P age |1 All cases ending in 1 and 0 general tips: 1.

Just press ctrl + click on the case title (not the number) to navigate. 2. Texts enclosed in [] should be paraphrased as they are not copied verbatim 3. Read the notes, if any, at the top of every case digest.

Contents 01 Lolita A. Lopez, et. al., vs. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc. ....................................................................... 2 10 Herminigildo Inguillo and Zenaida Bergante vs. First Philippine Scales, Inc. (FPSI) and/or Amparo Policarpio, manager ................................................................................................................................. 4 11 HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (HEPI), owner of Hyatt Regency Manila, vs. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) ................................................................................... 7 20 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (UST) vs SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG UST (SM-UST) .................... 9 21 ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE, vs EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC.,....... 11 30 RONILO SORREDA vs. CAMBRIDGE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION ...................................................... 13 31 PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), represented by its President, RENE SORIANO vs. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION ............. 14 40 NESTLÉ vs. UFE-DFA-KMU ................................................................................................................. 16 41 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THEPHILIPPINES (FASAP), PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), PATRIA CHIONG & CA ......................................................................... 18 50 FLAVIO S. SUAREZ, JR., et. al. vs. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION..................................................... 21

P age |2 Lolita A. Lopez, et. al., vs. Quezon City Sports Club, Inc. Kasapiang Manggagawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (union) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against QCSC, alleging that the latter committed the following unfair labor practices: 1. Interference with, restraining and/or coercing employees, particularly members of the incumbent union in their exercise of their rights to selforganization; 2. Discrimination in regards to payment of wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage continued membership to the incumbent union; 3. Violation of several economic provisions of the CBA such as, across the board implementation of any legislated wage increases, non-payment of salaries and wages for [the] period already worked, and non-payment of overtime pay to some employees and other related economic benefits which will be specifically enunciated by the petitioner in the succeeding pleadings to be filed The Union averred that it was ordered to submit a new information sheet. It immediately wrote a letter addressed to the general manager, Angel Sadang, to inquire about the information sheet, only to be insulted by the latter. The members of the union were not paid their salaries on 30 June 1997. A board member, Antonio Chua allegedly harassed one of the employees and told him not to join the strike and even promised a promotion. On 4 July 1997, the union wrote a letter to the management for the release of the members salaries for the period 16-30 June 1997, implementation of Wage Order No. 5, and granting of wage increases mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). When its letter went unanswered, the union filed a notice of strike on 10 July 1997 for violation of Article 248 (a)(c)(e) of the Labor Code, nonpayment of overtime pay, refusal to hear its grievances, and malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA. After conducting a strike vote, it staged a strike on 12 August 1997. On 16 August 1997, the QCSC placed some of its employees under temporary lay-off status due to redundancy. It appears that on 22 December 1997, QCSC also filed a petition for cancellation of registration against the union. QCSC, for its part, contended that the union was not a legitimate labor union as it had a pending complaint for cancellation of certificate of registration; that there was no valid CBA; that it had not committed any unfair labor practice; and that the union had staged an illegal strike. Labor Arbiter promulgated a decision finding QCSC guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering it to pay the affected employees their separation pay, backwages, and salary increase, totaling P27,504,864.46. QCSC appealed from the labor arbiter s decision. In turn, the union filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. QCSC filed a motion for reduction of the appeal bond to FOUR MILLION PESOS (P4,000,000.00) Do the simultaneous filing of the motion to reduce the appeal bond and posting of the reduced amount of bond within the reglementary period for appeal constitute substantial compliance with Article 223 of the Labor Code?

Facts:

Issue:

including graft and corruption. Under Sections 4(a) and 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. b. or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions. it is merely a statutory privilege. this can only be done where there was substantial compliance with the Rules. Appeal. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter. 223. all within the reglementary period. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond.000.P age |3 Held: 1. (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal. and d. altogether constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. If the decision. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds: a. awards. Yes. the posting of the amount of P4. appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites. at the very least. c. as amended. or orders. awards. The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules.00 simultaneously with the filing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount. Article 223 of the Labor Code partly provides that: Art. we find and hold that the NLRC did not err in reducing the amount of the appeal bond and considering the appeal as having been filed within the reglementary period. namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees. as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal. . While the bond requirement on appeals involving a monetary award has been relaxed in certain cases. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.000. order or award was secured through fraud or coercion. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. Applying these jurisprudential guidelines. the right to appeal is lost. Decisions. Failing to do so. If made purely on questions of law. or where the appellants. Moreover. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process.

