Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 185556 March 28, 2011
SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs
NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NMS!IND!
APL", Respon!ent
D E C I S I O N
NAC#URA, J.:
"his petition for revie# on certiorari assails the Court of $ppeals %C$& Decision
'
!ate! Septe(ber
)*, +**,, an! Resolution !ate! Dece(ber -, +**,, #hich affir(e! the fin!ing of the National .abor
Relations Co((ission %N.RC& that petitioner violate! certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining
$gree(ent %CB$&
Petitioner Supre(e Steel Pipe Corporation is a !o(estic corporation engage! in the business of
(anufacturing steel pipes for !o(estic an! foreign (ar/ets Respon!ent Nag/a/aisang
0anggaga#a ng Supre(e In!epen!ent 1nion is the certifie! bargaining agent of petitioner2s ran/3
an!3file e(ployees "he CB$
+
in 4uestion #as e5ecute! by the parties to cover the perio! fro( 6une
', +**) to 0ay )', +**,
"he Case
On 6uly +7, +**8, respon!ent file! a notice of stri/e #ith the National Conciliation an! 0e!iation
Boar! %NC0B& on the groun! that petitioner violate! certain provisions of the CB$ "he parties faile!
to settle their !ispute Conse4uently, the Secretary of .abor certifie! the case to the N.RC for
co(pulsory arbitration pursuant to $rticle +9)%g& of the .abor Co!e
Respon!ent allege! eleven CB$ violations, !elineate! as follo#s:
$ Denial to four e(ployees of the CB$3 provi!e! #age increase
$rticle ;II, Section ' of the CB$ provi!es:
Section ' "he CO0P$N< shall grant a general #age increase, over an! above to all e(ployees,
accor!ing to the follo#ing sche!ule:
$ Effective 6une ', +**) P'-** per #or/ing !ay=
B Effective 6une ', +**- P'+** per #or/ing !ay= an!
C Effective 6une ', +**8 P'+** per #or/ing !ay
)
Respon!ent allege! that petitioner has repeate!ly !enie! the annual CB$ increases to at least four
in!ivi!uals: 6uan Ni>o, Reynal!o $costa, Ro((el "alavera, an! E!!ie Dalagon $ccor!ing to
respon!ent, petitioner gives an anniversary increase to its e(ployees upon reaching their first year
of e(ploy(ent "he four e(ployees receive! their respective anniversary increases an! petitioner
use! such anniversary increase to ?ustify the !enial of their CB$ increase for the year
-
Petitioner e5plaine! that it has been the co(pany2s long stan!ing practice that upon reaching one
year of service, a #age a!?ust(ent is grante!, an!, once #ages are a!?uste!, the increase provi!e!
for in the CB$ for that year is no longer i(ple(ente! Petitioner clai(e! that this practice #as not
ob?ecte! to by respon!ent as evi!ence! by the e(ployees2 pay slips
8
Respon!ent countere! that petitioner faile! to prove that, as a (atter of co(pany practice, the
anniversary increase too/ the place of the CB$ increase It conten!e! that all e(ployees shoul!
receive the CB$ stipulate! increase for the years +**) to +**8
9
B Contracting3out labor
$rticle II, Section 9 of the CB$ provi!es:
Section 9 Prohibition of Contracting Out of @or/ of 0e(bers of Bargaining 1nit "hirty %)*& !ays
fro( the signing of this CB$, contractual e(ployees in all !epart(ents, e5cept @arehouse an!
Pac/ing Section, shall be phase! out "hose contractual e(ployees #ho are presently in the
#or/force of the CO0P$N< shall no longer be allo#e! to #or/ after the e5piration of their contracts
#ithout pre?u!ice to being hire! as probationary e(ployees of the CO0P$N<
7
Respon!ent clai(e! that, contrary to this provision, petitioner hire! te(porary #or/ers for five
(onths base! on unifor(ly #or!e! e(ploy(ent contracts, rene#able for five (onths, an! assigne!
the( to al(ost all of the
!epart(ents in the co(pany It pointe! out that, un!er the CB$, te(porary #or/ers are allo#e! only
in the @arehouse an! Pac/ing Section= conse4uently, e(ploy(ent of contractual e(ployees
outsi!e this section, #hether !irect or agency3hire!, #as absolutely prohibite! @orse, petitioner
never regulariAe! the( even if the position they occupie! an! the services they perfor(e! #ere
necessary an! !esirable to its business 1pon the e5piration of their contracts, these #or/ers #oul!
be replace! #ith other #or/ers #ith the sa(e e(ploy(ent status "his sche(e is a clear
circu(vention of the la#s on regular e(ploy(ent
,
Respon!ent argue! that the right to self3organiAation goes beyon! the (aintenance of union
(e(bership It e(phasiAe! that the CB$ (aintains a union shop clause #hich gives the regular
e(ployees )* !ays #ithin #hich to ?oin respon!ent as a con!ition for their continue! e(ploy(ent
Respon!ent (aintaine! that petitioner2s persistent refusal to grant regular status to its e(ployees,
such as Din!o Buella, #ho is assigne! in the BalvaniAing Depart(ent, violates the e(ployees2 right
to self3organiAation in t#o #ays: %'& they are !eprive! of a representative for collective bargaining
purposes= an! %+& respon!ent is !eprive! the right to e5pan! its (e(bership Respon!ent
conten!e! that a union2s strength lies in its nu(ber, #hich beco(es crucial especially !uring
negotiations= after all, an e(ployer #ill not bargain seriously #ith a union #hose (e(bership
constitutes a (inority of the total #or/force of the co(pany $ccor!ing to respon!ent, out of the 8**
e(ployees of the co(pany, only '-7 are union (e(bers, an! at least 9* e(ployees #oul! have
been eligible for union (e(bership ha! they been recogniAe! as regular e(ployees
C
Dor its part, petitioner a!(itte! that it hire! te(porary #or/ers It purporte!ly !i! so to cope #ith the
seasonal increase of the ?ob or!ers fro( abroa! In or!er to co(ply #ith the ?ob or!ers, petitioner
hire! the te(porary #or/ers to help the regular #or/ers in the pro!uction of steel pipes Petitioner
(aintaine! that these #or/ers !o not affect respon!ent2s (e(bership Petitioner clai(e! that it
agree! to ter(inate these te(porary e(ployees on the con!ition that the regular e(ployees #oul!
have to perfor( the #or/ that these e(ployees #ere perfor(ing, but respon!ent refuse!
