G.R. No. 164032 January 19, 2009 LOLITA A. LOPEZ, et. al. petitioner, vs. QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB, INC., respondents.
FACTS: The Kasapiang Manggagawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (union) averred that it was ordered to submit a new information sheet. It immediately wrote a letter addressed to the general manager 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. On 4 July 1997, the union wrote a letter to the management for the release of the members’ salaries and grant of wage increases mandated by the CBA. When its letter went unanswered, the union filed a notice of strike and fter 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. The Kasapiang Manggagawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (union) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against QCSC on 12 November 1997. Labor Arbiter Joel S. Lustria 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 filed an appeal and a motion for reduction of the appeal bond to P4,000,000.00. NLRC ordered the posting of an additional P6,000,000.00 bond and rendered a decision granting the appeal and reversing the Lustria decision. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeal but it was also denied. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not 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? (2) Whether or not the decision of the NLRC is valid? HELD: On the first issue, the Court ruled that the posting of the amount of P4,000,000.00 simultaneously with the filing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, all within the reglementary period, altogether constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. it is provided on Article 223 of the Labor Code and Sections 4(a) and 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, that appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond; and that no motion to reduce shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award. Furthermore, based on existing jurisprudence, the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards had been and could be relaxed in meritorious cases such as: (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules; (2) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond; (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits; or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the NLRC erred in setting aside the Lustria’s decision, as well as in deleting the award of backwages and separation pay, despite the finding that the affected employees had been constructively dismissed. In the notice of strike, the union did not state in particular the acts which allegedly constitute unfair labor practice. By virtue of the "nostrike no lockout" provision in the CBA, the union was prohibited from staging an economic strike. However, while the strike by the union was held illegal, only the union officers were declared as having lost their employment status. In effect, the other union members who had
merely participated in the strike but had not committed any illegal acts were not dismissed from employment. The grant of backwages and separation pay, in Lustria’s decision, not premised on the declaration of the illegality of the strike but on the finding that these affected employees were constructively dismissed from work, as evidenced by the layoffs effected by the company. Therefore, the Lustria decision should be upheld and therefore reinstated except as regards the four petitioners who were declared having lost their employment status.
G.R. No. 164856 January 20, 2009 JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent. FACTS: An administrative charge was filed by PAL against its employees-herein petitioners after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Center’s Toolroom Section. After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners for transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline, prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages which was resolved by the Labor Arbiter in their favor, thus ordering PAL to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. Prior to the promulgation of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the SEC placed PAL which was suffering from severe financial losses. From the Labor Arbiter’s decision, PAL appealed to the NLRC which reversed said decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied and Entry of Judgment was issued. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution respecting the reinstatement aspect of his decision, and he issued a Notice of Garnishment. PAL thereupon moved to quash the Writ and to lift the Notice while petitioners moved to release the garnished amount. In a related move, PAL filed an Urgent Petition for Injunction with the NLRC which affirmed the validity of the Writ and the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but suspended and referred the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action. PAL elevated the matter to the appellate court which reversed the NLRC’s decision. Hence, this petition. ISSUES: (1) whether or not a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal removes the basis for implementing the reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiter’s decision? and (2) whether or not the impossibility to comply with the reinstatement order due to corporate rehabilitation provides a reasonable justification for the failure to exercise the options under Article 223 of the Labor Code? HELD: Since petitioners’ claim against PAL is a money claim for their wages during the pendency of PAL’s appeal to the NLRC, this should have been suspended pending the rehabilitation proceedings. It was then suspended while ongoing rehabilitation. In view of the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings, the Court now proceeds to resolve the remaining issue for consideration. As to the first issue, the court held that a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal removes the basis for implementing the reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiter’s decision. Based on jurisprudential trend applying par 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which provides that “In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein.” The view as maintained in a number of cases is that “Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.” On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period. The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award for reinstatement shall be immediately executory even pending appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. The legislative intent is quite obvious, i.e., to make an award of reinstatement immediately enforceable, even pending appeal. To require the application for and issuance of a writ of execution as prerequisites for the execution of a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very object and intent of Article 223. The reason is simple. As to the second issue, the Court held that the peculiar predicament of a corporate rehabilitation rendered it impossible for respondent to exercise its option under the circumstances. The spirit of the rule on reinstatement pending appeal animates the proceedings once the Labor Arbiter issues the decision containing an order of reinstatement. Reinstatement pending appeal necessitates its immediate execution during the pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble purpose. At the same time, any attempt on the part of the employer to evade or delay its execution, should not be countenanced. After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer. The new NLRC Rules of Procedure, now require the employer to submit a report of compliance within 10 calendar days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, disobedience to which clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate. It is apparent that there was inaction on the part of respondent to reinstate them, but whether such omission was justified depends on the onset of the exigency of corporate rehabilitation. It is settled that upon appointment by the SEC of a rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims before any court, tribunal or board against the corporation shall ipso jure be suspended. Case law recognizes that unless there is a restraining order, the implementation of the order of reinstatement is ministerial and mandatory. This injunction or suspension of claims by legislative fiat partakes of the nature of a restraining order that constitutes a legal justification for respondent’s non-compliance with the reinstatement order. Respondent’s failure to exercise the alternative options of actual reinstatement and payroll reinstatement was thus justified. Such being the case, respondent’s obligation to pay the salaries pending appeal, as the normal effect of the non-exercise of the options, did not attach. G.R. No. 178647 February 13, 2009 GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS, Petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (GENERAL SANTOS CITY), THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents. FACTS: Sometime in the late 1990s, CCBPI experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic crisis, decrease in sales, and tougher competition. To curb the negative effects on the company, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program and also there was an inter-office memorandum mandating to put on hold all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in Head Office and in the Plants. This prompted petitioner to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee for filling up the vacancies with permanent employees. No resolution was reached on the matter. Faced with the
"freeze hiring" directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation, a company in the business of providing labor and manpower services, including janitorial services, messengers, and office workers to various private and government offices. Petitioner then filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board a Notice of Strike on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members. The Secretary of Labor issued an Order enjoining the threatened strike and certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied. The CA also denied the petition for certiorari as well as the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the act of contracting-out services from JLBP constitutes unfair labor practices? HELD: Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. An examination of the issues raised by petitioner reveals that they are questions of fact. The issues raised, i.e., whether JLBP is an independent contractor, whether CCBPI’s contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether such action was a valid exercise of management prerogative, call for a re-examination of evidence, which is not within the ambit of SC’s jurisdiction. Moreover, factual findings of the NLRC, an administrative agency deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but finality especially when such factual findings are affirmed by the CA. Furthermore, the court found no reversible error in the assailed Decision. It is true that the NLRC erroneously concluded that the contracting- out of jobs in CCBPI Gen San was due to the “Going-to-Market” system, which actually affected CCBPI’s sales and marketing departments, and had nothing to do with petitioner’s complaint. However, this does not diminish the NLRC’s finding that JLBP was a legitimate, independent contractor and that CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies created by the freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head Office. The lower court found, based on the evidence, that CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and that the company’s action to contract-out the services and functions performed by Union members was not directed at the members’ right to self-organization; therefore, it was not guilty of unfair labor practice. Article 248 of the Labor Code provides that unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right to selforganization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices. G.R. No. 167141 March 13, 2009 SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA), Petitioner, vs. SAMMA CORPORATION, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election in the DOLE. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition. Med-arbiter Arturo V. Cosuco ordered the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner moved for reconsideration.
Thus. ISSUES: (1) whether or not a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a petition for certification election?. 171618-19 March 20. 9." is not a litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding character. On the third issue.R. the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping refers to complaints. Hence.O.Meanwhile. Subsequently. petitioner or applicant. Acting Secretary Manuel G. 2-01. No. With certificates of registration issued in their favor. the Petitioner still moved for the reconsideration and the resolution does not attained finality yet. Thus. The lack of proof of service was not fatal as respondent had actually received a copy of the motion. treating the motion for reconsideration as an appeal. 2009
. rendered a decision reversing the order of the med-arbiter. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA which was reversed by the latter as well as the motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed its comment on the motion for reconsideration of petitioner. Petitioner still has its legal personality. they are clothed with legal personality as legitimate labor organizations. as a mere bystander. this petition. On the second issue. “the appeal shall be under oath and shall consist of a memorandum of appeal specifically stating the grounds relied upon by the appellant with the supporting arguments and evidence. Respondent filed its motion for reconsideration which was denied. Going back to the case. Therefore. cross-claims. LIKHA was granted legal personality as a federation under certificate of registration no. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack.. The appeal shall be deemed not filed unless accompanied by proof of service thereof to appellee. according to the implementing rules as amended by D. but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation of certificate of registration. A certification proceeding. Nos. he directed the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of respondent. there is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping in a petition for certification election. respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner’s union registration in the DOLE. Crispin D. Jr. counter-claims. 92-1015-032-11638-FED-LC. petitions or applications where contending parties litigate their respective positions regarding the claim for relief of the complainant. asserting that the order of the med-arbiter could only be reviewed by way of appeal and not by a motion for reconsideration. petitioner as its local chapter was issued its charter certificate no. issued a resolution revoking the charter certificate of petitioner as local chapter of LIKHA Federation. has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders related thereto. even though initiated by a "petition. Dannug. Even though the petitioner’s charter certificate was initially revoked by the DOLE. G. Imson. It was ruled that the employer. (2) whether or not petitioner’s motion for reconsideration which was treated as an appeal should not have been given due course for failure to attach proof of service on respondent?.” The motion for reconsideration was properly treated as an appeal because it substantially complied with the formal requisites of the latter. and (3) whether or not petitioner had the legal personality to file the petition for certification election? HELD: On the first issue. Officer-in-Charge/Regional Director of DOLE. claimant.
and refusal to bargain. The NLRC. The CA dismissed the petition but modified the decision of the NLRC. on appeal. respondent’s officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the strike. was ordered to pay respondent’s officers and employees backwages and separation pay. unfair labor practice. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Its officers and members picketed petitioner’s main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the compound. ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike? HELD: The principle of conclusiveness of judgment. the strike was illegal. decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks. Accordingly. asserted that because respondent conducted a strike without observing the procedural requirements provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code. Inc. The petitioner filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO in the NLRC. this petition. Petitioner was therefore guilty of unfair labor practice and. respondent went on strike.JACKBILT INDUSTRIES. it was found guilty of illegal dismissal. Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employer’s premises. petitioner Jackbilt Industries. Petitioner. Thus. compelling most of its employees to go on leave for six months. Meanwhile. the CA held that the temporary shutdown was moved by anti-union sentiments. Because most of affected employees were union members. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner was expiring during the period of the shutdown. Petitioner assailed decision of the NLRC via a petition for certiorari in the CA. JACKBILT EMPLOYEES WORKERS UNION-NAFLU-KMU. petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members and barred them from entering its premises. It held that only petitioner should be liable for monetary awards granted to respondent’s officers and members. embodied in the Rules of Court. strike was ipso facto illegal and a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. The NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioner’s property. Hence. Since respondent was found in to have prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from petitioner’s compound. FACTS: Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis on the construction industry. Respondent. vs. Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU immediately protested the temporary shutdown. modified the decision of the labor arbiter. holds that the parties to a case are bound by the findings in a previous judgment with respect to matters actually raised and adjudged therein. respondent claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal before terminating respondent’s officers and employees. However. consequently. The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal. illegal dismissal and attorney’s fees. the NLRC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. the Court held the legality of the dismissal of respondent’s officers and employees based on Article 264 of the Labor Code which provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. However. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. Therefore. Consequently. Petitioner.
. pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. Both petitioner and respondent moved for reconsideration but they were denied for lack of merit.. the respondent union violated order. Respondent then filed complaints for illegal lockout. INC. runaway shop and damages. on the other hand.
there exists in this case an actual controversy directly involving petitioner who is personally aggrieved that the labor tribunals and the CA computed his monetary award based on the salary period of three months only as provided under the subject clause.00/month.00. he had served only 2 months and 7 days of his contract. it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination.. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate.00. petitioner brings his cause to the SC. (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party and at the earliest opportunity.000. The NLRC modified the LA Decision on the lump-sum salary awarded to the petitioner. vs. (3) Basic monthly salary: US$ 1. when the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals. (5) Overtime: US$700. (2) Position: Chief Officer..442. and (6) Vacation leave with pay: 7 days/month. but this time he questioned the constitutionality of the subject clause. and Marlow Navigation Co. Respondents. and vacation leave pay provided in the contract. SERRANO. It should be borne in mind that the
. and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case. OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts. INC.G. (respondents) under a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)approved Contract of Employment with the following terms and conditions: (1) Duration of Contract: 12 months. the LA based his computation on the salary period of three months only -.. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA which was granted. No. (4) Hours of work: 48 hrs/week. INC. Respondents appealed to the NLRC on the legality of the dismissal. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the court shall grant migrant workers back wages equal to the unexpired portion of his contract?. Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 months but at the time of his repatriation.R. (2) Whether or not the court should have decided on the constitutional issue raised by the petitioner?. 167614 March 24. Petitioner. Without a doubt. such as the Congress.400. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. FACTS: Petitioner Serrano was hired by Gallant Maritime Services. However. Ltd. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. The NLRC denied the motion. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES. Petitioner filed a Complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims in the total amount of US$26.rather than the entire unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days of petitioner's employment contract . petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines. upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.770. In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary of US$8. 2009 ANTONIO M.73 as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1. The constitutional challenge is also timely. Inc. however. the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by petitioner. His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the CA. Hence. While petitioner also appealed to the NLRC on the sole issue that the LA erred in not applying the ruling that in case of illegal dismissal. the LA applied the salary rate based on basic.applying the subject clause. overtime. The LA rendered a Decision declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal and awarding him monetary benefits. leaving an unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days.00. On the date of his departure. and (3) Whether or not the court shall include the award of overtime and vacation pay provided in the contract? HELD: On the first and second issues. Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.
requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with said labor tribunal, and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA. Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision. The third condition that the constitutional issue be critical to the resolution of the case likewise obtains because the monetary claim of petitioner to his lump-sum salary for the entire unexpired portion of his 12-month employment contract, and not just for a period of three months, strikes at the very core of the subject clause. On the issue of constitutionality of RA 8042, the Court held that it is unconstitutional. The prohibition on Section 10, Article III of the Constitution is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected; however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. The enactment of RA No. 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998. Hence, it cannot be argued that R.A. No. 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the employment contract of the parties. Furthermore, the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and wellbeing of OFWs wherever they may be employed. The Court held that RA 8042 does not violate the non-impairment clause provided in the constitution. Rights provided in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution are not absolute but subject to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate, when it sees fit, a system of classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the classification must comply with these requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class. Based on existing jurisprudence, it was held that Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution. The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special protection by the Constitution. When these violations arise, the Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. Rational basis should not suffice. Imbued with the obligation to afford protection to labor, the Court in the present case employs the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in the subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs. A closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs at two levels: (1) OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of less than one year; which in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion of their contract; and (2) OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of one year or more; which in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts. To illustrate the disparity even more vividly, the Court assumes a hypothetical OFW-A with an employment contract of 10 months at a monthly salary rate of US$1,000.00 and a hypothetical OFW-B with an employment contract of 15 months with the same monthly salary rate of US$1,000.00. Both commenced work on the
same day and under the same employer, and were illegally dismissed after one month of work. Under the subject clause, OFW-A will be entitled to US$9,000.00, equivalent to his salaries for the remaining 9 months of his contract, whereas OFW-B will be entitled to only US$3,000.00, equivalent to his salaries for 3 months of the unexpired portion of his contract, instead of US$14,000.00 for the unexpired portion of 14 months of his contract, as the US$3,000.00 is the lesser amount. In sum, prior to R.A. No. 8042, OFWs and local workers with fixed-term employment who were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But with the enactment of R.A. No. 8042, specifically the adoption of the subject clause, illegally dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their employment contract have since been differently treated in that their money claims are subject to a 3-month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed-term employment. The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution, the Court now subjects the classification to a strict judicial scrutiny, and determines whether it serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means. What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history. It is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in maintaining access to information on matters of public concern. In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly serve. The Government has failed to discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling state interest that would justify the perpetuation of the discrimination against OFWs under the subject clause. Assuming that the purpose of the subject clause is to protect the employment of OFWs by mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, such callous and cavalier rationale will have to be rejected. There can never be a justification for any form of government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the same burden on another sector, especially when the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose protection no less than the Constitution commands. The idea that private business interest can be elevated to the level of a compelling state interest is odious. Moreover, even if the purpose of the subject clause is to lessen the solidary liability of placement agencies vis-a-vis their foreign principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose without infringing on the constitutional rights of OFWs. The Court, therefore, held that the subject clause violates petitioner's right to substantive due process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits, without any existing valid governmental purpose. The subject clause also does not state or imply any definitive governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that the clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal protection, but also her right to substantive due process under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. The subject clause being unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months and 23 days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042. On the Third Issue, the Court held that the claim for the day's leave pay for the unexpired portion of the contract is unwarranted. The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include
overtime and leave pay. For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department Order No. 33, series 1996 provides a Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work "performed" in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work "performed" on designated rest days and holidays. By the foregoing definition alone, there is no basis for the automatic inclusion of overtime and holiday pay in the computation of petitioner's monetary award, unless there is evidence that he performed work during those periods. G.R. No. 109002 April 12, 2000 DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs. DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA) and BUENAVENTURA MAGSALIN, respondents. G.R. No. 110072 April 12, 2000 DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES UNION (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), petitioner, vs. DELA SALLE UNIVERSITY and BUENAVENTURA MAGSALIN, respondents. FACTS: Dela Salle University and Dela Salle University Employees Association — National Federation of Teachers and Employees Union (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), which is composed of regular non-academic rank and file employees, entered into a CBA with a life span of 3 years. During the freedom period, the Union initiated negotiations with the University for a new CBA which, however, turned out to be unsuccessful. Hence, the Union filed a Notice of Strike. After several conciliation-mediation meetings, a partial CBA was thereafter executed by the parties. The parties then entered into a Submission Agreement, identifying the remaining unresolved issues for arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator then rendered decision which was assailed by both parties. They both filed their respective motions for reconsideration which, however, were not entertained by the voluntary arbitrator. The University then filed a petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator. The Union also filed a petition for certiorari. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the CSC, disciple officers & CSB’s employees are included in the University’s rank-and-file bargaining unit? (2) Whether or not a union shop clause should be included in the parties’ CBA? (3) Whether or not Last-in-First-out is valid in cases of retrenchment? (4) Whether or not the University may be required to grant a second round of wage increase? (5) Whether or not the University should approve the deloading of union president, leave benefits and indefinite union leave with pay? (6) Whether or not the multisectoral committee in the University is the legitimate group which determines and scrutinizes the annual salary increases and fringe benefits of the employees of the University? and (7) whether or not the 70% share in the incremental tuition proceeds is the only source of salary increases and fringe benefits of the employees? HELD: (1) The court ruled that the said CSC and discipline officers are not confidential employees. The service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non-confidential in nature. As to the discipline officers, based on the nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. But the employees of the College of St. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University, because the two educational institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.
(2) It was held that a union shop provision in addition to the existing maintenance of membership clause in the collective should be included. The legal protection granted to a right to refrain from joining a union is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only members of the collective bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. (3) It was ruled that as an exercise of management prerogative, the University has the right to adopt valid and equitable grounds as basis for terminating or transferring employees. A valid exercise of management prerogative is one which, among others, covers: work assignment, working methods, time, supervision of workers, transfer of employees, work supervision, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Except as provided for, or limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment." (4) The Court found that the voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The standard proof of a company's financial standing is its financial statements duly audited by independent and credible external auditors. The financial capability of a company cannot be based on its proposed budget because a proposed budget does not reflect the true financial condition of a company and more importantly, the use of a proposed budget as proof of a company's financial condition would be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who might be merely feigning dire financial condition in their business ventures in order to avoid granting salary increases and fringe benefits to their employees. (5) It was ruled that there being no justifiable reason for the granting of the deloading of union president, leave benefits and indefinite union leave with pay. (6) During the parties' negotiations for a new CBA, the Union demanded for a 25% and 40% salary increase for the second and third years, respectively. The University's counter-proposal was for a 10% increase for the third year. After the meeting of the multi-sectoral committee on budget, which is composed of students, parents, faculty, administration and union, the University granted across-the-board salary increases of 11.3% and 19% for the second and third years, respectively. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said committee is the group responsible for determining wage increases and fringe benefits, the committee's determination must still be based on duly audited financial statements. (7) The Court deemed that any determination of this issue is unnecessary and irrelevant, in view of the rulings on the 4th and preceding issues and there being no evidence presented before the voluntary arbitrator that the University held incremental tuition fee proceeds from which any wage increase or fringe benefit may be satisfied. G.R. No. 89920 October 18, 1990 UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, UST FACULTY UNION, respondents. FACT: The University of Sto. Tomas (UST) terminated the employment of all 16 union officers and directors of respondent UST Faculty Union on the ground that in publishing or causing to be published in Strike the libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector, has committed the offenses of grave misconduct, serious disrespect to a superior and conduct
The NLRC was only trying its best to work out a satisfactory ad hoc solution to a festering and serious problem. it was adjudged that the NLRC's award of backwages until actual reinstatement is correct. It was found that their persistence justified as they are rightfully and legally entitled to actual reinstatement. However. the order did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. some faculty members staged mass leaves of absence and several days thereafter. Such error is merely an error of judgment which is not correctible by a special civil action for certiorari. Secretary Franklin Drilon subsequently issued an order suspending the termination of the 16 employees. or general principles of fair play and justice. Additionally. which is the subject of this petition for certiorari. However. The petitioner manifests the fear that if the temporarily reinstated faculty members will be allowed to handle actual teaching assignments in the classroom. The payroll reinstatement will actually minimize the petitioners’ problems in the payment of full backwages. The reinstated faculty members' refusal to assume their substantially equivalent academic assignments does not contravene the Secretary's return-to-work order. transfer. the petitioner University is restricted from exercising its generally unbounded right to transfer or reassign its employees. The labor arbiter certified the matter to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for a possible suspension of the effects of termination. The respondent union filed before the NLRC a motion to implement the orders of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment. To the extent that Art. The NLRC subsequently caned the parties to a conference. They were merely insisting on being given actual teaching loads.
. on the return-to-work order being followed. (3) The hiring. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the Secretary's order of actual reinstatement. Petitioner UST filed a motion for reconsideration. ISSUES: Whether or not the order of the alternative remedies of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement of the dismissed faculty members is proper? Whether or not the University can be required to pay full backwages of the dismissed employees? Whether or not NLRC is correct when it arrogated upon itself the exercise of the right and prerogatives reposed by law to the petitioner university in the latter’s capacity as employer? HELD: (1) It was held that it was error for the NLRC to order the alternative remedies of payroll reinstatement or actual reinstatement. Article 263(g) is one such limitation provided by law. Secretary Drilon issued another order modifying his previous order. the return-to-work portion of the earlier order which states that "the faculty members should be admitted under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the dispute" was affirmed. As a result of the dismissal of said employees. the latter would take advantage of the situation by making the classroom the forum not for the purpose of imparting knowledge to the students but for the purpose of assailing and lambasting the administration. 263(g) calls for the admission of all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. There is no showing that such substantial evidence is not present. firing. The NLRC issued a resolution. (2) A return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory despite the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the petitioner. a CBA. these are not absolute prerogatives. They are subject to limitations found in law.unbecoming a faculty member. ordering UST to readmit all its faculty members under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the present dispute. demotion and promotion of employees are traditionally Identified as management prerogatives. disrupting classes in all levels at the University. Since the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect but even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. although the Secretary's order was modified. The faculty union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the DOLE. while petitioner filed its opposition to the private respondent's motion.
Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the CBA or other applicable employment contract. a special account from which she could make withdrawals as she pleased. Under the terms of this pre-1992 plan. her retirement was governed by the applicable agreement which was the UNILAB retirement plan. She rendered service to the company until the end of 1992. UNILAB denied Rivera’s request explaining that the upgrade of the retirement benefit formula which occurred after her retirement shall not be applied to her. In 1988. Article 287 of the Labor Code simply provided that . G. Rivera's accrued retirement benefits under Trust Fund A and Trust Fund B were withdrawn from the retirement fund and deposited in Trust Fund C.There may be a basis for such a fear. Whether she could or could not resume working with the company is. Respondent. FACTS: Rivera commenced employment with respondent UNILAB as senior manufacturing pharmacist. UNILAB allowed her to continue working for the company. The amendment also provides that the effective date of normal or mandatory retirement from the Plan is 30 days after an employee reaches his/her 60th birthday.047. UNITED LABORATORIES. Vice-President. A twist in Rivera’s case is that she continued working beyond the compulsory separation from service that resulted from her retirement. whichever comes first. Section 13 of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code. on the other hand. among others. 155639 April 22. Thus. at which time. an employee may be retired upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years. as a rule. Her employment terms under this renewed employment are based on what she and the company agreed upon. such a fear is speculative and does not warrant a deviation from the principle that the dismissed faculty members must be actually reinstated pending resolution of the labor dispute. However. provided that – In the absence of any CBA or other applicable agreement concerning terms and conditions of employment which provides for retirement at an older age.… the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining or other agreement. INC. Prior to the Retirement Pay Law (R.. Based on her monthly salary and at one month's terminal basic salary for every year of service. her retirement was mandatory as she had reached 30 years of service. Petitioner. The company then amended its retirement plan. 7641). Rivera completed 30 years of service and UNILAB retired her pursuant to the terms of the plan.5 months of terminal basic salary for every year of service. multiplied by her thirty four (34) years of service with the company. she was even promoted to the position of Asst. for an increase in retirement benefits from 1 month to 1. No. ISSUE: Whether or not Rivera is entitled to the upgraded retirement benefit? HELD: Retirement in its ordinary signification is the termination of an employee’s service upon reaching retirement age. At Rivera's request. Rivera then asked that her retirement benefits be increased in accordance with the amended retirement program based on her terminal basic salary. vs. consisting of Trust Fund A where it would put in its contributions for the account of the member-employee and Trust Fund B consisting of the contributions of the members themselves.33.A. RIVERA.331.R. a consensual matter for the parties to agree upon. 2009 JANUARIA A. limited only by company policies and the applicable terms of the retirement plan. A member is compulsorily retired upon reaching the normal retirement date which is the date when the member has reached age 60 or has completed 30 years of service. She later became Director of UNILAB's Manufacturing Division. UNILAB then adopted a comprehensive retirement plan supported by a retirement fund. Rivera retired from employment with the company. providing. Whether these terms included renewed coverage in the retirement plan is an evidentiary gap that could
. Rivera's total retirement benefits amounted to P1.
Procedural due process in the dismissal of employees requires notice and hearing.55 was collected. ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of the employees is legal and valid? HELD: The Labor Code of the Philippines has several provisions under which an employee may be validly terminated. Inc." "union shop.R. and/or AMPARO POLICARPIO. reinstatement and damages were filed against respondents. Thus. FACTS: First Philippine Scales. Bergante. Inguillo and several FPSI employees joined another union. NLMKATIPUNAN allegedly erroneously collected P90. In 1991. Inguillo then filed with the NLRC a complaint against FPSI and/or Policarpio for illegal withholding of salary and damages. The first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. Inguillo and Bergante. which was affiliated with a federation called KATIPUNAN. However. Two indicators. Notices of garnishment were issued to United Coconut Planters Bank and to FPSI for the latter to hold for FPSILU the earnings of Grutas and Inguillo to the extent of P13. the plan could not have covered her. The second is the absence of evidence of. however. No.032. Respondents. tell us that no such coverage took place.18. The first is that the terms of the retirement plan. Therefore. Manager. we conclude that her renewed service did not have the benefit of any retirement plan coverage.000. Resultantly. 2 separate complaints for illegal dismissal. G. (2) authorized causes under Article 283. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the Union Security Clause. (3) termination due to disease under Article 284. Inc." "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. or of any demand for. Petitioners. it was emphasized that the enforcement of union security clauses is authorized by law. the dismissal from employment based on the same is recognized and accepted by the court. vs. "Union security" is a generic term. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES. which is applied to and comprehends "closed shop. There are two (2) aspects which characterize the concept of due process: substantive and procedural. Respondents then terminated the services of 8 employees including Grutas. and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the union's decision to expel the employee from the union or company. before and after its 1992 amendment. 165407 June 5. It was found that all the requisites have been sufficiently met. continued to exclude those who have rendered 30 years of service or have reached 60 years of age. (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA. (FPSI) employed Bergante and Inguillo as assemblers.have been conclusively shown by evidence of deductions of contributions to the plan after 1988. while the second notice informs the employee of the employer’s decision to
. any reimbursement of what Rivera would have paid as contributions to the plan had her coverage and deductions continued after 1988. 2009 HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO and ZENAIDA BERGANTE.00 from the employees. and (4) termination by the employee or resignation under Article 285. While the said provisions did not mention as ground the enforcement of the Union Security Clause in the CBA. Bergante and Inguillo. the amount of P5. The employer must furnish the employee two written notices before termination may be effected.140. who were members of FPSILU. the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable. During the lifetime of the CBA. the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM). Subsequently. FPSI and First Philippine Scales Industries Labor Union (FPSILU) entered into a CBA. and always with due process. provided such enforcement is not characterized by arbitrariness. namely: (1) just causes under Article 282.
Petitioner. vs. G. it was opposed by the Union. The power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. 165756 June 5.137. reducing work weeks in some of the hotel’s departments. on the other hand.dismiss him. a list of the positions declared redundant and to be contracted out was given by the management to the Union. A notice of termination was also submitted by the management to the DOLE indicating the names. The requirement of a hearing. likewise. INC. The records are bereft of any notice that would have given a semblance of substantial compliance on the part of herein respondents. and imposing a moratorium on hiring employees for the year 2001 whenever practicable. Allegedly. the management initially decided to cost-cut by implementing energy-saving schemes: prioritizing acquisitions/purchases. Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. No. owner of Hyatt Regency Manila.00 gross operating profit in year 2000. sent to 48 employees whose positions were to be retrenched or declared as redundant. Thereafter. In this case. Hence. The effect was to be a reduction of the hotel’s rank-and file employees from the agreed number of 248 down to just 150 but it would generate estimated savings of around P9.267. directing the employees to avail of their vacation leaves.R. a staggering decline compared to its P48. and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. The some positions were identified as redundant or in excess of what was required for the hotel’s actual operation given the prevailing poor business condition. Despite its opposition.608. addresses. the required two notices that must be given to herein petitioners Bergante and Inguillo were lacking. Employers should respect and protect the rights of their employees. Respondent. indicated that the hotel suffered a gross operating loss amounting to P16. is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard. HEPI submitted its economic proposals for the rank-and-file employees included manning and staffing standards for the 248 regular rank-and-file employees which was accepted by the Union. including one Union officer. The Union then filed a notice of strike due to a bargaining deadlock before the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB). this is not without limitation. (HEPI). Subsequently. In the course of the proceedings. a new CBA was signed. who were affected by the downsizing plan were
. However. An audited financial report made by Sycip Gorres Velayo (SGV) & Co. Some employees.981. As for the requirement of a hearing or conference. HEPI’s hotel business suffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown. which include the right to labor. it was held that respondents also failed to substantially comply with the same. In 2001. However. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious.00 in 2001.612. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 2009 HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES.00 per year. Notices of termination were. HEPI decided to implement a downsizing scheme after studying the operating costs of its different divisions to determine the areas where it could obtain significant savings. and salaries of the employees to be terminated. FACTS: Respondent Union is the certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Hyatt Regency Manila. the hotel management engaged the services of independent job contractors. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SAMASAHNUWHRAIN).217. positions.
2002. and (3) payment of separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service. and (4) adoption of fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished. aimed to cut down costs for operation particularly on salaries and wages. Retrenchment and redundancy are valid management prerogatives. exists where the number of employees is in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Both are forms of downsizing and are often resorted to by the employer during periods of business recession. the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven. In the case at bar. In case of redundancy. and be able to survive. In any event. a strike to be valid must comply with the following requisites: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike conducted by the Labor Union due to ULP is valid? HELD: Retrenchment is the reduction of work personnel usually due to poor financial returns. with more reason should we allow an employer to let go of some of its employees to prevent further financial slide. shortage of materials. Redundancy. petitioner justifies the downsizing scheme on the ground of serious business losses it suffered in 2001.981.00 in losses. Otherwise. (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. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. 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. whichever is higher. or seasonal fluctuations. on the other hand. and (c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike. It was when the same proved insufficient and the amount of loss became certain that petitioner had to resort to drastic measures to stave off P9. conversion of the plant for a new production program. Our labor laws only allow retrenchment or downsizing as a valid exercise of management prerogative if all other else fail. provided they are done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. If we see reason in allowing an employer not to keep all its employees until after its losses shall have fully materialized.
. It is the employer who bears the onus of proving compliance with these requirements. Some positions had to be declared redundant to cut losses. (2) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment.transferred to other positions in order to save their employment. retrenchment and redundancy being in the nature of affirmative defenses. For a valid retrenchment. and during lulls in production occasioned by lack of orders.267. (2) separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service. the dismissal is not justified. The Union then filed a notice of strike based on unfair labor practice (ULP) against HEPI and when into strike on May 10. or introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery or automation. petitioner did implement various cost-saving measures and even transferred some of its employees to other viable positions just to avoid the premature termination of employment of its affected workers. whichever is higher. industrial depression. it was 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 terminated employees. Procedurally. has been paid. 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. But in this case. (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions.
Substantively. The petitioner. INC. however. ISSUES: (1) whether the petitioner should be reinstated to the position of Shop Steward and (2) whether the case has been rendered moot and academic. there appears to be a problem. The petitioner first filed a complaint against Roger Silva praying for his reinstatement as Shop Steward.R. respondent fully satisfied the procedural requirements prescribed by law. vs. Upon the conclusion of the investigation. illegal demotion and reduction and diminution of pay. by exception. against respondent ATI and APCWU.) . (ATI) and COURT OF APPEALS.. A valid and legal strike must be based on "strikeable" grounds. Inc. Petitioner. the petitioner was re-assigned from the position of Checker I to Checker I Mobile. While the cases filed by the petitioner were pending. The Shop Steward is a field representative of both the company and the union and acts as an independent arbiter of all complaints brought to his attention.In this case. respondent Union went on strike in the honest belief that petitioner was committing ULP. 2009 TEODORICO S. Silva. Here. even if no such acts are committed by the employer. Corollarily. G. No. the grievance committee issued its report recommending to ATI the recall of the petitioner as Shop Steward and for his reversion to his former position of Checker I. Roger P. which was later amended to illegal demotion with a claim for reduction or diminution in pay. MIRANDA. A cursory look at the responsibilities of a shop steward leads to the conclusion that it is a position within the union. Thus.APCWU CBA" due to refusing to heed the union president’s reminders concerning his "chronic absenteeism" that "is hurting the interest of the Union members as they are left with no responsible union officer when summoned for investigation concerning alleged infractions of company rules. Then the management effective immediately recalls the designation of Miranda as Shop Steward. a strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no acts constituting ULP actually exist. 174316 June 23. then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal. may be considered legal. the strike. Respondents. it is generally deemed an illegal strike. JR. HELD: The premise that the union Shop Steward is a position within the respondent company provides a faulty foundation to an already convoluted case. As an exception. which is designated only to Checker Grades II and III and which positions were only assigned to casual Checkers. The petitioner likewise filed a series of complaints for unfair labor practice. in accordance with the CBA. pursuant to the "Agreement Amending the MPSI (Marina Port Services. A third complaint for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Demotion was then filed by the petitioner which was later amended to illegal demotion in rank and discrimination. even if technically there was no legal ground to stage a strike based on ULP. FACTS: Petitioner Miranda was employed by respondent ATI as Checker I. He was further re-assigned to Vessel Operation Checker. because if it is based on a "non-strikeable" ground. The petitioner then filed a second complaint against the respondent for unfair labor practice. and not within the
. 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. if the employees believe in good faith that ULP actually exists. which is lower in rank than Checker I. He also became a member of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU). wrote a letter to the petitioner regarding the recall of his designation as the union Shop Steward due to loss of trust and confidence in him. the President of APCWU. who was then the Vice President of the union. was appointed to the position of Shop Steward. ASIAN TERMINALS. amounting to constructive dismissal.
PHILIP AGUINALDO. had complaints with the manner in which the union leadership was handling the affairs of the union. the petitioner. including any violation of the rights and conditions of union membership provided for in the Code. This led to the recall of petitioner as the union Shop Steward. EDITHA OCAMPO. or plant and serves as representative of the union. along with other union members. CALAGUAS. This Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to examine and evaluate the probative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tribunal which formed the basis of its impugned decision. The Med-Arbiter. the controversy surrounding his recall from his position as Shop Steward becomes a dispute within the union. Employment with respondent ATI and membership in the union are required in order to occupy the position of Shop Steward. the shop steward is understood to be a union officer who plays an important role in the grievance procedure. there were also complaints about the petitioner’s habitual absenteeism and his inability to perform his duties as union Shop Steward. NORMA S. Even in Section 2 of Rule XIX of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code. as affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. RENE LUIS TADLE. He was already compensated for his retrenchment from ATI. The facts and findings of the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor are generally conclusive on appeal. CARMELITA ESPINA. as required by the APCWU Constitution and By-Laws. But the petitioner is neither a member of the union nor employed with respondent ATI. as amended. An "Internal Union Dispute" or intra-union conflict” refers to a conflict within or inside a labor union. CELSO NIERA. LUZ DE GUZMAN. IRMA E. BENEDICTA ALAVA. ZENAIDA FAMORCA. LAURA ABARA. It may seem that the outcome of this case provides no relief for the petitioner despite his invalid removal from the position of union Shop Steward. GIL Y. MEDINA. the duties and responsibilities of the Shop Steward stated in the CBA between the union and the respondent company. At the same time. the petitioner refused to participate. A shop steward is appointed by the union in a shop. as well as the manner of the appointment and designation of the Shop Steward show that the shop steward is a union position and not a position within the company. GARCIA. In the case at bar. It is a fact that we cannot avoid and must consider in resolving this case. He was already retrenched from respondent ATI and his retrenchment was finally settled through the execution of a Quit Claim and Release which was executed. CORAZON CUI. He found that the claim of loss of trust and confidence due to the petitioner’s alleged absenteeism was not substantiated and that the recall was not approved by the Board of Directors of the union. HIDELITA GABO. charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of employees with the supervisor of the employer. 2003 DR. The events which have taken place during the pendency of the case have rendered the present petition moot and academic. but the reinstatement of the petitioner could not be forced into the present circumstances because the petitioner is no longer employed by the respondent company. GLICERIA BALDRES. CESAR REYES. A.company. LEONCIO CASAL. POTENCIANO. To order the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner to his employment in ATI would render the Quit Claim and Release nugatory. 4763 March 20. The records show that sometime after the appointment of the petitioner to union Shop Steward. Petitioner cannot be reinstated to Shop Steward because his eventual separation from respondent ATI made reinstatement unfeasible. RENE ARNEJO.C. and he released respondent ATI from any and all claims or liability with respect to his separation from employment due to retrenchment. ruled that there was neither cause nor due process in the recall of the petitioner from the position of union Shop Steward. MA. LOURDES C. No. NATIVIDAD
. FERDINAND LIMOS. When a grievance committee was created to investigate these complaints. It includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of the constitution and by-laws of a union. Since the Shop Steward is a union position. department. GAMILLA. resolution or order. REMEDIOS T.
SANTOS and MAFEL YSRAEL.00 when they could have received more than P9. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent must be reprimanded from practice of law due to misconduct? HEDL: There are ethical lapses on the part of respondent Atty. The administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union entered into a compromise agreement for the payment of P7M from which P5M was intended to settle the back wages and other claims of the dismissed employees who were earlier ordered reinstated by the Court. Complainants as members of the UST Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of transparency among the officers and directors of the union in the management and disbursement of the monetary benefits for the faculty members.000. union attorney and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution. (d) refusal to remit and account for the P4.000. for only P2.000. Mariño failed to avoid conflict of interests..000.000. Mariño Jr.000.000. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a CBA with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35 million.200. Mariño worth P4. In 1989 the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including respondent. Although the record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations found respondent as having adequately accounted for the disbursement of the funds which the UST Faculty Union received through the series of agreements with the management of UST. MARIÑO JR.000.200. first. while the remainder of the P42M package would be ceded by UST to the UST Faculty Union which would then disburse the balance to cover the benefits from 1 November 1992 to 31 May 1993. Mariño Jr. Complainants filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. ATTY. vs. Mariño accusing him of (a) compromising their entitlements under the 1986 CBA without the knowledge. The 1986 CBA expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. It was agreed that the benefits accruing from 1 June 1991 to 31 October 1992 were to be taken from the sum of P42M which UST would release directly to the faculty members.2 attorney's fees under the memorandum of agreement. respondent. when he obtained the attorney's fees of P4. Eduardo J. complainants. and worse. FACTS: Sometime in 1986 respondent Atty.00.00 received by him and other officers and directors in the UST Faculty Union under the 1990 compromise agreement. EDUARDO J. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is "whether the acceptance of a new
. when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president. The memorandum of agreement also charged the amount of P2M agreed upon in the 1990 compromise agreement as well as the attorney's fees of Atty. As one of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the University of Santo Tomas for their illegal dismissal.2M against the P42M outlay.00 in favor of the faculty members although the amount was denominated as attorney's fees. and thereafter.00 package under the 1992 memorandum of agreement. (c) lack of transparency in the administration and distribution of the remaining balance of the P42.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union. in the manner by which he secured the P7M by virtue of the compromise agreement and the P4. and the sum of P2M to satisfy the remaining obligations of UST under the 1986 CBA.000. the Court believes that Atty. (b) failing to account for the P7.000. respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. In 1992 UST and the UST Faculty Union executed a memorandum of agreement to settle the salary increases and other benefits under the CBA effective 1988 for a total of P42M. consent or ratification of the union members.
2001 after several requests to start negotiations but it was only on April 22. the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a request for conference to settle differences. Petitioners. a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client. the notice shall. and efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably. the union filed a notice of strike on April 6. actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. In cases of unfair labor practices. the union cannot be faulted for its omission of not attaching the counter-proposal of the company in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such counterproposal. took place for various reasons proffered by the company. Meanwhile. on the other hand. is a non-stock.R. as far as practicable. or worse. state the acts complained of. Joel Calida. however. vs. In the instant case. 2000. with petitioner Atty. Prior to the expiration of the CBA and within the freedom period. DE LEON. on May 4. FACTS: Petitioner Club Filipino. 2001. it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts. No doubt. Johnny Arinto and Roberto de Guzman. 2001. Respondents. In response to the company’s counterproposal. organized and existing under Philippine laws. it took the company another 3
. Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code states: In cases of bargaining deadlocks. JOEL CALIDA. 168406 July 13. among them the illness of the chairman of the management panel. the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision of the DOLE. 2001 on the ground of a CBA bargaining deadlock. JOHNNY ARINTO AND ROBERTO DE GUZMAN. a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action or any proceeding against a party even with the client's consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. ROBERTO F. Roberto F. Inc."15 In the same manner. The company formally responded to the demands of the union when it submitted the first part of its economic counter-proposal. Worse. INC. the notice shall. No. 2001 when the company formally responded to the union by submitting the first part of its counter-proposal. The company then filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. RONIE SUALOG. the second part was submitted on May 11. BENJAMIN BAUTISTA. ISSUE: whether or not the strike staged by respondents was legal? HELD: Rule XXII. The union and the company had a CBA which expired on May 31. No negotiations. Thus it has been held that an attorney or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management.relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof. G. Respondents Ronnie Sualog. non profit corporation duly formed. and ATTY. were former officers and members of the Club Filipino Employees Association. Necessarily. 2009 CLUB FILIPINO. further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the union. as far as practicable. The union then filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain. the union made several demands for negotiation.16 This rule is entirely independent of whether fraud has intervened as in fact no fraud need be shown. no excuse will be heard from an attorney because the rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing oneself in positions that ordinarily excite conflict between self-interest and integrity. To recall. de Leon as its president. but the company refused to improve on its offer. the union sent the company its improved proposal. This prompted the union to stage a strike on May 26.
2009 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN.500. The law is clear: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. 2001 the second part of its counter-proposal." This reflects the intent of the legislature to require "knowledge" as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be dismissed from employment for participating in an illegal strike." In this case. 3. vs. VIII of the 2000-20005 CBA reads: “Salary Increases. If the terms of a contract. SY 2002-2003 – P1.00 or 80% of the TIP.000. Indeed. whichever is higher. Resort to the existing grievance machinery having failed. the phrase "P1.500 per month and its subtraction from the computation of the TIP of the scholarships and tuition fee discounts it grants to deserving students and its employees and their dependents.R. It appears that for the School Year 2001-2002. across the board. across the board. Petitioners. hence. The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult for employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing employees in the guise of exercising management prerogative." should apply only to salary increases and should not include the other increases in benefits received by employees. Respondent argued that the provision in question referred to "salary increases" alone. FACTS: Petitioner forged with the University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW a CBA effective for 5 years. G. whichever is higher.weeks to complete it by submitting on May 11. Note that the verb "participates" is preceded by the adverb "knowingly.00 per month. it is hornbook doctrine that a mere finding of the illegality of the strike should not be automatically followed by the wholesale dismissal of the strikers from employment. The Implementing Rules use the words "as far as practicable. compliance with the requirement was impossible because no counter-proposal existed at the time the union filed a notice of strike. the parties agreed to include a provision on salary increases based on the incremental tuition fee increases or tuition incremental proceeds (TIP) and pursuant to Republic Act No.500. Respondent likewise rejected petitioner’s interpretation of the term "salary increases" as referring not only to the increase in salary but also to corresponding increases in other benefits. INC. attaching the counter-proposal of the company to the notice of strike of the union was not practicable.500. This is but one aspect of the State’s constitutional and statutory mandate to protect the rights of employees to self-organization. The law does not exact compliance with the impossible. Respondent. Respondent refused to accept petitioner’s proposed across-the-board salary increase of P1. Art. Moreover. The Tuition Fee Law. in this case the
.00 per month or 80% of the TIP. the parties agreed to submit the case to voluntary arbitration. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. SY 2001-2002 – P1. whichever is higher. (Emphasis supplied) It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. across the board.FFW. No. The following shall be the increases under this Agreement: SY 2000-2001 – P2. 6728. the parties disagreed on the computation of the salary increases.00 per month or 80% of the TIP. UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES UNION. Among other things. ISSUE: Whether or not the salary increase of P1500 or 80% of the TIP is correct? HELD: Sec. 177594 July 23.