This was granted upon by FPSI. Herminigildo Inguillo and Zenaida Bergante vs. [The latter] filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an intra-union dispute against FPSILU and FPSI. Therefore. (FPSI) and/or Amparo Policarpio. There are 2 issues in this digest (kaya mahaba) one will suffice. Bergante and Inguillo assail the legality of their termination based on the Union Security Clause in the CBA between FPSI and FPSILU. signed the said document. may be defined as an enterprise in which. which is applied to and comprehends closed shop. While the said provisions did not mention as ground the enforcement of the Union Security Clause in the CBA. remains a member in good standing of a [ union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. Inguillo and several FPSI employees joined another union. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees. must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are [40] promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. and. and (4) termination by the employee or resignation under Article 285. (2) authorized causes under Article 283. [(1) Was there a valid ground for termination? (2) Was there compliance with the procedural due process to the termination?] (1) Yes. seeking the termination of the services of [several employees. the executive board and members of the FPSILU addressed a document dated March 18. namely: (1) just causes under Article 282. Union security is a generic term. the dismissal from employment based on the same is recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction. 1996.] In their Petition. manager G. maintenance of membership or any other form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. union shop. please paraphrase if you are to copy. becomes. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment. no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is. Bergante and Inguillo assail the legality of their termination based on the Union Security Issue: Held: . by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives. (3) termination due to disease under Article 284. among others. Bergante and Inguillo. or who thereafter become members. 1996 denominated as Petisyon to FPSI's general manager. herein petitioners. No. FPSI and First Philippine Scales Industries Labor Union (FPSILU) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for a period of five (5) years in a document entitled RATIPIKASYON NG KASUNDUAN. 165407 (June 5.R. Inc. for the duration of the agreement. Meanwhile. 2009) Facts: In 1991. Amparo Policarpio (Policarpio). who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement. Bergante. the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM).P age |4 Texts enclosed in a [] are supplied by me. First Philippine Scales. The Labor Code of the Philippines has several provisions under which an employee may be validly terminated. which terminated. on March 29. on the other hand. including herein petitioners. who were members of FPSILU. A closed-shop.

the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable. All the requisites have been sufficiently met and FPSI was justified in enforcing the Union Security Clause. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the Union Security Clause.P age |5 [42] Clause in the CBA between FPSI and FPSILU. since a CBA is the law between the company and the Union. which provides: of the CBA pertains to Union The Company hereby agrees to a UNION SECURITY [CLAUSE] with the following terms: 1. (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA. In this security clause lies the strength of the union during the enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement. a Petisyon was submitted to Policarpio. and for any of the causes enumerated therein. maintain their membership with the UNION. the Court expounded on the effectiveness of union security clause when it held that it is one intended to strengthen the contracting union and to protect it from the fickleness or perfidy of its own members. Brillantes. Article II Security and Representatives. It is this clause that provides labor with substantial power in collective bargaining. the aforesaid provision requires all members to maintain their membership with FPSILU during the lifetime of the CBA. and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel the employee from the union or company. as can be gleaned from the documents relative to the intra-union dispute between FPSILU and NLM-KATIPUNAN. Any employee/union member who fails to retain union membership in good standing may be recommended for suspension or dismissal by the Union Directorate and/or FPSILU Executive Council x x x Verily. For without such safeguards. Failing so. the union becomes gradually weakened and increasingly vulnerable to company machinations. the Union Directorate and/or FPSILU Executive Council may recommend to FPSI an employee/union member's suspension or dismissal. In Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) v. The stipulations in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code. All bonafide union members x x x x shall. It can also be inferred that they disaffiliated from FPSILU when the CBA was still in force and subsisting. Records show that Bergante and Inguillo were former members of FPSILU based on their signatures in the document which ratified the CBA. as a condition to their continued employment. and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor. group solidarity becomes uncertain. xxx 5. In view of their disaffiliation. . as well as other acts allegedly detrimental to the interest of both FPSILU and FPSI. asking for the termination of the services of employees who failed to maintain their Union membership.

she was able to ascertain the validity of the charges mentioned in the Petisyon. Such non-compliance is also corroborated by Bergante and Inguillo in their pleadings denouncing their unjustified dismissal. Procedural due process in the dismissal of employees requires notice and hearing. The enforcement of union security clauses is authorized by law. While the Petisyon enumerated the several grounds that would justify the termination of the employees mentioned therein. Respondents. It cannot be considered a notice of termination. and always with due process. however. In fine. In her futile attempt to prove compliance with the procedural requirement. nowhere from the records can We find that Bergante and Inguillo were accorded the opportunity to present evidence in support of their defenses. the other is procedural . The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. We hold that the dialogue is not tantamount to the hearing or conference prescribed by law.P age |6 (2) No. The employer must furnish the employee two written notices before termination may be effected. she reiterated that the objective of the dialogue was to provide the employees the opportunity to receive the act of grace of FPSI by giving them an amount equivalent to one-half (½) month of their salary for every year of service. Policarpio relied heavily on the Petisyon of FPSILU. In the present case. She failed to convince Us that during the dialogue. while the second notice informs the employee of the employer s decision to dismiss him. the required two notices that must be given to herein petitioners Bergante and Inguillo were lacking. Policarpio's allegations are self-serving. aver that they had furnished the employees concerned. including petitioners. yet such document is only a recommendation by the Union upon which the employer may base its decision. on the other hand. Nonetheless. We are not convinced. We cannot even consider the demand and counter-offer for the payment of the employees as an amicable settlement between the parties because what took place was merely a discussion only of the amount which the employees are willing to accept and the amount which the respondents are willing to give.the manner in which the dismissal was effected. . The requirement of a hearing. which in no way would enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses. There are two (2) aspects which characterize the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one is substantive whether the termination of employment was based on the provisions of the Labor Code or in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. with a copy of FPSILU's Petisyon. A perusal of each of [the grounds stated therein] leads Us to conclude that what was stated were general descriptions. while We uphold dismissal pursuant to a union security clause. the same is not without a condition or restriction. Except for her claim as stated in the respondent's Position Paper. provided such enforcement is not characterized by arbitrariness. and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard.