Respon!ent2s refusal allege!ly prove! that petitioner #as not contracting out the services being
perfor(e! by union (e(bers Dinally, petitioner insiste! that the hiring of te(porary #or/ers is a
(anage(ent prerogative
'*
C Dailure to provi!e shuttle service
Petitioner has allege!ly renege! on its obligation to provi!e shuttle service for its e(ployees
pursuant to $rticle ;IV, Section 7 of the CB$, #hich provi!es:
Section 7 Shuttle Service $s per co(pany practice, once the co(pany vehicle use! for the
purpose has been recon!itione!
''
Respon!ent clai(e! that the co(pany vehicle #hich #oul! be use! as shuttle service for its
e(ployees has not been recon!itione! by petitioner since the signing of the CB$ on Debruary +9,
+**-
'+
Petitioner e5plaine! that it is !ifficult to i(ple(ent this provision an! si(ply !enie! that it has
renege! on its obligation
')
D Refusal to ans#er for the (e!ical e5penses incurre! by three e(ployees
Respon!ent asserte! that petitioner is liable for the e5penses incurre! by three e(ployees #ho
#ere in?ure! #hile in the co(pany pre(ises "his liability allege!ly ste(s fro( $rticle VIII, Section -
of the CB$ #hich provi!es:
Section - "he CO0P$N< agrees to provi!e first ai! (e!icine an! first ai! service an! consultation
free of charge to all its e(ployees
'-
$ccor!ing to respon!ent, petitioner2s !efinition of #hat constitutes first ai! service is li(ite! to the
bare (ini(u( of treating in?ure! e(ployees #hile still #ithin the co(pany pre(ises an! referring the
in?ure! e(ployee to the Chinese Beneral Eospital for treat(ent, but the travel e5pense in going to
the hospital is charge! to the e(ployee "hus, #hen $lberto Buevarra an! 6ob CaniAares, union
(e(bers, #ere in?ure!, they ha! to pay PC*** each for transportation e5penses in going to the
hospital for treat(ent an! going bac/ to the co(pany thereafter In the case of Ro!rigo Solitario,
petitioner !i! not even shoul!er the cost of the first ai! (e!icine, a(ounting toP+,'')**, even if he
#as in?ure! !uring the co(pany sportsfest, but the a(ount #as !e!ucte!, instea!, fro( his salary
Respon!ent insiste! that this violates the above cite! provision of the CB$
'8
Petitioner insiste! that it provi!e! (e!icine an! first ai! assistance to Ro!rigo Solitario1avvphi1 It allege!
that the latter cannot clai( hospitaliAation benefits un!er $rticle VIII, Section '
'9
of the CB$ because
he #as not confine! in a hospital
'7
E Dailure to co(ply #ith the ti(e3off #ith pay provision
$rticle II, Section , of the CB$ provi!es:
Section , "i(e3Off #ith Pay "he CO0P$N< shall grant to the 1NION2s !uly authoriAe!
representativeFs or to any e(ployee #ho are on !uty, if su((one! by the 1NION to testify, if hisFher
presence is necessary, a pai! ti(e3off for the han!ling of grievances, cases, investigations, labor3
(anage(ent conferences provi!e! that if the venue of the case is outsi!e Co(pany pre(ises
involving GtheH i(ple(entation an! interpretation of the CB$, t#o %+& representatives of the 1NION
#ho #ill atten! the sai! hearing shall be consi!ere! ti(e3off #ith pay If an e(ployee on a night shift
atten!s grievance on labor3relate! cases an! coul! not report for #or/ !ue to physical con!ition, he
(ay avail of union leave #ithout nee! of the t#o %+& !ays prior notice
',
Respon!ent conten!e! that un!er the sai! provision, petitioner #as oblige! to grant a pai! ti(e3off
to respon!ent2s !uly authoriAe! representative or to any e(ployee #ho #as on !uty, #hen
su((one! by respon!ent to testify or #hen the e(ployee2s presence #as necessary in the
grievance hearings, (eetings, or investigations
'C
Petitioner a!(itte! that it !i! not honor the clai( for #ages of the union officers #ho atten!e! the
grievance (eetings because these (eetings #ere initiate! by respon!ent itself It argue! that since
the union officers
#ere perfor(ing their functions as such, an! not as e(ployees of the co(pany, the latter shoul! not
be liable Petitioner further asserte! that it is not liable to pay the #ages of the union officers #hen
the (eetings are hel! beyon! co(pany ti(e %):** p(& It clai(e! that ti(e3off #ith pay is allo#e!
only if the venue of the (eeting is outsi!e co(pany pre(ises an! the (eeting involves the
i(ple(entation an! interpretation of the CB$
+*
In reply, respon!ent averre! that the above 4uote! provision !oes not (a/e a 4ualification that the
(eetings shoul! be hel! !uring office hours %7:** a( to ):** p(&= hence, for as long as the
presence of the e(ployee is nee!e!, ti(e spent !uring the grievance (eeting shoul! be pai!
+'
D Visitors2 free access to co(pany pre(ises Respon!ent charge! petitioner #ith violation of $rticle
II, Section 7 of the CB$ #hich provi!es:
Section 7 Dree $ccess to Co(pany Pre(ises .ocal 1nion an! De!eration officers %sub?ect to
co(pany2s security (easure& shall be allo#e! !uring #or/ing hours to enter the CO0P$N<
pre(ises for the follo#ing reasons:
a "o investigate grievances that have arisen=
b "o intervie# 1nion Officers, Ste#ar!s an! (e(bers !uring reasonable hours= an!
c "o atten! to any (eeting calle! by the 0anage(ent or the 1NION
++
B Dailure to co(ply #ith reporting ti(e3off provision
Respon!ent (aintaine! that a bro#nout is covere! by $rticle ;II, Section ) of the CB$ #hich states:
Section ) Reporting "i(e3Off "he e(ployees #ho have reporte! for #or/ but are unable to
continue #or/ing because of e(ergencies such as typhoons, floo!, earth4ua/e, transportation
stri/e, #here the CO0P$N< is affecte! an! in case of fire #hich occurs in the bloc/ #here the ho(e
of the e(ployee is situate! an! not ?ust across the street an! serious illness of an i((e!iate
(e(ber of the fa(ily of the e(ployee living #ith hi(Fher an! no one in the house can bring the sic/
fa(ily (e(ber to the hospital, shall be pai! as follo#s:
a $t least half !ay if the #or/ stoppage occurs #ithin the first four %-& hours of #or/= an!
b $ #hole !ay if the #or/ stoppage occurs after four %-& hours of #or/
+)
Respon!ent averre! that petitioner pai! the e(ployees2 salaries for one hour only of the four3hour
bro#nout that occurre! on 6uly +8, +**8 an! refuse! to pay for the re(aining three hours In
!efense, petitioner si(ply insiste! that bro#nouts are not inclu!e! in the above list of e(ergencies
+-
Respon!ent re?oine! that, un!er the principle of e?us!e( generis, bro#nouts or po#er outages
co(e #ithin the Ie(ergenciesI conte(plate! by the CB$ provision $lthough bro#nouts #ere not
specifically i!entifie! as one of the e(ergencies liste! in the sai! CB$ provision, it cannot be !enie!
