives the riht, and each arees that the other shall not be obliated, to baraincollectivel#, -ith respect to an# sub@ect or /atter not specificall# referred to or covered b# this 'ree/ent,even thouh such sub@ect or /atter /a# not have been -ithin the 6no-lede or conte/plation of either or both of the parties at the ti/e the# neotiated or sined this 'ree/ent.= 7

On March !!, !$$%, abor 'rbiter "ose ). de 2era rendered a decision dis/issin the co/plaint for lac6

of /erit.8

8e considered t-o /ain issues in the case5 0a1 -hether or not respondents are uilt# of unfairlabor practice, and 0b1 -hether or not the respondents are liable to i/ple/ent ae Orders Nos. &! and&% on an across(the(board basis. indin no basis to rule in the affir/ative on both issues, he e9plainedas follo-s5

4he chare of barainin in bad faith that the co/plainant union attributes to therespondents is bereft of an# certitude inas/uch as based on the co/plainant unions o-nad/ission, the latter vacillated on its o-n proposal to adopt an across(the(board stand orfuture -ae increases. In fact, the union ac6no-ledes the /anae/ents sincerit# -henthe latter alleedl# i/ple/ented Republic 'ct ;A%A on an across(the(board basis. 4hat


12/76

12

such union proposal -as not adopted in the e9istin CB' -as due to the fact that it -asthe union itself -hich decided for its defer/ent. It is, therefore, /isleadin to clai/ thatthe /anae/ent undertoo6Gpro/ised to i/ple/ent future -ae increases on an across(the(board basis -hen as the evidence sho-s it -as the union -ho as6ed for thedefer/ent of its o-n proposal to that effect.

4he alleed discri/ination in the i/ple/entation of the sub@ect -ae orders does notinspire belief at all -here the -ae orders the/selves do not allo- the rant of -aeincreases on an across(the(board basis. 4hat there -ere e/plo#ees -ho -ere rantedthe full e9tent of the increase authori?ed and so/e others -ho received less and stillothers -ho did not receive an# increase at all, -ould not ripen into -hat the co/plainantster/ed as discri/ination. 4hat the i/ple/entation of the sub@ect -ae orders resultedinto an uneven i/ple/entation of -ae increases is @ustified under the la- to prevent an#-ae distortion. hat the respondents did under the circu/stances in order to deter aneventual -ae distortion -ithout an# arbitral proceedins is certainl# co//endable.

4he alleed violation of 'rticle !&& of the abor Code, as a/ended, as -ell as 'rticle2II, Section A of the e9istin CB' as herein earlier :uoted is li6e-ise found b# thisBranch to have no basis in fact and in la-. No benefits or privilees previousl# en@o#ed b#

the e/plo#ees -ere -ithdra-n as a result of the i/ple/entation of the sub@ect orders.i6e-ise, the alleed co/pan# practice of i/ple/entin -ae increases declared b# theovern/ent on an across(the(board basis has not been dul# established b# theco/plainants evidence. 4he co/plainants asserted that the co/pan# i/ple/entedRepublic 'ct No. ;A%A -hich ranted a -ae increase of P%*.&& effective "ul# !, !$$ onan across(the(board basis. )rantin that the sa/e is true, such isolated sinle act thatrespondents adopted -ould definitel# not ripen into a co/pan# practice. It has been saidthat =a sparro- or t-o returnin to Capistrano does not a su//er /a6e.=

inall#, on the second issue of -hether or not the e/plo#ees of the respondents areentitled to an across(the(board -ae increase pursuant to ae Orders Nos. &! and &%,in the face of the above discussion as -ell as our findin that the respondents correctl#applied the la- on -ae increases, this Branch rules in the neative.

i6e-ise, for -ant of factual basis and under the circu/stances -here our findins aboveare adverse to the co/plainants, their pra#er for /oral and e9e/plar# da/aes andattorne#s fees /a# not be ranted.

Not satisfied, petitioner appealed to the NRC that, in turn, pro/ulated the assailed Resolution of 'pril%$, !$$+: dis/issin the appeal for lac6 of /erit. Still dissatisfied, petitioner souht reconsideration -hich,ho-ever, -as denied b# the NRC in the Resolution dated "anuar# !A, !$$3. 8ence, the instant petitionfor certiorari contendin that5

( ' (

48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S )ROSS ERRED IN NO4 DEC'RIN) 48E PRI2'4E

RESPONDEN4S )7I4 O 'C4S O 7N'IR 'BOR PR'C4ICES 8EN,OB2IO7S, 48E '44ER 8'S B'R)'INED IN B'D 'I48 I48 48E 7NION 'ND8'S 2IO'4ED 48E CB' 8IC8 I4 EEC74ED I48 48E 8EREIN PE4I4IONER7NION.

( B (


13/76

13

48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S SERIO7S ERRED IN NO4 DEC'RIN) 48EPRI2'4E RESPONDEN4S )7I4 O 'C4S O DISCRIMIN'4ION IN 48EIMPEMEN4'4ION O NCR ')E ORDER NOS. &! 'ND &%.

( C (

48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S SERIO7S ERRED IN NO4 INDIN) 48E PRI2'4ERESPONDEN4S )7I4 O 8'2IN) 2IO'4ED SEC4ION 3, 'R4ICE 2II O 48EEIS4IN) CB'.

( D (

48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S )R'2E ERRED IN NO4 DEC'RIN) 48E PRI2'4ERESPONDEN4S )7I4 O 8'2IN) 2IO'4ED 'R4ICE !&& O 48E 'BOR CODEO 48E P8IIPPINES, 'S 'MENDED.

( E (

'SS7MIN), I48O74 'DMI44IN) 48'4 48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S 8'2ECORREC4 R7ED 48'4 48E PRI2'4E RESPONDEN4S 'RE )7I4 O 'C4S O7N'IR 'BOR PR'C4ICES, 48E COMMI44ED SERIO7S ERROR IN NO4 INDIN)48'4 48ERE IS ' SI)NIIC'N4 DIS4OR4ION IN 48E ')E S4R7C47RE O 48ERESPONDEN4 COMP'N.

( (

48E P7BIC RESPONDEN4S ERRED IN NO4 ''RDIN) 4O 48E PE4I4IONERS8EREIN 'C47', MOR', 'ND EEMP'R D'M')ES 'ND '44ORNES EES.

's the Court sees it, the pivotal issues in this petition can be reduced into t-o, to -it5 0a1 -hether or notprivate respondent co//itted an unfair labor practice in its refusal to rant across(the(board -ae

increases in i/ple/entin ae Orders Nos. &! and &%, and 0b1 -hether or not there -as a sinificant-ae distortion of the -ae structure in private respondent as a result of the /anner b# -hich said -aeorders -ere i/ple/ented.

ith respect to the first issue, petitioner union anchors its aru/ents on the alleed co//it/ent ofprivate respondent to rant an auto/atic across(the(board -ae increase in the event that a statutor# orleislated -ae increase is pro/ulated. It cites as basis therefor, the afore:uoted portion of the Minutesof the collective barainin neotiation on ebruar# %A, !$$& reardin -aes, aruin additionall# thatsaid Minutes for/s part of the entire aree/ent bet-een the parties.