According to petitioner. has been paid. HEPI s hotel business suffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown. Paraphrase texts enclosed in []. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) G. 165756 June 5.] [Respondent Union. (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions. aggravated by the events of September 11. a strike vote reached on April 25. and (4) adoption of fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. For a valid retrenchment. vs. In any event. whichever is higher. we have held that an employer s good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily destroyed by availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the . solely for the purpose of weakening the union leadership. 2002. [It thereafter decided to retrench several employees. including some of the union members. It was when the same proved insufficient and the amount of loss became certain that petitioner had to resort to drastic measures to stave offP9. retrenchment and redundancy being in the nature of affirmative defenses. (HEPI). (2) separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service. whichever is higher. 2002. This Court will not hesitate to strike down a company s redundancy program structured to downsize its personnel.5 issues. and the actual strike on May 10. INC. 2001 in the United States. 20002. 2002. [Corollary issue:] No. and imposing a moratorium on hiring employees for the year 2001 whenever practicable. and be able to survive. But in this case. 2009 Facts: In 2001. staged a strike]. and (3) payment of separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service. petitioner did implement various costsaving measures and even transferred some of its employees to other viable positions just to avoid the premature termination of employment of its affected workers. the management initially decided to cost-cut by implementing energy-saving schemes: prioritizing acquisitions/purchases. conciliation proceedings conducted on May 8.981.267. the dismissal is not justified. notification of the strike vote filed also on April 25. Otherwise.R. (2) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. In case of redundancy. A strike notice filed on April 12. More facts can be deduced from the ruling. It is the employer who bears the onus of proving compliance with these requirements. owner of Hyatt Regency Manila. reducing work weeks in some of the hotel s departments. the employer must prove that: (1) a written notice was served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. 2002.P age |7 2. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES. [(1) Was the retrenchment valid? (corollary-) Does the implementation of the downsizing scheme preclude petitioner from availing the services of contractual and agency-hired employees? Issue: Held: (2) Was the strike valid?] (1) Yes.00 in losses. No. directing the employees to avail of their vacation leaves. Our labor laws only allow retrenchment or downsizing as a valid exercise of management prerogative if all other else fail. believing that this constituted an unfair labor practice. the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven.

a strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no acts constituting ULP actually exist. (b) a strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. by exception. if the employees believe in good faith that ULP actually exists. even if technically there was no legal ground to stage a strike based on ULP. (2) No. As an exception. since the attendant circumstances support the belief in good faith that petitioner s retrenchment scheme was structured to weaken the bargaining power of the Union. the Court has no basis to interfere with the bona fide decision of management to effect more economic and efficient methods of production. Because of this. We have previously ruled that the reduction of the number of workers in a company made necessary by the introduction of the services of an independent contractor is justified when the latter is undertaken in order to effectuate more economic and efficient methods of production. As a general rule. but. A valid and legal strike must be based on strikeable grounds. where a union believes that an employer committed ULP and the surrounding circumstances warranted such belief in good faith. Absent such proof. because if it is based on a non-strikeable ground. . Thus. respondent Union went on strike in the honest belief that petitioner was committing ULP after the latter decided to downsize its workforce contrary to the staffing/manning standards adopted by both parties under a CBA forged only four (4) short months earlier. and (c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike.. then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal. Here. may be considered legal. those circumstances showed prima faciethat the hotel committed ULP. we view the NLRC s decision to suspend all the Union officers for six (6) months without pay to be too harsh a punishment. it is generally deemed an illegal strike. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal.. subsequently. the strike. private respondent failed to proffer any proof that the management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner in engaging the services of an independent contractor to operate the Laura wells. therefore. [read below] [T]he requisites for a valid strike are: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP.[65] Indeed. In the case at bar. Corollarily. A suspension of two (2) months without pay should have been more reasonable and just. such allegations of unfair labor practices were found to be groundless. The belief was bolstered when the management hired 100 contractual workers to replace the 48 terminated regular rank-and-file employees who were all Union members. the resulting strike may be considered legal although. even if no such acts are committed by the employer.P age |8 terminated employees.