that bro#nouts fall #ithin the sa(e /in! or class of the enu(erate! e(ergencies Respon!ent
(aintaine! that the intention of the provision #as to co(pensate the e(ployees for occurrences
#hich are beyon! their control, an! po#er outage is one of such occurrences It insiste! that the list
of e(ergencies is not an e5haustive list but (erely gives an i!ea as to #hat constitutes an actual
e(ergency that is beyon! the control of the e(ployee
+8
E Dis(issal of Dios!a!o 0a!ayag
Dios!a!o 0a!ayag #as e(ploye! as #el!er by petitioner Ee #as serve! a Notice of "er(ination
!ate! 0arch '-, +**8 #hich rea!:
Please consi!er this as a Notice of "er(ination of e(ploy(ent effective 0arch '-, +**8 un!er $rt
+,- of the .abor Co!e an! its I(ple(enting Rules
"his is base! on the (e!ical certificate sub(itte! by your atten!ing physician, .ucy $nne E
0a(ba, 0D, 6ose R Reyes 0e(orial 0e!ical Center !ate! 0arch 7, +**8 #ith the follo#ing
!iagnosis:
JDiabetes 0ellitus "ype +2
Please be gui!e! accor!ingly
+9
Respon!ent conten!e! that 0a!ayag2s !is(issal fro( e(ploy(ent is illegal because petitioner
faile! to obtain a certification fro( a co(petent public authority that his !isease is of such nature or
at such stage that it cannot be cure! #ithin si5 (onths even after proper (e!ical treat(ent
Petitioner also faile! to prove that 0a!ayag2s continue! e(ploy(ent #as pre?u!icial to his health or
that of his colleagues
+7
Petitioner, on the other han!, allege! that 0a!ayag #as vali!ly ter(inate! un!er $rt +,-
+,
of the
.abor Co!e an! that his leg #as a(putate! by reason of !iabetes, #hich !isease is not #or/3
relate! Petitioner clai(e! that it #as #illing to pay 0a!ayag ') !ays for every year of service but
respon!ent #as as/ing for a!!itional benefits
+C
I Denial of paternity leave benefit to t#o e(ployees
$rticle ;V, Section + of the CB$ provi!es:
Section + Paternity .eave $s per la#G,H GtHhe Co(pany shall, as (uch as possible, pay paternity
leave #ithin + #ee/s fro( sub(ission of !ocu(ents
)*
Petitioner a!(itte! that it !enie! this benefit to the clai(ants for failure to observe the re4uire(ent
provi!e! in the I(ple(enting Rules an! Regulations of Republic $ct No ,',7 %Paternity .eave $ct
of 'CC8&, that is, to notify the e(ployer of the pregnancy of their #ives an! the e5pecte! !ate of
!elivery
)'
Respon!ent argue! that petitioner is relying on technicalities by insisting that the !enial #as !ue to
the t#o e(ployees2 failure to notify it of the pregnancy of their respective spouses It (aintaine! that
the notification re4uire(ent runs counter to the spirit of the la# Respon!ent averre! that, on
groun!s of social ?ustice, the oversight to notify petitioner shoul! not be !ealt #ith severely by
!enying the t#o clai(ants this benefit
)+
6 Discri(ination an! harass(ent
$ccor!ing to respon!ent, petitioner #as conte(ptuous over union officers for protecting the rights of
union (e(bers In an affi!avit e5ecute! by Chito Bua!a>a, union secretary, he narrate! that $lfre!
Navarro, Officer3in3Charge of the Pac/ing Depart(ent, ha! been harsh in !ealing #ith his fello#
e(ployees an! #oul! even challenge so(e #or/ers to a fight Ee averre! that Navarro ha! an
overbearing attitu!e !uring #or/ an! grievance (eetings In Nove(ber +**-, Navarro re(ove!
Bua!a>a, a fore(an, fro( his position an! installe! another fore(an fro( another section "he
action #as allege!ly brought about by earlier grievances against Navarro2s abuse Petitioner
confir(e! his transfer to another section in violation of $rticle VI, Section 9 of the CB$,
))
#hich
states in part:
Section 9 "ransfer of E(ploy(ent K No per(anent positional transfer outsi!e can be effecte! by
the CO0P$N< #ithout !iscussing the groun!s before the Brievance Co((ittee $ll transfer shall be
#ith a!vance notice of t#o %+& #ee/s No transfer shall interfere #ith the e(ployee2s e5ercise of the
right to self3organiAation
)-
Respon!ent also allege! that $riel 0arigon!on, union presi!ent, #as also penaliAe! for #or/ing for
his fello# e(ployees One ti(e, 0arigon!on in4uire! fro( (anage(ent about (atters concerning
ta5 !iscrepancies because it appeare! that non3ta5able ite(s #ere inclu!e! as part of ta5able
inco(e "hereafter, 0arigon!on #as transferre! fro( one area of operation to another until he #as
allege!ly force! to accept (enial ?obs of putting control tags on steel pipes, a /in! of ?ob #hich !i!
not re4uire his '9 years of e5pertise in e5a(ining steel pipes
)8
E!gar!o 0asangcay, respon!ent2s Secon! Vice Presi!ent, e5ecute! an affi!avit #herein he cite!
three instances #hen his salary #as #ithhel! by petitioner "he first inci!ent happene! on 0ay +,,
+**8 #hen petitioner refuse! to give his salary to his #ife !espite presentation of a proof of
i!entification %ID& an! letter of authoriAation On 6une ',, +**8, petitioner also refuse! to release his
salary to Pascual .aAaro !espite sub(ission of a letter of authority an! his ID an!, as a result, he
#as unable to buy (e!icine for his chil! #ho #as suffering fro( asth(a attac/ "he thir! instance
happene! on 6une +8, +**8 #hen his salary #as short of P-8***= this a(ount #as ho#ever
release! the follo#ing #ee/
)9
Petitioner e5plaine! that the transfer of the e(ployee fro( one !epart(ent to another #as the result
of !o#nsiAing the @arehouse Depart(ent, #hich is a vali! e5ercise of (anage(ent prerogative In
Bua!a>a2s case, Navarro !enie! that he #as being harsh but clai(e! that he (erely #ante! to
stress so(e points Petitioner e5plaine! that Bua!a>a #as transferre! #hen the section #here he
#as assigne! #as phase! out !ue to the installation of ne# (achines Petitioner pointe! out that the
other #or/ers assigne! in sai! section #ere also transferre!