. VIII). X). 252 of the Labor Code is clear on the matter: The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. line and sinker. The CBA does not speak of any other benefits or increases which would be covered by the employees’ share in the TIP. X). opposed the inclusion of or renegotiated the provision allotting 80% of the TIP to salary increases alone. Unmistakably. referred the case back to Med-Arbiter Ma. 10). NUHWHRAIN-MPHC and HIMPHLU. are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. and was aware of its commitments under the contract. bereavement assistance (Sec. VIII of the CBA does not lie. Sec. mistake or duress. Respondents. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS. 6. as it was and is not under any obligation to accept respondent’s demands hook. service award (Art. Even a perusal of the law will show that it does not make 70% as the mandated ceiling. The CBA reflects the incorporation of different provisions to cover other benefits such as Christmas bonus (Art. RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES. nothing in the law prohibits them from doing so. leaves (Article IX). Art.500 is to be allocated for individual salary increases. Art. Art.MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-MPHC). not the maximum percentage. VIII. Still 5 other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast by probationary employees and. had full knowledge of the contents thereof. Art. medical and hospitalization benefits (Secs. 4 and 5. In the present case. it is presumed that it entered into the CBA voluntarily. FACTS: A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel.5). 3. what the law sets is the minimum. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. Art. of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. G. 6 other votes were segregated because the employees who cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. 3. without mentioning that these will likewise be sourced from the TIP. hours. Simonette Calabocal to decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied. 181531 July 31. such employees cannot vote. Art. the literal meaning of their stipulations shall control. and there is even a 10% portion the disposition of which the law does not regulate. Petitioner. educational benefits (Sec. Hence. pursuant to the existing CBA. except salary increases. vs. VIII. Absent any proof that petitioner’s consent was vitiated by fraud. petitioner’s belated claim that the 80% TIP should be taken to mean as covering ALL increases and not merely the salary increases as categorically stated in Sec. petitioner could have. 2009 NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS.2. A reading of the above-quoted provision of the CBA shows that the parties agreed that 80% of the TIP or at the least the amount of P1. and signing bonus (Sec.CBA.R. 1). 11 votes were initially segregated because they were cast by dismissed employees. HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION (HIMPHLU) AND ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION. In view of the significant number of segregated votes. 8. if academic institutions wish to allot a higher percentage for salary increases and other benefits. albeit the legality of their dismissal was still pending before the CA. No. Thus. during the CBA negotiations. The records are thus bereft of any showing that petitioner had made it clear during the CBA negotiations that it intended to source not only the salary increases but also the increases in other employee benefits from the 80% of the TIP.
it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase – from 321 to 337. have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP.R. It averred that it has voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-and-file employees.5 + 1 or at least 170. HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority vote. HON. 256 of the Labor Code. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. respondent. Hence.. Clearly.ISSUES: Whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be allowed to vote? Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent? HELD: In a certification election. petitioner. No. the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. It alleged that SLECC employs about 115 employees and that more than 20% of employees belonging to the rank-and-file category are its members. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and STA. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union then reorganized itself and re-registered as CLUP-Sta. 50% of 337 is 168. Lucia East Commercial Corp. and while there is another union registered covering the same employees. Having declared that no choice in the certification election conducted obtained the required majority. probationary or permanent. vs. limiting its membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta. the petition is GRANTED.
. CLUP-SLECCWA claimed that no certification election has been held among them within the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. CLUP-SLECCWA then filed the instant petition. Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the bargaining unit. namely SMSLEC. The law refers to "all" the employees in the bargaining unit. it has not been recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of SLECC’s employees. WHEREFORE. and its Affiliates. HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Under Art. all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORP. G. Then a CBA between SMSLEC and SLECC was ratified by its rank-and-file employees and registered with DOLE. it follows that a run-off election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the "bargaining unit. FACTS: Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP). 162355 STA. Subsequently. all rank and file employees. WORKERS ASSOCIATION. SLECC filed a motion to dismiss the petition. in behalf of its chartered local. instituted a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Sta. Prescinding from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded. and not just to determine which union won the elections. Lucia East Commercial Corporation. Hence. and that collective bargaining negotiations already commenced between them. whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote." It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the required majority. This majority is 50% + 1. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUPSLECCWA).
. eight mechanics-members of respondent Union. OSWARD ESPION. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. JOSEFINO ESPINO. RAYMONG BARCO. which were legal holidays and peak season for the company. and June 12. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration. vs. consistent with equity to the employer. respondent. ARTURO INES.ISSUE: Whether or not certification election must be conducted in the SLECC? HELD: Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as “any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. indicated to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.” Upon compliance with all the documentary requirements. petition is denied. GALMIER BALISBIS. RODOLFO RAMOS. G. No. the concept of a bargaining unit. CLUP-SLECC and its affiliates workers union. false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) to (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code. but related to. It also filed a complaint for illegal strike against them which was later dismissed at its instance in order to give way to settlement. REYNALDO BERRY. 1999. JEFFREY NERI. without prejudice to its re-filing should settlement be unavailing. FACTS: A. No-Lockout” clause in the CBA. REYNANTE AMIMITA. SORIANO AVIATION.” However. Soriano Aviation and Employees Association of A. A bargaining unit is a “group of employees of a given employer.R. Petitioner treated the refusal to work as a concerted action which is a violation of the “No-Strike. The proper procedure for SLECC is to file a petition for cancellation of certificate of registration of CLUP-SLECC and its affiliates’ workers union and not to immediately commence voluntary recognition proceedings with SMSLEC. 166879 A. 1997 up to December 31. the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. having been validly issued a certificate of registration. employees in two corporations cannot be treated as a single bargaining unit even if the businesses of the two corporations are related. ALBERT AGUILA. It thus meted the workers a 30-day suspension. On May 1 & 12.1 Thus. IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNION PRESIDENT. As despite conciliation no amicable settlement of the dispute was arrived at. REYNALDO ESPERO. SORIANO AVIATION. the Union went on strike. LAURENTE BAYLON. The concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor organization are different from. MARNIMUAN AND RAMIR LICUANAN. GERARDO BUNGABONG. should be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not be attacked collaterally. Soriano Aviation entered into a CBA effective January 1. 1997. VARGAS. SONNY BAWASANTA. WHEREFORE. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees. The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation of registration. JULIUS S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF A. NoLock-out” clause. its herein corespondents refused to render overtime work. petitioner. The CBA included a “No-Strike.
NONO. and DOLE ASIA PHILIPPINES. Respondents. (DFI) hired Oldarico Traveño and 16 others to work at a banana plantation which covered lands previously planted with rice and corn but whose owners had agreed to convert into a banana plantation upon being convinced that TACOR and DFI could provide the needed capital. RUEL U. VASQUEZ. among others. Respecting the second strike.) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes. EVELYN D. MACALINO. NOLE E. the same was not a violation of the “No Strike. DIAMOND FARMS. dismissal of a union officer and perceived union-busting.) commit any act of violence. the putting up of placards. more significantly. JOSELITO B. LUCAS G. 264 and jurisprudence. b. Petitioners. the petition is GRANTED. No. Inc. 164205 September 3. which put to doubt reliability of its operations. ROVEL A.ISSUE: whether the strike staged by respondents is illegal due to the alleged commission of illegal acts and violation of the “No Strike-No Lockout” clause of the CBA? whether individual respondents are deemed to have lost their employment status on account thereof? HELD: The first strike or the mechanics’ refusal to work on 3 consecutive holidays was prompted by their disagreement with the management-imposed new work schedule. the liability for prohibited acts has thus to be determined on an individual basis. CARMEN P. WHEREFORE. RENDON. come within the purview of illegal acts under Art. VILLARMENTE. the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. 2009 OLDARICO S. REYNALDO A. banners and streamers with vulgar statements imputing criminal negligence to the company. AMORIN. as a “No Strike-No Lockout” provision in the CBA is a valid stipulation but may be invoked only by employer when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law. As to the issue of loss of employment of those who participated in the illegal strike. respondent Timog Agricultural Corporation (TACOR) and respondent Diamond Farms. The Union members’ repeated name-calling. FACTS: in 1992. GLORIA A. TIMOG AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION. RAMIL P. CAÑA. DANILA. and equipment. TRAVEÑO. ELIZABETH B. or c. the Union believed in good faith that petitioner committed unfair labor practice when it went on strike on account of the 30-day suspension meted to the striking mechanics. or intimidation. G. DIOSDADO A. GENELSA. FERMILAN. ARCENAL and JEORGE M. It is hornbook principle that the exercise of the right of private sector employees to strike is not absolute. then the same is a violation of the “No Strike-No Lockout Policy” in the existing CBA. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. harassment and threats of bodily harm directed against company officers and non-striking employees and. coercion.No Lockout” provisions. the Court holds that the second strike became invalid due to the commission of illegal action in its course.R.. TAMAYO. RODINO C. ALFREDO A. PANILAGAO. Petitioners helped prepare the lands for the planting of
. INC. Be that as it may. FELICANO. ALBITO. LADRILLO. vs. In the present case. CRISTETA D. Having been grounded on a non-strikeable issue and without complying with the procedural requirements. expertise. Among such limits are the prohibited activities under Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code which states that no person engaged in picketing shall: a. where the Union complied with procedural requirements. even if the purpose of a strike is valid.) obstruct public thoroughfares. BOBONGON BANANA GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE. Indeed.
13th month pay. the petition is DISMISSED. The present case does not involve such an arrangement. and sell exclusively to DFI all export quality bananas produced that meet the specifications agreed upon. these companies used different schemes to make it appear that petitioners were hired through independent contractors. it entered into a Banana Production and Purchase Agreement with the Cooperative. for unpaid salaries. The rules on job contracting are. packing. they continued to perform the same work under the direct control of TACOR and DFI supervisors. with the NLRC against said respondents including respondent Dole Asia Philippines as it then supposedly owned TACOR. 169940 September 14. under which the Cooperative would handle and fund the production of bananas and operation of the plantation covering lands owned by its members in consideration of DFI’s commitment to provide financial and technical assistance as needed. they changed their compensation package from being based on a daily rate to a pakyawan rate that depended on the combined productivity of the "gangs" they had been grouped into. There being no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and the Cooperative’s co-respondents. prompting them to stop working. viz: (a) the manner of their selection and engagement. (c) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal. 2009 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS. Soon thereafter. individually and collectively. far from being a job contracting arrangement. To the Court. as they did. Petitioners’ claim of employment relationship with the Cooperative’s herein co-respondents must be assessed on the basis of four standards. The Cooperative would hire its own workers and pay their wages and benefits. is in essence a business partnership that partakes of the nature of a joint venture. Petitioner. that the successive changes in the names of their employers notwithstanding. ISSUE: whether DFI and DPI should be held solidarily liable with the Cooperative for petitioners’ illegal dismissal and money claims? HELD: Job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific job. or service. the Contract between the Cooperative and DFI. regardless whether such job. and (d) the presence or absence of control over their conduct. work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. they stopped paying their salaries. WHEREFORE. and cooperatives. Petitioners asseverated that while they worked under the direct control of supervisors assigned by TACOR and DFI. including individuals. and attorney’s fees.
. Most determinative among these factors is the so-called "control test. Three separate complaints for illegal dismissal were filed by petitioners. No. Sometime in 2000. work. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG UST (SM-UST). the nominal individual contractors were required to.banana suckers and eventually carried out the planting as well.R. G. vs. the latter are not solidarily liable with the Cooperative for petitioners’ illegal dismissal and money claims. Without first seeking the approval of the DOLE." There is nothing in the records which indicates the presence of any of the foregoing elements of an employer-employee relationship. service incentive leave pay. including the supply of information and equipment in growing. overtime pay. (b) the mode of payment of their wages. therefore. Respondent. work or service within a definite or predetermined period. join a cooperative and thus became members of respondent Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-purpose Cooperative. inapposite. DFI did not farm out to the Cooperative the performance of a specific job. unregistered associations. Instead. above-named respondents began utilizing harassment tactics to ease them out of their jobs. and shipping bananas. and that under the last scheme adopted by these companies. damages.
000. but to answer a present emergency. What the individual employee may not do alone.475.43% was allocated to the teaching personnel. free men. as individual components of a union possessed of a distinct and separate corporate personality.00. Christmas was then just around the corner.A. which benefits petitioner has been giving its non-teaching employees in the past. Since it abides by the DOLE Secretary’s award. In addition to the salary increase. the labor organization.00 or 22. they have surrendered a portion of their individual freedom for the benefit of all the other members. signing and Christmas bonuses. wages. appellate court granted an increase in the signing bonus from the DOLE Secretary’s award of P10. to P18. After distribution of the respective shares of the teaching and non-teaching personnel. petitioner earned an increment of P101. the Court of Appeals also extended to respondent’s members fringe benefits for AY 2001-2002 amounting to P28.000.000. 6728. (2) Fringe benefits are included in the DOLE Secretary’s award and being so.15. nor a waiver of their right to receive further benefits. an aggregate of P15. will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them.15 should be allotted for payment of salaries. Of the amount P68.00. respondent’s members should realize that in joining the organization. Under R." it must raise the said amount through sources other than incremental tuition fee proceeds.5 % was allocated to the university’s non-teaching or non-academic personnel while the amount of P45 million or 65.00 thereof was set aside for the non-teaching personnel. 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. truly speaking.775. 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.775. there remained a balance of P300. or what they may be entitled to under the law.831.780. as for example obtain more favorable terms and conditions of work.775. Besides. Moreover. since only P15. it cannot now argue otherwise.FACTS: The parties were negotiating on the CBA for academic years 2001 through 2006 and the problem arose from the economic provisions of the CBA Proposals for the AY 2001-2002. It has been determined that from the tuition fees for the AY in question.831. Respondent’s members were merely constrained to accept payment at the time. it was held that necessitous men are not.A.37.15. the decisions it makes should accordingly bind them.00. Time and again. Precisely.831. Since the will of the members is personified by its board of directors or trustees. 6728 does not compel schools to allocate more than 70% of the incremental tuition fee increase for the salaries and benefits of its employees? (3) Whether the Court of Appeal’s award of additional signing bonus is proper? HELD: (1) The Court found that such do not operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary’s award.00. 70% of that amount or P68.475. These fringe benefits would have to be obtained from sources other than the incremental tuition fee proceeds of P68. allowances and other benefits of teaching and nonteaching personnel except administrators who are principal stockholders of the school. can accomplish better.
.036.000.831.837. through persuasive and coercive power gained as a group.330. and which are included in the DOLE Secretary’s. which it finds "fair and equitable. the rest was allocated to the teaching personnel. 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. ISSUE: (1) 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 the case moot? (2) Whether it is unlawful for the Court of Appeals to have required it to source the award of fringe benefits from the school’s other income since R.
an Australian national. Nos. EULALIO GANZON. if necessary. and to engage other hotel management groups. G. A bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver. respondents filed before the NLRC a Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond. 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. There would have been no other basis to grant it if petitioner had not so prayed. INC. Inc. We shall take it as a manifestation of petitioner’s liberality. or orders. damages and attorney’s fees.R. When petitioner filed the instant petition seeking the affirmance of the DOLE Secretary’s Order in its entirety. and E. which it cannot now allow to withdraw. Petitioner. The NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond and ordered respondents to post an additional bond. review the operational performance of the hotels and resorts.R. 178034 & 178117. awards. While recuperating from his injuries in Australia. 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. 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. petitioner was informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed since the project had been permanently discontinued. 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. McBurnie’s responsibilities were to oversee the general management of the company’s hotels and resorts within the Philippines. it is considered to have unqualifiedly agreed to grant the original award to the respondent union’s members. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of his salary and benefits for the unexpired term of the contract. respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA. x x x In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. 10 days after receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. GANZON. 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. the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. 186984-85 September 18. vs. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring petitioner’s dismissal illegal and ordering respondents to pay the salary and benefits for the unexpired term of the contract. Nos. supervise the present and future constructions of its hotel and resort properties. Instead of complying with the order of the NLRC. G. through its President respondent Eulalio Ganzon.. Respondents. A TRO effective for 60 days was issued enjoining the NLRC from enforcing its Orders. signed a five-year employment contract as Executive Vice-President of respondent EGI Manager’s. 2009 ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE. assailing only the increased amount of the signing bonus awarded.(3) The Court found the award to be unwarranted under the circumstances. Petitioner featured in an accident that fractured his skull and necessitated his confinement at the Makati Medical Center. EGI-MANAGERS. and make recommendations to improve profitability. no CBA was successfully negotiated by the parties. It is only because petitioner prays for the Court to affirm in toto the DOLE Secretary’s Order that it shall allow an award of signing bonus.. and posted the amount of the bond. awards. efficiency and reputation. WHEREFORE. In the instant case. INC." The filing of the bond is not only mandatory but a jurisdictional
. ISSUE: Whether or not the rules on perfection of appeal must be strictly complied? HELD: Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that: Decisions. Thus. FACTS: Petitioner Andrew James McBurnie.
The failure of the respondents to comply with the requirement of posting a bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award is fatal to their appeal. that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. For filing their motion only on the final day within which to perfect an appeal. compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. a labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the flight attendants. where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a CBA but by the general civil law. Thus. respondents cannot be allowed to seek refuge in a liberal application of the rules. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. there is neither way for the NLRC to exercise its discretion to grant or deny the motion. MA. ANGELITA L. the Constitution and CEDAW. MA. NOEMI R. Compulsory Retirement . Section 144.. G. the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC. FACTS: Petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of respondent PAL on different dates prior to November 22. SANTIAGO. without risk of summary dismissal for non-perfection of appeal. STEHMEIER. LORNA B. The jurisdictional principle and the mandatory nature of the appeal bond posted within the 10-day reglementary period are reaffirmed by the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Under such circumstance. CRESENCIO. MARIANNE V. Part A of the PALFASAP CBA.Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement. the petition is GRANTED. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA. i. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional? HELD: The Court held that the jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code. No. Here. nor for the respondents to post the full amount of the bond.requirement as well. For the Cabin Attendants hired before 22 November 1996: x x x x 3. Thus. 1996. KATINDIG. other labor statutes. WHEREFORE. TERESITA P. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INCORPORATED. VILLARETE. 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. or their CBA. MARY CHRISTINE A. Petitioners. 172013 October 2. TUGAS.e. 2009 PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA. VICTA. ROSE ANNA G. PULIDO. ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioners' action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the provisions on the compulsory retirement age contained in the CBA between respondent PAL and FASAP? Whether Section 144. This
. or would deem such insufficient posting as sufficient to perfect the appeal. x x x. Respondent. BERNADETTE A.” Petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the RTC of Makati City. CABALQUINTO.R. vs. Respondent and FASAP then entered into a CBA incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005. 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. the employer-employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose from different sources of obligation. provides that: “A. flight stewards and pursers of respondent. They are members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). CYNTHIA A. Branch 147 against respondent for the invalidity of Section 144. and other flight attendants of PHILIPPINE AIRLINES.
MANOLO AQUINO.Court held that the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrators do not have the power to determine and settle the issues at hand. FACTS: Respondent FASAP and Leonardo Bhagwani filed a complaint for unfair labor practice. the certification should be executed by a natural person. illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against petitioners before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC. was without proof that the two affiants had authority to sign in behalf of petitioners. Despite this submission. A motion for reconsideration was filed with a Secretary’s Certificate attached evidencing that affiants Cesar R. 143088 January 24. Thus. although such a person may have personal knowledge of the facts to be attested to. In the case at bar. the dispute is not between FASAP and respondent PAL. 2006 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. INC. referral to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration would not serve the interest of the petitioners. It further requires it to be executed by the corresponding petitioner or petitioners. As no distinction is made as to which party must execute the certificate. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) and LEONARDO BHAGWANI. remanded to the RTC for the proper determination of the merits of the petition for declaratory relief is just and proper. and PATRICIA CHIONG. this requirement is made to apply to both natural and juridical entities. Respondents. As a result. ordered the payment of damages. Hence. The certification. Petitioners. who have both previously agreed upon the provision on the compulsory retirement of female flight attendants as embodied in the CBA. CUI. JORGE MA. Subsequently. not just any person can be called upon to execute the certification.R. the CA dismissed the case for failure to show the authority of affiants to sign for PAL and for failure of the other petitioners to join in the execution of the certification. ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct in dismissing the case due to non-compliance with the attachment of certificate of non-forum shopping? HELD: A certification of non-forum shopping is necessary in filing petitions for certiorari under the Rules of Court. The question as to whether Section 114. Hence. this petition. Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is discriminatory or not being a question of fact that would require a full-blown trial which jurisdiction to hear the same is properly lodged with the the RTC. Furthermore. When the petitioner is a corporation. When petitioners filed a petition for certiorari. however. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. consequently. only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a
. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Petitioners appealed to the CA. The NLRC later modified the decision of the Labotr Arbiter. WHEREFORE. is therefore. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding that PAL committed unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal of Bhagwani and. The dispute is between respondent PAL and several female flight attendants who questioned the provision on compulsory retirement of female flight attendants. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen have been authorized by Board of Directors. only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. Thus. This mode of appeal is generally limited only to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition. JR. No.. the CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The rule is settled that pure questions of fact may not be the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. vs. it was accompanied by a Certification of NonForum Shopping executed by Cesar R. They have no jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues relative to the questioned compulsory retirement age. G.
ISSUE: Whether respondent shall be granted the optional retirement benefit being applied for under the gratuity plan of petitioner? HELD: The age of retirement is primarily determined by the existing agreement or employment contract. while in Yokohama. Likewise. they are not entitled to reinstatement or payment of separation pay or backwages. While under Paragraph C. ANTONIO. 1996. 1996. may retire from service if he has reached the eligibility age of 60 years. he was not admitted back to work. The last position he held was that of 3rd Engineer on board petitioner's vessel M/V Eastern Venus. Thus. 1997 but was disapproved by the petitioner. Records show that respondent was only 41 years old when he applied for optional retirement. upon his written request. respondent filed a complaint for payment of optional retirement benefits against petitioner before the DOLE. he suffered a fractured left transverse process of the fourth lumbar vertebra. However.. 171587 October 13. he applied for an optional retirement on January 16. as duly noted and signed by the captain of the vessel was marked "Very Good. Under the Labor Code.650 days actually on board vessel for shipboard personnel. It is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. the petition is DENIED. Respondent started as an Apprentice Engineer on December 12. the Court has required that proof of said authority must be attached. Japan and still in the employ of petitioner. Consequently. Records also show that respondent's seaman's book. G. In the present case. It is also worth to note that respondent. In the case at bar. the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory’s authority. there is a retirement gratuity plan between the petitioner and the respondent. a shipboard employee. Respondent." and "recommended for hire. 1981 and worked in petitioner's various vessels where he was assigned to different positions. FERRER D. respondent opted to apply for optional retirement. the Court held that financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice and exceptional circumstances. Thus. ends of social and compassionate justice would be served best if respondent will be given some
. However. where he worked until February 22. FACTS: Respondent was hired by petitioner to work as a seaman on board its various vessels. Under Paragraph B of the plan. while the minimum age for optional retirement is set at 60 years. INC. he cannot claim either of the optional retirement benefits under the plan as a matter of right.R. In addition. the retirement age shall be fixed by law. 2009 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES. the mandated compulsory retirement age is set at 65 years. vs. WHEREFORE. it will be the exclusive prerogative and sole option of the company to retire any covered employee who shall have rendered at least 15 years of credited service for land-based employees and 3. which was 19 years short of the required eligibility age. The required certification of non-forum shopping must be valid at the time of filing of the petition.corporation. He was later examined by the company doctor and declared fit to resume work. On February 13. Being in dire financial need at that time to support his family. An invalid certificate cannot be remedied by the subsequent submission of a Secretary’s Certificate that vests authority only after the petition had been filed. Japan and was advised to rest for a month." Respondent had no derogatory record on file over his long years of service with the petitioner. He consulted a doctor in Osaka. No. and as an equitable concession. Thus. for having been deprived of continued employment with petitioner's vessel. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. being a seaman. In the absence of such agreement. Petitioner. is not entitled to the payment of separation pay.