Christmas was then just around the corner. signing and Christmas bonuses. UST alleged that: 1. This was promptly acted upon by DOLE. No.and monthly-paid employees (numbering about 619) of petitioner. 2. (SM-UST) was the authorized bargaining agent of the non-academic/non-teaching rank-and-file daily. [1.. but to answer a present emergency. On appeal to SC. among others. and the union members were in no position to resist the temptation to accept much-needed cash for use during the most auspicious occasion of the year. 169940 (September 14. and the respondent union voted to stage a strike. which culminate in the signing of a [13] CBA.T. Since the Issue: Held: . a private university in the City of Manila run by the Order of Preachers. they submit to the will of the majority of the members in order that they may derive the advantages to be gained from the concerted action of all. containing salary increases. [The two parties had attempted to have a CBA formulated. they have surrendered a portion of their individual freedom for the benefit of all the other members. we have held that necessitous men are not. a consideration paid for the goodwill that existed in the negotiations.R. 572 out of the 619 members of respondent have been paid. which partially granted the petition]. amounting to ratification or waiver.00) is contrary to the nature and principle behind the grant of such benefit. as individual components of a union possessed of a distinct and separate corporate personality. respondent s members should realize that in joining the organization. reasonable increases and signing bonus. free men. Whether or not the increase of the signing bonus was correct. it was erroneous to have rewarded respondent with an increased signing bonus. the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas. Whether or not the members of private respondent voluntarily and knowingly accepted the arbitral award of the secretary of dole. Time and again. They were not able to come to an agreement. which rendered a decision granting. truly speaking. which is one given [12] as a matter of discretion and cannot be demanded by right.000. The appellate court s award of additional signing bonus (from P10.000.] The question of whether respondent s members individual acceptance of the award and the resulting payments made by petitioner operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary s award which renders CA decision moot. we find that such do not operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary s award. It argued that by their acceptance of the award and the resulting payments made to them. the said union members have ratified its offer and thus rendered moot the case before the Court of Appeals. This was questioned by the respondents on appeal.P age |9 The underlines are supplied by me. Petitioner claims that since this condition is absent in the parties case. nor a waiver of their right to receive further benefits. will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them.S. The Catholic University of the Philippines (or UST). UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (UST) vs SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG UST (SM-UST) G.00 to P18. The appellate court correctly ruled that the respondent s members were merely constrained to accept payment at the time. 2002 Order of the DOLE Secretary. and that to date. It began paying the wage adjustment and other benefits pursuant to the May 31. or what they may be entitled to under the law. Besides. 2. 2009) Facts: Respondent Samahang Manggagawa ng U.

A bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver.000. as for example obtain more favorable terms and conditions of work. the labor organization. What the individual employee may not do alone.00) per member of respondent Samahang Manggagawa ng U.] WHEREFORE. it is considered to have unqualifiedly agreed to grant the original award to the respondent union s members. 2005 Resolution in CA-G. as awarded by the Court of Appeals is REDUCED to TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10.P a g e | 10 will of the members is personified by its board of directors or trustees. We shall take it as a manifestation of petitioner s liberality. when petitioner filed the instant petition seeking the affirmance of the DOLE Secretary s Order in its entirety. the decisions it makes should accordingly bind them. The signing bonus of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P18. 72965 are AFFIRMED. the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. [FYI. . In the instant case. 2002 Order that we shall allow an award of signing bonus.R. There would have been no other basis to grant it if petitioner had not so prayed. which we cannot now allow it to withdraw. A signing bonus is a grant motivated by the goodwill generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated and signed between the employer and the union. SP No. 2005 Decision and September 23. through persuasive and coercive power gained as a group. assailing only the increased amount of the signing bonus awarded.S. a labor union exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.00).T.000. Precisely. All other findings and dispositions made by the Court of Appeals in its January 31. can accomplish better. no CBA was successfully negotiated by the parties. It is only because petitioner prays for this Court to affirm in toto the DOLE Secretary s May 31.

or orders. Texts enclosed in [] are supplied by me. if he desires to appeal. G. INC. et.00. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the former. The word only makes it clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the essential and exclusive means by which an employer s appeal may be perfected. The lawmakers clearly intended to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer as inferred from the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. 2004. the NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and ordered respondents to post an additional bond of P54. Nos. and posted as bond the amount of P100. In an Order dated March 31. On November 5. Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure within a nonextendible period of 10 days from receipt thereof. or 10 days after receipt of the Labor Arbiter s decision. On the other hand. Respondents moved for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order dated July 15. but not to the compulsory posting of an appeal bond. al. . 2009) Facts: McBurnie filed a case against EGI for illegal termination. 186984-85 (September 18. awards. [NLRC thereafter dismissed the appeal for failure to post the additional bond. Quezon City Sports Club. vs EULALIO GANZON. This was reversed by the CA]. INC. [Whether or not the failure to post the imposed bond warrant the dismissal of the appeal. Appeal. They argued that the awards of the Labor Arbiter were null and excessive. 178034 & 178117. and E. and where there is no ambiguity in the words used. GANZON. otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed. 2005. Article 223 of the Labor Code provides: Article 223. then there is no room for construction.. awards. respondents filed before the NLRC a Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond.] bold and italicized texts were supplied in the decision.000. 2005. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions. Inc.R. G. Decisions.P a g e | 11 [Similar to Lolita A. EGI-MANAGERS. Nos. vs.] Yes..00 together with the other requirements under Section 6. ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE. x x x xxxx In case of a judgment involving a monetary award.083. The meaning and the intention of the legislature in enacting a statute must be determined from the language employed.910.R. with the premeditated intention to render the employer incapable of posting an appeal bond and consequently deprive him of the right to appeal. respondents were again ordered to post the additional appeal bond within another non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt thereof. Lopez. the word may refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party. (Emphasis supplied) Issue: Held: The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Hence.P a g e | 12 Moreover. the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. To reiterate. the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period. . that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed. be strictly followed. The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10 day reglementary period. Thus. as a rule. they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer s appeal. It is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds. or would deem such insufficient posting as sufficient to perfect the appeal. the propriety of the monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter is already binding upon this Court. Time and again. and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. but a mere statutory privilege. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must. Nothing in the Labor Code or the NLRC Rules of Procedure authorizes the posting of a bond that is less than the monetary award in the judgment. This requirement is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case. otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer. the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but a jurisdictional requirement as well. Thus. it behooves the Court to give utmost regard to the legislative and administrative intent to strictly require the employer to post a cash or surety bond securing the full amount of the monetary award within the 10 day reglementary period. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period. much more with the Court of Appeals. it has been held that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right. perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional.