)7
Dor the petitioner, E((anuel 0en!iola, Pro!uction Superinten!ent, also e5ecute! an affi!avit
attesting that the allegation of $riel 0arigon!on, that he #as harasse! an! #as a victi( of
!iscri(ination for being respon!ent2s Presi!ent, ha! no basis 0arigon!on pointe! out that after the
?ob or!er #as co(plete!, he #as reassigne! to his original shift an! group
),
Petitioner also sub(itte! the affi!avits of EliAabeth .laneta $guilar, !isburse(ent cler/ an! hiring
staff, an! Ro(eo " Sy, $ssistant Personnel 0anager $guilar e5plaine! that she !i! not (ean to
harass 0asangcay, but she (erely #ante! to (a/e sure that he #oul! receive his salary $ffiant Sy
a!(itte! that he refuse! to release 0asangcay2s salary to a #o(an #ho presente! herself as his
%0asangcay2s& #ife since nobo!y coul! attest to it Ee clai(e! that such is not an act of harass(ent
but a precautionary (easure to protect 0asangcay2s interest
)C
L Non3i(ple(entation of CO.$ in @age Or!er Nos RBIII3'* an! ''
Respon!ent posite! that any for( of #age increase grante! through the CB$ shoul! not be treate!
as co(pliance #ith the #age increase given through the #age boar!s Respon!ent clai(e! that, for
a nu(ber of years, petitioner has co(plie! #ith $rticle ;II, Section + of the CB$ #hich provi!es:
Section + $ll salary increase grante! by the CO0P$N< shall not be cre!ite! to any future
contractual or legislate! #age increases Both increases shall be i(ple(ente! separate an! !istinct
fro( the increases state! in this $gree(ent It shoul! be un!erstoo! by both parties that contractual
salary increase are separate an! !istinct fro( legislate! #age increases, thus the increase brought
by the latter shall be en?oye! also by all covere! e(ployees
-*
Respon!ent (aintaine! that for every #age or!er that #as issue! in Region ), petitioner never
hesitate! to co(ply an! grant a si(ilar increase Specifically, respon!ent cite! petitioner2s
co(pliance #ith @age Or!er No RBIII3'* an! grant of the (an!ate! P'8** cost of living
allo#ance %CO.$& to all its e(ployees Petitioner, ho#ever, stoppe! i(ple(enting it to non3
(ini(u( #age earners on 6uly +-, +**8 It conten!e! that this violates $rticle '** of the .abor
Co!e #hich prohibits the !i(inution of benefits alrea!y en?oye! by the #or/ers an! that such grant
of benefits ha! alrea!y ripene! into a co(pany practice
-'
Petitioner e5plaine! that the CO.$ provi!e! un!er @age Or!er No RBIII3'* applies to (ini(u(
#age earners only an! that, by (ista/e, it i(ple(ente! the sa(e across the boar! or to all its
e(ployees $fter realiAing its (ista/e, it stoppe! integrating the CO.$ to the basic pay of the
#or/ers #ho #ere earning above the (ini(u( #age
-+
"he N.RC2s Ruling
Out of the eleven issues raise! by respon!ent, eight #ere !eci!e! in its favor= t#o %!enial of
paternity leave benefit an! !iscri(ination of union (e(bers& #ere !eci!e! in favor of petitioner=
#hile the issue on visitor2s free access to co(pany pre(ises #as !ee(e! settle! !uring the
(an!atory conference "he !ispositive portion of the N.RC Decision !ate! 0arch )*, +**7 rea!s:
@EEREDORE, Supre(e Steel Pipe Corporation %the Co(pany& is hereby or!ere! to:
'& i(ple(ent general #age increase to 6uan Ni>o, E!!ie Dalagon an! Ro((el "alavera
pursuant to the CB$ in 6une +**), +**- an! +**8=
+& regulariAe #or/ers Din!o Buella an! 9* other #or/ers an! to respect CB$ provision on
contracting3out labor=
)& recon!ition the co(pany vehicle pursuant to the CB$=
-& ans#er for e5penses involve! in provi!ing first ai! services inclu!ing transportation
e5penses for this purpose, as #ell as to rei(burse Ro!rigo Solitario the su( of P+,'')**=
8& pay #ages of union (e(bersFofficers #ho atten!e! grievance (eetings as follo#s:
'& D Serenilla 3 P''8+-)78
+& D 0iralpes 3 P''8,*9+8
)& E 0allari 3 P'*,79+8
-& C CruA 3 P''-98)')
8& 6 Patalbo 3 P'9'*9+8
9& 66 0u>oA 3 P''''C)78
7& C Bua!a>a 3 P89C-)78
,& 6 Patalbo 3 P'9'*9+8
C& E 0allari 3 P'*,79+8
'*& C Bua!a>a 3 P''),,78
''& $ 0arigon!on 3 P'7*)*9+8
'+& $ 0arigon!on 3 P','99
')& $ 0arigon!on 3 P','99
'-& E 0asangcay 3 P'7878
'8& $ 0arigon!on 3 P','99
'9& E 0asangcay 3 P'7878
'7& $ 0arigon!on 3 P','99
',& D Servano 3 P'7-*+
'C& R Estrella 3 P','8*
+*& $ 0arigon!on 3 P','99
9& pay #or/ers their salary for the ) hours of the - hour bro#nout as follo#s:
'& $lagon, 6r, Pe!ro 3 P')**,78
+& $li#alas, Cristeto 3 P'*,89+8
)& BaltaAar, Ro!eric/ 3 P C*',78
-& Ba>eA, Oliver 3 P C*C)78
8& Prucal, E!uar!o 3 P'+9*'8
9& Cali(4uin, Ro!illo 3 P')'*)9+
7& Clave, $rturo 3 P'+89-
,& Ca!avero, Rey 3 P'*,89+8
C& De .eon, Ro(ulo 3 P'+-)8
'*& .actao, Noli 3 P'+9*'8
''& .ayco, 6r, Dan!ino 3 P')*8)78
'+& .egaspi, 0elencio 3 P'+79)
')& Muiachon, Rogelio 3 P')*88+8
'-& Sac(ar, Roberto 3 P'*,C)78
'8& "agle, Darian 3 P'+C))78
'9& Villavicencio, Victor 3 P'+9*'8
'7& $gra, Ro(ale 3 P'+9*'8
',& Basabe, .uis 3 P'+,8878
'C& Bornasal, 6oel 3 P'+78)
+*& Casitas, Santiago 3 P'+,8878
+'& Cela?es, Bonifacio 3 P'+,',+8
++& $veni!o, 6erry 3 P'))+-,7
+)& Bagarin, $lfre!o 3 P'*,C)78
+-& .ayson, Paulo 3 P')'7-8
+8& .le!o, $sale( 3 P'+,8878
+9& 0arigon!on, $riel 3 P')'7-8
+7& Orcena, Sonnie 3 P'+9*'8
+,& Servano, Dernan!o 3 P'+9*'8
+C& Versola, Ro!rigo 3 P'+9*'8
7& reinstate Dios!a!o 0a!ayag to his for(er position #ithout loss of seniority rights an! to
pay full bac/#ages an! other benefits fro( '- 0arch +**8, !ate of !is(issal, until the !ate
of this Decision= if reinstate(ent is i(possibleG,H to pay separation pay of one (onth pay for
every year of service in a!!ition to bac/#ages=
,& !is(iss the clai( for paternity leave for failure of clai(ants to observe the re4uire(ents=
C& !is(iss the charge of harass(ent an! !iscri(ination for lac/ of (erit= an! to
'*& continue to i(ple(ent CO.$ un!er @age Or!er Nos GRBIIIH3'* N '' across the boar!