IN VIEW WHEREOF. Hortillano’s wife had a premature delivery while she was in the 38th week of pregnancy. ISSUE: Whether or not the CBA is clear and unambiguous so that the literal and legal meaning of death should be applied such that only one with juridical personality can die and a dead fetus never acquired a juridical personality? HELD: As identified. The term legitimate merely addresses the dependent child’s status in relation to his/her parents. Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived during said marriage. the Petition is DENIED. the elements for bereavement leave under Article X. Given the existence of all the requisites for bereavement leave and other death benefits under the CBA. pursuant to the CBA concluded between Continental and the Union. qualifies as death. MONTAÑO and NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION-SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER). hence. child shall be understood in its more general sense.000. Hortillano was also able to comply with the fourth element entitling him to death and accident insurance under the CBA or the presentation of the death certificate of his unborn child.R. FACTS: Hortillano. which includes the unborn fetus in the mother’s womb.
. G. Respondents. Hortillano’s claims for the same should have been granted by Continental Steel. Additionally. Petitioner. A dependent is "one who relies on another for support. and. Section 4(3) of the CBA are same with the above elements with additional element of presentation of the proper legal document to prove such death. 2009 CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. making said child legitimate upon her conception. a claim for Paternity Leave. The requisites for death and accident insurance under Article XVIII. Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent. vs. then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being delivered." Under said general definition. Death has been defined as the cessation of life. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. the CBA did not provide a qualification for the child dependent. The award of P100. The children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. According to the Certificate of Fetal Death.00 to respondent as financial assistance is . the petition is GRANTED. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. The claim was based on the death of Hortillano’s unborn child. Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillano’s claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits. HON.equitable relief. consisting of the death and accident insurance. Section 2 of the CBA are: (1) death. As such. even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents. No. implies a valid and lawful marriage. an employee of petitioner Continental Steel and a member of respondent Union filed on 9 January 2006. deemed equitable under the circumstances. 182836 October 13. therefore. A legitimate child is a product of. (2) the death must be of a dependent. and (3) legitimate relations of the dependent to the employee. WHEREFORE. Therefore. therefore. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb already has life. one not able to exist or sustain oneself without the power or aid of someone else. the female fetus died during labor due to fetal Anoxia secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency.
entitled Maricalum Mining Corporation v. Arturo D. Tomas Writ).. No. affirmed the propriety of the issuance of the Brion Writ. GHI immediately took physical possession of the mine site and its facilities. 1992. He then ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off workers. On May 11. directed the issuance of a partial writ of execution (Brion Writ). then DOLE Secretary Patricia A. all acting Sheriffs. then Acting Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary. Region VI. and ordered the DOLE sheriffs to proceed to the MMC premises for the execution of the same. the respondent acting sheriffs. 1996 and October 7. Bacolod City. and several armed men implemented the Sto. On October 11. this Court. 157696-97. and took full control of the management and operation of MMC. the members of the union.G. On October 2. 1996 was illegal and that MMC committed unfair labor practice. FACTS: The petitioner. an entity operating a copper mine and mill complex at Sipalay. SP No. Bacolod District Office. in G. (GHI). 2009 "G" HOLDINGS. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU). NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Local 103 (NAMAWU). These financial claims were converted into three Promissory Notes issued by MMC in favor of GHI totaling P500M and secured by mortgages over MMC’s properties. Tomas Writ.R. 160236 October 16. APROSTA and ALBERTO MUNOZ. Upon the signing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and upon the full satisfaction of the stipulated down payment. Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 14. SHERIFFS RICHARD H. Then Labor Secretary later assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ruled in favor of NAMAWU. Inc. Private respondent. INC. vs. 1996. Negros Occidental. 75322. in 2006. Nos. on motion of NAMAWU. Sto. Petitioner. Almost four years thereafter. with the latter eventually filing with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of Bacolod City a notice of strike. It was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3. Negros Occidental. Much later. "G" Holdings. Brion and NAMAWU.R. is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of owning and holding shares of stock of different companies. and levied on the properties of MMC located at its compound in Sipalay. Brion. 1997 Order in OS-AJ-10-96-014 (Quisumbing Order). 2002 Alias Writ of Execution and Break-Open Order (Sto. Tomas ordered the issuance of the July 18. pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement6 executed between GHI and Asset Privatization Trust (APT). the former bought ninety percent (90%) of MMC’s shares and financial claims. On motion of NAMAWU. with payment of full backwages and benefits. a labor dispute (refusal to bargain collectively and unfair labor practice) arose between MMC and NAMAWU. or on August 23. 2003 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. 2002.R.
. 2001. now also an Associate Justice of this Court. In his July 30. 1992. The Brion Writ was not fully satisfied because MMC’s resident manager resisted its enforcement. was the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of Maricalum Mining Corporation (MMC). DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. and directed the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms and conditions of the previous CBA providing for an annual increase in the workers’ daily wage. Secretary Quisumbing declared that the lay-off (of workers) implemented on May 7. Respondents.
GHI contended that the levied properties were the subject of a Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage. and recounts the facts attendant to that transaction. It also provided for a down payment of P98. "G" Holdings. 1992. the Republic undertook to sell and deliver 90% of the entire issued and outstanding shares of MMC.On October 14. GHI filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City. On October 17. 2001. acknowledged the existence of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the APT and the GHI. 1996 Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage yielded the conclusion that the deed was sham. It noted that the foreclosure proceedings were initiated in July 2001. Inc. more importantly. 2002. The CA also found that the certificates of title to MMC’s real properties did not contain any annotation of a mortgage lien. GHI did not intervene in the long drawn-out labor proceedings to protect its right as a mortgagee of virtually all the properties of MMC. that this deed was registered on February 24. the trial court ordered the issuance of a Writ of Injunction (issued on October 18. effected precisely to prevent the satisfaction of the judgment against MMC. As already adverted to above.161. 2001. v. as follows: The series of negotiations between the petitioner Republic of the Philippines. and. 2000. the appellate court rendered a Decision setting aside the RTC issuances and directing the immediate execution of the Sto.000 with the balance divided into four tranches payable in installment over a period of ten years. 2002 orders of the RTC. to "G" Holdings in consideration of the purchase price of P673. 2002. NAMAWU filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. but its failure "to satisfy any money judgment against it rendered by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
.280. 18 and December 4. firm or entity. through the APT as its trustee. The trial court issued ex parte a TRO effective for 72 hours. immediately after the Court affirmed with finality the Quisumbing Order. as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale dated December 4. Negros Occidental. 1127 for Contempt with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction and to Nullify the Sheriff’s Levy on Properties. 2000. Aggrieved. without any legal ground or reason. and set the hearing on the application for a writ of injunction. shortly after the issuance of the Brion Writ. the basis for the extrajudicial foreclosure was not the failure of MMC to pay the mortgage debt. dated September 5.704. Tomas Writ. that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the September 5. assailing the October 17. issued by MMC in favor of GHI. suspiciously. Under the agreement. fictitious and fraudulent. among others. but surprisingly. ISSUE: Whether or not the mortgage and sale agreement between GHI and MMC is valid and would prevent the satisfaction of the claims of NAMAWU because of unfair labor practice? RULING: The mortgage was not a sham.. it was registered only on February 24. that it was executed two weeks after the labor dispute arose in 1996. Special Civil Action (SCA) No. as well as its company notes. subject to GHI’s posting of a P5M bond." The "company notes" mentioned therein were actually the very same three (3) Promissory Notes amounting to P550M. The CA ruled. Republic etc. 2002) enjoining the DOLE sheriffs from further enforcing the Sto. and that the mortgaged properties were already extrajudicially foreclosed in July 2001 and sold to GHI as the highest bidder on December 3. The CA further ruled that the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgage was irregular. Tomas Writ and from conducting any public sale of the levied-on properties. in favor of any person. 1996 executed by MMC in favor of GHI to secure the aforesaid P550M promissory notes. and. and "G" Holdings culminated in the execution of a purchase and sale agreement on October 2.
It may be remembered that APT acquired the MMC from the PNB and the DBP. of the fact that the labor claims of NAMAWU. Subsequently. then the transaction is imbued with an aura of official authority. We are not unmindful.R. Respondent This case is about a company’s objections to the registration of its rank and file union for noncompliance with the requirements of its registration. prompting it to file a petitioin for certiorari with the CA. still await final execution. After all. To repeat. in compliance with its mandate to privatize government assets. this Court has recognized this Purchase and Sale Agreement in Republic. The Med-Arbiter granted the HHE union’s petition for certification election. acknowledged by this Court in Maricalum. Accordingly. however. executed the agreement. when it was. 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against the holding of the HHE union’s certification election. 177024 October 30. Because the Government had actively negotiated and. ample supplemental remedies found in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in order to protect its rights against MMC. As success fades from NAMAWU’s efforts to execute on the properties of MMC. the notes (and the stipulations therein) enjoy the benefit of the same presumption of regularity accorded to government actions. vs. giving rise to the presumption of regularity in its execution. Petitioner company appealed it and filed a motion for reconsideration which was both denied respectively. as provided in the notes.On October 12. G. almost four (4) years before NAMAWU filed its notice of strike. The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) later issued a certificate of registration to this union. and may still have. The participation of the Government. we see that NAMAWU always had. and clothed with the presumption of regularity. certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila (petitioner company) formed the "Heritage Hotel Employees Union" (the HHE union). then. APT sold the aforesaid MMC shares and notes to GHI. through APT. No. already existing in 1992. Then. in truth. the HHE union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company opposed alleging that the HHE union misrepresented itself to be an independent union. etc.these notes uniformly contained stipulations "establishing and constituting" mortgages over MMC’s real and personal properties. "G" Holdings. FACTS: Sometime in 2000. Given the Government consent thereto. that the Government. 2009 THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION) Petitioner. v. were a "fictitious" arrangement intended to defraud NAMAWU. It is difficult to conceive that these mortgages. the mortgages cannot be characterized as sham. which were validly foreclosed by GHI. effective
. It is obvious. This presumption would cover all related transactional acts and documents needed to consummate the privatization sale. they were agreed upon long before the seeds of the labor dispute germinated. inclusive of the Promissory Notes. consented to the "establishment and constitution" of the mortgages on the assets of MMC in favor of GHI. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE).. a local chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) and the company also filed a petition for the cancellation of the HHE union’s registration certificate. eventually. Inc. fictitious or fraudulent. in this transaction is significant. through APT.
The HHE union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration. as the labor authorities held. 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition for certification election that petitioner company also opposed. the members of the first union. While it appears in the minutes of the December 10. The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court. adopted a resolution for its dissolution. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were required to unionize. On December 6. Yet the list it submitted named only 100 members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a membership of 127 or 128 employees. Here. This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR and got its registration certificate on February 9. amounted to material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the union’s registration. Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to submit the names of all its members comprising at least 20 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. said the company. At any rate. Once such charge is proved. alleging that the new union’s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. the union more than complied with such
.until the petition for cancellation of that union’s registration shall have been resolved with finality. Notably. the HHE union. On September 4. For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and bylaws democratically ratified. 2004. 2004. But. According to the company. the respondent Pinag-Isang Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS union). This omission. Two months later. The company claimed that the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration and committed “dual unionism" which is a ground for canceling a union’s registration. the Labor Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail. it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. ISSUE: Whether or not the new Union can have a valid certification election? RULING: The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. however. the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. On December 10. Here. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process. the union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements. the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election. except for six members. petitioner Company filed a petition to cancel the union registration of respondent PIGLAS union. the employees involved formed the PIGLAS union to circumvent the Court of Appeals’ injunction against the holding of the certification election sought by the former union. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. this discrepancy is immaterial. 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitioner company held a meeting and formed another union. 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning. the names found in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to labor authorities can be explained. Despite the company’s opposition. A comparison of the documents shows that. the bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to represent consisted of 250 employees. There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that only 127 members ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws when 128 signed the attendance sheet.
Copies of the Notices of Termination were filed with DOLE on 19 March 2001 and were served to concerned employees on 20 March 2001. refused to fully comply with the directive of the Secretary of Labor. YSS Laboratories implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11 employees. the Secretary of Labor deemed that the continuation of the labor dispute was inimical to national interest. moved that YSS
. The Secretary of Labor to finally intervene in order to put an end to a prolonged labor dispute.
G. SP No. Initially. is not a ground for canceling the new union’s registration.. When no one opted to retire early. Petitioner. in an Order dated 11 May 2001. YSS Laboratories exercised its option to terminate the services of its employees. vs. these employees were given the option to avail themselves of the early retirement program of the company. Accordingly. YSS LABORATORIES.PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION. (YSS Laboratories) to accept the workers back to their work. In order to arrest escalating business losses. FACTS: YSS Laboratories is a domestic corporation engaged in the pharmaceutical business. It also asserted that the union officers11 who participated in the purported illegal strike should likewise not be allowed to be back to their employment for they were deemed to have already lost their employment status. And last. Claiming that YSS Laboratories was guilty of discrimination and union-busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program. 155125 December 4. 2009 YSS EMPLOYEES UNION . including those who were retrenched from employment due to serious business losses. YSSEU. for its part. No. YSS Laboratories. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. the HHE union. and YSS Laboratories to accept them under the terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. YSSEU is a duly registered labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of YSS Laboratories. YSS Laboratories argued that nine union officers and members who were previously terminated from service pursuant to a valid retrenchment should be excluded from the operation of the return-to-work order. nine were officers and members of YSSEU. INC. all striking workers were thereby directed to return to work within 24 hours from their receipt of the said Order. Respondent It is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner YSS Employees Union (YSSEU) – Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 26 November 2001 and the Resolution dated 29 August 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. the Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.requirement. the fact that some of respondent PIGLAS union’s members were also members of the old rank and file union. however.R. and ordered respondent YSS Laboratories Inc. Thus. 66095 nullifying the Orders of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001 which enjoined the strike staged by petitioner. YSSEU decided to hold a strike.
YSSEU prayed for the award of backwages in favor of these employees who were not permitted by YSS Laboratories to return to their respective stations despite the Secretary of Labor’s directive.R. The Secretary of Labor is afforded plenary and broad powers. INC. Mangalino was suspended for taking a union leave without the prior authority of his department head and despite a previous disapproval of the requested leave. annual National Labor Management Conferences. and other union activities. 2007 decision and the November 29. granted the motion of YSSEU and thus issued an Order directing YSS Laboratories to immediately accept back to work the nine retrenched employees and the nine union officers who initiated the alleged illegal strike pending determination of the validity of the retrenchment and illegal strike cases.
. No. on 9 June 2001. Petitioners. but to serve the greater interest of society by maintaining the economic equilibrium. By harping on the validity of the retrenchment and on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order. ruling that the suspension imposed by the respondent Malayan Insurance Company.R. Unyielding. Acting on the aforesaid motions. 2007 resolution of the CA in CA-G. the Secretary did not exceed his jurisdiction. not to cater to a narrow segment of society. as they found that YSS Laboratories validly carried out its retrenchment program. vs. (company) on union member Rodolfo Mangalino (Mangalino) is valid. Its compulsory character is mandated. Labor-Management Committee meetings. Accepting back the workers in this case is not a matter of option. and is granted great breadth of discretion to adopt the most reasonable and expeditious way of writing finis to the labor dispute. the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the Petition and reversing the assailed Orders dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001. Respondent.Laboratories be cited for contempt for refusing to admit the 18 workers back to work. seeking to annul the certification order and the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. or gravely abuse the same. The petitioner Malayan Employees Association-FFW (union) asks a petition for certiorari to set aside the June 26. The Secretary of Labor directed YSS Laboratories to accept all the striking workers back to work. SP No. which effectively severed the concerned employees’ employment with the company. 2010 MALAYAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FFW and RODOLFO MANGALINO. On 26 November 2001. labor education programs and seminars. ISSUE: Whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the operation to the return work order? RULING: YSS Laboratories’ vigorous insistence on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order seriously impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the national economy. the Secretary of Labor. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY. even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. YSS Laboratories undermines the underlying principle embodied in Article 263(g) of the Labor Code on the settlement of labor disputes -. or to favor labor at the expense of management. but of obligation mandated by law for YSS Laboratories to faithfully comply with. FACTS: A provision in the union’s CBA with the company allows union officials to avail of union leaves with pay for a total of "ninety-man" days per year for the purpose of attending grievance meetings. 80691. YSS Laboratories brought a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Inc. 181357 February 2. In addition..that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties. G.
Mangalino proceeded to take the union leave. filed union leave applications in January and February. This petition seeks to reverse and set aside the May 26. After all internal remedies failed.R. the union went to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board for preventive mediation.R. for a month. it disregarded the evidence on record and recognized that the company’s use of its management prerogative as justification was proper. 2010 RONILO SORREDA. prior notice is expressly required under the CBA so that the company can appropriately respond to the request for leave. 028156-01 declaring that
. for his second offense in February 2004. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when. specifically. 172927 February 11. The CA affirmed the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. nor violative of CBA terms. thereafter. 2005. Despite the disapproval. SP No. He said he believed in good faith that he had complied with the existing company practice and with the procedure set forth in the CBA. Henceforth. 2005 decision of the CA in CA-G. it granted the company’s petition and upheld the validity of Mangalino’s suspension on the basis of the company’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules to regulate the use of union leaves. In this sense.The company issued a rule in November 2002 requiring not only the prior notice that the CBA expressly requires. The doubt in resolving any interpretative conflict is settled by subsequent developments in the course of the parties’ implementation of the CBA. vs. particularly the prerogative to require prior approval.1 Respondent. particularly the provision on management prerogatives where the CBA reserved for the company the full and complete authority in managing and running its business. 2004. but prior approval by the department head before the union and its members can avail of union leave. His department head disapproved the applications because the department was undermanned at that time. Union officer Mangalino. the rule requiring prior approval only made express what is implied in the terms of the CBA. CAMBRIDGE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION. RULING: While it is true that the union and its members have been granted union leave privileges under the CBA. the Complainant is entitled to twenty seven (27) days back wages. No. The court see nothing in the wordings of the union leave provision that removes from the company the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations to govern the manner of availing of union leaves. the grant cannot be considered separately from the other provisions of the CBA. oppressive. The company appealed the decision to the CA on May 12. Petitioner. The union accepted this regulation without objection since its promulgation which is more than a year before the present dispute arose and the rule on its face is not unreasonable. despite the clear terms of the CBA grant of union leaves. Rodolfo Mangalino’s on first availment of union leave invalid while the second suspension valid but illicit in terms of penalty of thirty (30) days suspension. Precisely. by the establishment of the company regulation in November 2002 requiring prior approval before the union leave can be used. We consider the honesty of the same (believing in good faith) as mitigating circumstances and reduced the suspension from thirty seven (37) days to ten (10) days only. The company responded by suspending him for one week and. It adjudged the suspension of Mr. 77303 and its resolution denying reconsideration. G.
shortly after his release from the hospital. 1999. he was neither illegally dismissed nor entitled to reinstatement and backwages. The Court recognizes the critical role of private enterprise in nation-building and the prerogatives of management. The labor arbiter held that he had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case as it involved the employer-employee relationship of the contending parties. In September 1999. the Court cannot countenance petitioner’s claim that a contract of perpetual employment was ever constituted. There he was assured a place in the company as a regular employee for as long as the company existed and as soon as he fully recovered from his injury. fire and promote. thus. petitioner was hired by respondent as a technician for a period of 5 months. resulting in an employer-employee relationship. A contract of perpetual employment deprives management of its prerogative to decide whom to hire. Both petitioner and respondent appealed to the NLRC. However.11 moral12 and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for default or breach of contract. his cause of action was based on an alleged second contract of employment separate and distinct from the per-project employment contract. Even assuming that the labor arbiter had the jurisdiction to decide the case. his case is within the jurisdiction not of the labor arbiter but of the regular courts. He ruled that petitioner who had been employed on a per-project basis became a regular employee by virtue of the contract of perpetual employment. An absolute and unqualified employment for life in the mold of petitioner’s concept of perpetual employment is contrary to
. This prompted petitioner to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. the Labor Arbiter has Jurisdiction. 1999. the issue no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and NLRC. He insisted that there was a perfected contract of perpetual employment and that respondent was liable to pay him damages. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari. such waiver should not be contrary to law. public policy. The petitioner filed the case only when respondent refused to rehire him. public order. Petitioner sued for compensatory damages because of the accident that befell him. 1999 to October 8. petitioner reported for work. The NLRC agreed with respondent. Instead of giving him employment. morals or good customs. He claimed that respondent failed to comply with the terms of the contract of perpetual employment which was perfected in June 1999 when he was called to a meeting by management. was clearly a perproject employee of private respondent. While management may validly waive it prerogatives. RULING: The employment from the period May 8. As such. The CA concluded that the NLRC did not commit any reversible error in finding that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. Five weeks into the job. As the contract for per-project employment had already expired. FACTS: On May 8. father and cousin. 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. ISSUE: Whether or not Ronilo Sorreda is an employee of Cambridge Electronics Corporation.petitioner Ronilo Sorreda was not a regular employee of respondent Cambridge Electronics Corporation. He prayed that respondent be made to pay compensatory. Thus. officers of respondent company called him to a meeting with his common-law wife. Petitioner insists on a right to be employed again in respondent company and seeks a determination of the existence of a new and separate contract that established that right. Petitioner claimed that. after he recovered from his injury. petitioner met an accident in which his left arm was crushed by a machine and had to be amputated. It found that petitioner was not a regular employee. and renders inutile the basic precepts of labor relations. this petition. Aggrieved. thus.
It likewise compels the employer to retain an employee despite the attainment of the statutory retirement age. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner objected to the implementation of the said memorandum. 2002.8 annulling and setting aside the decision and order of the voluntary arbitrator. which the CA denied. petitioner and respondent entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement which included vacation leave and expenses for security license provisions. as it unjustly forbids the employer from terminating the services of an employee despite the existence of a just or valid cause. Rene Soriano did not possess the required authority at the time the petition was filed on February 27.: Facts: 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).public policy and good customs. On November 15. It alleged that the authority of Rene Soriano to represent the union was only conferred on June 30. For failure to settle the issue amicably. 2006. worse. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. and the CA rendered a Decision dated October 4. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the CA. to sign the certification and verification against forum shopping on petitioner's behalf. a liability to the employer. RENE SORIANO. It insisted that the individual members of the union have the right to schedule their vacation leave. Rene Soriano. 2006 was merely a reiteration of the authority given to the Union President to file a case before this Court assailing the CBA violations committed by the
. Petition is denied. DECISION PERALTA. the resolution dated June 30. the parties agreed to submit the issue before the voluntary arbitrator. 2006. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. Held: In the case at bar. Issue: Whether or not Rene Soriano possess the required authority at the time the petition was filed on February 27. 2005. 2006 by virtue of a board resolution.10 while the Petition for Review had long been filed on February 27. Due to the disagreement between the parties. Thus. from the decision of the arbitrator which the voluntary arbitrator denied in the Order7 dated August 11. J. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION. No. 2010 PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO). vs. represented by its President. even if the employee has became a "non-performing asset" or. the Supreme Court rule that Rene Soriano has sufficient authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping for the following reasons: First. the instant petition assigning errors: Respondent alleged that the petition was fatally defective due to the lack of authority of its union president.R. 2004. Hence. 171231 February 17. petitioner elevated the matter to the DOLE-NCMB for preventive mediation. 2006. Respondent. PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. Petitioner.