 While the Constitution recognizes the primacy of labor. after he recovered from his injury.P a g e | 13 RONILO SORREDA vs. the present dispute is neither rooted in the aforestated contract nor is it one inherently linked to it. Consequently.R. CA ruled that the] petitioner Ronilo Sorreda was not a regular employee of respondent Cambridge Electronics Corporation. In September 1999. Petitioner cannot validly force respondent to enter into a permanent employment contract with him. We note. and renders inutile the basic precepts of labor relations. 1999). there was no concrete proof to establish the existence of such agreement. petitioner met an accident in which his left arm was crushed by a machine and had to be amputated. 2010) Facts: On May 8. Five weeks into the job (on June 15. the petition is hereby DENIED. as it unjustly forbids the employer from terminating the services of an employee despite the existence of a just or valid cause. from the period May 8. Instead of giving him employment. they made him sign a memorandum of resignation to formalize his separation from the company in the light of the expiration of his five-month contract. A contract of perpetual employment deprives management of its prerogative to decide whom to hire. worse. public order. 1999. fire and promote. While there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties under their five-month per-project contract of employment. petitioner reported for work. a liability to the employer.[24] An absolute and unqualified employment for life in the mold of petitioner s concept of perpetual employment is contrary to public policy and good customs. petitioner. No. CAMBRIDGE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION G. such waiver should not be contrary to law. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship. Such stance is contrary to the consensuality principle of contracts as well as to the management prerogative of respondent company to choose its employees. Moreover. Thus. 1999 to October 8. 172927 (February 11. it also recognizes the critical role of private enterprise in nation-building and the prerogatives of management. [Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. NO. however. resulting in an employer-employee relationship. questions or disputes arising out of this relationship fell under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. WHEREFORE. public policy. While management may validly waive it prerogatives. In this instance. that petitioner filed the case only when respondent refused to rehire him. petitioner was hired by respondent as a technician for a period of 5 months at minimum wage. 1999. his cause of action was based on an alleged second contract of employment separate and distinct from the per-project employment contract. morals or good customs. aside from the self-serving claim of petitioner. Issue: Held: . Defendant averred that there was no employeremployee relationship. However. It likewise compels the employer to retain an employee despite the attainment of the statutory retirement age. was clearly a per-project employee of private respondent. petitioner insisted that there was a perfected contract of perpetual employment and that respondent was liable to pay him damages. even if the employee has became a non-performing asset or. based on petitioner s allegations in his position paper.

Stated differently. the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be achieved. but the same is not controlling. if the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. the contested provision of the CBA is clear and unequivocal. the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. In Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. The rule is that where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION G. RENE SORIANO vs. [They entered into CBA. Respondent PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. In the case at bar. In fine.] Petitioner objected to the implementation of the said memorandum. Court of Issue: Held: . Thus. WON the PNCC has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leaves of its employees. on its face.R. 2010) Facts: Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security Division Workers' Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a labor union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words used should be understood in a different sense. Section 1 (b) of the CBA categorically provides that the scheduling of vacation leave shall be under the option of the employer. On the other hand. Pertinent provisions are as follows:] ARTICLE VIII VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE Section 1.P a g e | 14 PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO). (emphasis supplied) [PNCC then created a schedule of leaves for their employees. The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language. its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. [b] The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the request of preference of the employees. 171231 (February 17. Respondent may take into consideration the employees' preferred schedule. Petitioner insisted that their union members have the preference in scheduling their vacation leave. No. It insisted that the individual members of the union have the right to schedule their vacation leave. and from that language alone. represented by its President. Section 1 (b) gives the management the final say regarding the vacation leave schedule of its employees. the contract must be taken to mean that which. Vacation Leave. it purports to mean. It opined that the unilateral scheduling of the employees' vacation leave was done to avoid the monetization of their vacation leave in December 2004. where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous. YES. being the law between the parties. Article VIII. respondent argued that Article VIII.