"he issue on Visitors2 Dree $ccess to Co(pany Pre(ises is !is(isse! for being (oot an! aca!e(ic
after it #as settle! !uring the sche!ule! conferences
SO ORDERED
-)
Dorth#ith, petitioner elevate! the case to the C$, reiterating its argu(ents on the eight issues
resolve! by the N.RC in respon!ent2s favor
"he C$2s Ruling
On Septe(ber )*, +**,, the C$ ren!ere! a !ecision !is(issing the petition, thus:
@EEREDORE, pre(ises consi!ere!, the present petition is hereby DENIED D1E CO1RSE an!
accor!ingly DIS0ISSED, for lac/ of (erit "he assaile! Decision !ate! 0arch )*, +**7 an!
Resolution !ate! $pril +,, +**, of the National .abor Relations Co((ission in N.RC NCR CC No
***)*83*8 are hereby $DDIR0ED
@ith costs against the petitioner
SO ORDERED
--
$ccor!ing to the C$, petitioner faile! to sho# that the N.RC co((itte! grave abuse of !iscretion in
fin!ing that it violate! certain provisions of the CB$ "he N.RC correctly hel! that every e(ployee is
entitle! to the #age increase un!er the CB$ !espite receipt of an anniversary increase "he C$
conclu!e! that, base! on the #or!ing of the CB$, #hich uses the #or!s Igeneral increaseI an!
Iover an! above,I it cannot be sai! that the parties have inten!e! the anniversary increase to be
given in lieu of the CB$ #age increase
-8
"he C$ !eclare! that the #ith!ra#al of the CO.$ un!er @age Or!er No RBIII3'* fro( the
e(ployees #ho #ere not (ini(u( #age earners a(ounte! to a !i(inution of benefits because
such grant has alrea!y ripene! into a co(pany practice It pointe! out that there #as no a(biguity
or !oubt as to #ho #ere covere! by the #age or!er Petitioner, therefore, (ay not invo/e error or
(ista/e in e5ten!ing the CO.$ to all e(ployees an! such act can only be construe! as Ias a
voluntary act on the part of the e(ployerI
-9
"he C$ opine! that, consi!ering the foregoing, the ruling
in Blobe 0ac/ay Cable an! Ra!io Corp v N.RC
-7
clearly !i! not apply as there #as no !oubtful or
!ifficult 4uestion involve! in the present case
-,
"he C$ sustaine! the N.RC2s interpretation of $rt VIII, Section - of the CB$ as inclu!ing the
e5penses for first ai! (e!icine an! transportation cost in going to the hospital "he C$ stresse! that
the CB$ shoul! be construe! liberally rather than narro#ly an! technically, an! the courts (ust
place a practical an! realistic construction upon it, giving !ue consi!eration to the conte5t in #hich it
#as negotiate! an! the purpose #hich it inten!e! to serve
-C
Base! on the principle of liberal construction of the CB$, the C$ li/e#ise sustaine! the N.RC2s
rulings on the issues pertaining to the shuttle service, ti(e3off for atten!ance in grievance
(eetingsFhearings, an! ti(e3off !ue to bro#nouts
8*
"he C$ further hel! that (anage(ent prerogative is not unli(ite!: it is sub?ect to li(itations foun! in
la#, a CB$, or the general principles of fair play an! ?ustice It stresse! that the CB$ provi!e! such
li(itation on (anage(ent prerogative to contract3out labor, an! co(pliance #ith the CB$ is
(an!ate! by the e5press policy of the la#
8'
Dinally, the C$ affir(e! the N.RC2s fin!ing that 0a!ayag2s !is(issal #as illegal It e(phasiAe! that
the bur!en to prove that the e(ployee2s !isease is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be
cure! #ithin a perio! of si5 (onths rests on the e(ployer Petitioner faile! to sub(it a certification
fro( a co(petent public authority attesting to such fact= hence, 0a!ayag2s !is(issal is illegal
8+
Petitioner (ove! for a reconsi!eration of the C$2s !ecision On Dece(ber -, +**,, the C$ !enie!
the (otion for lac/ of (erit
8)
Dissatisfie!, petitioner file! this petition for revie# on certiorari, conten!ing that the C$ erre! in
fin!ing that it violate! certain provisions of the CB$
"he Court2s Ruling
"he petition is partly (eritorious
It is a fa(iliar an! fun!a(ental !octrine in labor la# that the CB$ is the la# bet#een the parties an!
co(pliance there#ith is (an!ate! by the e5press policy of the la# If the ter(s of a CB$ are clear
an! there is no !oubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal (eaning of its
stipulation shall prevail
8-
0oreover, the CB$ (ust be construe! liberally rather than narro#ly an!
technically an! the Court (ust place a practical an! realistic construction upon it
88
$ny !oubt in the
interpretation of any la# or provision affecting labor shoul! be resolve! in favor of labor
89
1pon these #ell3establishe! precepts, #e sustain the C$2s fin!ings an! conclusions on all the
issues, e5cept the issue pertaining to the !enial of the CO.$ un!er @age Or!er No RBIII3'* an! ''
to the e(ployees #ho are not (ini(u( #age earners
"he #or!ing of the CB$ on general #age increase cannot be interprete! any other #ay: "he CB$
increase shoul! be given to all e(ployees Iover an! aboveI the a(ount they are receiving, even if
that a(ount alrea!y inclu!es an anniversary increase Stipulations in a contract (ust be rea!
together, not in isolation fro( one another
87
Consi!eration of $rticle ;III, Section + %non3cre!iting
provision&, bolsters such interpretation Section + states that IGaHll salary increase grante! by the
co(pany shall not be cre!ite! to any future contractual or legislate! #age increasesI Clearly then,
even if petitioner ha! alrea!y a#ar!e! an anniversary increase to its e(ployees, such increase
cannot be cre!ite! to the IcontractualI increase as provi!e! in the CB$, #hich is consi!ere!