RESOLUTION CARPIO. Thus. YTPI alleged that YEU violated Article 239(a) of the Labor Code: (1) YEU fraudulently included the signature of a certain Ronald O. or in the list of votes. Soriano has no authority to file the petition on February 27. the president of the union was duly authorized to represent the union and to file a case on its behalf. Issue: Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its application for union registration? Held: There was evidence that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation in its failure to omit the name of Ronald Pineda prior to the filing of the respondents organizational documents with the Department of Labor and Employment. 2006. Second. Third. as expressly required in Art. (c). being the president of the union.R. 2005. the passing on June 30. (4) the employees did not belong to a single bargaining unit. Respondent. vs. Rene Soriano is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. or with the minutes of the election of officers. the Regional Director held that there was no election of officers that had taken place during respondent’s alleged organizational meeting as there was no proof of such election. INC. 2006. on February 27. assuming that Mr. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION." YTPI failed to show that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion..management. (3) YEU fraudulently obtained the employees’ signatures by making them believe that they were signing a petition for a 125% increase in the minimum wage. 2006. Pineda (Pineda) in the organizational documents.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. Labor Code. which was previously conferred during a meeting held on October 5. thus curing any defects thereof. YTPI filed before the Regional Office a petition dated 24 January 2000 for the revocation of YEU’s registration. (2) Pineda was not aware of any election of union officers. The Court of Appeals held that YTPI had the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation: As the applicant for cancellation. of the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. 163532 March 10. J. 239.: Facts: YEU filed before the Regional Office a petition for certification election. On the other hand. the petitioner naturally had the burden to present proof sufficient to warrant the cancellation.
. No. and (5) YEU fraudulently stated in its organizational meeting minutes that its second vice president was Bernard David. Petitioner. not Bernardo David. 2006 of a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a ratification of his prior execution. 2010 YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES. The petitioner was thus expected to satisfactorily establish that YEU committed misrepresentations. it can be inferred that even prior to the filing of the petition before Us on February 27. false statements or fraud in connection with the election of its officers. The Supreme Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence. not a petition for registration.
and VIRGILIO PINO.12 Casio. ROLANDO IGOT. BARTOLOME AUMAN. Held: The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of procedural due process. 2010 GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION. EDILBERTO MENDOZA and ANTONIO PANILAG. et al. Dominador Booc. LORETO GONZAGA. from the union pursuant to the Resolution dated February 29. Jumaoas. and union busting. 1992 of IBM-Local 31 officers and board members. Casio. et al. REMEGIO CABANTAN. et al. Luna P. 1992. et al. et al. namely. et al. et al. 1992 a Complaint against GMC and Pino. the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction Since the dismissal is not for a cause detrimental to the interest of the company. discrimination. through its officers and board members. ordered to pay separation pay to all [Casio.. illegal suspension. respondents Virgilio Pino. et al. GMC issued a Memorandum dated March 24. DOMINADOR BOOC." Pressured by the threatened filing of a suit for unfair labor practice. "be immediately dismissed from their work for the interest of industrial peace in the plant. IBM-Local 31. for unfair labor practice. respondent General Milling Corporation is. alleged as bases for the strike the illegal dismissal of union officers and members. Petitioner. On March 27. nonetheless. in the name of IBM-Local 31. et al. addressed to Eduardo Cabahug (Cabahug).). FELICISIMO BOOC.5 Gabiana then wrote a letter10 dated March 10. but no settlement was reached among the parties. illegal dismissal. 149552 March 10. Bartolome Auman.. PROCOPIO OBREGON. Facts: On November 30. Ma.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. MA. and moral and exemplary damages. Gabiana likewise requested that Casio. 1992 terminating the employment of Casio. coercion. entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with GMC. No. PAULINO CABREROS. VII (NCMB-RO). MARIO FAMADOR. vs. filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB-Regional Office No. Edilberto Mendoza and Antonio Panilag (Pino. 1992. the termination of legitimate union officers. 1991. and ANTONIO ANINIPOK. Remegio Cabantan.]. Loreto Gonzaga.] within seven (7) calendar days Issue: Whether THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SAID THAT PETITIONER GMC FAILED TO ACCORD DUE PROCESS TO [Casio. effective April 24. The NCMB-RO held conciliation proceedings. Respondents.4 Paulino Cabreros. GMC Vice-President for Engineering and Plant Administration. NELSON LIM. GMC acceded to Gabiana’s request to terminate the employment of Casio. particularly. Finding that the Case did not undergo voluntary arbitration.R. 1992 and placing the latter under preventive suspension for the meantime. informing the company of the expulsion of Casio. JUMAOAS. Casio. The effectivity of the said CBA was retroactive to August 1. 1991. next sought recourse from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Branch VII by filing on August 3. Respondents. The law requires the employer to furnish the employee sought to be
. et al. FIDEL VALLE. ERNESTO CASIO. et al. JR. Fidel Valle. LUNA P.
Eagle Ridge opposed this petition. 199810 before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office IV (RO IV).28 The Union submitted the required documents attesting to the facts of the organizational meeting on December 6. MISREPRESENTATION AND/OR FALSE STATEMENT WHICH WARRANT THE CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF EREU. and the election of its officers. the numerical composition of the Union. making one signature a forgery. the election of its officers. The rights of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Issue: Whether THERE WAS FRAUD. Respondents. EREU formally applied for registration9 and filed BLR Reg. 2005 organizational meeting showed it only had 26 members. GMC cannot dispense with the requirements of notice and hearing before dismissing Casio.5 elected a set of officers. COURT OF APPEALS and EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU).R. 2005 and the fact that 26 members affixed their signatures on the documents. The Facts On December 6. vs. It submitted before the DOLE Regional Office with its
. 2005. 2010 EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB. s. No. named "Eagle Ridge Employees Union" (EREU or Union). Petitioner. Form No. RO400-200512-UR-003. false statement.6 and ratified7 their constitution and by-laws. Going into specifics.8 On December 19.34 Irrefragably. Eagle Ridge’s petition ascribed misrepresentation. or fraud to EREU in connection with the adoption of its constitution and by-laws. Cert. at least 20% of Eagle Ridge’s rank-and-file employee had a meeting where they organized themselves into an independent labor union.35 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. ILO. and the adoption of the Union’s constitution and by-laws. when the minutes of its December 6. et al. 2005. 178989 March 18. if he desires. Eagle Ridge alleged that the EREU declared in its application for registration having 30 members. The EREU then filed a petition for certification election in Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club. This procedure is mandatory and its absence taints the dismissal with illegality. An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a company which disregards his rights but also from his own union the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from his job. 2005.) No.dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) a written notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought in order to afford him an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of counsel. and (2) a subsequent notice informing the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. In time. DOLE RO IV granted the application and issued EREU Registration Certificate (Reg. The misrepresentation was exacerbated by the discrepancy between the certification issued by the Union secretary and president that 25 members actually ratified the constitution and by-laws on December 6.11 followed by its filing of a petition for the cancellation12 of Registration. even when said dismissal is pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA.
in a letter dated July 3. (e) the list of officers47 and their addresses. 1995 as Acting Dean of the Department of Business Administration and Accountancy. on June 1. such as the respondent. In a letter dated May 15. petitioner informed respondent of his appointment as Dean of the Department of Business. 234(c). petitioner reminded respondent that upon the expiration of his term as Dean. arguing that the regular full time load of a faculty member is only six. Grace Pollo. The Union thereby complied with the mandatory minimum 20% membership requirement under Art..Application for Registration and the duly filled out BLR Reg. 2010 COLLEGE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 167563 March 22. Petitioner. 2005 for registration. As promised. Marius F. (d) the union’s constitution and by-laws46 as approved on December 6.e. denied respondent's claim for overload pay and explained that pursuant to the Faculty Manual. 1996. No. Form No. to wit: (a) the minutes of its organizational meeting43 held on December 6.
. MARIUS F. PH. (b) the list of rank-and-file employees44 of Eagle Ridge who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures. 2005. Cherry Labajo. he will be appointed as full-time professor of Law and Accounting without diminution of his teaching salary as Dean. Of note is the undisputed number of 112 rank-and-file employees in Eagle Ridge. 2000. 2000. Petitioner College of the Immaculate Conceptionappointed respondent Atty. Economics and Accountancy effective June 1. Upon this light. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. 2000. Petitioner. and (g) the Sworn Statement49 of the union’s elected president and secretary. 1996 until May 31. in a letter dated May 23.D.. All the foregoing documents except the sworn statement of the president and the secretary were accompanied by Certifications50 by the union secretary duly attested to by the union president. Respondent served as Dean of said department for the designated term. The members of the EREU totaled 30 employees when it applied on December 19. In the same letter. as shown in the Sworn Statement of the Union president and secretary and confirmed by Eagle Ridge in its petition for cancellation. I-LO. respondent was given eight (8) teaching loads as full-time professor. 1998. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ATTY. CARLOS. a full time faculty member.R. (c) the list of rank-and-file employees45 who ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws showing the very same list as those who attended the organizational meeting and the election of officers with their individual signatures except the addition of four employees without their signatures. (f) the list of union members48 showing a total of 30 members. Thereafter. s. petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the Dean's office. Carlos on June 1. i. the following documents. vs. the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the members had no evidentiary weight to warrant the cancellation of the Certificate of Registration. is one who teaches at least twenty-four units or eight (8) teaching loads per semester in the College Department. Respondents. 2000. Respondent then requested for the payment of overload pay. Annalyn Poniente and Rowel Dolendo. 2005 showing 26 founding members who elected its union officers by secret ballot.
2000 to give him another chance to choose between the two foregoing options and to call his attention to Section 16. Thus. if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality. 1996 to May 31. is unnecessary.8 of CHED Memorandum No. 2000. 1998. He further said that his part-time teaching benefit cannot be withheld despite his alleged demotion as a faculty member. He maintained that teaching in another university is a benefit he enjoyed since July 1. It was clear that respondent's contract as Dean was only for a period of four years. Thus. because respondent’s appointment as Dean was for a fixed period of four (4) years. and with complete freedom to teach elsewhere and to practice your profession. 2000. Petitioner replied that there was no demotion in position from Dean to Faculty member. respondent protested the imposition of sanction against him arising from his part-time teaching of law in another university. Since respondent failed to respond to the aforementioned letter. 1996. as stated in petitioner's letter dated May 23. such mistake on the part of the LA cannot. 2000. 1999 as an administrator and Dean. from June 1. 1996 to May 31. Remain as a full-time professor. afterwhich. The Labor Arbiter (LA). you may also continue to practice your profession as a lawyer. but without teaching loads outside. the LA was incorrect when it directed the reinstatement of the respondent to his former position as a Dean. On the other hand. he would be appointed as a full. 19. respondent admitted that he was teaching at Araullo University without written permission because it was unnecessary. moreover. 2000. even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal.In his written reply. or to engage in any other remunerative occupation. provided that any additional cases you wish to handle should be subject to the prior written approval of the College. petitioner again sent a letter to respondent on September 20. to wit: 1. or 2. in any way.8. The NLRC ruled that petitioner's non-assignment of teaching load for the respondent was merely resorted to as a sanction pursuant to Section 16. it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. because the term of his appointment as Dean had long expired. in his Decision8 dated February 14. It is not disputed at this point that the LA erred in ordering respondent's reinstatement as Dean. petitioner gave respondent two options. The NLRC ruled that respondent should have been merely reinstated as a full-time law professor. alter the fact that during the pendency of the
. the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such. likewise. in its letter3 dated July 17. CHED Memorandum No. ruled that respondent was illegally dismissed. series of 1998.time professor without diminution of salary as a dean. deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages for lack of factual and legal basis. In a letter6 dated October 15. Petitioner refused to accept respondent's explanation that securing petitioner's prior written permission to teach elsewhere. Become a part-time professor with an initial teaching load of fifteen (15) units. more so if he actually rendered services during the period. S. The NLRC. your teaching loads in subsequent semesters will depend upon the College's evaluation of your performance and the teaching loads you will be carrying for that particular semester in other schools. from June 1. However. This means that you will lose your tenure as a full-time faculty member. Issue: Whether the subsequent reversal of the LA's findings mean that respondent should reimburse petitioner all the salaries and benefits he received pursuant to the immediate execution of the LA's erroneous decision ordering his reinstatement as Department Dean? Held: We rule in the negative. 2001. 19.
The members of the union were not paid their salaries. Issue: Whether or not 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 Held: The petition is granted in part. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The CA dismissed the petition too for certiorari. it should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. nonpayment of overtime pay. QCSC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. When the letter went unanswered. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter. January 19. refusal to hear its grievances. his order for respondent's reinstatement as Dean was immediately executory. or orders. The QCSC placed some of its employees under temporary lay-off status due to redundancy. Decisions. If made purely on questions of law. Article 223 of the Labor Code partly provides that: Article 223. Appeal. The Union averred that it was ordered to submit a new information sheet. After conducting a strike vote. or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executor unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions. the right to appeal is lost. In turn. The NLRC dismissed for lack of merit. In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. and d. QCSC also filed a petition for cancellation of registration against the union contending that the union was not a legitimate labor union as it had a pending complaint for cancellation of certificate of registration and no valid CBA. Labor Arbiter promulgated a decision finding QCSC guilty of unfair labor practice. Failing to do so. order or award was secured through fraud or coercion. The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. QCSC filed a supplement to its appeal. awards. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
. On January 4. Case Digest_Lolita Lopez et al v Quezon City Sports Club Inc GR NO. Public respondents have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which petitioners failed to rebut when they did not present evidence to prove partiality. it staged a strike. 2000.appeal of his decision. 164032. 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. the union filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. QCSC appealed from the labor arbiter’s decision. c. it is merely a statutory privilege. At the outset. malice and bad faith. ACSC filed a motion for reduction of the appeal bond. b. and malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA. 2009 Facts: the Kasapiang Mangagawa sa Quezon City Sports Club (union) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against QCSC alleging that the latter committed unfair labor practices. Bad faith can never be presumed. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds: . including graft and corruption. If the decision. Article 223 of the Labor Code explicitly provides. the union filed a notice of strike for violation of Article 248 (a)(c)(e) of the Labor Code. awards.
After due notice. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. January 20. PAL dismissed petitioners for transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline. It affirmed the validity the Writ and the Notice issued by the Labor Arbiter but suspended and referred the action to the Rehabilitation Receiver for appropriate action. Case Digest_General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-Tupas v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils Inc (General Santos City) Facts: Sometime in the late 1990s.” The prohibited acts were related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to
. Hence. decrease in sales. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. After conciliation and mediation proceedings. vacancies were created in some departments. Unfair labor practice refers to “acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. this petition. Meanwhile there was an inter-office memorandum sent to all of CCBPI’s Plant Human Resources Managers/Personnel Officers. including those of the CCBPI General Santos Plant mandating them to put on hold all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in Head office and in the Plants. and tougher competition. thus ordering PAL to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the decision. prompting them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages. Respondent elevated the matter to the appellate court which issued a Decision and Resolution nullifying the NLRC Resolutions. In a related move. 164856. CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation. Hence. CCBPI experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic crisis. Petitioner filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members. The CA decided upholding the NLRC’s findings that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice. 2009 Facts: The case stemmed from the administrative charge filed by PAL against its employeesherein petitioners after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Center’s Toolroom Section. respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Injunction with the NLRC. it implemented three waves of an Early Retirement Program. including the production department of CCBPI Gen San. the obligation to pay the employee’s salaries upon the employer’s failure to exercise the alternative options under Article 223 of the Labor Code is not a hard and fast rule. The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award for reinstatement shall be immediately executor even pending appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement. Issue: Whether or not CCBPI was guilty of unfair labor practice Held: The petition is denied. CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction. This prompted petitioner to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee for filling up the vacancies with permanent employees. Because several employees availed of the early retirement program. To curb the negative effects on the company. the parties failed to come to an amicable settlement. Issue: Whether or not petitioners may collect wages during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning that of the Labor Arbiter Held: Petition is partially granted.Case Digest_Juanito Garcia v Philippine Airlines Inc GR No. The NLRC decided not in favor of the petitioner so petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in its resolution. In sum. which it reversed said decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. considering the inherent constraints of corporation rehabilitation. which was resolved by the Labor Arbiter in their favor.
GR No. It found that petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition for certification election. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petition was expiring during the period of the shutdown. This must not be so. that it sought to represent all the rank-andfile employees of respondent Samma Corporation. which has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification election among its monthly-paid rank-and-file employees. The Court notes that it is petition. Hence. for the choice of a collective bargaining agent is the sole concern of the employees. are not unfair labor practices. It has no legal standing in a certification election as it cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders related thereto. this petition. the acts. Case Digest_Jackbilt Industries Inc v Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU GR No. 2009 Facts: Petitioner SAMMA-LIKHA filed a petition for certification election in the DOLE claiming that it was a local chapter of the LIKHA Federation. 1998. Meanwhile. 2009 Facts: Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economics crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997 petitioner decided to temporarily stop its business. the employer. Respondent went on strike. It sought to enjoin respondent from obstructing free entry to and exit from its production facility. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor practice. that respondent was not a party to any collective bargaining agreement. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari. Aggrieved. which burden it failed to discharge. The CA reversed the same. Med-Arbiter ordered the dismissal of the petition. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition. that there was no other legitimate labor organization representing these rank-and-file employees. Its role in a certification election has aptly been described as that of a mere bystander. On April 14.the observance of a CBA. Case Digest_Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Samma-Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa (SAMMA-LIKHA) V Samma Corporation. petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike. and that no certification of consent election had been conducted within the employer unit for the last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition. Without that element. Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. Issue: Whether or not a certificate for non-forum shopping is required in a petition for certification election Held: The petition is granted. even if unfair. compelling most of its employees to go on leave for 6 months. The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. 171618-19 March 20. Meanwhile. Respondent immediately protested the temporary shutdown. which exception finds no application in the case before us. Petitioner filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO in the NLRC. the NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioner’s property. The NLRC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. 167141 March 13. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the resolution. respondent filed
. It denied reconsideration of the resolution. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. respondent claimed that petition halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. an Officer-inCharge/Regional Director of DOLE LIKHA Federation issued a resolution on the ground that prohibited mixture of supervisory and rank-and-file employees and non-compliance witht e attestation clause under paragraph 2 of Article 235 of the Labor Code. Crispin Dannug Jr.
In a decision. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. 8042 as violatative of the OFW’s constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract. petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1000 upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. the NLRC modified the LA decision. however. The claims of the complainant for moral and exemplary damages are dismissed for lack of merit. he had served only 2 months and 7 days of his contract. Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services Inc and Marlow Navigation Co. Petitioner also appealed to the NLRC. unfair labor practice. The CA eventually gave due course to it. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employer’s premises. Thus. deprives them of equal protection and denies them due process. However. On appeal. The Labor Arbiter based his computation on the salary period of 3 months only rather than the entire unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days of petitioner’s employment contract-applying the subject clause. and refusal to bargain on behalf of its officers and members against petitioner and its corporate officers..complaints for illegal lockout. 2009 Facts: By way of petition. Since respondent was found by the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit vehicles from petitioner’s compound. Article 264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. Leaving an unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days. 1998 strike. but this time he questioned the constitutionality of the subject clause. Republic Act No. 1998. because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal. illegal dismissal and attorney’s fees. 1998. this recourse. Hence. the date of his departure. but the CA dismissed the petition. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to pay the complainant. 167614 March 24. runaway shop and damages. The NLRC denied the motion. it modified the decision of the labor arbiter. 2004. the CA skirted the constitutional issue raised by
. On March 19. the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary rate. it was found guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioner’s employment contract was for a period of 12 months. In a decision. which granted the petition for certiorari. In a decision dated December 8. The NLRC corrected the LA’s computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner. Both petitioner and respondent moved for reconsideration but they were both denied for lack of merit. We uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondent’s officers and employees. entreating this Court to declare the subject clause in the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10. the labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. The petitioner assailed the decision of the NLRC via a petition for certiorari. petitioner refused to stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines on May 26. Issue: Whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike Held: The petition is granted. respondent’s officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9. All other claims are dismissed as well. Ltd under a POEA-approved Contract of Employment. petitioner assails the resolution. but at the time of his repatriation. Case Digest_Antonio Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services Inc GR No. Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make petitioner Chief Officer. Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims.
that is. from December 23. The Solicitor General came to the conclusion sufficient evidence to justify the Union’s proposal to consider the University and the CSB as only one entity because the latter is but a mere integral part of the university. A partial collective bargaining agreement was executed by the parties. the same being not contrary to law. Issue: Whether or not the voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion with respect to (1) computer operators assigned at the University’s Computer Services Center and the University’s discipline officers may be considered as confidential employees and should therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit. 5 out of the 11 issues raised in the Notice of Strike were resolved by the parties. (3) the denial of the Union’s proposed method of
. morals or public policy. 2000 Facts: On December 1986. Issue: Whether or not in involving the similar issue of granting unto the migrant worker back wages equal to the unexpired portion of his contract of employment instead of limiting it to 3 months. (2) a union shop clause should be included in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. For seafarers like petitioner. profession or calling. or 60 days before the expiration of the said collective bargaining agreement.the petitioner. this petition. Case Digest_De La Salle University v De La Salle University Employees Association GR No. 1986-December 22. The Voluntary Arbitrator is constrained to respect the original intention of the parties. 1991. Upon motion by the Solicitor General. both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration which. His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the CA. for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business. with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be employed. The word salaries in section 10(5) does not include overtime and leave pay. the subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause. which however. De La Salle University and De La Salle University Employees Association entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a life span of 3 years. Subsequently.” Likewise. whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work performed in excess of the regular 8 hours. turned out to be unsuccessful. But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline. provides a Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers in which salary is understood as the basic wage. were not entertained by the voluntary arbitrator. the University filed with the Second Division of this Court a petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction assailing the decision of the voluntary arbitrator. and holiday pay is compensation for any work performed on designated rest days and holidays. 109002 April 12. Hence. 1993. On March 18. 33 series 1996. Held: The Court grants the petition. The rendition of overtime work and the submission of sufficient proof that said was actually performed are conditions to be satisfied before a seaman could be entitled to overtime pay which should be computed on the basis of 30% of the basic monthly salary. DOLE Department Order No. however. exclusive of overtime. During the freedom period. the Union initiated negotiations with the University for a new collective bargaining agreement. On March 5. After several conciliation-mediation meetings. the Union also filed a petition for certiorari with the First Division. both petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Second Division. leave pay and other bonuses. petitioner brings his cause to this Court. particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. as having been rendered “in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion. National Capital Region. 1989. hence the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. the parties entered into a Submission Agreement identifying the 6 unresolved issues. The parties appointed Buenaventura Magsalin as voluntary arbitrator.
where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop. On the fifth issue. The faculty union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice witht eh DOLE. 1990 Facts: On June 19. (5) the denial of the Union’s proposals on the deloading of the union president is proper. Tomas v National Labor Relations Commission. On the third issue. the Court deems that any determination of this alleged error is unnecessary and irrelevant. the university can no longer be required to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years 1991-9222 and 1992-93 and charge the same to the incremental proceeds. serious disrespect to a superior and conduct unbecoming a faculty member. and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. On the second issue. GR No. Secretary Franklin Drilon subsequently issued an order to accept the employees back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
. On the fourth issue. the Court finds that the voluntary arbitrator did not gravely abuse his discretion on the matter.laying-off employees is proper. 1989. the committee’s determination must still be based on duly audited financial statements. 89920 October 18. Held: The petitions in the consolidated cases are partially granted. by virtue of which the employer may employ only members of the collective bargaining union. It appears that during the parties’ negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the voluntary arbitrator for the inclusion of a union shop provision in addition to the existing maintenance of membership clause in the collective bargaining agreement. and (7) the ruling that 70% share in the incremental tuition proceeds is the only source of salary increases and fringe benefits of the employees is proper. the Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. disrupting classes in all levels at the University. the Supreme Court agrees with the voluntary arbitrator’s rejection of the said demands. UST Faculty Union. there being no justifiable reason for the granting of the same. Case Digest_University of Sto. on a prima facie showing that the termination was causing a serious labor dispute. in view of the rulings on the fourth and preceding issues and there being no evidence presented before the voluntary arbitrator that the University held incremental tuition fee proceeds from which any wage increase or fringe benefit may be satisfied. certified the matter to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for a possible suspension of the effects of termination. 1989 and several days thereafter. the UST terminated the employment of all 16 union officers and directors of respondent UST Faculty Union on the ground that the libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector has committed the offenses of grave misconduct. the University can no longer be required to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years 1991-92. On the first issue. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law. (4) the ruling that on the basis of the University’s proposed budget. The labor arbiter. the Union demanded for a 25% and 40% salary increase for the 2nd and 3rd years. (6) the finding that the mulit-sectoral committee is the legitimate group which determines the annual salary increases. The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act is however limited. the right to join a labor organization should carry with it the corollary right not to join the same. as ruled by the voluntary arbitrator. some faculty members staged mass leaves of absence on June 28. On the secventh issue. As a result of the dismissal of said employees. On the sixth issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said committee is the group responsible for determining wage increases and fringe benefits.