4he basic pre/ise of this aru/ent is definitel# untenable. 4o start -ith, if there -as indeed a pro/ise orunderta6in on the part of private respondent to obliate itself to rant an auto/atic across(the(board-ae increase, petitioner union should have re:uested or de/anded that such =pro/ise or underta6in=

be incorporated in the CB'. 'fter all, petitioner union has the /eans under the la- to co/pel privaterespondent to incorporate this specific econo/ic proposal in the CB'. It could have invo6ed 'rticle %*% of the abor Code definin =dut# to barain,= thus, the dut# includes =e9ecutin a contract incorporatin sucharee/ents if re:uested b# either part#.= Petitioner unions assertion that it had insisted on theincorporation of the sa/e proposal /a# have a factual basis considerin the alleations in theafore/entioned @oint affidavit of its /e/bers. 8o-ever, 'rticle %*% also states that the dut# to barain=does not co/pel an# part# to aree to a proposal or /a6e an# concession.= 4hus, petitioner union /a#not validl# clai/ that the proposal e/bodied in the Minutes of the neotiation for/s part of the CB' that itfinall# entered into -ith private respondent.


14/76

14

4he CB' is the la- bet-een the contractin parties 10 the collective barainin representative and thee/plo#er(co/pan#. Co/pliance -ith a CB' is /andated b# the e9pressed polic# to ive protection tolabor. 11 In the sa/e vein, CB' provisions should be =construed liberall# rather than narro-l# andtechnicall#, and the courts /ust place a practical and realistic construction upon it, ivin dueconsideration to the conte9t in -hich it is neotiated and purpose -hich it is intended to serve.= 12 4his isfounded on the dictu/ that a CB' is not an ordinar# contract but one i/pressed -ith public interest. 1 Itoes -ithout sa#in, ho-ever, that onl# provisions e/bodied in the CB' should be so interpreted andco/plied -ith. here a proposal raised b# a contractin part# does not find print in the CB', 14 it is not apart thereof and the proponent has no clai/ -hatsoever to its i/ple/entation.

8ence, petitioner unions contention that the Minutes of the collective barainin neotiation /eetinfor/s part of the entire aree/ent is pointless. 4he Minutes reflects the proceedins and discussionsunderta6en in the process of barainin for -or6er benefits in the sa/e -a# that the /inutes of courtproceedins sho- -hat transpired therein. 1 't the neotiations, it is but natural for both /anae/entand labor to adopt positions or /a6e de/ands and offer proposals and counter(proposals. 8o-ever,nothin is considered final until the parties have reached an aree/ent. In fact, one of /anae/entsusual neotiation strateies is to =. . . aree tentativel# as #ou o alon -ith the understandin thatnothin is bindin until the entire aree/ent is reached.= 16 If indeed private respondent pro%ised tocontinue -ith the practice of rantin across(the(board salar# increases ordered b# the overn/ent,such pro%ise could onl# be de/andable in la- if incorporated in the CB'.

Moreover, b# /a6in such pro%ise, private respondent /a# not be considered in bad faith or at the ver#least, resortin to the sche/e of feinin to underta6e the neotiation proceedins throuh e/pt#pro/ises. 's earlier stated, petitioner union had, under the la-, the riht and the opportunit# to insist onthe oreseea"le fulfill/ent of the private respondents pro/ise b# de/andin its incorporation in the CB'.Because the proposal -as never e/bodied in the CB', the pro/ise has re/ained @ust that, a pro/ise,the i/ple/entation of -hich cannot be validl# de/anded under the la-.

Petitioners reliance on this Courts pronounce/ents 17 in Kiok Loy v. NLRC 18 is, therefore, /isplaced. Inthat case, the e/plo#er refused to barain -ith the collective barainin representative, inorin allnotices for neotiations and re:uests for counter proposals that the union had to resort to conciliationproceedins. In that case, the Court opined that =0a1 Co/pan#s refusal to /a6e counter(proposal, if

considered in relation to the entire barainin process, %ay indicate "ad aith and this is speciall# true-here the 7nions re:uest for a counter(proposal is left unans-ered.= Considerin the facts of that case,the Court concluded that the co/pan# -as =un-illin to neotiate and reach an aree/ent -ith the7nion.= 1:

In the case at bench, ho-ever, petitioner union does not den# that discussion on its proposal that allovern/ent(/andated salar# increases should be on an across(the(board basis -as =deferred,=purportedl# because it relied upon the =underta6in= of the neotiatin panel of privaterespondent. 20 Neither does petitioner union den# the fact that =there is no provision of the !$$& CB'containin a stipulation that the co/pan# -ill rant across(the(board to its e/plo#ees the /andated -aeincrease.= 4he# si/pl# assert that private respondent co//itted =acts of unfair labor practices b# virtue of its contractual co%%it%ent %ade durin the collective "arainin process.= 21 4he /ere fact, ho-ever,that the proposal in :uestion -as not included in the CB' indicates that no contractualco%%it%ent thereon -as ever /ade b# private respondent as no aree/ent had been arrived at b# theparties. 4hus5

Obviousl# the purpose of collective barainin is the reachin of an aree/ent resultinin a contract bindin on the parties> but the failure to reach an aree/ent afterneotiations continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lac6 of ood faith.4he statutes invite and conte/plate a collective barainin contract, but the# do notco/pel one. 4he dut# to barain does not include the obliation to reach anaree/ent. . . . 2


15/76

15

ith the e9ecution of the CB', bad faith barainin can no loner be i/puted upon an# of the partiesthereto. 'll provisions in the CB' are supposed to have been @ointl# and voluntaril# incorporated thereinb# the parties. 4his is not a case -here private respondent e9hibited an indifferent attitude to-ardscollective barainin because the neotiations -ere not the unilateral activit# of petitioner union. 4he CB'is proof enouh that private respondent e9erted =reasonable effort at ood faith barainin.= 2

Indeed, the ada/ant insistence on a barainin position to the point -here the neotiations reach ani/passe does not establish bad faith. Neither can bad faith be inferred fro/ a part#s insistence on theinclusion of a particular substantive provision unless it concerns trivial /atters or is obviousl#intolerable. 24

4he :uestion as to -hat are /andator# and -hat are /erel# per/issive sub@ects ofcollective barainin is of sinificance on the riht of a part# to insist on his position to thepoint of stale/ate. ' part# /a# refuse to enter into a collective barainin contract unlessit includes a desired provision as to a /atter -hich is a /andator# sub@ect of collectivebarainin> but a refusal to contract unless the aree/ent covers a /atter -hich is not a/andator# sub@ect is in substance a refusal to barain about /atters -hich are/andator# sub@ects of collective barainin, and it is no ans-er to the chare of refusalto barain in ood faith that the insistence on the disputed clause -as not the sole cause

of the failure to aree or that aree/ent -as not reached -ith respect to other disputedclauses. 2

On account of the i/portance of the econo/ic issue proposed b# petitioner union, it could have refusedto barain and to enter into a CB' -ith private respondent. On the other hand, private respondents fir/stand aainst the proposal did not /ean that it -as barainin in bad faith. It had the riht =to insist on0its1 position to the point of stale/ate.= On the part of petitioner union, the i/portance of its proposalda-ned on it onl# after the -ae orders -ere issued ater the CB' had been entered into. Indeed, fro/the facts of this case, the chare of bad faith barainin on the part of private respondent -as nothin buta belated reaction to the i/ple/entation of the -ae orders that private respondent /ade in accordance-ith la-. In other -ords, petitioner union harbored the notion that its /e/bers and the other e/plo#eescould have had a better deal in ter/s of -ae increases had it relentlessl# pursued the incorporation inthe CB' of its proposal. 4he inevitable conclusion is that private respondent did not co//it the unfair

labor practices of barainin in bad faith and discri/inatin aainst its e/plo#ees for i/ple/entin the-ae orders pursuant to la-.