Iseparate an! !istinctI
Petitioner clai(s that it has been the co(pany practice to offset the anniversary increase #ith the
CB$ increase It ho#ever faile! to prove such (aterial fact Co(pany practice, ?ust li/e any other
fact, habits, custo(s, usage or patterns of con!uct (ust be proven "he offering party (ust allege
an! prove specific, repetitive con!uct that (ight constitute evi!ence of habit,
8,
or co(pany practice
Evi!ently, the pay slips of the four e(ployees !o not serve as sufficient proof
Petitioner2s e5cuse in not provi!ing a shuttle service to its e(ployees is unacceptable In fact, it can
har!ly be consi!ere! as an e5cuse Petitioner si(ply says that it is !ifficult to i(ple(ent the
provision It relies on the fact that Ino ti(e ele(ent GisH e5plicitly state! Gin the CB$H #ithin #hich to
fulfill the un!erta/ingI @e cannot allo# petitioner to !illy!ally in co(plying #ith its obligation an!
ta/e un!ue a!vantage of the fact that no perio! is provi!e! in the CB$ Petitioner shoul! recon!ition
the co(pany vehicle at once, lest it be charge! #ith an! foun! guilty of unfair labor practice
Petitioner gave a narro# construction to the #or!ing of the CB$ #hen it !enie! %a& rei(burse(ent
for the first3ai! (e!icines ta/en by Ro!rigo Solitario #hen he #as in?ure! !uring the co(pany
sportsfest an! the transportation cost incurre! by $lberto Buevara an! 6ob CaniAares in going to the
hospital, %b& pay(ent of the #ages of certain e(ployees !uring the ti(e they spent at the grievance
(eetings, an! %c& pay(ent of the e(ployees2 #ages !uring the bro#nout that occurre! on 6uly +8,
+**+ $s previously state!, the CB$ (ust be construe! liberally rather than narro#ly an! technically
It is the !uty of the courts to place a practical an! realistic construction upon the CB$, giving !ue
consi!eration to the conte5t in #hich it is negotiate! an! the purpose #hich it is inten!e! to serve
$bsur! an! illogical interpretations shoul! be avoi!e!
8C
$ CB$, li/e any other contract, (ust be
interprete! accor!ing to the intention of the parties
9*
"he C$ #as correct in pointing out that the concerne! e(ployees #ere not see/ing hospitaliAation
benefits un!er $rticle VIII, Section ' of the CB$, but un!er Section - thereof= hence, confine(ent in
a hospital is not a prere4uisite for the clai( Petitioner shoul! rei(burse Solitario for the first ai!
(e!icines= after all, it is the !uty of the e(ployer to (aintain first3 ai! (e!icines in its
pre(ises
9'
Si(ilarly, Buevara an! CaniAares shoul! also be rei(burse! for the transportation cost
incurre! in going to the hospital "he O(nibus Rules I(ple(enting the .abor Co!e provi!es that,
#here the e(ployer !oes not have an e(ergency hospital in its pre(ises, the e(ployer is oblige! to
transport an e(ployee to the nearest hospital or clinic in case of e(ergency
9+
@e li/e#ise agree #ith the C$ on the issue of nonpay(ent of the ti(e3off for atten!ing grievance
(eetings "he intention of the parties is obviously to co(pensate the e(ployees for the ti(e that
they spen! in a grievance (eeting as the CB$ provision categorically states that the co(pany #ill
pay the e(ployee Ia pai! ti(e3off for han!ling of grievances, investigations, labor3(anage(ent
conferencesI It !oes not (a/e a 4ualification that such (eeting shoul! be hel! !uring office hours
or #ithin the co(pany pre(ises
"he e(ployees shoul! also be co(pensate! for the ti(e they #ere prevente! fro( #or/ing !ue to
the bro#nout "he CB$ enu(erates so(e of the instances consi!ere! as Ie(ergenciesI an! these
are Ityphoons, floo! earth4ua/e, transportation stri/eI $s correctly argue! by respon!ent, the CB$
!oes not e5clusively enu(erate the situations #hich are consi!ere! Ie(ergenciesI Obviously, the
/ey ele(ent of the provision is that e(ployees I#ho have reporte! for #or/ are unable to continue
#or/ingI because of the inci!ent It is therefore reasonable to conclu!e that bro#nout or po#er
outage is consi!ere! an Ie(ergencyI situation
$gain, on the issue of contracting3out labor, #e sustain the C$ Petitioner, in effect, a!(its having
hire! Ite(poraryI e(ployees, but it (aintains that it #as an e5ercise of (anage(ent prerogative,
necessitate! by the increase in !e(an! for its pro!uct
In!ee!, ?urispru!ence recogniAes the right to e5ercise (anage(ent prerogative .abor la#s also
!iscourage interference #ith an e(ployerOs ?u!g(ent in the con!uct of its business Dor this reason,
the Court often !eclines to interfere in legiti(ate business !ecisions of e(ployers "he la# (ust
protect not only the #elfare of e(ployees, but also the right of e(ployers
9)
Eo#ever, the e5ercise of
(anage(ent prerogative is not unli(ite! 0anagerial prerogatives are sub?ect to li(itations provi!e!