UNILAB allowed her to continue working for the company. She later became Director of UNILAB’s Manufacturing Division. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the university to comply and faithfully abide with the orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Rivera v United Laboratories Inc GR NO. whichever comes first. and at one month’s terminal basic salary for every year of service.858. full backwages. Joselito Guianan Chan for contempt. 2009 Facts: Rivera commenced employment with respondent as senior manufacturing pharmacist. Rivera completed 30 years of service and UNILAB retired her pursuant to the terms of the plan. Rivera served as a personal consultant under contract with the Active Research and Management Corporation in 1993 and with Fil-Asia Business Consultants in
. And yet. Issue: Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it directed the university to pay some of the dismissed faculty members assigned to handle substantially equivalent academic assignments. It was withdrawn from the retirement fund and deposited in Trust Fund C. On August 14. Rivera’s retirement benefits amounted to P860. She was even promoted to the position of Assistant Vice-President. UNILAB adopted a comprehensive retirement plan supported by a retirement fund. the petitioner’s employment of the temporary restraining order as a pretext to enable it to substitute substantially equivalent academic assignments even for those who were earlier already reinstated to their actual teaching loads runs counter to the dictates of fair play. consisting of Trust Fund A where it would put in its contributions for the account of the member-employee and Trust Fund B consisting of the contributions of the members themselves. this petition. The petitioner filed a motion for clarification which was subsequently withdrawn. Secretary Drilon modified his previous order. It wants us to accept this remedy as one resorted to in good faith. 1989. Held: The petition is dismissed. Petitioner UST filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Secretary of Labor and Employment to either assume jurisdiction over the present case or certify it to the National Labor Relations Commissions for compulsory arbitration without suspending the effects of the termination of the 16 dismissed faculty members. as it alleges in its petition. The petitioner filed its opposition to the private respondent’s motion. the respondent union filed before the NLRC a motion to implement the orders of the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment and to cite Atty. the date the faculty members presented themselves for reinstatement up to the date of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement. at which time. In 1988. At Rivera’s request. Hence. pending resolution of the labor controversy before the NLRC. This Court therefore resolves that the actual reinstatement of the non-reinstated faculty members. The petitioner’s dogmatic insistence issuing substantially equivalent academic assignments stems from the fact that the teaching loads of the dismissed professors have already been assigned to other faculty members. She rendered service to the company in this capacity until the end of 1992. Case Digest_Juanaria A. as UNILAB put it and as evidenced by a personnel action notice. From 1993 to 1994. it operates on a semestral basis. a member is compulsorily retired upon reaching the normal retirement date which is the date when the member has reached age 60 or has completed 30 years of service. may take effect at the start of the second semester of the schoolyear 1990-1991 but not later.473. the petitioner’s reasoning that it will be violating contracts with the faculty members who took over the dismissed professors’ teaching loads becomes moot considering that. Based on her monthly salary at that time. 155639 April 22. In 1959. The parties do not dispute that under the plan. With this arrangement.21 from Trust Fund B. a special account from which she could make withdrawals as she pleased.their dismissal.12 from Trust Fund A and P186. Rivera retired from employment with the company.
Rivera sought relief from the NLRC in an action against UNILAB for recovery of unpaid retirement pay differential. The CA set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the NLRC but remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for hearing on the merits. Then. In fact. Inguillo and several FPSI employees joined another union. The members of FPSLU ratified the CBA in a document entititled RATIPIKASYON NG KASUNDUAN. Meanwhile. and Rivera made two follow up. which was affiliated with a federation called Katipunan (NLM-KATIPUNAN. In defense. as no amount was recovered. Thus. UNILAB did not reply to this. signed the said document. the Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM).
. It found that Rivera’s claim for retirement had not yet prescribed at the time of its filing. the company amended its retirement plan. there is no question that Rivera accepted her retirement and its benefits in 1988. Rivera. In said case. Inguillo filed with the NLRC a complaint against FPSI an/or Policarpio for illegal withholding of salary and damages. During the lifetime of the CBA. The CA promulgated its resolution denying both motions for lack of merit.1994. As a consequence. formerly FPSILU’s President and Secretary for Finance. Hence. Rivera’s retirement pay was computed. Case Digest_Herminigildo Inguillo v First Philippine Scales GR NO. Subsequently. With this retirement. However. 1988. on the other hand. These are UNILAB’s sister companies which assigned Rivera to render service involving UNILAB. the Med-Arbiter decided in favor of FPSILU. filed a partial motion for reconsideration. the duration of which was for a period of 5 years. UNILAB moved for a reconsideration of the CA decision. Rivera asked that her retirement benefits be increased in accordance with the amended retirement program. UNILAB denied Rivera’s request. Rivera did make withdrawals from Trust Fund C. In 1991. Rivera elevated the case to the CA by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 2009 Facts: First Philippine Scales Inc employed Bergante and Inguillo as assemblers. the present petition.000 pertaining to the union dues erroneously collected from the employees. It also ordered the officers and members of NLM-KATIPUNAN to return FPSILU the amount of P90. Berganted and Inguillo who were member of FPSILU. in this case December 31. for brevity). notices of garnishment were issued to UCPB and to FPSI for the latter to hold for FPSILU the earnings of Domingo Grutas Jr and Inguillo. Bergante. her coverage by the UNILAB retirement plan ceased based on the express terms of the plan. 165407 June 5. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. FPSI and First Philippine Scales Industries Labor Unin entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement. reiterating her demand for additional retirement benefits. one of which is the retired employee’s termination of the services with the company as of the retirement date. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is covered by respondent’s amended retirement plan Held: The court denies the petition and dismiss the claim for unpaid retirement pay differential for lack of merit. The CA however avoided ruling on the merits of the case by reason of what it recognized as “an existing controversy as to the crucial fact of when precisely petitioner retired from respondent company for purposes of determining whether or not she is covered by respondent’s amended retirement plan so as to fix the amount of retirement benefits. UNILAB argued that the complaint on the ground of prescription. her accrued retirement benefits under Trust Fund A and Trust Fund B of the plan were withdrawn. Retirement as a fact carries with it certain legal effects. the executive board and members of the FPSILU addressed a document seeking the termination of the services of certain employees including petitioner. and deposited in Trust Fund C from which she could make withdrawals. NLM-KATIPUNAN filed with the Department of Labor and Employment an intro-union dispute against FPSILU and FPSI.
. the other is procedural—the manner in which the dismissal was effected. There are 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. In the course of the proceedings. Thus. that is. According to petitioner. The Union accepted the economic proposals. this appeal. HEPI submitted its economic proposals for the rank-and-file employees covering the years 2001 and 2003. Subsequently. In 2001. the Court said time and again that dismissals pursuant to union security clauses are valid and legal. the Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing with prejudice the complaints of Go. Grutas and Trinidad. Not satisfied with the disposition of their complaints. 165756 June 5. as well as the regular positions vacated. Bergante and Inquillo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. Issue: Whether or not Bergante and Inquillo were illegally dismissed Held: The instant petition is denied.. HEPI’s hotel business suffered a slump due to the local and international economic slowdown. petitioner decided to implement a downsizing scheme after studying the operating costs of its different divisions to determine the areas where it could obtain significant savings. An audited financial report made by SGV indicated that the hotel suffered a gross operating loss. the Union filed a notice of strike due to a bargaining deadlock before the NCMB. respondents however did not comply with the requisite procedural due process. the same is not without a condition or restriction. While the Court upholds dismissal pursuant to a union security clause. were later filled up with contractual personnel and agency employees. For to allow its untrammeled enforcement would encourage arbitrary dismissal and abuse by the employer. subject only the requirement of due process. notice and hearing prior to dismissal. Hence. Yolanda Tapang. to the detriment of the employees. Case Digest_Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines Inc v Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) GR No. Consequently. The Court holds that while Bergante and Inguillo’s dismissals were valid pursuant to the enforcement of Union Security Clause. the remaining complainants. In reversing the Labor Arbiter. were directed to submit their respective position papers. HEPI issued a memorandum offering a Special Limited Voluntary Resignation/Retirement Program to its regular employees. The vacant positions. which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. provided such enforcement is not characterized by arbitrariness. and always with due process. Employees who were qualified to resign or retire were given separation packages based on the number of years of service. Bergante and Inguillo. In like manner. Then. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Bergante and Inguillo appealed before the NLRC. 2009 Facts: Respondent Union is a certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Hyatt Regency Manila. Shirley Tapang. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the remaining complaints of Bergante and Inguillo and held that they were not illegally dismissed. a new CBA was signed. Hence. aggravated by events in the United States. it is emphasized that the enforcement of union security clauses is authorized by law. the management initially decided to cost-cut by implementing energysaving schemes. adopting the manning standards for the 248 rank-and-file employees. Meanwhile. to safeguard the rights of the employees. the NLRC ratiocinated that respondents failed to present evidence to show that Bergante and Inquillo committed acts inimical to FPSILU’s interest.Respondent terminated the services of the employees.
President of APCWU. including the petitioner. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. wrote a letter to the petitioner regarding the recall of his designation as the union Shop Steward. the Union filed a notice of strike based on unfair labor practice against HEPI. the NLRC issued an order directing Labor Arbiter to immediately suspend the proceedings in the pending petition to declare the strike illegal and to elevate the records of the said case for consolidation with the certified case. Because of this. On April 10. A rift then developed between the union leadership and certain union members. But while the petition was pending. On April 12. The Union opposed the downsizing plan. the labor arbiter had already issued a decision declaring the strike legal. the hotel management began implementing its downsizing plan immediately terminating 7 employees due to redundancy and 41 more due to retrenchment or abolition of positions. except the 48 workers earlier terminated. this petition. HEPI filed a motion to dismiss the notice of strike which was opposed by the Union. On May 5. HEPI filed a manifestation informing the NLRC of the pending petition to declare the strike illegal. Aggrieved. reversing the resolution of the NLRC and reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter which declared the strike valid. The CA promulgated the assailed decision. HEPI filed an appeal ad cautelam before the NLRC questioning its order. On appeal. The downsizing scheme implemented by petitioner is hereby declared a valid exercise of management prerogative. the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision. The CBA between the union and ATI provided for the appointment of a Shop Steward from among the union members. In this case. the hotel management issued separate notices of suspension against each of the 12 Union officers involved in the strike. A petition to declare the strike illegal was filed by petitioner. On December 28. petitioner met with respondent Union to formally discuss the downsizing program. and (c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike. He also became a member of the Associated Port Checkers and Workers Union. Miranda Jr v Asian Terminals Inc GR No. 2009 Facts: Petitioner was employed by respondent in 1991 as Checker I. HEPI moved for reconsideration but the same was denied for lack of merit. 174316 June 23. the petitioner and some of the members of APCWU sent an undated letter to ATI protesting the manner in which the APCWU leadership handled the affairs of the union. Acting Labor Secretary issued an order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and directing the striking workers. Hence. The Union filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The Shop Steward is a field representative of both the company and the union and acts as an independent arbiter of all complaints brought to his attention. In June 1994. This led to the formation of a grievance committee to investigate the complaints against the union
. (2) a strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in he bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. 2002. Accordingly. Issue: Whether or not the strike is illegal Held: The petition is partly granted. upon the recommendation of the union president.On January 24. Then. the Union filed a petition to suspend the effects of termination before the office of Secretary of Labor. 2002. respondent fully satisfied the procedural requirements prescribed by law. Procedurally. the petitioner was appointed to the position of Shop Steward which is a union position under the payroll of the company. 2002. Case Digest_Teodorico S. 1992. 1993. However. a strike to be valid must comply with Article 263 of the Labor Code. to return to work within 24 hours. Roger Silva. The CA also ordered the reinstatement of the 48 terminated employees on account of the hotel management’s illegal redundancy and retrenchment scheme and the payment of their backwages from the time they were illegally dismissed until their actual reinstatement. the requisites for a valid strike are: (a) notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP.
Petitioner filed a Petition before the CA. Upon remand of the case. Hence. However. illegal demotion and reduction and diminution of pay. 2003 Facts: Sometime in 1986 respondent Atty. Labor Arbiter issued a Decision which dismissed the case against ATI for lack of cause of action. In an Order issued by the Med-Arbiter. refused to participate in the investigation. 13th month pay and attorney’s fees. The petitioner also filed a series of complaints before the NLRC. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. including the petitioner. He was further re-assigned to Vessel Operation Checker.C. On October 3. Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be reinstated as Checker I Held: Petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. In 1989 the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a counter-
. Eduardo Mariño Jr A. the petitioner was ordered reinstated to the position of Shop Steward. the grievance committee issued its report recommending to ATI the recall of the petitioner as Shop Steward and for his reversion to his former position of Checker I. the petitioner was re-assigned from the position of Checker I to Checker I Mobile. The dispositive portion of the decision made matters confusing for the parties since it declared the petitioner to be constructively dismissed and order the petitioner to be reinstated. 4763 March 20. The petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice. While the cases filed by the petitioner were pending. the confusion remained as to which position the petitioner should be reinstated. The petitioner cannot also be reinstated to the position of Checker I. the collective bargaining agreement regrettably engendered dispute arising from the interpretation and implementation thereof. The NLRC remanded the case to the office of origin for further proceedings. since he was already retrenched by the respondent form such position and he released the company from any and all claims with respect to his retrenchment. The petitioner then sought the execution of the reinstatement aspect of the decision. This was also dismissed. 1995. the case was re-raffled to Labor Arbiter. Gil Y. Gamilla v Atty. Because of the petitioner’s retrenchment. which was later amended to illegal demotion with a claim for reduction or diminution in pay. The NLRC issued a TRO and declared the Break Open Order as null and void. The respondent appealed the decision of Labor Arbiter. However. The present labor case proceeded despite the execution of the Quit Claim and Release. The petitioner first filed a complaint against Roger Silva with the DOLE. which is designated only to Checker Grades II and III and which positions were only assigned to casual Checkers. The petitioner. He ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner indemnity in consonance with the Wenphil Doctrine. any order for the reinstatement of the petitioner to the position of union Shop Steward can no longer be executed by the union since the petitioner had been retrenched by the company. Upon the conclusion of the investigation. which was finally settled through the Quit Claim and Release. No. Instead of creating a harmonious relationship between the contracting parties. The petitioner appealed the order of Labor Arbiter. Acting on the recommendation of the union. the resolution of this petition is inevitably affected by the retrenchment of the petitioner from respondent ATI. The CA reversed the assailed decision and ruled that the reinstatement aspect of the labor arbiter’s decision is immediately executor. which is lower in rank than Checker I. as president of the UST Faculty union and other union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits. The complaint was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter. in accordance with the CBA. A third complaint for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Demotion was filed by the petitioner against union president. Mariño Jr. against respondent ATI. this petition. The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. The petitioner then filed a second complaint in the NLRC against the respondent for unfair labor practice. however.officers. Case Digest_Dr. the petitioner filed another complaint before the Med-Arbiter involving money claims in the form of allowances. respondent ATI issued a Memorandum to the petitioner regarding his transfer.
respondent filed his comment on the IBP Report and Resolution and alleged the same contentions he previously asserted. UST took care of the disbursement to pay for the expenses.200. 168406 July 13. thus no CBA negotiations could be held. the record does not show any justification for such huge amount of compensation nor any clear differentiation between his legal services and his tasks as union president comprising in all probability the same duties for which he had collected a hefty compensation as attorney for the union. Prior to the expiration of the CBA and within the freedom period. There was lack of notice and transparency in respondent’s dual role as lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union when he obtained P4. Case Digest_Club Filipino Inc v Benjamin Bautista GR No. On July 2. the union submitted its formal CBA proposal to the company’s negotiating panel and repeatedly asked for the start of negotiations. 2000. the Regional Director found merit and ordered the expulsion of respondent and the other officers and directors of the union. In the meantime. took place
. 1999. the union made several demands for negotiation but the company replied that it could not muster a quorum.000 from which P5. In accordance with the memorandum of agreement. lack of transparency in the administration and distribution of the remaining balance. The dismissal precipitated anew bitter legal battles which were resolved by the Court in favor of the dismissed employees by ordering their reinstatement with backwages. Sometime in 2000. On September 7. however. In 1992 UST and the UST Faculty Union executed a memorandum of agreement to settle the salary increases and other benefits under the collective bargaining agreement effective 1988.000. and refusal to remit. Complainants as members of the UST Faculty Union questioned the alleged lack of transparency among the officers and directors of the union in the management and disbursement of the monetary benefits for the faculty members. 2009 Facts: The union and the company had a CBA which expired on May 31. The Bureau of Labor Relations in the appeal set aside the order of the Regional Director. On September 25. 1997. Without ruling on the validity of the collection so as not to pre-empt the decision on this issue. consent or ratification of the union members.000 was intended to settle the backwages and other claims of the 16 union officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union. Issue: Whether or not respondent should be suspended from the practice of law Held: Respondent is reprimanded for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon a repetition of the same act.measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including respondent. No negotiations.000. failing to account for the P7. the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment of P7. In the same year. complainants filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. 2002 the court received the detailed Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner and the IBP Resolution of the Board of Governors adopting and approving the Report which recommended the lifting of Atty. It appears from the record that backwages and other claims of respondent and other concerned union officers and directors was paid immediately by UST while the satisfaction of the balance was apparently deferred to some unspecified time.000 as attorney’s fees. Mariño accusing him of compromising their entitlements under the 1986 collective bargaining agreement without the knowledge.000 received by him and other officers and directors.000. In 1990 Secretary of Labor prescribed the terms and conditions of a 5-year collective bargaining agreement between UST and the UST Faculty Union retroactive to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired. Mariño’s suspension from law practice since he had sufficiently accounted for the funds in question.
2005. After the lapse of 60-day freedom period. In a Resolution. but pending the disposition of the Petition for Certification Election filed by NUWHRAIN. The Hotel called the contending unions and the employees concerned for a reconciliatory conference in an attempt to avoid the dismissal of the 36 employees. HIMPHLU by filing a petition for certification election. 2005. among them the illness of the chairman of the management panel. On June 21. extending the effectivitity of the existing CBA for another 2 years. The parties signed the MOA and the employees ratified it on May 27. It was denied by the NLRC in another Resolution. the Certification Election for regular rank and file employees of the Hotel was held. which HIMPHLU won. NUWHRAIN filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.for various reasons proffered by the company. During the 60-day freedom period. Their strategy however failed to bring the management to the negotiating table. 2008 Facts: Petitioner NUWHRAIN is a legitimate labor organization composed of rank-and-file employees of the Hotel. The parties subsequently re-negotiate the economic provisions of the CBA and extended the term of their effectivitity for another 2 years. The Industrial Relations Division of DOLE allowed the registration of the MOA executed between HIMPHLU and the Hotel. Thus. Both parties consented that the representation aspect and other non-economic provisions of the CBA were to be effective for 5 years or until June 30. The Notices directed the 36 employees to submit a written explanation for their alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of the union security clause for which HIMPHLU sought their dismissal. while respondent is the owner and operator of said Hotel. NUWHRAIN exercised the right to challenge the majority status of the incumbent union. filed a request for preventive mediation with the NCMB. 2005. Thereafter. the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the Hotel. In the meantime. 179402 September 30. the NLRC pronounced that the Hotel was not guilty of unfair labor practice. NUWHRAIN was accorded by the Labor Relations Division of the DOLE the status of a legitimate labor organization. respondents. 2005. the Hotel and HIMPHLU negotiated the extension of the provisions of the existing CBA for 2 years. The Hotel entered into a CBA with Hi-Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union. It was accordingly certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for rank and file employees of the Hotel. NUWHRAIN filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing NLRC Resolution. the Hotel issued Disciplinary Action Notices to the 36 employees identified in the written demand of HIMPHLU.
. NUWHRAIN was accorded by the Labor Relatios Divison of the DOLE the status of a legitimate labor organization. and the economic provisions of the same were to be effective or 3 years.
Case Digest_National Union of Workers In Hotels. NUWHRAIN exercised the right to challenge the majority status of the incumbent union. HIMPHLU served the Hotel with a written demand for the dismissal of 36 employees forllowing their expulsion from HIMPHLU for alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of its Constitution and by-laws. On August 1. NUWHRAIN asserted that the Hotel committed unfair labor practice when it issued the Notices to the 36 employees who switched allegiance from HIMPHLU to NUWHRAIN. Respondent insisted that it did not commit unfair labor practice nor was it liable for moral and exemplary damages. Restaurants and Allied Industries v NLRC GR No. In order to compel the company to negotiate. HIMPHLU by filing a petition for certification election.
S. It is only when such findings are not substantially supported by the records that this Court will step in and make its independent evaluation of the facts. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 2000. Ventures Labor Union is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.Considering the expertise of these agencies in matters pertaining to labor disputes. appeared on the basic documents supporting the petition. gave it due course and treated it as an appeal. NLRC found and the CA is affirmed. Ventures then went to the CA on a petition for certiorarti under Rule 65. XIII. over the objection of Ventures which filed a Motion to Expunge. Sec.S. 2000 meeting is an internal matter within the ambit of the worker's right ot self-organization and outside the sphere of influence of this office and the petitioner Held: The petition is denied. Ventures sought reconsideration fo the above decision but was denied by the BLR. The CA dismissed Ventures' petiton. shall not be abridged. Five hundred forty two signatures. In a decision. Ventures International Inc v S. (RO300-00-02-UR-0003). the Union interposed a motion for reconsideration. In its supplemental reply memorandum filed on March 20. Although it would later find this motion to have been belatedly filed. It declared that the Hotel had acted prudently when it issued the Notice to the 36 employees after HIMPHLU demanded their dismissal. ON August 21.S. III. 246 of the Labor Code. Hence. a recourse which appeared to have been forwarded to the BLR. Respondent S. join. Findings of fact of the NLRC are given much weight and are considered conclusive by this Court. The Union denied committing the imputed acts of fraud or forgery. claiming that the “affidavits” executed by 82 alleged Union members show that they were deceived into signing paper minutes or were harrassed to signing their attendance in the organizational meeting.S. It resolved to cancel Certificate Registration No. Terminated Ventures employees. Regional Deirector of DOLE-Region III fournd for Ventures. 2001. The right to form. Ventures Labor Union Facts: Petitioner S. Aggrieved. Venturs' motion for reconsideration met a similar fate. the findings of administrative agencies of the Department of Labor are generally accorded not only respect. Issue: whether or not the hotel had committed unfair labor practice Held: the instant petition is denied. Issue: whether or not the inclusion fo the 82 employees in the list of attendees to the January 9. 2000. Hence. Case Digest_S. the BLR. On March 21. this peition for review under Rule 45. Despite Ventures' motion to expunge the appeal. according to Art. 82 of which belong to 2008. that the officers of the respondent and the Hotel did not make statements that would have constituted unfair labor practice. In the case at bar. Ventures International Inc is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union's certificate of registration invoking the grounds set forth in Article 239(a) of the Labor Code. Once registered with the DOLE. the BLR Director rendered a decision granting the Union's appeal and reversing the decision of Dione. or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. but also finality. Section 3 of the Constitution and such right. the Union filed with DOLE a petition for certification election in behalf of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures.The CA promulgated its decision upholding eh resolution of the NLRC. Ventures cited other instances of fraud and misrepresentation. While a certificate of registration confers a union
. Ventures added that some employees signed the “affidavits” denying having attended such meeting. the present petition. a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. NUHWRAIN's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Except when it is requested to bargain collectively. the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit. 2000 by DOLE. the provision did not state the effect of such prohibited membership on the legitimacy of the labor organization and its right to file for certification election. the CA rendered the decision assailed herein. an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election. In the case at bar. However. the Court reiterated that such labor organization had no legal right to file a certification election to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its members. Meanwhile. for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. Transport & General Workers Organization. as respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions. Case Digest_Republic of the Philippines Represented by DOLE v Kawashima Textile MFG Philippines Inc. Issue: Whether or not a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for certification election Held: The petition is granted. on appeal by respondent. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality because its membership of mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code. prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members. Facts: KFWU filed with DOLE a Petition for Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining until composed of 145 rank-and-file employees of respondent. in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. DOLE. KFWU filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it. but in which the membership included rank-and-file employees. Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference. The DOLE held that Med-Arbiter Bactin's reliance on the decisions of the Court was misplaced. stating that it submitted to said office a Charter Certificate issued to it by the national federation Phil. n which the labor organization that filed a petition for certification election was one for supervisory employees. Not being one. and a Report of Creation of Local/Chapter. The choice of their representative is the exclusive
. 239(a) of the Labor Code. Attached to its petition are a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter issued on January 19. Med-Arbiter found KFWU's legal personality defective and dismissed its petition for certification election. In an Order. for while 245 declares supervisory employees ineligible for membership in a labor organization for rank-and-file employees. Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art. The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. KFWU appealed to the DOLE which issued a decision granting the appeal. 2000 DOLE. reversing the August 18.n Dunlop. such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative. it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the DOLE denied the same. the union could not. such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union's constitution and like documents. and its failure to submit its books of account contravened the ruling of the Court in Progressive Development Corporation v Secretary.with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit. It is not a ground to cancel union registration. The RP filed the present petition to seek closure.