[T]he purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer a chance to get a much-needed rest to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new vitality to enable him to efficiently perform his duties. This rule of construction does not benefit petitioners because. Indeed. as the public using the skyway system should be assured of its safety. security and convenience. Accordingly. and not merely to give him additional salary and bounty. therefore. Petitioner's contention that labor contracts should be construed in favor of the laborer is without basis and. its terms should be implemented as they are written. this Court held that the CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. Since the CBA is clear and unambiguous. The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on the ground that the same are not favorable to them. the vacation leave privilege was not intended to serve as additional salary. . inapplicable to the present case. but as a nonmonetary benefit. To give the employees the option not to consume it with the aim of converting it to cash at the end of the year would defeat the very purpose of vacation leave. there is here no room for interpretation.P a g e | 15 Appeals. the multitude or scarcity of personnel manning the tollways should not rest upon the option of the employees. The provisions of the CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. as stated.

therefore. except for the assertion put forth by UFE-DFA-KMU. FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS . the parties failed to reach any agreement on the proposed CBA. of course. of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. To some degree. or done in a manner contrary to morals. that social humiliation. As we have said. Despite fifteen (15) meetings between them. INCORPORATED (NESTLÉ) G. or grave anxiety resulted x x x in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations. (Tiu v. You can just choose one of the two. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper. but the failure to reach an agreement after negotiations have continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith. Nos. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other. wounded feelings. or was oppressive to labor.R. 123276. UFE-DFA-KMU G. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.DRUG. It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief. good customs. 158930-31 NESTLÉ vs. the question of good faith may be a question of credibility. The statutes invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract. The union then filed a case for unfair labor practice against Nestlé Was Nestlé guilty of unfair labor practice? NO. National Labor Relations Commission. neither the second Notice of Strike nor the records of these cases substantiate a finding of unfair labor practice. bad faith. 158944-45 (March 3. 2008) UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestlé belonging to the latter s Alabang and Cabuyao plants. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES.R. it must be shown that Nestlé was motivated by ill will. such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. The crucial question. Paraphrase text in []. but the impact of all such occasions or actions. there is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. 247 and 248 (g)] In the case at bar. G. or public policy. considered as a whole. The effect of an employer s or a union s individual actions is not the test of good-faith bargaining.KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU) vs.R. No. [citing Arts. or a little of both. 252 and 253 of the Labor Code] [T]he purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement resulting in a contract binding on the parties. [in citing Art. but they do not compel one. The duty to bargain does not include the obligation to reach an agreement. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. Nos. and. or fraud.P a g e | 16 2 rulings. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES . and the inferences fairly drawn therefrom collectively may offer a basis for the finding of the NLRC. 18 Facts: Issue: Held: .

(Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission. 518. 6 November 1997. Meris.) In this connection. v. Accordingly. 136.) Employers are accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination and independence and reasonable return of capital. Inc. 518. 125038.) This mass of privileges comprises the so-called management prerogatives. (Capitol Medical Center. (Capitol Medical Center. 16 September 2005. G. 6 November 1997. Inc. 281 SCRA 509.R. National Labor Relations Commission. the rule is that good faith is always presumed. v. Nestlé s inclusion in its Position Paper of its proposals affecting other matters covered by the CBA negates the claim of refusal to bargain or bargaining in bad faith. G. No. No. Inc. the award of moral and exemplary damages is unavailing.R.R. 136. G.) Herein. no proof was presented to exemplify bad faith on the part of Nestlé apart from mere allegation. 155098. No. No. As long as the company s exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement. 16 September 2005. G. such exercise will be upheld. 125038. G. 155098. 281 SCRA 509. 16 September 2005. 688.R. 155098. (Capitol Medical Center. 470 SCRA 125.P a g e | 17 August 1997.R. (Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. Construing arguendo that the content of the aforequoted letter of 29 May 2001 laid down a pre-condition to its agreement to bargain with UFE-DFA-KMU. since UFEDFA-KMU failed to proffer substantial evidence that would overcome the legal presumption of good faith on the part of Nestlé. No. v. Meris. .) There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. 277 SCRA 681. 470 SCRA 125. Meris. 470 SCRA 125.) Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. 136.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. PAL adopted the retrenchment scheme allegedly to cut costs and mitigate huge financial losses as a result of a downturn in the airline industry brought about by the Asian financial crisis. 1998. or collectively known as PAL cabin crew personnel. 2008 Facts: Petitioner FASAP is the duly certified collective bargaining representative of PAL flight attendants and stewards. Number of employees who were retrenched due to other reasons -. Number of employees retrenched due to excess sick leaves -.R.61 4. (PAL). Number of employees who were demoted -.  [facts for #4] PAL then subsequently rehired the 140 probationary cabin attendants whose services it had previously terminated. redundancy.000 of its employees.. During said period.1. and yet proceeded to terminate the services of its permanent cabin crew personnel. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THEPHILIPPINES (FASAP).. 283. operating as a common carrier transporting passengers and cargo through aircraft. PAL determined the cabin crew personnel efficiency ratings through an evaluation of the individual cabin crew member's overall performance for the year 1997alone.473. Number of employees who were retrenched due to excess sick leave and other reasons -. Whether or not PAL's retrenchment scheme was justified. retrenchment or reduction of employees is authorized as follows: ART. to take effect on July 15. i..e. It found the following: 1. [facts for #5] » The NLRC made a detailed listing of the retrenchment scheme based on the ICCD Masterank and Seniority 1997 Ratings.P a g e | 18 You can choose from either #1. while its assets stood at P85 billion. the whole duration of service with PAL of each cabin crew personnel. No. July 23. Their respective performance during previous years. Respondent PAL is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy. retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title.454 2. INC. 4 or 5 or a combination of any of those mentioned in the ruling.299 3.552 Total -.107 5. Number of employees retrenched due to inverse seniority rule and other reasons . 1998. PAL retrenched 5. by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. was not considered.400 of its cabin crew personnel. PETITIONER.The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices. including more than 1. VS. Under the Labor Code. the worker Issue: Held: . PAL claims to have incurred P90 billion in liabilities. PATRIA CHIONG & CA G. 178083. On June 15.