by la#, collective bargaining agree(ents, an! general principles of fair play an! ?ustice
9-
"he CB$ is
the nor( of con!uct bet#een the parties an!, as previously state!, co(pliance there#ith is
(an!ate! by the e5press policy of the la#
98
"he CB$ is clear in provi!ing that te(porary e(ployees #ill no longer be allo#e! in the co(pany
e5cept in the @arehouse an! Pac/ing Section Petitioner is boun! by this provision It cannot
e5e(pt itself fro( co(pliance by invo/ing (anage(ent prerogative 0anage(ent prerogative (ust
ta/e a bac/seat #hen face! #ith a CB$ provision If petitioner nee!e! a!!itional personnel to (eet
the increase in !e(an!, it coul! have ta/en (easures #ithout violating the CB$
Respon!ent clai(s that the te(porary e(ployees #ere hire! on five3(onth contracts, rene#able for
another five (onths $fter the e5piration of the contracts, petitioner #oul! hire other persons for the
sa(e #or/, #ith the sa(e e(ploy(ent status
Plainly, petitioner2s sche(e see/s to prevent e(ployees fro( ac4uiring the status of regular
e(ployees But the Court has alrea!y hel! that, #here fro( the circu(stances it is apparent that the
perio!s of e(ploy(ent have been i(pose! to preclu!e ac4uisition of security of tenure by the
e(ployee, they shoul! be struc/ !o#n or !isregar!e! as contrary to public policy an! (orals
99
"he
pri(ary stan!ar! to !eter(ine a regular e(ploy(ent is the reasonable connection bet#een the
particular activity perfor(e! by the e(ployee in relation to the business or tra!e of the e(ployer
"he test is #hether the for(er is usually necessary or !esirable in the usual business or tra!e of the
e(ployer If the e(ployee has been perfor(ing the ?ob for at least one year, even if the perfor(ance
is not continuous or (erely inter(ittent, the la# !ee(s the repeate! an! continuing nee! for its
perfor(ance as sufficient evi!ence of the necessity, if not in!ispensability, of that activity to the
business of the e(ployer Eence, the e(ploy(ent is also consi!ere! regular, but only #ith respect
to such activity an! #hile such activity e5ists
97
@e also uphol! the C$2s fin!ing that 0a!ayag2s !is(issal #as illegal It is alrea!y settle! that the
bur!en to prove the vali!ity of the !is(issal rests upon the e(ployer Dis(issal base! on $rticle +,-
of the .abor Co!e is no !ifferent, thus:
"he la# is une4uivocal: the e(ployer, before it can legally !is(iss its e(ployee on the groun! of
!isease, (ust a!!uce a certification fro( a co(petent public authority that the !isease of #hich its
e(ployee is suffering is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cure! #ithin a perio! of
si5 (onths even #ith proper treat(ent
5 5 5 5
In Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court e5plains #hy the sub(ission of the
re4uisite (e!ical certificate is for the e(ployer2s co(pliance, thus:
"he re4uire(ent for a (e!ical certificate un!er $rticle +,- of the .abor Co!e cannot be !ispense!
#ith= other#ise, it #oul! sanction the unilateral an! arbitrary !eter(ination by the e(ployer of the
gravity or e5tent of the e(ployee2s illness an! thus !efeat the public policy on the protection of labor
5 5 5 5
9,
Eo#ever, #ith respect to the issue of #hether the CO.$ un!er @age Or!er Nos RBIII3'* an! ''
shoul! be i(ple(ente! across the boar!, #e hol! a !ifferent vie# fro( that of the C$ No !i(inution
of benefits #oul! result if the #age or!ers are not i(ple(ente! across the boar!, as no such
co(pany practice has been establishe!
Di(inution of benefits is the unilateral #ith!ra#al by the e(ployer of benefits alrea!y en?oye! by the
e(ployees "here is !i(inution of benefits #hen it is sho#n that: %'& the grant or benefit is foun!e!
on a policy or has ripene! into a practice over a long perio! of ti(e= %+& the practice is consistent an!
!eliberate= %)& the practice is not !ue to error in the construction or application of a !oubtful or
!ifficult 4uestion of la#= an! %-& the !i(inution or !iscontinuance is !one unilaterally by the
e(ployer
9C
"o recall, the C$ arrive! at its ruling by relying on the fact that there #as no a(biguity in the #or!ing
of the #age or!er as to the e(ployees covere! by it Dro( this, the C$ conclu!e! that petitioner
actually (a!e no error or (ista/e, but acte! voluntarily, in granting the CO.$ to all its e(ployees It
therefore too/ e5ception to the Blobe 0ac/ay case #hich, accor!ing to it, applies only #hen there is
a !oubtful or !ifficult 4uestion involve!
"he C$ faile! to note that Blobe 0ac/ay pri(arily e(phasiAe! that, for the grant of the benefit to be
consi!ere! voluntary, Iit shoul! have been practice! over a long perio! of ti(e, an! (ust be sho#n
to have been consistent an! !eliberateI
7*
"he fact that the practice (ust not have been !ue to error
in the construction or application of a !oubtful or !ifficult 4uestion of la# is a !istinct re4uire(ent
"he i(ple(entation of the CO.$ un!er @age Or!er No RBIII3'* across the boar!, #hich only
laste! for less than a year, cannot be consi!ere! as having been practice! Iover a long perio! of
ti(eI @hile it is true that ?urispru!ence has not lai! !o#n any rule re4uiring a specific (ini(u(
nu(ber of years in or!er for a practice to be consi!ere! as a voluntary act of the e(ployer, un!er
e5isting ?urispru!ence on this (atter, an act carrie! out #ithin less than a year #oul! certainly not
4ualify as such Eence, the #ith!ra#al of the CO.$ @age Or!er No RBIII3'* fro( the salaries of
non3(ini(u( #age earners !i! not a(ount to a I!i(inution of benefitsI un!er the la#
"here is also no basis in en?oining petitioner to i(ple(ent @age Or!er No RBIII3'' across the
boar! Si(ilarly, no proof #as presente! sho#ing that the i(ple(entation of #age or!ers across the
boar! has ripene! into a co(pany practice In the sa(e #ay that #e re4uire! petitioner to prove the
e5istence of a co(pany practice #hen it allege! the sa(e as !efense, at this instance, #e also
re4uire respon!ent to sho# proof of the co(pany practice as it is no# the party clai(ing its
e5istence $bsent any proof of specific, repetitive con!uct that (ight constitute evi!ence of the
practice, #e cannot give cre!ence to respon!ent2s clai( "he isolate! act of i(ple(enting a #age
or!er across the boar! can har!ly be consi!ere! a co(pany practice,
7'
(ore so #hen such
i(ple(entation #as erroneously (a!e
@EEREDORE, pre(ises consi!ere!, the petition is P$R"I$..< BR$N"ED "he C$ Decision
Septe(ber )*, +**, an! Resolution !ate! Dece(ber -, +**, are $DDIR0ED #ith 0ODIDIC$"ION
that the or!er for petitioner to continue i(ple(enting @age Or!er No RBIII3'* an! '' across the
boar! is SE" $SIDE $ccor!ingly, ite( '* of the N.RC Decision !ate! 0arch )*, +**7 is (o!ifie!
to rea! I!is(iss the clai( for i(ple(entation of @age Or!er Nos RBIII3'* an! '' to the e(ployees
#ho are not (ini(u( #age earnersI
SO ORDERED
ANTONIO EDUARDO $. NAC#URA
$ssociate 6ustice
@E CONC1R:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
$ssociate 6ustice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
$ssociate 6ustice
RO$ERTO A. A$AD
$ssociate 6ustice
%OSE CATRAL MENDO&A
$ssociate 6ustice
$ " " E S " $ " I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision ha! been reache! in consultation before the case
#as assigne! to the #riter of the opinion of the Court2s Division
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
$ssociate 6ustice
Chairperson, Secon! Division
C E R " I D I C $ " I O N
Pursuant to Section '), $rticle VIII of the Constitution an! the Division ChairpersonOs $ttestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision ha! been reache! in consultation before the case
#as assigne! to the #riter of the opinion of the Court2s Division
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief 6ustice
'oo()o(*+
'
Penne! by $ssociate 6ustice 0artin S Villara(a, 6r %no# a (e(ber of this Court&, #ith
$ssociate 6ustices Noel B "i?a( an! $rturo B "ayag, concurring= rollo, pp )839'
+
Rollo, pp '7-3',-
)
I! at ',*
-
I! at ''83''9
8
I! at ''9
9
I!