4he Court li6e-ise finds un/eritorious petitioner unions contention that b# its failure to rant across(the(board -ae increases, private respondent violated the provisions of Section *, 'rticle 2II of the e9istinCB' 26 as -ell as 'rticle !&& of the abor Code. 4he CB' provision states5

Sec. *. 4he COMP'N arees to co/pl# -ith all the applicable provisions of the aborCode of the Philippines, as a/ended, and all other la-s, decrees, orders, instructions, @urisprudence, rules and reulations affectin labor.

'rt. !&& of the abor Code on prohibition aainst eli/ination or di/inution of benefits providesthat =0n1othin in this Boo6 shall be construed to eli/inate or in an# -a# di/inish supple/ents, or

other e/plo#ee benefits bein en@o#ed at the ti/e of pro/ulation of this Code.=

e aree -ith the abor 'rbiter and the NRC that no benefits or privilees previousl# en@o#ed b#petitioner union and the other e/plo#ees -ere -ithdra-n as a result of the /anner b# -hich privaterespondent i/ple/ented the -ae orders. )ranted that private respondent had ranted an across(the(board increase pursuant to Republic 'ct No. ;A%A, that sinle instance /a# not be considered anestablished co/pan# practice. Petitioner unions aru/ent in this reard is actuall# tied up -ith its clai/that the i/ple/entation of ae Orders Nos. &! and &% b# private respondent resulted in -aedistortion.


16/76

16

4he issue of -hether or not a -ae distortion e9ists is a :uestion of fact 27 that is -ithin the @urisdiction of the :uasi(@udicial tribunals belo-. actual findins of ad/inistrativeaencies are accorded respect and even finalit# in this Court if the# are supported b# substantialevidence. 28 4hus, in /etropolitan ,ank and !rust Co%pany0 -nc. v. NLRC , the Court said5

4he issue of -hether or not a -ae distortion e9ists as a conse:uence of the rant of a

-ae increase to certain e/plo#ees, -e aree, is, b# and lare, a :uestion of fact thedeter/ination of -hich is the statutor# function of the NRC. "udicial revie- of laborcases, -e /a# add, does not o be#ond the evaluation of the sufficienc# of the evidenceupon -hich the labor officials findins rest. 's such, the factual findins of the NRC areenerall# accorded not onl# respect but also finalit# provided that its decisions aresupported b# substantial evidence and devoid of an# taint of unfairness or arbitrariness.hen, ho-ever, the /e/bers of the sa/e labor tribunal are not in accord on thoseaspects of a case, as in this case, this Court is -ell cautioned not to be as so consciousin passin upon the sufficienc# of the evidence, let alone the conclusions derivedtherefro/. 2:

7nli6e in above(cited case -here the Decision of the NRC -as not unani/ous, the NRC Decision inthis case -hich -as penned b# the dissenter in that case, Presidin Co//issioner Edna Bonto(Pere?

unani/ousl# ruled that no -ae distortions /arred private respondents i/ple/entation of the -aeorders. 4he NRC said5

On the issue of -ae distortion, -e are satisfied that there -as a /eaninfuli/ple/entation of ae Orders Nos. &! and &%. 4his debun6s the clai/ that there -as-ae distortion as could be sho-n b# the ite/i?ed -aes i/ple/entation :uoted above.It should be noted that this ite/i?ation has not been successfull# traversed b# theappellants. . . . . 0

4he NRC then :uoted the labor arbiters rulin on -ae distortion.

e find no reason to depart fro/ the conclusions of both the labor arbiter and the NRC. It is apropos tonote, /oreover, that petitioners contention on the issue of -ae distortion and the resultin alleation of

discri/ination aainst the private respondents e/plo#ees are anchored on its dubious position thatprivate respondents pro/ise to rant an across(the(board increase in overn/ent(/andated salar#benefits reflected in the Minutes of the neotiation is an enforceable part of the CB'.

In the resolution of labor cases, this Court has al-a#s been uided b# the State polic# enshrined in theConstitution that the rihts of -or6ers and the pro/otion of their -elfare shall be protected. 1 4he Court isli6e-ise uided b# the oal of attainin industrial peace b# the proper application of the la-. It cannotfavor one part#, be it labor or /anae/ent, in arrivin at a @ust solution to a controvers# if the part# hasno valid support to its clai/s. It is not -ithin this Courts po-er to rule be#ond the a/bit of the la-.

8EREORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereb# DISMISSED and the :uestioned Resolutions ofthe NRC 'IRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.


17/76

17


Manila

G.R. No. 721 9u'e 20, 1:88

ASSOCATE" TRA"E UNONS $ATU&, petitioner,vs.!ON. CRESENCO #. TRA9ANO, /' /* aa/y a* "/reor o+ e #ureau o+ Labor Re-a/o'*,MOLE, #ALAG TRANST, NC. a'( TRA"E UNONS OF T!E P!LPPNES AN" ALLE"SER=CES $TUPAS&%FTU, respondents.

4he resolution of this case has been si/plified because it has been, in "ustice 2icente 'bad Santossfelicitous phrase, =overta6en b# events.=

4his case arose -hen on March %*, !$;, the private respondent union 047P'S1 filed -ith the Maloloslabor office of the MOE a petition for certification election at the Bali-a 4ransit, Inc. a/on its ran6(and(file -or6ers.! Despite opposition fro/ the herein petitioner, 'ssociated 4rade 7nions 0'471, the petition-as ranted b# the /ed(arbiter on Ma# !3, !$;, and a certification election -as ordered =to deter/ine

the e9clusive barainin aent 0of the -or6ers1 for purposes of collective barainin -ith respect to 0their1ter/s and conditions of e/plo#/ent.= % On appeal, this order -as sustained b# the respondent Directorof abor Relations in his order dated "une %&, !$;, -hich he affir/ed in his order of "ul# !A, !$;,den#in the /otion for reconsideration. + '47 then ca/e to this Court clai/in that the said orders aretainted -ith rave abuse of discretion and so should be reversed. On 'uust %&, !$;, -e issued ate/porar# restrainin order that has /aintained the status quo a/on the parties. 3

In support of its petition, '47 clai/s that the private respondents petition for certification election isdefective because 0!1 at the ti/e it -as filed, it did not contain the sinatures of +&Q of the -or6ers, tosinif# their consent to the certification election> and 0%1 it -as not allo-ed under the contract(bar rulebecause a ne- collective barainin aree/ent had been entered into b# '47 -ith the co/pan# on 'pril!, !$;. *

47P'S for its part, supported b# the Solicitor )eneral, contends that the +&Q consent re:uire/ent hasbeen substantiall# co/plied -ith, the -or6ers sinatures havin been subse:uentl# sub/itted andad/itted. 's for the contract(bar rule, its position is that the collective barainin aree/ent, besidesbein vitiated b# certain procedural defects, -as concluded b# '47 -ith the /anae/ent onl# on 'pril !,!$; after the filin of the petition for certification election on March %*, !$;. ;

4his initial sparrin -as follo-ed b# a spirited e9chane of vie-s a/on the parties -hich insofar as thefirst issue is concerned has beco/e at best onl# acade/ic no-. 4he reason is that the +&Q consentre:uired under then Section %* of the abor Code is no loner in force o-in to the a/end/ent of thissection b# E9ecutive Order No. !!!, -hich beca/e effective on March 3, !$A.