P a g e | 19 affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service. Although the Philippine economy was gravely affected by the Asian financial crisis. physical fitness. it cannot be assumed that it has likewise brought PAL to the brink of bankruptcy. Retrenchment is only a measure of last resort. before any reduction of personnel becomes legal. seniority.. whichever is higher. or even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has rendered certain employees redundant. whichever is higher. if already incurred. the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. [application of the law. (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service. (2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment. (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. Likewise. Where appropriate and where conditions are in accord with law and jurisprudence. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. efficiency. serious. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses. the Court has authorized valid reductions in the work force to forestall business losses. These are: (1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which.400 of its cabin crew personnel. when other less drastic means have been tried and found to be inadequate. age. are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. are not merely de minimis. and financial hardship for certain workers. actual and real. . and. or if only expected. but substantial.on #1 above] In the instant case.] Any claim of actual or potential business losses must satisfy certain established standards. The law recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability. (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees. all of which must concur. PAL failed to substantiate its claim of actual and imminent substantial losses which would justify the retrenchment of more than 1. The burden clearly falls upon the employer to prove economic or business losses with sufficient supporting evidence.. Its failure to prove these reverses or losses necessarily means that the employee's dismissal was not justified. however. whichever is higher. the fact that PAL underwent corporate rehabilitation does not automatically justify the retrenchment of its cabin crew personnel. such as status. the hemorrhaging of capital.

and treated all cabin attendants as if they were on equal footing. Respondents might have confused the right to retrench with its actual retrenchment program. The first. Applying this caveat. On the requirement that the prerogative to retrench must be exercised in good faith. Security of tenure is a right guaranteed to employees and workers by the Constitution and should not be denied on the basis of mere speculation. This must be so considering that the dismissal of an employee from work involves not only the loss of his position but more important. [on #4 above] It is almost an inflexible rule that employers who contemplate terminating the services of their workers cannot be so arbitrary and ruthless as to find flimsy excuses for their decisions. loyalty and past efficiency. Any employer desirous of ridding itself of its employees could then easily do so without need to adduce proof in support of its action. GUILTY of illegal dismissal [buti nga! g] . and that the demonstrated arbitrariness in the selection of which of its employees to retrench is further proof of the illegality of the employer's retrenchment program. is a valid prerogative of management. are not specifically stated and shown to be for a valid cause. to show by convincing evidence that it was being wrecked by serious financial problems. it is a right that exists for all employers. we have ruled that the hiring of new employees and subsequent rehiring of "retrenched" employees constitute bad faith. however. the instant petition is GRANTED. As to the second. By discarding the cabin crew personnel's previous years of service and taking into consideration only one year's worth of job performance for evaluation. Moreover. The right of an employer to dismiss an employee differs from and should not be confused with the manner in which such right is exercised. We can not countenance this.P a g e | 20 The foregoing principle holds true with respect to PAL's claim in its Comment that the only issue is the manner by which its retrenchment scheme was carried out because the validity of the scheme has been settled in its favor. that the failure of the employer to resort to other less drastic measures than retrenchment seriously belies its claim that retrenchment was done in good faith to avoid losses. before putting into effect any retrenchment process on its work force. no doubt. not to mention its bad faith. WHEREFORE. treating them as one and the same. his means of livelihood. PAL only considered the year 1997. PAL virtually did away with the concept of seniority. This is not allowed because it has no basis in fact and in law. Inc. x x x FINDING respondent Philippine Airlines. it is always subject to scrutiny in regard to faithful compliance with substantive and procedural requirements which the law and jurisprudence have laid down. [on #5 above] Prominent from the above data (» in facts) is the retrenchment of cabin crew personnel due to "other reasons" which. with no one more senior than the other. To do so would render the security of tenure of workers and employees illusory. Simply declaring its state of insolvency or its impending doom will not be sufficient. in assessing the overall performance of each cabin crew personnel. it is therefore incumbent for the employer. This makes the evaluation of each cabin attendant's efficiency rating capricious and prejudicial to PAL employees covered by it.