7
I! at '78
,
I! at '',
C
I! at '',3''C
'*
I! at ''7
''
I! at ','
'+
I! at ''C
')
I! at '+*
'-
I! at '7,
'8
I! at '+*
'9
Section ', $rticle VIII of the CB$ provi!es:
Section ' "he CO0P$N< agrees to e5ten! financial assistance to regular
e(ployeesF#or/ers #ho are re4uire! to un!ergo hospitaliAation upon proper
certification by the CO0P$N< Physician e5cept in e(ergency cases #hich !o not
re4uire physician2s certification "he (a5i(u( assistance to be e5ten!e! to any
#or/er covere! by the $gree(ent shall not e5cee! EIBE" "EO1S$ND PESOS
%P,,*****& an! shall be availe! only after the Philhealth Benefits have been
e5hauste! It is un!erstoo! that the EIBE" "EO1S$ND PESOS %P,,*****&
assistance is to inclu!e fees of the specialist upon proper certification by the
Co(pany Physician
'7
Rollo, p '+'
',
I! at '78
'C
I! at '+'3'++
+*
I! at '++
+'
I!
++
I! at '78
+)
I! at ',*
+-
I! at '+-
+8
I!
+9
I! at '+8
+7
I!
+,
.$BOR CODE OD "EE PEI.IPPINES, $rticle +,- provi!es:
$R" +,- DISE$SE $S BRO1ND DOR "ER0IN$"ION
$n e(ployee (ay ter(inate the services of an e(ployee #ho has been foun! to be
suffering fro( any !isease an! #hose continue! e(ploy(ent is prohibite! by la# or
is pre?u!icial to his health as #ell as to the health of his co3e(ployees= Provi!e!,
"hat he is pai! separation pay e4uivalent to at least one %'& (onth salary or to one3
half %'F+& (onth salary for every year of service, #hichever is greater, a fraction of at
least si5 %9& (onths being consi!ere! as one #hole year
+C
Rollo, p '+9
)*
I! at ','
)'
I!
)+
I! at '+,
))
I! at ')*
)-
I! at '77
)8
I! at '+C
)9
I!
)7
I! at '+C an! ')'
),
I! at ')'
)C
I!
-*
I! at ',*
-'
I! at ')+
-+
I!
-)
I! at '))3')9
--
I! at 9'
-8
I! at 8-
-9
I! at 8-388
-7
'9) Phil 7' %'C,,&
-,
Rollo, p 88
-C
I! at 88389
8*
I! at 89
8'
I!
8+
I! at 8939'
8)
I! at ))
8-
1nite! Li(berly3Clar/ E(ployees 1nion3Philippine "ransport Beneral @or/ers2
OrganiAation %1LCE13P"B@O& v Li(berly3Clar/ Philippines, Inc, BR No '9+C87, 0arch
9, +**9, -,- SCR$ ',7, +*+
88
I! at +*)
89
Daculty $ssociation of 0apua Institute of "echnology %D$0I"& v Court of $ppeals, BR
No '9-*9*, 6une '8, +**7, 8+- SCR$ 7*C, 7'7
87
Nor/is Dree an! In!epen!ent @or/ers 1nion v Nor/is "ra!ing Co(pany, Inc, 8*' Phil
'7*, '7, %+**8&
8,
Pag3$sa Steel @or/s, Inc v Court of $ppeals, BR No '999-7, 0arch )', +**9, -,9
SCR$ -78, -C7
8C
"SPIC Corporation v "SPIC E(ployees 1nion %DD@&, BR No '9)-'C, Debruary '),
+**,, 8-8 SCR$ +'8, ++9
9*
I!
9'
Section ), Rule ', Boo/ Dour of the O(nibus Rules I(ple(enting the .abor Co!e
provi!es:
SEC"ION ) 0e!icines an! facilities P Every e(ployer shall /eep in or about his
#or/ place the first3ai! (e!icines, e4uip(ent an! facilities that shall be prescribe!
by the Depart(ent of .abor an! E(ploy(ent #ithin 8 !ays fro( the issuance of
these regulations "he list of (e!icines, e4uip(ent an! facilities (ay be revise! fro(
ti(e to ti(e by the Bureau of @or/ing Con!itions, sub?ect to the approval of the
Secretary of .abor an! E(ploy(ent
9+
Section 8, Rule ', Boo/ Dour of the O(nibus Rules I(ple(enting the .abor Co!e
provi!es:
SEC"ION 8 E(ergency hospital P $n e(ployer nee! not put up an e(ergency
hospital or !ental clinic in the #or/ place as re4uire! in these regulations #here there
is a hospital or !ental clinic #hich is not (ore than five %8& /ilo(eters a#ay fro( the
#or/ place if situate! in any urban area or #hich can be reache! by (otor vehicle in
t#enty3five %+8& (inutes of travel, if situate! in a rural area an! the e(ployer has
facilities rea!ily available for transporting a #or/er to the hospital or clinic in case of
e(ergency: Provi!e!, "hat the e(ployer shall enter into a #ritten contract #ith the
hospital or !ental clinic for the use thereof in the treat(ent of #or/ers in case of
e(ergency %E(phasis supplie!&
9)
En!ico v Muantu( Doo!s Distribution Center, BR No '9'9'8, 6anuary )*, +**C, 877
SCR$ +CC, )*C
9-
DO.E Philippines, Inc v Pa#is ng 0a/abayang Obrero %P$0$O3ND.&, --) Phil '-), '-C
%+**)&
98
I! at '8*
99
Philips Se(icon!uctors %Phils&, Inc v Da!ri4uela, -7' Phil )88, )7+ %+**-&, citing Brent
School, Inc v Qa(ora, +9* Phil 7-7 %'CC*&
97
I! at )9C3)7*
9,
Duterte v Lings#oo! "ra!ing Co, Inc, BR No '9*)+8, October -, +**7, 8)- SCR$
9*7, 9'-39'8
9C
"SPIC Corporation v "SPIC E(ployees 1nion %DD@&, note 8C at +)+
7*
Blobe 0ac/ay Cable an! Ra!io Corp v N.RC, note -7 at 77
7'
Pag3$sa Steel @or/s, Inc v Court of $ppeals, note 8, at -CC