's revised b# the said e9ecutive order, the pertinent articles of the abor Code no- read as follo-s5

'rt. %*;. Representation issue in oranied esta"lish%ents.2 In orani?ed establish/ents, -hen apetition :uestionin the /a@orit# status of the incu/bent barainin aent is filed before the Ministr#-ithin the si9t#(da# period before the e9piration of the collective barainin aree/ent, the Med('rbitershall auto/aticall# order an election b# secret ballot to ascertain the -ill of the e/plo#ees in theappropriate barainin unit. 4o have a valid election, at least a /a@orit# of all eliible voters in the unit/ust have cast their votes. 4he labor union receivin the /a@orit# of the valid votes cast shall be certifiedas the e9clusive barainin aent of all the -or6ers in the unit. hen an election -hich provides for threeor /ore choices results in no choice receivin a /a@orit# of the valid votes cast, a runoff election shall beconducted bet-een the choices receivin the t-o hihest nu/ber of votes.


18/76

18

'rt. %*A. (etitions in unoranied esta"lish%ents. In an# establish/ent -here there is no certifiedbarainin aent, the petition for certification election filed b# a leiti/ate labor orani?ation shall besupported b# the -ritten consent of at least t-ent# 0%&Q1 percent of all the e/plo#ees in the baraininunit. 7pon receipt and verification of such petition, the Med('rbiter shall auto/aticall# order the conductof a certification election.

4he applicable provision in the case at bar is 'rticle %*; because Bali-a transit, Inc. is an orani?edestablish/ent. 7nder this provision, the petition for certification election need no loner carr# thesinatures of the +&Q of the -or6ers consentin to such petition as oriinall# re:uired under 'rticle %*.4he present rule provides that as lon as the petition contains the /atters A re:uired in Section %, Rule *,Boo6 2 of the I/ple/entin Rules and Reulations, as a/ended b# Section ;, I/ple/entin Rules ofE.O. No. !!!, the /ed(arbiter =shall auto/aticall# order= an election b# secret ballot =to ascertain the -illof the e/plo#ees in the appropriate barainin unit.= 4he consent re:uire/ent is no- applied onl# tounorani?ed establish/ents under 'rticle %*A, and at that, sinificantl#, has been reduced to onl# %&Q.

4he petition /ust also fail on the second issue -hich is based on the contract(bar rule under Section +,Rule *, Boo6 2 of the I/ple/entin Rules and Reulations. 4his rule si/pl# provides that a petition forcertification election or a /otion for intervention can onl# be entertained -ithin si9t# da#s prior to thee9pir# date of an e9istin collective barainin aree/ent. Other-ise put, the rule prohibits the filin of a

petition for certification election durin the e9istence of a collective barainin aree/ent e9cept -ithinthe freedo/ period, as it is called, -hen the said aree/ent is about to e9pire. 4he purpose, obviousl#, isto ensure stabilit# in the relationships of the -or6ers and the /anae/ent b# preventin fre:uent/odifications of an# collective barainin aree/ent earlier entered into b# the/ in ood faith and for thestipulated oriinal period.

'47 insists that its collective barainin aree/ent concluded b# it -ith Bali-a 4ransit, Inc, on 'pril !,!$;, should bar the certification election souht b# 47P'S as this -ould disturb the said ne-aree/ent. Moreover, the aree/ent had been ratified on 'pril +, !$;, b# a /a@orit# of the -or6ers andis plainl# beneficial to the/ because of the /an# enerous concessions /ade b# the /anae/ent.

Besides pointin out that its petition for certification election -as filed -ithin the freedo/ period and fiveda#s before the ne- collective barainin aree/ent -as concluded b# '47 -ith Bali-a 4ransit, Inc.

47P'S contends that the said aree/ent suffers fro/ certain fatal procedural fla-s. Specificall#, the CB'-as not posted for at least five da#s in t-o conspicuous places in the establish/ent before ratification, toenable the -or6ers to clearl# infor/ the/selves of its provisions. Moreover, the CB' sub/itted to theMOE did not carr# the s-orn state/ent of the union secretar#, attested b# the union president, that theCB' had been dul# posted and ratified, as re:uired b# Section !, Rule $, Boo6 2 of the I/ple/entinRules and Reulations. 4hese re:uire/ents bein /andator#, non(co/pliance there-ith rendered thesaid CB' ineffective. $

4he Court -ill not rule on the /erits andGor defects of the ne- CB' and shall onl# consider the fact that it-as entered into at a ti/e -hen the petition for certification election had alread# been filed b# 47P'S and-as then pendin resolution. 4he said CB' cannot be dee/ed per/anent, precludin theco//ence/ent of neotiations b# another union -ith the /anae/ent. In the /eanti/e ho-ever, so asnot to deprive the -or6ers of the benefits of the said aree/ent, it shall be reconi?ed and iven effect on

a te/porar# basis, sub@ect to the results of the certification election. 4he aree/ent /a# be continued inforce if '47 is certified as the e9clusive barainin representative of the -or6ers or /a# be re@ected andreplaced in the event that 47P'S e/eres as the -inner.

4his rulin is consistent -ith our earlier decisions on interi/ arrane/ents of this 6ind -here -e declared5

... -e are not un/indful that the supple/ental collective barainin contract, entered into in the/ean-hile bet-een /anae/ent and respondent 7nion contains provisions beneficial to labor. So as notto pre@udice the -or6ers involved, it /ust be /ade clear that until the conclusion of a ne- collective


19/76

19

barainin contract entered into b# it and -hatever labor orani?ation /a# be chosen after thecertification election, the e9istin labor contract as thus supple/ented should be left undisturbed. Itster/s call for strict co/pliance. 4his /ode of assurin that the cause of labor suffers no in@ur# fro/ thestrule bet-een contendin labor orani?ation follo-s the doctrine announced in the recent caseof 3assar -ndustries $%ployees v. $strella 0(3;*;%, March +!, !$A1. 4o :uote fro/ the opinion. =In the/ean-hile, if as contended b# private respondent labor union the interi/ collective barainin aree/ent-hich it enineered and entered into on Septe/ber %;, !$AA has, /uch /ore favorable ter/s for the-or6ers of private respondent 2assar Industries, then it should continue in full force and effect until theappropriate barainin representative is chosen and neotiations for a ne- collective baraininaree/ent thereafter concluded.= !&

It re/ains for the Court to reiterate that the certification election is the /ost de/ocratic foru/ for thearticulation b# the -or6ers of their choice of the union that shall act on their behalf in the neotiation of acollective barainin aree/ent -ith their e/plo#er. E9ercisin their suffrae throuh the /ediu/ of thesecret ballot, the# can select the e9clusive barainin representative that, e/boldened b# theirconfidence and strenthened b# their support shall fiht for their rihts at the conference table. 4hat isho- union solidarit# is achieved and union po-er is increased in the free societ#. 8ence, rather thanbein inhibited and dela#ed, the certification election should be iven ever# encourae/ent under thela-, that the -ill of the -or6ers /a# be discovered and, throuh their freel# chosen representatives,pursued and reali?ed.

8EREORE, the petition is DENIED. 4he te/porar# restrainin order of 'uust %&, !$;, is I4ED.Cost aainst the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


Manila


20/76

20

G.R. No. L%77282 May , 1:8:

ASSOCATE" LA#OR UNONS $ALU& petitioner,vs.!ON. PURA FERRER%CALLE9A, a* "/reor o+ e #ureau o+ Labor Re-a/o'*, M/'/*ry o+ Labora'( E)-oy)e'> P!LPPNE SOCAL SECURT< LA#OR UNON $PSSLU&> SOUT!ERN

P!LPPNES FE"ERATON OF LA#OR $SPFL& a'( GA TRA"NG, NC., respondents.