each executed and signed a release and quitclaim. written in English and containing a translation in the Visayan dialect in the same document. Just choose 1. Whether these retrenched employees that had already received their separation pay can still recover retirement benefits. The release and quitclaims were acknowledged before a notary public.R. among whom were herein petitioners. the employees. al. (1) The retirement plan of respondent company reveals that an employee who was terminated for cause is not entitled to retirement benefits and thus explicitly prohibits the recovery of retirement benefits in cases of terminations for cause. by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses. there is no dispute that petitioners were separated from the service for cause. Nothing was heard from the retrenched employees. among others. 150180 (October 17. [Labor arbiter dismissed their claims. respondent adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the retrenchment of seven hundred (700) employees in its main plant in Iligan City. NLRC reversed. No. vs. retrenchment is recognized as one of the authorized causes for termination of employment under Article 283 of the Labor Code. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION G. Sometime in 1994. Issue: Held: . retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this title. which states: The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices.P a g e | 21 3 rulings.] CA declared that petitioners were no longer entitled to retirement benefits after having received the separation pay. as it was due to a valid retrenchment undertaken by respondent company. 1994. the separation pay shall be equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service.] After having been paid their separation benefits. They claimed that they were qualified for optional retirement after having rendered services for at least ten (10) years when they were retrenched on August 18. [The retrenched employees received a notice and a separation package including. With this development. 13th month pay. JR. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. and leave balance credits. NO. Unarguably. the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service. et. ship building. redundancy. respondent suffered substantial financial losses due to an increase in the volume of steel products manufactured by foreign countries. can-making and production of appliances. FLAVIO S. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy. including herein petitioners. whichever is higher. 2008) Facts: Respondent National Steel Corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products needed for pipe making. 2 months salary for every year of service. whichever is higher. until February 1997 or about two and half years after their separation from the company. when herein petitioners wrote respondent demanding payment of retirement benefits under the CBA.. and were precluded from claiming such benefits because of their quitclaims. Here. SUAREZ. marked with numbers enclosed in ().

P a g e | 22 Having been separated from employment due to an authorized cause. actions and deeds -. However. the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. especially with regard to the retirement provisions of the 1994-1996 CBA. A CBA is more than a contract. among others. That there is an apparent ambiguity or a failure to express the true intention of the parties.prior to. it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. (2) Apart from the abovementioned provision in the retirement plan. Petitioners concede that the Labor Code allows terminations by the employer for just causes under Article 282 or authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284. would retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age. Moreover. petitioners argue that the term terminations for cause under Article X(E) of the retirement plan should be read to only include terminations for just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. words. Respondent s retirement plan in referring to terminations for cause plainly does not distinguish between just cause and authorized causes for termination. It covers the whole employment relationship and prescribes the rights and duties of the parties. during. If the terms of the CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. and after executing the agreement. must be ascertained. if the CBA imports ambiguity. In this instance to resolve all doubts as to the proper interpretation of the relevant CBA provisions. Terminations covered by Articles 282 to 284 are all terminations by the employer for a lawful cause. this Court has had occasion to use the term dismissal for cause to refer to dismissals for just and/or authorized cause. With the inclusion of such provision in the retirement plan. is evident in the opposing interpretations of the same by the Labor Arbiter and the CA on one hand and the NLRC on the other. after rendering at least ten (10) years of continuous services. an intrinsic ambiguity in the written agreement or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. In their Reply. [It] readily shows that retirement benefits shall be granted only to those employees who. petitioners are barred from receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Article X(E) of respondent s retirement plan. A party may present evidence to modify. This juristic principle is supported by the following provision of law found in the New Civil Code: . They are only entitled to payment of separation pay in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code. there is nothing in the said retirement plan which limits the term terminations for cause to terminations under Article 282. This Court is not persuaded by this argument. it was imperative for the CA to determine the true intent of the parties to the agreement. or would avail of optional voluntary retirement. explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he raises as an issue. respondent categorically disallows payment of retirement benefits to retrenched employees. or to situations wherein it is the employee that is at fault. provisions of the CBA between the company and its employees further militate against petitioners contention that they are entitled to both separation pay and retirement benefits. then the parties intention as shown by their conduct. It is settled that the parole evidence rule admits of exceptions. In the past.

In the absence of evidence showing coercion or intimidation in its execution. In Periquet v. the parties may still prove it by means of contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties to the agreement. leave balance credits. In the instant case. 13th month pay. we are constrained to uphold the appellate court s conclusion that the execution of the release and quitclaim was valid. uniform plus rice subsidy differential. Besides. Indeed. does not contain an express prohibition of payment of retirement benefits to retrenched employees. . this Court ruled that not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. The validity of quitclaims executed by laborers has long been recognized in this jurisdiction. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement of the claims of the employee. (3) We likewise uphold the CA s finding that petitioners voluntarily executed and signed a release and quitclaim after receiving their separation package. there is no showing that petitioners were forced or duped by respondent into signing the release and quitclaim. such as the execution of the affidavits by the NASLU-FFW officers and respondent s managers. In their sworn quitclaim. National Labor Relations Commission. while the CBA. nothing on the face of their quitclaim has been shown as unconscionable. salary differential and signing bonus. the quitclaim represents a reasonable and fair settlement of petitioners claims as the separation package consisted of two (2) months salary for every year of service. Such legitimate waivers resulting from voluntary settlements of laborer s claims should be treated and upheld as the law between the parties. on its face. acknowledging full and final payment of all benefits that they may be entitled to in relation to their employment. it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.P a g e | 23 Article 1371. Thus. Each quitclaim was written in English and in the Visayan dialect which petitioners very well understand. their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties. they freely declared that they received full separation pay as well as all other amounts due them by reason of their employment.