Verily. After the conduct of an informal administrative hearing. justify the dismissal from the Company. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their Complaint. In their separate written explanations. much less oppose. private respondent notified petitioner Garcia of the termination of his employment for serious misconduct and a violation of the Company’s Code of Ethics. which dismissed it. illegal suspension. it appears that the only evidence of petitioner Morales's involvement in the cover-up is the statement of De Guzman that it was said petitioner who instructed him to get a parcel from a third person. However. the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it. the same cannot be said of the connection of Morales to said incidents. but did not amount to unfair labor practice. and to return the same. Garcia v Malayan Insurance Co Inc GR NO. damages and attorney’s fees. which affirmed the LA decision. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Its error in the assessment of the available evidence cannot be equated with bad faith as there is no evidence that it was animated by malice or ill motive. Private respondent also issued to petitioner Morales a similar memorandum but with additional instruction for his preventive suspension for 30 days pending investigation. The NLRC also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. To recall. its action in dismissing petitioner Morales may have been illegal. 160339 March 14. note even a mere allegaiton that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. 2008 Facts: Petitioners were employed as risk inspectors by Malayan Insurance Company Inc. petitioners denied their involvement in the theft and countered that the filing of the charges against them was a form of harassment against their union MEA-FFW.concern of the employees.
. unfair labor practice. Case Digest_Oscar P. private respondent issued to petitioner Garcia an Inter-Office Memorandum giving him 24 hours to explain his involvement in the theft of company property. it cannot interfere with. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. which under Article 282 of the Labor Code. which was in a deadlock with respondent in the ongoing negotiations over the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. consisting of diskettes. the present petition. 1999. the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein. as amended. Hence. It is noted that while the participation of petitioner Garcia in said theft and cover-up is detailed in said affidavit. No bad faith can be attributed to private respondent in dismissing petitioner Morales despite such scant evidence. logbooks and other documents of the Risk Analysis Section. the Court finds no indication that the CA misappreciated the evidence when it affirmed the findings of the NLRC and LA against petitioner Garcia. Petitioners filed before the Labor Arbiter a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. petitioner Morales was dismissed for conspiring in the cover-up of the theft. Issue: Whether or not respondent company acted with bad faith in terminating the services of the petitioners Held: Petition is partly granted. They were also officers of the Malayan Employees Association-FFW (MEA-FFW) On December 29. Hence.
one-time company grants. UFE-DFA-KMU. Case Digest Union of Filipro Employees-Drug. 158930-31 March 3. to assume jurisdiction over the current labor dispute in order to effectively enjoin any impending strike by the members of the union at the Nestle’s Cabuyao Plant in Laguna. filed several pleadings.In fine. Nestlé addressed several issues concerning economic provisions of the CBA as well as the noninclusion of the issue of the Retirement Plan in the collective bargaining negotiations. the Court finds scant evidence to connect petitioner Morales to the theft or its coverup and therefore declares that the CA committed a grievous error in upholding his dismissal. are by their very nature proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded. prior to holding the strike. UFE-DFA-KMU filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Food and Allied Industries UniionsKilusang Mayo Uno v Nestl Philippines Inc GR NO. Tomas issued an order directing the parties to meet and convene for the discussion of the union proposals and company counter-proposals before the NCMB. On November 29. However. On November 26. Nestle requested NCMB to conduct preventive mediation proceedings between it and UFEDFA-KMU owing to an alleged impasse in their dialogue that the parties failed to reach any agreement on the proposed CBA. Tomas denied said motion for reconsideration. alleging
. On 7 February 2002. 2001. 2001. Tomas allowed UFE-DFA-KMU the chance to tender its stand on the other issues raised by Nestlé but not covered by its initial position paper by way of a Supplemental Position Paper. the Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions informed Nestle of their intent to open new CBA for the year 2001-2004. company-initiated policies and programs. instead of filing the above-mentioned supplement. as the existing collective bargaining agreement between Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU was to end. On the other hand. Thereafter. The union sought reconsideration but nonetheless moved for additional time to file its position paper. In response. Sec. which include but are not limited to the Retirement Plan. On April 4. the Court sees no compelling reason to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the CA. NLRC and LA that petitioner Garcia was involved in the theft of respondent's properties and in the attempt to cover up said act for the same are supported by substantial evidence. Nestle informed them that it was also preparing its own counter-proposal and proposed ground rules to govern the impending conduct of the CBA negotiations. Nestle reiterated its stance that unilateral grants. UFE-DFA-KMU limited itself to the issue of whether or not the retirement plan was a mandatory subject in its CBA negotiations. Sto. Nestlé and UFE-DFA-KMU filed their respective position papers. 2008 Facts: UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestle belonging to the latter’s Alabang ang Cabuyao plants. Sto. Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium. 2001. Nestle filed with the DOLE a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction. 2001. Sec. Secretary Sto. On May 29. On 11 February 2002.
The Secretary of the DOLE has been explicitly granted by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. the appellate court promulgated its Decision on the twin petitions for certiorari. Nestlé essentially assailed that part of the decision finding the DOLE Secretary to have gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she ruled that the Retirement Plan was not a valid issue to be tackled during the CBA negotiations. A read-through of this Court’s Decision reveals that the ambiguity is more ostensible than real. UFE-DFA-KMU went to the Court of Appeals via another Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the Orders of 02 April 2002 and 06 May 2002 of the Secretary of the DOLE. The union sought to reverse the CA decision insofar as the appellate court’s failure to find Nestle guilty of unfair labor practice. Both parties appealed the aforequoted ruling. This Court’s Decision of 22 August 2006 designated marked boundaries as to the implications of the assailed Orders of the Secretary of the DOLE. Tomas committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she issued the Orders of 11 February 2002 and 8 March 2002. that is. in contrast. On 27 February 2003. Since the motions for reconsideration of both parties were denied by the Court of Appeals in a joint Resolution dated 27 June 2003. Again. we spell out what encompass the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction power. precisely because the Secretary of the DOLE had already assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute subject of herein petitions. as amended. issues that are necessarily involved in the
. The Court resolved to consolidate the petitions. And. We said therein that 1) the Retirement Plan is still a valid issue for herein parties’ collective bargaining negotiations. as a matter of necessity. but such was subsequently denied on 6 May 2002. Issue: Whether or not Nestle is guilty of unfair labor practice Held: Petition is denied with finality. The decision is now the subject for the union’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Nestle’s Motion for Clarification. ruling entirely in favor of UFE-DFA-KMU. it includes questions incidental to the labor dispute. UFE-DFA-KMU and Nestlé separately filed the instant Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Nowhere in our Decision did we require parties to submit to negotiate by themselves the tenor of the retirement benefits of the concerned employees of Nestlé. Sto. UFE-DFA-KMU. UFE-DFA-KMU moved to reconsider the aforequoted ruling. For the second time. and decide the same accordingly. questioned the appellate court’s decision finding Nestlé free and clear of any unfair labor practice.that Sec. 2) the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in limiting to the issue of the ground rules the scope of the power of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the subject labor dispute. and 3) Nestlé is not guilty of unfair labor practice. having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Secretary of DOLE came out with an order dismissing the charge of unfair labor practice against the company.
This is not a case where the employer exhibited an indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining. "bad faith. cannot be faulted for considering the same benefit as unilaterally granted. this Court remains unconvinced that it should modify or reverse in any way its disposition of herein cases in its earlier Decision. of course. the issue of retirement benefits was specifically what was presented before the Secretary of the DOLE. said letter is not tantamount to refusal to bargain. on the postulation that such was in the nature of a unilaterally granted benefit. An employer’s steadfast insistence to exclude a particular substantive provision is no different from a bargaining representative’s perseverance to include one that they deem of absolute necessity. The foregoing things considered. In thinking to exclude the issue of Retirement Plan from the CBA negotiations. Indeed. are by their very nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom. considering that eight out of nine bargaining units have allegedly agreed to treat the Retirement Plan as a unilaterally granted benefit." But as we have stated in this Court’s Decision. In the case at bar. that social humiliation.10] It is but natural that at negotiations. and. In the case at bar. The corporation simply wanted to exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during CBA negotiations. or public policy. the union merely bases its claim of refusal to bargain on a letter28 dated 29 May 2001 written by Nestlé where the latter laid down its position that "unilateral grants. and not just to that ascribed in the Notice of Strike or otherwise submitted to him for resolution. such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. but are not limited to the Retirement Plan. because the negotiations were not the unilateral activity of the bargaining representative.[fn24 p. one-time company grants. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper. It had a right to insist on its position to the point of stalemate. The labor dispute between the Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU has dragged on long enough. And the management’s firm stand against the issue of the Retirement Plan did not mean that it was bargaining in bad faith. We reject Nestlé’s interpretation. Our decision is crystal and cannot be interpreted any other way. Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium. The Secretary having already assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute subject of these consolidated petitions. or grave anxiety resulted x x x"27 in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations. 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. this Court replicates below its clear disposition of the issue: The concept of "unfair labor practice" is defined by the Labor Code as:
. Nestle could have refused to bargain with the former – but it did not. the issue concerning the retirement benefits of the concerned employees must be remanded back to him for proper disposition.dispute itself. it must be shown that Nestlé was motivated by ill will. or fraud. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other. As no other issues are availing. or done in a manner contrary to morals. Nestle never refused to bargain collectively with UFE-DFA-KMU. company-initiated policies and programs. management and labor adopt positions or make demands and offer proposals and counter-proposals. good customs. wounded feelings. let this Resolution write an ending to the protracted labor dispute between Nestlé and UFE-DFA-KMU (Cabuyao Division). which include. or was oppressive to labor. On account of the importance of the economic issue proposed by UFEDFA-KMU. an adamant insistence on a bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an impasse does not establish bad faith. All told. Herein. hence. Nestlé. in consideration of the points afore-discussed and the fact that no substantial arguments have been raised by either party. Nestlé’s desire to settle the dispute and proceed with the negotiation being evident in its cry for compulsory arbitration is proof enough of its exertion of reasonable effort at good-faith bargaining.
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages. discharge. – Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS. (d) To initiate. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement. Provided. Worse. not 242. (h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. That the individual authorization required under Article 242. it was only on the second that the ground of unfair labor practice was alleged.ART. A meticulous review of the record and pleadings of the cases at bar shows that. (b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. – CAA] (f) To dismiss. (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with. x x x x. or (i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. hours of work. or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Nestlé is accused of violating its duty to bargain collectively when it purportedly imposed a pre-condition to its agreement to discuss and engage in collective bargaining negotiations with UFE-DFA-KMU. including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect. and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. [The article referred to is 241. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. dominate. of the two notices of strike filed by UFE-DFA-KMU before the NCMB. 247. paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining agent. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. to wit: ART. are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management. disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. CONCEPT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION THEREOF. the 7 November 2001 Notice
.) Herein. 248. The same code likewise provides the acts constituting unfair labor practices committed by employers. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. (Emphasis supplied. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices: (a) To interfere with. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. only the officers and agents of corporations associations or partnerships who have actually participated. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment.
6 November 1997. No. (Capitol Medical Center. No.R. p. G. G. v.) Herein. such exercise will be upheld.R. No. It is UFE-DFA-KMU. 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. No. (Capitol Medical Center. G. Meris. 155098. (Tiu v. in its Position Paper. National Labor Relations Commission. v. Inc. No. 518. 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. 136. Meris." (Notice of Strike of 7 November 2001. Inc. 16 September 2005. Meris. Accordingly.) In the case at bar. (Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. Annex "C" of UFE-DFAKMU Position Paper. (Capitol Medical Center.R. Inc. 518. 136. except for the assertion put forth by UFE-DFA-KMU.R. 470 SCRA 125. Nestlé. 16 September 2005. the rule is that good faith is always presumed. DOLE original records. 146. 123276. state the acts complained of and the efforts to resolve the dispute amicably. G.) There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. 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. did not confine itself to the issue of the non-inclusion of the Retirement Plan but extensively discussed its stance on other economic matters pertaining to the CBA.R." (Emphasis supplied. v. therefore. 158930-31) will readily disclose the need for the presentation of evidence other than its bare contention of unfair labor practice in order to make certain the propriety or impropriety of the ULP charge hurled against Nestlé. 125038. 125038. 277 SCRA 681. Nos. G. G. 6 November 1997. no proof was presented to exemplify bad faith on the part of Nestlé apart from mere allegation. who had the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice. 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. In cases of unfair labor practices. 281 SCRA 509. 18 August 1997. 155098. Sec. Under Rule XIII. No.R. 136.) In this connection. 281 SCRA 509. (Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. the notice of strike shall as far as practicable. 470 SCRA 125. since UFE-DFA-KMU failed to proffer substantial evidence that would overcome the legal presumption of good faith on the part of Nestlé. 4. 470 SCRA 125. 155098. 688. National Labor Relations Commission. A perusal of the allegations and arguments raised by UFE-DFA-KMU in the Memorandum (in G.) Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. 16 September 2005.) This mass of privileges comprises the so-called management prerogatives. National Labor Relations Commission.) Employers are accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination and independence and reasonable return of capital.) In contrast.
.R. the award of moral and exemplary damages is unavailing. neither the second Notice of Strike nor the records of these cases substantiate a finding of unfair labor practice. Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code: x x x.of Strike merely contained a general allegation that Nestlé committed unfair labor practice by bargaining in bad faith for supposedly "setting pre-condition in the ground rules (Retirement issue).
Respondents. if already incurred. It justifies the submission before the Court of Appeals of its 2002-2004. INC. all of the following elements under Article 283 of the Labor Code must concur or be present. Facts: For resolution is respondent Philippine Airlines. PAL attached a copy of its audited financial statements for fiscal years 1996. in its Motion to Dismiss and/or Consolidation of Case filed with the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case No. audited financial statements.
.’s (PAL) Motion for Reconsideration1 of our Decision of July 22. PAL maintains that it was suffering from financial distress which justified the retrenchment of more than 1. PATRIA CHIONG and COURT OF APPEALS. This.400 of its flight attendants. Inc. it must be emphasized that in order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid. (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. Held: Again. but only the allegedly discriminatory and baseless manner by which it was carried out. 1998 Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approving the said petition for suspension of payments. serious. In its Motion for Reconsideration. Issue: Won the retrenchment was valid. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. actual and real. and. and not for the purpose of establishing its financial problems during the retrenchment period. it argued. whichever is higher.. or the labor case subject of the herein petition. 2008.FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP). PAL beseeches this Honorable Court to take a second look at the peculiar facts and circumstances that clearly show that the recall/rehire was done in good faith. Petitioner. but substantial. In the instant Motion for Reconsideration. In the present case. PAL asserts that it has presented proof of its claimed losses by attaching its petition for suspension of payments. PAL was still under rehabilitation. Furthermore. vs. (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. (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. FASAP never assailed the economic basis for the retrenchment. to wit: (1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which. and not the 1996-1998. are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. as well as the June 23. are not merely de minimis. to show that as of the time of their submission with the Court of Appeals. was an established fact. 1997 and 1998. These facts and circumstances make the case of PAL totally different from the other cases decided by this Honorable Court where it found bad faith on the part of the employer for immediately rehiring or hiring employees after retrenchment. or if only expected. 0605100-98.
Abella worked as chemist/quality controller at herein petitioner Marival Trading Inc. Vianney D. after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting. such as status. Facts: This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the Decision dated 30 June 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Manuel and Beatriz A. National Labor Relations Commission. 87820 entitled. as the case may be. MARIVAL TRADING. in strict point of law and as herein earlier discussed. age. On the basis of the foregoing disquisition. Inc. the requisite proof therefor was not presented before the NLRC which was the proper forum. It was brought about by – and resorted to as an immediate reaction to – a pilots’ strike which. the retrenchment scheme becomes an irregular exercise of management prerogative. Marival Trading.. MANUEL. PAL failed to observe the procedure and requirements for a valid retrenchment. SP No. the flight attendants affected are entitled to the reliefs provided by law. which include backwages and reinstatement or separation pay. Marival is a corporation engaged in the production.. the employer’s prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort. efficiency. “Ma. INC. Abella v. and financial hardship for certain workers. it clearly did not abide by all the requirements under Article 283 of the Labor Code. seniority. MANUEL and BEATRICE A. it no longer implemented cost-cutting measures and proceeded directly to retrench. the manner of the retrenchment was not in accordance with the procedure required by law. To impart operational meaning to the constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor. VIRGINIA A. respectively. Manuel (Manuel). On 14 July 2000. this Court finds no reason to disturb its finding that the retrenchment of the flight attendants was illegally executed. In the absence of one element. As held in the Decision sought to be reconsidered. This being so. nor may it be used to excuse PAL for its non-observance of the requirements of the law on retrenchment under the Labor Code. The employer’s obligation to exhaust all other means to avoid further losses without retrenching its employees is a component of the first element as enumerated above. PAL admitted that since the pilots’ strike allegedly created a situation of extreme urgency. Petitioners. distribution and sale of veterinary products. while petitioners Virginia and Beatriz Manuel are its President and Vice President (VP)-Personnel. At the time it was implemented.R. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and MA. for almost eight years.(5) That the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees. the retrenchment of the flight attendants amounted to illegal dismissal. Manuel. the retrenchment scheme under scrutiny was not triggered directly by any financial difficulty PAL was experiencing at the time. Vice President and General Manager of Marival. Consequently. physical fitness. ABELLA. Hence. Ma.
. nor borne of an actual implementation of its proposed downsizing of aircraft. may not be considered as a valid reason to retrench. we find no further need to discuss the other arguments advanced by the parties in their pleadings and during the oral arguments. (Marival). VIANNEY D.” which affirmed with modifications the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 10 September 2002 and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 30 May 2001. Roxanney A. Virginia A.31 In the instant case. Assuming that PAL was indeed suffering financial losses. Therefore. conducted a staff meeting together with the other officers of the company. More importantly.
and that her freedom to lawfully air her grievance in relation to her security of tenure at work should be respected. After the meeting. She clarified that her shoulder bag accidentally fell to the floor. She maintained that she aired her side regarding the table rearrangement in a tactful and courteous manner. packaging supervisor and importation manager. Abella was not in the room.
. Indeed. (a) it must be serious. and Distor were already having their own meeting. and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. alleging that she was dismissed from work without just cause and without due process. must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. However. (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. Manuel approached Abella to ask what the problem was and the latter expressed her resentment over the fact that the employees were not informed first before their tables were moved. Manuel asked Abella to leave the room but she refused to do so. as discussed above. under the circumstances they were done. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The acts complained of. did not in any way pertain to her duties as chemist/quality controller. an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer’s business. and such should not have caused any offense to the officers present at the meeting. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action. This case should be distinguished from the previous cases where we held that the use of insulting and offensive language constitutes gross misconduct justifying an employee’s dismissal. respectively. a dereliction of duty. Such misconduct. but it was not so gross as to be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal. Abella filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. She requested two male employees to move some tables and placed Abella’s belongings on one of these tables. Albeza. the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming with modification the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter’s Decisions. Three days later. Apparently. On 30 June 2005. willful character. in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law. while the rearrangement of the tables was going on. She came in when Manuel. however serious. While Abella was attending to her things. it must have been done in relation to the performance of her duties as would show her unfit to continue working for her employer. disrupting the officers’ meeting. for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal. It was only upon Albeza’s prodding that Abella later left the room. Manuel asked Albeza and Distor to stay behind to discuss other matters. Abella denied the accusations against her. that the order for her to get out of the room was unjustified. Thus. Claire Distor (Distor). her shoulder bag fell loudly on the floor. Abella received a memo from Manuel directing her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed for her disrespectful insubordination and unprofessional conduct.Gregorio Albeza (Albeza) and Ma. The Court of Appeals ruled that Abella’s behavior amounted to misconduct and disrespect in violation of company rules. Abella then stayed in the laboratory for the rest of the afternoon. a forbidden act. Issue: WON Abella was illegally dismissed Held: Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct.
Viewed in its context.660.975. FELICISIMO CARILLA. 1993.00 a month. 2003 in CA-G.In the case at bar. we apply the foregoing provision entitling the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages.00 x 5 months and 18 days. Anglo-Eastern Shipmanagement Ltd. Petitioner. The utter lack of respect for her superior was not patent.. After a finding of illegal dismissal herein. the Court of Appeals’ period of computation of the award of backwages must be modified. records do not show that Abella made any such false and malicious statements against her superiors.. the words “SANA NAMAN” which Abella supposedly uttered. “Sana naman next time na uurungin yung gamit naming (sic). affiants failed to cite particular acts or circumstances which would show that Abella was extremely disrespectful to her superior. Given the factual circumstances of this case. 67220. 2002 and its Resolution dated April 10. as well as his accrued leave pay for the entire time respondent served on the vessel in the amount of US$2.67 or a total of US$2.700 and from June 1 to 7 in the amount of US$396. Their approved POEA contract provided that respondent would get a basic monthly pay of US$1700. fixed monthly overtime of US$765. Quite the contrary.R. in behalf of its principal. G. eh sasabihin muna sa amin. Felicisimo Carilla (respondent) was hired by petitioner.e. Inc.00. respondent filed with the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency (POEA) a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for salaries and other benefits for the unexpired portion of his contract as well as unremitted allotments and damages.00 i. master's allowance of US$170. He alleged that: he was dismissed without notice and hearing and without any valid reason. petitioner's unlawful act deprived him of his expected monthly benefits for the unexpired portion of his contract which totaled to US$16. Abella’s act clearly do not constitute serious misconduct as to justify her dismissal. attorney's fees and damages. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS. The affidavits were not sufficient to prove Abella’s gross misconduct. Respondent prayed for payment of these amounts. petitioner withheld his allotment for the entire month of May 1994 in the sum of US$1. inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of his reinstatement.00 and leave with pay of six days per month or US$340. NO. a manning agent. Abella merely uttered.” We do not find the remarks unpleasant. Marival’s Vice-President and General Manager.33. (petitioner) seeking to annul and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 26. the act is not of such serious and grave character to warrant dismissal. Her acts were not intended to malign or to cast aspersion on Manuel. 1994.096. the award of backwages by the Court of Appeals is in order.00. suggest that she was merely making a request or entreaty to her superior for a little more consideration.00 or a total of US$2.