Petitioner 'ssociated abor 7nions 0'7, for brevit#1 instituted this special civil action for certiorari andprohibition to overturn the decision of the respondent direcstor 1 dated Dece/ber !&, !$;, -hich orderedthe holdin of a certification election a/on the ran6(and(file -or6ers of the private respondent )'4radin, Inc. 4he aver/ents in the petition therefor, -hich succinctl# but sufficientl# detail the relevantfactual antecedents of this proceedins, @ustif# their bein :uoted in full, thus5

!. 4he associated abor 7nions 0'71 thru its reional 2ice(Presidents 4eofanio C.Nue?, in a letter dated Ma# A, !$; 0'NNE C1 infor/ed )' 4radin, Inc. that/a@orit# of the latters e/plo#ees have authori?ed '7 to be their sole and e9clusivebarainin representative, and re:uested )' 4radin Inc., in the sa/e etter for aconference for the e9ecution of an initial Collective Barainin 'ree/ent 0CB'1>

%. )' 4radin Inc. received the etter of '7 aforesaid on the sa/e da# of Ma# A,!$; as ac6no-leded thereunder and responded 0sic1 '7 in a letter dated Ma# !%,!$; 0'nne9 D1 indicatin its reconition of '7 as the sole and e9clusive baraininaent for the /a@orit# of its e/plo#ees and for -hich it set the ti/e for conference andGorneotiation at 35&& P.M. on Ma# !%, !$; at the Pillsbur# Office, 'boiti? Buildin "uanuna Street, Cebu Cit#>

+. On the follo-in da# of Ma#!+, !$;, '7 in behalf of the /a@orit# of the e/plo#ees of )' 4radin Inc. sined and e9cuted the Collective Barainin 0'NNE 1 ...

3. On Ma# !*, !$;, '7 in behalf of the /a@orit# of the e/plo#ees of )' 4radin Inc.and )' 4radin Inc. sined and e9ecuted the Collective Barainin 'ree/ents

0'NNE 1 . . . .

*. In the /eanti/e, at about !5&& P.M. of Ma# $, !$;, the Southern Philippinesederation of abor 0SP1 toether -ith Na6ahiusan Ma/u/uo sa )' 0N'M)'1undertoo6 a ... Stri6e ... after it failed to et the /anae/ent of )' 4radin Inc. to sitfor a conference respectin its de/ands presented at !!5 '.M. on the sa/e da# in aneffort to pressure )' 4radin Inc. to /a6e a turnabout of its standin reconition of '7 as the sole and e9clusive barainin representative of its e/plo#ees, as to -hichstri6e )' 4radin Inc. filed a petition for Restrainin OrderGPreli/inar# In@unction,dfated "une !, !$; 0'nne9 81 and -hich stri6e abor 'rbiter Bonifacio B. 4u/a/a6 heldas illeal in a decision dated 'uust *, !$; 0'NNE I1>

;. On Ma# !$, !$;, )' u/ad abor 7nion 0)'7(PSS71 ederation ... filed aCertification Election petition 0'NNE "1, but as found b# Med('rbiter Candido M. Cu/bain its 0sic1 Order dated "u ne !!, !$; 0'NNE F1, -ithout havin co/plied 0sic1 thesubscription re:uire/ent for -hich it -as /erel# considered an intervenor untilco/pliance thereof in the other petition for direct recobnition as barainin aent filedon M'# %, !$; b# southern Philippines ederation of abor 0SP1 as found in thesa/e order 0'NNE F1>


21/76

21

A. Int he /eanti/e, the Collective Barainin 'ree/ent e9ecuted b# '7 and )'4radin Inc. 0'NNE 1 -as dul# filed Ma# %A, !$; -ith the Ministr# of abor andE/plo#/ent in Reion 2II, Cebu cit#>

. Nevertheless, Med('rbiter Candido M. Cu/ba in his order of "une !!, !$; 0'nne9 F1ruled for the holdin of a ceritfication election in all branches of )' 4radin Inc. in Cebu

Cit#, as to -hich '7 filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated "une !$, !$; 0'NNE 1-hich -as treated as an appeal on that :uestioned Order for -hich reason the entirerecord of sub@ect certification case -as for-arded for the Director, Bureau of 'borRelations, Ministr# of abor and E/plo#/ent, Manila 0'NNE M1>

$. Bureau of abor Relations Director Cresencio B. 4ra@ano, rendered a Decision on 'uust !+, !$; 0'nne9 B1 rantin '7s appeal 0Motion for Reconsideration1 and setaside the :uestioned Med('rbiter Order of "une !!, !$; 0'nne9 F1, on the round thatthe CB' has been effective and valid and the contract bar rule applicable>

!&. But the sa/e Decision of Director Crecensio B. 4ra@ano -as souht forreconsideratrion both b# Southern Philippines ederation of abor 0SP1 on 'uust %;,!$; 0'NNE N1, supple/ented b# the S7BMISSION OD 'DDI4ION' E2IDENCE

dated Septe/ber %$, !$; 0'NNE O1, and the Philppine Social Securit# abor 7nion0PSS71 on October %, !$; 0'NNE P1, -hich -ere opposed b# both )' 4radin,Inc. on Septe/ber %, !$; 0'NNE 1 and '7 on Septe/ber !%, !$; 0'NNE R1> 2

4he aforesaid decision of then Director 4ra@ano -as thereafter reversed b# respondent director in heraforecited decision -hich is no- assailed in this action. ' /otion for reconsideration of '7 appears tohave been disrearded, hence, its present resort rounded on rave abuse of discretion b# publicrespondent.

Public respondent ordered the holdin of a certification election rulin that the =contract bar rule= reliedupon b# her predecessor does not appl# in the present controvers#. 'ccordin to the decision of saidrespondent, the collective barainin aree/ent involved herein is defective because it =-as not dul#sub/itted in accordance -ith Section I, Rule I, Boo6 2 of the I/ple/entin Rules of Batas Pa/bansa

Bl. !+&.= It -as further observed that =0t1here is no proof tendin to sho- that the CB' has been postedin at least t-o conspicuous places in the ! establish/ent at least five da#s before its ratification and that ithas been ratified b# the /a@orit# of the e/plo#ees in the barainin unit.=

e find no reversible error in the challened decision of respondent director. ' careful consideration ofthe facts culled fro/ the records of this case, especiall# the alleations of petitioner itself as hereinabove:uoted, #ields the conclusion that the collective barainin aree/ent in :uestion is indeed defectivehence unproductive of the leal effects attributed to it b# the for/er director in his decision -hich -assubse:uentl# and properl# reversed.

e have previousl# held that the /echanics of collective barainin are set in /otion onl# -hen thefollo-in @urisdictional preconditions are present, na/el#, 0!1 possession of the status of /a@orit#representation b# the e/plo#ees representative in accordance -ith an# of the /eans of selection andGor

desination provided for b# the abor Code> 0%1 proof of /a@orit# representation> and 0+1 a de/and tobarain under 'rticle %*!, pararaph 0a1, of the Ne- abor Code. 4 In the present case, the standin ofpetitioner as an e9clusive barainin representative is dubious, to sa# the least. It /a# be recalled thatrespondent co/pan#, in a letter dated Ma# !%, !$; and addressed to petitioner, /erel# indicated that it-as =not aainst the desire of 0its1 -or6ers= and re:uired petitioner to present proof that it -as supportedb# the /a@orit# thereof in a /eetin to be held on the sa/e date. 4he onl# e9press reconition ofpetitioner as said e/plo#ees barainin representative that e see in the records is in the collectivebarainin aree/ent entered into t-o da#s thereafter. 6 Evidentl#, there -as precipitate haste on the partof respondent co/pan# in reconi?in petitioner union, -hich reconition appears to have been based on


22/76

22

the self(servin clai/ of the latter that it had the support of the /a@orit# of the e/plo#ees in the baraininunit. urther/ore, at the ti/e of the supposed reconition, the e/plo#er -as obviousl# a-are that there-ere other unions e9istin in the unit. 's earlier stated, respondent co/pan#s letter is dated Ma# !%,!$; -hile the t-o other unions, Southern Philippine ederation of abor 0hereafter, SP and PhilippineSocial Securit# abor 7nion 0PSS7, for short1, -ent on stri6e earlier on Ma# $, !$;. 4he unusualpro/ptitude in the reconition of petitioner union b# respondent co/pan# as the e9clusive baraininrepresentative of the -or6ers in )' 4radin, Inc. under the fluid and a/orphous circu/stances thenobtainin, -as decidedl# un-arranted and i/provident.

It bears /ention that even in cases -here it -as the then Minister of abor hi/self -ho directl# certifiedthe union as the barainin representative, this Court voided such certification -here there -as a failureto properl# deter/ine -ith leal certaint# -hether the union en@o#ed a /a@orit# representation. In such acase, the holdin of a certification election at a proper ti/e -ould not necessaril# be a /ere for/alit# asthere -as a co/pellin reason not to directl# and unilaterall# certif# a union. 7

'n additional infir/it# of the collective barainin aree/ent involved -as the failure to post the sa/e inat least t-o 0%1 conspicuous places in the establish/ent at least five da#s before itsratification. 8 Petitioners rationali?ation -as that =0b1ecause of the real e9istence of the illeal stri6e staedb# SP in all the stores of )' 4radin, Inc. it had beco/e i/possible to co/pl# -ith the postin

re:uire/ent in so far as the reali?ation of tits purpose is concerned as there -ere no i/partial /e/bersof the unit -ho could be appraised of the CB's contents. = : 4his @ustification is puerile and unacceptable.

In the first place, the postin of copies of the collective barainin aree/ent is the responsibilit# of thee/plo#er -hich can easil# co/pl# -ith the re:uire/ent throuh a /ere /echanical act. 4he fact thatthere -ere =no i/partial /e/bers of the unit= is i//aterial. 4he purpose of the re:uire/ent is precisel# toinfor/ the e/plo#ees in the barainin unit of the contents of said aree/ent so that the# couldintellientl# decide -hether to accept the sa/e or not. 4he asse/bl# of the /e/bers of '7 -herein thearee/ent in :uestion -as alleedl# e9plained does not cure the defect. 4he contract is intended for alle/plo#ees and not onl# for the /e/bers of the purpoted representative alone. It /a# even be said thethe need to infor/ the non(/e/bers of the ter/s thereof is /ore e9ient and co/pellin since, in allli6ehood, their contact -ith the persons -ho are supposed to represent the/ is li/ited. Moreover, torepeat, there -as an apparent and suspicious hurr# in the for/ulation and finali?ation of said collective

barainin accord. In the sfore/entioned letter -here respondent co/pan# re:uired petitioner union topresent proof of its support b# the e/plo#ees, the co/pan# alread# suested that petitioner '7 at thesa/e ti/e sub/it the proposals that it intended to e/bod# in the pro@ected aree/ent. 4his -as on Ma#!%, !$;, and pro/pltl# on thre follo-in da# the neoltiation panel> furnish respondent co/pan# finalcopies of the desired aree/ent -hcih, -ith e:ual dispatch, -as sined on Ma# !*, !$;.

'nother potent reason for annullin the disputed collective barainin is the f indin of respondent director that one hundred eiht#(one0 !!1 of the t-o hundred eiht#(one 0%!1 -or6ers -ho =ratified= the sa/eno- = stronl# and vehe/entl# den# andGor repudiate the alleed neotiations and ratification of the CB'.= 10 'lthouh petitioner clai/s that onl# sev en 0A1 of the repudiatin roup of -or6ers belon to the totalnu/ber -ho alleedl# ratified the aree/ent, nevertheless such substantiated contention -eihedaainst the factu@al that the controverted contract -ill not pro/ote industrial stabilit# . 4he Court has lonsince declared that5

... Basic to the contract bar rule is the proposition that the dela# of the riht to selectrepresen tatives can be @ustified onl# -here stabilit# is dee/ed para/ount. E9ceptedfro/ the contract -hich do not foster industrial stabilit#, such as contracts -here theidentit# of the representative is in doubt. 'n# stabilit# derived fro/ such contracts /ustbe subordinated to the e/plo#ees freedo/ of choice because it does nto establish thet#pe of industrial peace conte/plated b# the la-. 11

't this @uncture, petitioner should be re/inded that the technical rules of rpocedure do not strictl# appl# inthe ad@udication of labor disputes. 12 Conse:uentl#, its ob@ection that the evidence -ith respect to the


23/76

23

aforesaid repudiiation of the supposed collective barainin aree/ent cannot be considered for the firstti/e on appeal on the Bureau of abor Relations should be disrearded, especiall# considerin the-eiht# sinificance thereof.

Both petitioner and private respondent )' 4radin, Inc. allee that the e/plo#ees of the latter are no-en@o#in the benefits of the collective barainin aree/ent that both parties had fored. 8o-ever, e

cannot find sufficient evidence of record to support this contention. 4he onl# evidence cited b# petitioneris supposed pa#/ent of union fees b# said e/plo#ees, a pre/ise too tenuous to sustain the desiredconclusion. Even the actual nu/ber of -or6ers in the respondent co/pan# is not clear fro/ the records.Said private respondent clai/s that it is t-o hundred eiht#(one 0%!1 1 but petitioner suests that it is/ore than that nu/ber. 4he said parties should be a-are that this Court is not an ad@udicator of facts.orse, to borro- a trite but apt phrase, the# -ould heap the Ossa of confusion upon the Pelion ofuncertaint# and still e9pect a definitive rulin on the /atter thus confounded.

'dditionall#, the inapplicabilit# of the contract bar rule is further underscored b# the fact that -hen thedisputed aree/ent -as filed before the abor Reional Office on Ma# %A, !$;, a petition forcertification election had alread# been filed on Ma# !$, !$;. 'lthouh the petition -as not supported b#the sinatures of thirt# percent 0+&Q1 of the -or6ers in the barainin unit, the sa/e -as enouh toinitiate said certification election.

8EREORE, the order of the public respondent for the conduct of a certification election a/on theran6(and(file -or6ers of respondent )' 4radin Inc. is 'IRMED. 4he te/porar# restrainin orderissued in this case pursuant to the Resolution of March %*, !$A is hereb# lifted.

SO ORDERED.