. to work as Master on board MV Handy-Cam Azobe for twelve months. 157975 Promulgated:
Facts: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Philippine Transmarine Carriers. Affiants merely alleged that respondent threw her bag and other things noisily and uttered unpleasant remarks at her employer. SP No. Quite obviously. INC.67. However. On November 18.R. False and malicious statements were not made by Abella.119. US$2975. On August 25. Thus..
PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PILTEA). PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION. he had not shown any improvement which forced petitioner to dismiss and replace him with a competent one. respondent's incompetence is therefore penalized with dismissal. ANTONIO. and GEM TORRES. DE LEON. Issue: WON the petitioner was illegally terminated Held: We find no merit in the petition. To prove respondent's incompetence while on board the vessel. Respondent was dismissed because of his alleged incompetence. thus. BRIONES II. FRANCISCO. BRIONES II. he failed to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the vessel and its cargo while plying the waters of South Korea and Keelung port causing petitioner to incur a huge amount of damages on cargo claims and vessel repairs. the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. prepared by Chief Officer R. More so. Miu and Chief Engineer N.K. AUGUSTO C. 160094 June 22. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION. vs. DE LEON. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer. Thus. respondents. petitioner. the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. and are deemed binding upon us so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
. LECEL M. 1994 entitled “Logs of Events During Capt Carilla (sic) Command. OLIVER B.Petitioner filed its Answer contending that: respondent's termination was for cause. The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process. GEORGE L. vs. No. 2007 PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PILTEA). petitioner presented a piece of paper dated June 1. RONALDO B. To begin with. Jaggi.” enumerating therein the alleged incidents where damages to timber products and on the vessel occurred. CORONEL. FIDEL. CHRISTOPHER L. despite the fact that respondent was warned of his lapses. GEORGE L. HERRERA and GEM TORRES. they are accorded not only great respect but also finality. cost had to be incurred.R. The LA and the NLRC have ruled on the factual issues. in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force. petitioners. and the Senior Officer Evaluation Reports showing respondent's unsatisfactory performance. Petitioner asked for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees as its counterclaim. x-----------------------------x G. PELAGIO S. who allegedly had served with respondent and had seen his work on board the vessel. In termination cases. PELAGIO S. and these were affirmed by the CA. It is fundamental that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact.
to wit: 1. 4.Facts: The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Union and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (the Company) was due to expire on December 31.4 The conciliation proceedings before the NCMB failed. Manny Alegado. 1998 assumption order and for non-compliance with the procedural requirements for the conduct of a strike under the Labor Code and its implementing rules. the Union staged the strike on the same day that it filed its second notice of strike. On July 13. 1997. This requirement should be observed to give the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. Prohibiting employees from conducting and preventing employees from participating in Union activities. Preventing employees from displaying Union flags and CBA's slogans. 1998 Order of assumption of jurisdiction and for noncompliance with the procedural requirements for the conduct of a strike under the Labor Code
. 9. On October 30. The Labor Arbiter found the strike illegal for having been conducted in defiance of Secretary Laguesma's August 14. 25 Issue: WON the strike was illegal Held: Having settled that the subject strike was illegal. 5.6 The Company filed a petition for Consolidated Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Office of the Secretary of Labor. the parties submitted their dispute to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for preventive mediation. Discouraging employees from participating in Union activities by branding the activities illegal and prohibited by law. we shall now determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the union officers who knowingly participated in the strike. As there was a standstill on several issues. The Union violated the seven-day strike ban. the Union submitted to the Company its proposals for the renegotiation of the non-representation aspects of their CBA. 1997. 7. Requiring employees to render forced overtime to prevent them from attending Union meetings and activities after office hours. Utilizing security guards to harass employees who participate in Union activities by requiring the guards to take down the names of employees who participate in the Union activities. It is settled that these requirements are mandatory in nature and failure to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. Threatening employees who join concerted Union activities with disciplinary action. 1998. issuing show cause memos for refusal to render overtime and vandalism). 2. Abuse of Company Rules and Regulations to prevent the free exercise by the Union and its members of their right to self organization and free expression (e. Requiring employees to execute undated resignation letters prior to regularization as a condition for continued employment. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC imposed the penalty of dismissal on the striking union officers after finding that: a) the strike was illegal for having been conducted in defiance of Secretary Laguesma's August 14.g. the Union filed a Notice of Strike5 with the NCMB for unfair labor practice due to the alleged acts of "restraint and coercion of union members and interference with their right to self-organization" committed by the Company's Revenue Assurance Department (RAD) Manager Rosales and its Call Center Department Manager. 8. Using vulgar and insulting language such as "Kahit sa puwet n'yo isaksak ang mga banderang yan!" 6.24 In the case at bar. 3.
(4) relevant professional experience. The appellate court had reversed the Decision of the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrators.S. MIT called FAMIT’s attention to what it perceived to be flaws or omissions in the CBA signed by the parties." these contained data under the heading "TOTAL POINTS" that were not germane to the two other columns in both annexes."5 When the CBA took effect.3 The latter agreed to the adoption and implementation of the instrument. MIT avers that this was inadvertently not attached to the CBA. MIT requested for an amendment of the following CBA annexes – Annex "B" (Faculty Ranking Sheet). and MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. MIT instituted some changes in the curriculum during the school year 2000-2001 which resulted in changes in the number of hours for certain subjects. FAMIT rejected the proposal. (7) officership in relevant technical and professional organizations. Among these were: (1) educational attainment. in the 5th CBA negotiation meeting. MIT adopted a new formula for determining the pay rates of the high school faculty: Rate/Load x Total Teaching
. In a letter7 dated July 5. On April 17. (6) award winning works. exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management. Facts: This is an appeal to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated August 21. private respondent Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) hired Arthur Andersen to develop a faculty ranking and compensation system. With regard to the Faculty Ranking Point Range sheet of the new faculty ranking instrument. The facts in this case are undisputed. FAMIT and MIT entered into a new CBA effective June 1.and its implementing rules. Faculty Rates for Permanent Faculty Only). petitioner. Meanwhile. respondents. but also on the general peace and progress of society and economic well-being of the State.R. FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FAMIT). However. vs. as the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital.4 It incorporated the new ranking for the college faculty in Section 8 of Article V which states that. HON. (5) scholarly work and creative efforts. there shall be no diminution in the existing rank and the policy ‘same rank. Thus. b) the grounds relied upon by the Union in its second notice of strike were substantially the same as those set forth in its first notice of strike. Annex "C" (College Faculty Rates for Permanent Faculty Only). 2001. c) It cannot be overemphasized that strike. same pay’ shall apply. In July 2000. "A new faculty ranking shall be implemented in June 2001. It said that these changes would constitute a violation of the ratified 2001 CBA and result in the diminution of rank and benefits of FAMIT college faculty. SP No. the Vice President for Academic Affairs issued a memorandum to all deans and subject chairs to evaluate and re-rank the faculty under their supervision using the new ranking instrument. MIT presented the new faculty ranking instrument to petitioner Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT). It held that the incorporation of the new faculty ranking to the 2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and private respondent has been the intention of the parties to the CBA. 2003 and the Resolution2 dated June 3. On January 29. 2001 to FAMIT. 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. MIT claimed that with respect to Annexes "C" and "D. Eight factors were to be considered and given their corresponding weights/points according to levels attained per factor.6 After a month. COURT OF APPEALS. and (8) administrative positions held at MIT. with the reservation that there should be no diminution in rank and pay of the faculty members. (3) relevant training. It argued that the proposed amendment in the ranking system for the college faculty revised the point ranges earlier agreed upon by the parties and expands the 19 faculty ranks to 23. 71479. 2001. and Annex "D" (H. (2) professional honors received. 2001.
Issue: WHETHER THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAY PROPERLY.15 On the second issue. On the other hand. Therefore. MIT argues that the new faculty ranking instrument was made in good faith and in the exercise of its inherent prerogative to freely regulate according to its own discretion and judgment all aspects of employment. violative of the law between the parties. AND II WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAY PROPERLY. it must be understood as encompassing all the terms and conditions in the said agreement. The provisions of the CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions "constitute the law between the parties.Load = Salary where total teaching load equals number of classes multiplied by hours of service per week divided by 3 hours (as practiced. It is made up of a faculty classification that is substantially different from the one originally incorporated in the current CBA between the parties. EXISTING AND ALREADY ENFORCED CBA TO THE PREJUDICE. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled. Considering the submissions of the parties. LEGALLY AND VALIDLY ALTER.NLRC
. we find that the new point range system proposed by MIT is an unauthorized modification of Annex "C" of the 2001 CBA.
CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER vs. FAMIT avers that MIT unilaterally modified the CBA formula in determining the salary of a high school faculty. in the light of the existing CBA." Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. one unit subject is equal to 3 hours service). Thus.14 The CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner and private respondent and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. Until a new CBA is executed by and between the parties.13 The CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. LEGALLY AND VALIDLY CHANGE[. hence.11 Held: On the first issue. they are duty-bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. OR MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THE DIMINUTION OF SALARY/BENEFITS AND DOWNGRADING OF RANKS. the aggrieved party has the right to go to court and ask redress. FAMIT avers that MIT’s new proposal on faculty ranking and evaluation for the college faculty is an unlawful modification. the proposed system contravenes the existing provisions of the CBA. alteration or amendment of the existing CBA without approval of the contracting parties.] ALTER AND/OR REPLACE UNILATERAL[L]Y A PROVISION OR FORMULA EMBODIED IN A PERFECTED. OF ITS COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY. ENTERED INTO AND SIGNED WITH THE PETITIONER AND SUBSEQUENTLY RATIFIED AND ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES. CHANGE AND/OR MODIFY UNILATERAL[L]Y PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE [BARGAINING] AGREEMENT (CBA) IT HAD NEGOTIATED. The law does not provide for any exception nor qualification on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect.
Diosdado Miscala. treatment of cases. Meluz Trinidad (Dr. The respondents stressed that the petitioner's Medical Director also issues instructions or orders to the respondents relating to the means and methods of performing their duties. in addition to their fixed monthly retainer. respectively. Dr. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied.Facts: The Calamba Medical Center (petitioner). 2004 Decision. The appellate court. His and Dr. 2002. This was not controverted by the
. Merceditha) in March 1992 and August 1995. Raul Desipeda (Dr. the fourth requisite or the "control test" in the determination of an employment bond being absent. Lanzanas with a fellow employee. admission of patients. Cresenciano Trajano of the Department of Labor and Employment thus amended his original complaint to include illegal dismissal. Lanzanas) and Merceditha Lanzanas (Dr. initially granted petitioner's petition and set aside the NLRC ruling. and may even overrule.e. Dr. Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Merceditha's complaints were consolidated and docketed as NLRC CASE NO. Desipeda whose attention was called to the above-said telephone conversation issued to Dr.. by June 30. review or revise the decisions of the resident physicians. Held: The fact is the petitioner's Medical Director still has to approve the schedule of duties of the respondents. However. by Decision of May 3.00 each. Trinidad). 1999. then Sec. RAB-IV-3-9879-98-L. Lanzanas and Miscala were discussing the low "census" or admission of patients to the hospital. reversed the Labor Arbiter's findings. Apparently. On appeal.4 Income taxes were withheld from them. it brought the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. Dr. Desipeda). upon a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by respondents. inadvertently overheard a telephone conversation of respondent Dr. respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4. i. By Decision of March 23. the NLRC. etc. it reinstated the NLRC decision in an Amended In finding the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. In the meantime.1 It appears that resident physicians were also given a percentage share out of fees charged for out-patient treatments. through an extension telephone line.2 The work schedules of the members of the team of resident physicians were fixed by petitioner's medical director Dr. a privately-owned hospital. engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour shifts. operating room assistance and discharge billings. as part of its team of resident physicians. Macam dismissed the spouses' complaints for want of jurisdiction upon a finding that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. And they were issued identification cards3 by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS). the appellate court held: Issue: the direct supervision and control over the respondents.800.5 On March 7. manner of characterizing cases. 1998. also a resident physician at the hospital.
charge nurses and orderlies.
. it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee.petitioner. the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation with substantial evidence. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)24 This Court is unimpressed. the element of control is absent. it being enough that it has the right to wield the power. which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions. That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room. The foregoing factors taken together are sufficient to constitute the fourth element.31 With respect to respondents' sharing in some hospital fees. however designated. SP No. or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. 75871 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award by the National Labor Relations Commission of 10% of the total judgment award as attorney's fees is reinstated. WHEREFORE. as determined by petitioner through its medical director. But. of board. In denying that it had control over the respondents. capable of being expressed in terms of money. which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done. i.e. as determined by the Secretary of Labor. piece. thus: "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earning. control test. no operations can be undertaken in those areas. the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. whether fixed or ascertained on a time. respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors. and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. the petitioner alleged that the respondents were free to put up their own clinics or to accept other retainership agreement with the other hospitals. or any department or ward for that matter. or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value. or other method of calculating the same. this scheme does not sever the employment tie between them and petitioner as this merely mirrors additional form or another form of compensation or incentive similar to what commission-based employees receive as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code. task. the decision of the appellate court is affirmed. In all other aspects. the existence of the employer-employee relationship. the operating room. or commission basis." an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task. For control test to apply.30 As priorly stated. lodging.29 Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work.R. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director. hence. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied). private respondents maintained specific work-schedules. Under the "control test.
1995 (MELU). Marcopper Mining Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the exploratation. Conciliator-Mediator Wilfredo P. alleging the following unfair labor practices: violation of collective bargaining agreement concerning job evaluation and discrimination against rank-and-file in connection with the grant of the profit bonus.. It employs more than 1. 1995. the continued operation of the project is threatened. it was emphasized that:c Any disruption in the operations of the Company will adversely affect its financial status and consequently its capacity to pay the loans acquired.NAMAWU vs. It also supplies electrical power to the entire province of Marinduque. 80% to security guards. IV. through the Bureau of Mines and Geosciences and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.000. on February 27. Notwithstanding receipt of the order.000. In the assumption order of the Secretary. and 90% to staff.00. the NLRC issued an Order dated May 31. Santos informed the union that the issues involved in the Notice of Strike are non-strikeable and are appropriate subjects of the grievance machinery with voluntary arbitration as the terminal The order was served on the union on February 24 (NAMAWU) and February 25.500 employees stands to suffer Furthermore.[ We note from the records that following petitioners manifestation. in the aggregate amount of US$40.000 workers. Held: . the amount of which was based on employment category. We rule simply that pending arbitration proceedings. an orebody with an estimated life of at least twenty years. 1995. Issue: Won the legality of the strike and the termination handed down to the striking employees as well as their entitlement to additional yearend profit bonus for 1994. the union went on strike. Petitioner Marcopper operates the San Antonio Copper Project in Marinduque. the means of livelihood of about 1. One of petitioners projects is the operation of the San Antonio Copper Project. development and extraction of copper and other mineral ores by virtue of lease and other contracts with the Philippine government. Thus. Considering that the Company’s project is basically financed by these loans. respondents filed a Notice of Strike In a letter dated January 17. We cannot but highlight the national interest involved in the instant case. the government will also be prejudiced by any work stoppage in the Company since it would mean loss of taxes and foreign exchange earnings from one of the major contributors of its sources of funds Any work stoppage will also adversely affect the whole province of Marinduque whose supply of electrical energy depends on the uninterrupted operations in the Company. 1995 holding in abeyance the hearings of the
.e. petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the workers who failed to return to work. Consequently. i. 1994 a preventive mediation case with the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office No. The project is financed through long term loans granted by the Asian Development Bank and its co-financers. Private respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union and its local chapter Marcopper Employees Labor Union (collectively "union") filed on December 26. 75% of their monthly salary to rank-and-file.[ The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) conducted conciliation proceedings. but the parties failed to reach a settlement. petitioner granted its employees a year-end profit bonus. as concurred in by the union.
1995 is hereby SET ASIDE insofar as it directs petitioner to accept. HIMPHLU. and to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) calendar days from submission for resolution thereof. and the economic provisions of the same were to be effective for three years or until 30 June 2003. the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the Hotel. CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING. We thus enjoin the NLRC to expedite the conciliation proceedings. The parties signed the Memorandum of Agreement on 20 May 2005 and the employees ratified it on 27 May 2005.
NUWHRAIN vs.9 After the lapse of the 60-day freedom period. and to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) calendar days from submission for resolution thereof. by filing a Petition for Certification Election on 28 June 2005. all returning workers under the same terms and conditions prior to the work stoppage.5 During the 60-day freedom period which preceded the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. but pending the disposition of the Petition for Certification Election filed by NUWHRAIN.case until the instant petition for certiorari is resolved.7 Thereafter. The order of respondent Acting Secretary of Labor dated March 20. NUWHRAIN exercised the right to challenge the majority status of the incumbent union. NUWHRAIN was accorded by the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the status of a legitimate labor organization. starting on 1 May 2005 and ending on 30 June 2005. The National Labor Relations Commission is directed to immediately set for hearing NLRC CC No. CA Facts: The Hotel entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with HI-MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION (HIMPHLU). extending the effectivity of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for another two years. pending resolution of the issues raised in the compulsory arbitration proceedings before the NLRC. and direct the NLRC to immediately set the case for hearing and terminate the compulsory arbitration proceedings within sixty (60) days. An Investigation
. The parties subsequently re-negotiated the economic provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and extended the term of their effectivity for another two years or until 30 June 2005. HIMPHLU served the Hotel with a written demand dated 28 July 200510 for the dismissal of 36 employees following their expulsion from HIMPHLU for alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of its Constitution and by-laws.6 On 21 June 2005. the Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE allowed the registration of the Memorandum of Agreement executed between HIMPHLU and the Hotel. Both parties consented that the representation aspect and other noneconomic provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement were to be effective for five years or until 30 June 2005. 0000106-95 and to terminate the compulsory arbitration proceedings within sixty (60) days. the Court Resolved to GRANT the petition. effective 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007. the Hotel and HIMPHLU negotiated the extension of the provisions of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for two years.8 On 5 July 2007.
15 The Secretary of Labor intervened and certified the case for compulsory arbitration with the NLRC.27 this Court held that employees have the right to disaffiliate from their union and form a new organization of their own. It is important to note that the Hotel did not take further steps to terminate the 36 employees. workers are able to negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately bargain with the employer.28 To avoid the clear possibility of liability for breaching the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and to protect its own interests. By thus promoting unionism.) The law allows stipulations for "union shop" and "closed shop" as a means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and interests vis-à-vis the employer. which provided for a union security clause. the Hotel issued Disciplinary Action Notices13 (Notices) to the 36 employees identified in the written demand of HIMPHLU. (Emphasis supplied. was to conduct its own inquiry so as to make its own findings on whether there was sufficient ground to dismiss the said employees who defected from HIMPHLU. it arranged for reconciliatory conferences between the contending unions in order to avert the possibility of dismissing the 36 employees for violation of the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. however. in violation of Section 2. the only sensible option left to the Hotel. (e) To discriminate in regard to wages. National Steel
. and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall prevent the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment. who were members of HIMPHLU. stating that the 36 employees. NUWHRAIN proceeded to file a Notice of Strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on 8 September 2005 on the ground of unfair labor practice under Article 248. In the present case. Unfair labor practices of employers. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR CC No. The issuance by the respondent of the Notices requiring the 36 employees to submit their explanations to the charges against them was the reasonable and logical first step in a fair investigation. On 1 August 2005. upon its receipt of the demand of HIMPHLU for the dismissal of the 36 employees. they must suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Notices directed the 36 employees to submit a written explanation for their alleged acts of disloyalty and violation of the union security clause for which HIMPHLU sought their dismissal. entitled IN RE: Labor Dispute at Manila Pavilion Hotel Issue: won the dismissal of the 36 employees is tantamount to unfair labor practice. the Collective Bargaining Agreement includes a union security provision. except of those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement x x x. Inciong. Held: Art. paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Labor Code.
Suarez vs. Article IV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. joined NUWHRAIN.Report11 was attached to the said written demand.26 In Villar v. hours of work. Instead. 248. 000307-05 NCMB NCR NS 09-199-05.
forcing petitioners to file a complaint for payment of retirement benefits against respondent On August 27. After having been paid their separation benefits. 1994. On October 27. 1994 and effective until June 30. subject of this petition. Nothing was heard from the retrenched employees. (3) 13th month pay. Fifteenth Division. 2000 Decision of the CA. can-making and production of appliances. Pursuant thereto. The separation package consisted of the following: (1) separation pay equivalent to two (2) months salary for every year of service. the Fifth Division of the NLRC granted the appeal and reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. However. respondent sent out individual notices to the seven hundred (700) employees affected by the retrenchment. (2) leave balance credits. 1994. when herein petitioners wrote respondent demanding payment of retirement benefits under the CBA. National Steel Corporation and NASLU-FFW. each executed and signed a release and quitclaim. written in English and containing a translation in the Visayan dialect in the same document. ship building. et al. respondent suffered substantial financial losses due to an increase in the volume of steel products manufactured by foreign countries. including herein petitioners. Held: The present petition was filed with this Court by thirty-nine of hundreds of private petition for review of the same November 29. As expected. the employees. 1996. among whom were herein petitioners. On July 18. 1994. 1994 and they will each receive a separation package in accordance with the retrenchment program. At that time. and (4) uniform plus rice subsidy differential. the certified collective bargaining agent of respondent's rank-and-file employees. until February 1997 or about two and half years after their separation from the company. With this development. this appeal was consolidated with NLRC CA No. for which they executed and signed another release and quitclaim. were negotiating for the renewal of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which expired on June 30. The notices specifically stated that their services were terminated effective August 18. the intervenors' own petition was already denied due to various procedural infirmities by this Court's Third Division in a Resolution dated November 14. 1998. 2001 and their
. Labor Arbiter Nicodemus Palangan dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. including petitioners. The release and quitclaims were acknowledged before a notary public. Respondent rejected petitioners' claim. entitled "Abella. the retrenched employees were given their salary differentials.Facts: Respondent National Steel Corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products needed for pipe making. 1994. 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. Issue: won the employees is illegally dismissed. vs. M-003666-97. Sometime in 1994. Subsequently. In a consolidated resolution dated March 12. petitioners filed an appeal with the NLRC. retroactive to July 1. respondent adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the retrenchment of seven hundred (700) employees in its main plant in Iligan City. respondent and NASLU-FFW signed a new CBA. 1997. respondent and the National Steel Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers (NASLU-FFW).
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied with finality in a Resolution dated March 4. Maria Theresa Labastida.R. retrenched employees who were granted their separation package are already precluded from receiving retirement benefits. et al. 51734 are hereby AFFIRMED. NLRC" while Alexander Bongcawel. petitioners executed valid quitclaims. SO ORDERED. 2002. holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits in the absence of a specific prohibition in the retirement plan and the CBA. Moreover. et al. NLRC. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.
. In their motion for intervention. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to retirement benefits in addition to the separation pay they received from respondent pursuant to Article XIV of the existing CBA providing for retirement benefits. WHEREFORE. The motions for intervention are DENIED for lack of merit. Thus. prayed that "should [this Court] decide in favor to (sic) the petitioners the same award should also apply to other complainants-appellants before the 5th Division. respondent maintains that its retirement plan expressly prohibits the payment of retirement benefits to employees terminated for cause. prayed that they be allowed to intervene in the proceedings herein and/or be included as petitioners in this case. For its part. They likewise call our attention to Aquino v. No. the petition for review is hereby DENIED.