Manila


24/76

24

G.R. No. 111: Auu* 1, 1::

CALTE? REGULAR EMPLO


25/76

25

0%!.;;A1 01

'. Reular (ay

!1 8ourl# rate

%1 O4 8ourl# Rate !% MN 0 T *&Q 1

+1 NSD ; PM ( !% MN 0 T %*Q 1

31 O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN 0 T %*Q 1 T *&Q 0 T %*Q 1

*1 NSD !% MN ( ; 'M 0 T *&Q 1

;1 O4 8ourl# Rate NSD !% MN ( ; 'M 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1

B. Reular *irst Day :

!. 8ourl# Rate 0 T *&Q 1

%. O4 8ourl# Rate 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 09 T *&Q 1

+. NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q1 L

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

;. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L T

*&Q K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

C. Reular #econd Day :

!. 8ourl# Rate 0 T !&&Q 1

%. O4 8ourl# Rate 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1


26/76

26

+. NSD ; PM ( !%MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L

;. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L

D. $5cess o 89 &ours within a Calendar Week

!. 8ourl# Rate 0 T *&Q 1

%. O4 8ourl# Rate 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1

+. NSD ; PM ( !%MN K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T *&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

;. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T *&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T *&Q 1 L

E. #unday as a Nor%al Work Day



+. NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L


27/76

27

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L


. #unday as day o



+. NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0T !&&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0T !&&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !&&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !&&Q 1 L


). &oliday as Nor%al Work Day

!. 8ourl# Rate 0 T !*&Q 1

%. O4 8ourl# Rate 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1

+. NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

*. NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

;. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L T*&Q K 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

8. &oliday as Day :


28/76

28

!. 8ourl# Rate 0 T !*&Q 1

%. O4 8ourl# Rate 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1

+. NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

3. O4 8ourl# Rate NSD ; PM ( !% MN K 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L T *&QK 0 T !*&Q 1 T %*Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

*. NSC !% MN ( ; 'M K 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

;. O4 8ourl# Rate K 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L T *&QK 0 T !*&Q 1 T *&Q 0 T !*&Q 1 L

A. B 8ourl# Rate for less than hours 0!*&Q 1

B or -or6 of less than hours, the e/plo#ee -ill receive his basic dail# rate

0Monthl# Base Pa#1

%!.;;A

plus the hourl# rate /ultiplied b# the nu/ber of hours -or6ed. 2

So/eti/e in 'uust !$;, the 7nion called Calte9s attention to alleed violations b# Calte9 of 'nne9 =B= of the !$* CB', e. . non(pa#/ent of niht(shift differential, non(pa#/ent of overti/epa# and non(pa#/ent at =first da#(off rates= for -or6 perfor/ed on a Saturda#.

Calte9s Industrial Relations /anaer i//ediatel# evaluated petitioners clai/s and accordinl#infor/ed petitioner 7nion that differential pa#/ents -ould be ti/el# i/ple/ented. In thei/ple/entation of the re(co/puted clai/s, ho-ever, no differential pa#/ent -as /ade -ithrespect to -or6 perfor/ed on the first % !G% hours on a Saturda#.

On A "ul# !$A, the 7nion instituted a co/plaint for unfair labor practice aainst Calte9 alleinviolation of the provisions of the !$* CB'. Petitioner 7nion chared Calte9 -ith shortchaninits e/plo#ees -hen Calte9 co/pensated -or6 perfor/ed on the first % !G% hours of Saturda#, ane/plo#ees da# of rest, at reular rates, -hen it should be pa#in at =da# of rest= or =da# off=rates.

Calte9 denied the accusations of the 7nion. It averred that Saturda# -as never desinated as ada# of rest, /uch less a =da#(off=. It /aintained that the !$* CB' provided onl# ! da# of rest fore/plo#ees at the Manila Office, as -ell as e/plo#ees si/ilarl# situated at the ea?pi andMarindu:ue Bul6 Depots. 4his da# of rest, accordin to Calte9, -as Sunda#.


29/76

29

In due ti/e, the abor 'rbiter ruled in favor of petitioner 7nion, -hile findin at the sa/e ti/e thatprivate respondent Calte9 -as not uilt# of an# unfair labor practice. abor 'rbiter 2alentin C.)uanio, interpretin 'rticle III and 'nne9 =B= of the !$* CB', concluded that Calte9s e/plo#eeshad been iven t-o 0%1 da#s 0instead of one K!L da#1 of rest, -ith the result that -or6 perfor/edon the e/plo#ees first da# of rest, vi . Saturda#, should be co/pensated at =irst da#(off= rates.

On appeal b# Calte9, public respondent NRC set aside the decision of abor 'rbiter )uanio.4he NRC found that the conclusions of the abor 'rbiter -ere not supported b# the evidence onrecord. 4he NRC, interpretin the provisions of the !$* CB', concluded that that CB' rantedonl# one 0!1 da# of rest, e. ., Sunda#. 4he 7nions /otion for reconsideration -as denied on $"une !$$+.

4he controvers# -e /ust address in this Petition for Certiorari relates to the appropriateinterpretation of 'rticle III in relation to 'nne9 =B= of the parties !$* CB'.

'fter carefull# e9a/inin the lanuae of 'rticle III, in relation to 'nne9 =B= of the !$* CB',:uoted in li%ine, as -ell as relevant portions of earlier CB's bet-een the parties, -e aree -iththe NRC that the intention of the parties to the !$* CB' -as to provide the e/plo#ees -ithonl# one 0!1 da# of rest. 4he plain and ordinar# /eanin of the lanuae of 'rticle III is that

Calte9 and the 7nion had areed to pa# =da# of rest= rates for -or6 perfor/ed on =ane/plo#ees one da# of rest=. 4o the Courts /ind, the use of the -ord =one= describin the phrase=da# of rest Kof an e/plo#eeL= e/phasi?es the fact that the parties had areed that onl# a sinleda# of rest shall be scheduled and shall be provided to the e/plo#ee.

It is useful to note that the contract clauses overnin hours of -or6 in previous CB's e9ecutedbet-een private respondent Calte9 and petitioner 7nion in !$A+, !$A;, !$A$ and !$% containedprovisions parallel if not identical to those set out in 'rticle III of the !$* CB' here before us.

'rticle III of the !$A+ Collective Barainin 'ree/ent provided as follo-s5

'rticle III

&ours o Work

Sec. !. In confor/it# -ith Presidential Decree No. !3+, the reular -or6 -ee6 shallconsist of eiht 01 hours per da#, seven 0A1 da#s, Monda# throuh Sunda#, durin -hichreular rates of pa# shall be paid in accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section ! and work on thee%ployee4s one =Day o Rest = shall "e paid as provided in )rticle -30 #ection 6 . Dail#-or6in schedules shall be established b# /anae/ent in accordance -ith there:uire/ents of efficient operations on the "asis o eiht '6+ hours per day or any ive '7+days> provided, ho-ever, e/plo#ees re:uired to -or6 in e5cess o orty '89+ hours in anyweek shall be co/pensated in accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section A of this 'ree/ent.0E/phasis supplied1

'rticle III of the !$A; Collective Barainin 'ree/ent

4

read5

'rticle III

&ours o Work

Sec. !. In confor/it# -ith Presidential Decree No. !3+, the reular -or6 -ee6 shallconsist of eiht 01 hours per da#, seven 0A1 da#s, Monda# throuh Sunda#, durin -hichreular rates of pa# shall be paid in accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section ! and work on the


30/76

30

e%ployee4s one =Day o Rest = shall "e paid as provided in )rticle -30 #ection 6 . Dail#-or6in schedules shall be established b# /anae/ent in accordance -ith there:uire/ents of efficient operations on the "asis o eiht '6+ hours per day or any ive '7+days> provided , ho-ever, e/plo#ees re:uired to -or6 in e5cess o orty '89+ hours in anyweek shall be co/pensated in accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section A of this 'ree/ent.0E/phasis supplied1

'rticle III of the !$A$ Collective Barainin 'ree/ent said5

'rticle III

&ours o Work

Sec. !. In confor/it# -ith Presidential Decree 33%, other-ise 6no-n as the abor Codeof the Philippines, as /ended, the reular -or6 -ee6 shall consist of eiht 01 hours perda#, seven 0A1 da#s, Monda# thru Sunda# durin -hich reular rates of pa# shall be paidin accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section ! and work on the e%ployee4s one ;Day o Rest;shall "e paid as provided in )rticle -30 #ection provided, ho-ever,e/plo#ees re:uired to -or6 in e9cess of fort# 03&1 hours in an# -ee6 shall beco/pensated in accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section ; of this 'ree/ent. 0E/phasissupplied1.

'rticle III of the !$% Collective Barainin 'ree/ent 6 also provided as follo-s5

'rticle III

&ours o Work

Sec. !. In confor/it# -ith Presidential Decree 33%, other-ise 6no-n as the abor Code

of the Philippines, as a/ended, the reular -or6 -ee6 shall consist of eiht 01 hours perda#, seven 0A1 da#s, Monda# thru Sunda#, durin -hich reular rates of pa# shall be paidin accordance -ith 'rticle I2, Section ! and work on the e%ployee4s one =Day oRest = shall "e paid as provided in )rticle -30 #ection


31/76

31

that the parties intended to provide e/plo#ees two '=+ days o rest . 8e then declared that 'nne9=B= should prevail over 'rticle III because the for/er -as a /ore specific provision than the latter.

'n anne9 e9presses the idea of @oinin a s/aller or subordinate thin -ith another, larer or ofhiher i/portance. 8 'n anne9 has a subordinate role, -ithout an# independent sinificanceseparate fro/ that to -hich it is tac6ed on. 'nne9 =B,= in the case at bar, is one such docu/ent. It

is not a /e/orandu/ of a/end/ents or a codicil containin additional or ne- ter/s orstipulations. 'nne9 =B= cannot be construed as /odif#in or alterin the ter/s e9pressed in thebod# of the aree/ent contained in the !$* CB'. It did not confer an# rihts upon e/plo#eesrepresented b# petitioner 7nion> neither did it i/pose an# obliations upon private respondentCalte9. In fact, the contents of 'nne9 =B= have no intelliible sinificance in and of the/selves-hen considered separatel# fro/ the !$* CB'.

Moreover, -e are persuaded b# private respondents aru/ent that 'nne9 =B= -as intended toserve as aco%pany wide uide in co/putin co/pensation for -or6 perfor/ed b# all itse/plo#ees, includin but not li/ited to the Manila Office e/plo#ees represented b# petitioner7nion. Private respondent also points out that the /athe/atical for/ulae contained in 'nne9 =B=are not all applicable to all classes of e/plo#ees, there bein so/e for/ulae applicable onl# toparticular roups or classes of e/plo#ees. 4hus, =irst Da#(off rates= and =Second Da#(off rates=

are applicable only to e/plo#ees stationed at the refiner# and associated facilities li6e depots andter/inals -hich /ust be in constant t-ent#(four 0%31 hours a da#, seven 0A1 da#s a -ee6,operation, hence necessitatin the continuous presence of operations personnel. 4he -or6 ofsuch operations personnel re:uired the/ to be on dut# for si9 0;1 consecutive da#s. 7pon theother hand, =irst Da#(off rates= and =Second Da#(off rates= are not applicable to personnel of theManila Office -hich consisted of other roups or cateories of e/plo#ees 0e. ., office cler6s,librarians, co/puter operators, secretaries, collectors, etc.1, : since the nature o their work didnot require the% to "e on duty or si5 '>+ consecutive days.

e find, under the foreoin circu/stances, that the purported intention inferred fro/ 'nne9 =B=b# the abor 'rbiter -as based /erel# on con@ecture and speculation.

e also note that the abor 'rbiter /erel# suspected that the parties areed to provide t-o 0%1

da#s of rest on the round that the# had so stipulated in their 1?


32/76

32

In the present case, under the !$* CB', hours -or6ed on a Saturda# do not, "y that act alone,necessaril# constitute overti/e -or6 co/pensable at pre/iu/ rates of pa#, contrar# topetitioners assertion. 4hese are nor/al or reular -or6 hours, co/pensable at reular rates ofpa#, as provided in the !$* CB'> under that CB', Saturda# is not a rest da# or a =da# off=. It isonl# -hen an e/plo#ee has been re:uired on a Saturda# to render -or6 in e9cess of the fort#03&1 hours -hich constitute the reular -or6 -ee6 that such e/plo#ee /a# be considered asperfor/in overti/e -or6 on that Saturda#. e consider that the statutor# prohibition aainstoffsettin underti/e one da# -ith overti/e another da# has no application in the case at bar. 1

Petitioners counsel, in his final atte/pt to la# a basis for co/pellin private respondent to pa#pre/iu/ rates of pa# for all hours -or6ed on a Saturda#, reardless of the nu/ber of hoursactuall# -or6ed earlier durin the -ee6, i .e., on Monda# to rida#, insists that private respondentcannot re:uire its e/plo#ees to co/plete the 3&(hour reular -or6 -ee6 on a Saturda#, after ithas allo-ed its e/plo#ees to render onl# +A(!G% hours of -or6.

4he co/pan# practice of allo-in e/plo#ees to leave thirt# 0+&1 /inutes earlier than thescheduled off(ti/e had been established pri/aril# for the convenience of the e/plo#ees /ost of-ho/ have had to co//ute fro/ -or6 place to ho/e and in order that the# /a# avoid the heav#rush hour vehicular traffic. 4here is no alleation here b# petitioner 7nion that such practice -as

resorted to b# Calte9 in order to escape its contractual obliations. 4his practice, -hile iteffectivel# reduced to +A(!G% the nu/ber of hours actuall# -or6ed b# e/plo#ees -ho had optedto leave ahead of off(ti/e, is not be construed as /odif#in the other ter/s of the !$* CB'. 'scorrectl# pointed out b# private respondent, the shortened -or6 period did not result in li6e-iseshortenin the -or6 re:uired for purposes of deter/inin overti/e pa#, as -ell as for purposes of deter/inin pre/iu/ pa# for -or6 be#ond fort# 03&1 hours -ithin the calendar -ee6. It follo-sthat an e/plo#ee is entitled to be paid pre/iu/ rates, -hether for -or6 in e9cess of eiht 01hours on an# iven da#, or for -or6 be#ond the fort# 03&1(hour re:uire/ent for the calendar -ee6,onl# -hen the e/plo#ee had, in act alread# rendered the re:uisite nu/ber of hours or 3& prescribed in the !$* CB'.

In recapitulation, the parties !$* CB' stipulated that e/plo#ees at the Manila Office, as -ell asthose si/ilarl# situated at the ea?pi and Marindu:ue Bul6 Depots, shall be provided onl# one

0!1 da# of rest> Sunda#, and not Saturda#, -as desinated as this da# of rest. or6 perfor/ed ona Saturda# is accordinl# to be paid at reular rates of pa#, as a rule, unless the e/plo#ee shallhave been re:uired to render -or6 in e9cess of fort# 03&1 hours in a calendar -ee6. 4hee/plo#ee /ust, ho-ever, have in act rendered work in e9cess of fort# 03&1 hours beforehours su"sequently -or6ed beco/e pa#able at pre/iu/ rates. e conclude that the NRCcorrectl# set aside the palpable error co//itted b# abor 'rbiter )uanio, -hen the latter i/posedupon one of the parties to the !$* CB', an obliation -hich it had never assu/ed.

8EREORE, petitioner 7nion havin failed to sho- rave abuse of discretion a/ountin tolac6 or e9cess of @urisdiction on the part of public respondent National abor RelationsCo//ission in renderin its decision dated * March !$$+, the Court Resolved to DISMISS thePetition for lac6 of /erit.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

G.R. No. 127:8 February 22, 2000


33/76

33

MANLA ELECTRC COMPAN

Documents

Batch After Midterm 2015 Labor Relation