Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 164301 October 19, 2011
BANK OF TE P!"!PP!NE !S"AN#S, Petitioner,
vs.
BP! EMP"O$EES UN!ON%#A&AO CAPTER%FE#ERAT!ON OF UN!ONS !N BP!
UN!BANK, Respondent.
R E S O L ! " O N
"EONAR#O%#E CASTRO, J.:
"n the present incident, petitioner Ban# of the Philippine "slands $BP"% &oves for
reconsideration
'
of our (ecision dated Au)ust '*, +*'*, holdin) that for&er
e&plo,ees of the -ar East Ban# and !rust Co&pan, $-EB!C% .absorbed. b, BP"
pursuant to the t/o ban#s0 &er)er in +*** /ere covered b, the nion Shop Clause
in the then e1istin) collective bar)ainin) a)ree&ent $CBA%
+
of BP" /ith respondent
BP" E&plo,ees nion2(avao Chapter2-ederation of nions in BP" niban# $the
nion%.
!o recall, the nion Shop Clause involved in this lon) standin) controvers, provided,
thus3
AR!"CLE ""
1 1 1 1
Section +. nion Shop 2 Ne/ e&plo,ees fallin) /ithin the bar)ainin) unit as defined
in Article " of this A)ree&ent, /ho &a, hereafter be re)ularl, e&plo,ed b, the Ban#
shall, /ithin thirt, $4*% da,s after the, beco&e re)ular e&plo,ees, 5oin the nion as
a condition of their continued e&plo,&ent. "t is understood that &e&bership in )ood
standin) in the nion is a condition of their continued e&plo,&ent /ith the
Ban#.
4
$E&phases supplied.%
!he bone of contention bet/een the parties /as /hether or not the .absorbed.
-EB!C e&plo,ees fell /ithin the definition of .ne/ e&plo,ees. under the nion
Shop Clause, such that the, &a, be re6uired to 5oin respondent union and if the, fail
to do so, the nion &a, re6uest BP" to ter&inate their e&plo,&ent, as the nion in
fact did in the present case. Needless to state, BP" refused to accede to the nion0s
re6uest. Althou)h BP" /on the initial battle at the 7oluntar, Arbitrator level, BP"0s
position /as re5ected b, the Court of Appeals /hich ruled that the 7oluntar,
Arbitrator0s interpretation of the nion Shop Clause /as at /ar /ith the spirit and
rationale /h, the Labor Code allo/s the e1istence of such provision. On revie/ /ith
this Court, /e upheld the appellate court0s rulin) and disposed of the case as
follo/s3
89ERE-ORE, the petition is hereb, (EN"E(, and the (ecision dated Septe&ber
4*, +**4 of the Court of Appeals is A--"RME(, sub5ect to the thirt, $4*% da, notice
re6uire&ent i&posed herein. -or&er -EB!C e&plo,ees /ho opt not to beco&e
union &e&bers but /ho 6ualif, for retire&ent shall receive their retire&ent benefits
in accordance /ith la/, the applicable retire&ent plan, or the CBA, as the case &a,
be.
:
Not/ithstandin) our affir&ation of the applicabilit, of the nion Shop Clause to
for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees, for reasons alread, e1tensivel, discussed in the Au)ust
'*, +*'* (ecision, even no/ BP" continues to protest the inclusion of said
e&plo,ees in the nion Shop Clause.
"n see#in) the reversal of our Au)ust '*, +*'* (ecision, petitioner insists that the
parties to the CBA clearl, intended to li&it the application of the nion Shop Clause
onl, to ne/ e&plo,ees /ho /ere hired as non2re)ular e&plo,ees but later attained
re)ular status at so&e point after hirin). -EB!C e&plo,ees cannot be considered
ne/ e&plo,ees as BP" &erel, stepped into the shoes of -EB!C as an e&plo,er
purel, as a conse6uence of the &er)er.
;
Petitioner li#e/ise relies heavil, on the dissentin) opinions of our respected
collea)ues, Associate <ustices Antonio !. Carpio and Arturo (. Brion. -ro& both
dissentin) opinions, petitioner derives its contention that .the situation of absorbed
e&plo,ees can be li#ened to old e&plo,ees of BP", insofar as their full tenure /ith
-EB!C /as reco)ni=ed b, BP" and their salaries /ere &aintained and safe)uarded
fro& di&inution. but such absorbed e&plo,ees .cannot and should not be treated in
e1actl, the sa&e /a, as old BP" e&plo,ees for there are substantial differences
bet/een the&..
>
Althou)h petitioner ad&its that there are si&ilarities bet/een
absorbed and ne/ e&plo,ees, the, insist there are &ar#ed differences bet/een
the& as /ell. !hus, adoptin) <ustice Brion0s stance, petitioner contends that the
absorbed -EB!C e&plo,ees should be considered .a sui )eneris )roup of
e&plo,ees /hose classification /ill not be duplicated until BP" has another &er)er
/here it /ould be the survivin) corporation..
?
Apparentl, borro/in) fro& <ustice
Carpio, petitioner propounds that the nion Shop Clause should be strictl, construed
since it purportedl, curtails the ri)ht of the absorbed e&plo,ees to abstain fro&
5oinin) labor or)ani=ations.
@
Pursuant to our directive, the nion filed its Co&&ent
A
on the Motion for
Reconsideration. "n opposition to petitioner0s ar)u&ents, the nion, in turn, adverts
to our discussion in the Au)ust '*, +*'* (ecision re)ardin) the voluntar, nature of
the &er)er bet/een BP" and -EB!C, the lac# of an e1press stipulation in the
Articles of Mer)er re)ardin) the transfer of e&plo,&ent contracts to the survivin)
corporation, and the consensual nature of e&plo,&ent contracts as valid bases for
the conclusion that for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees should be dee&ed ne/
e&plo,ees.
'*
!he nion ar)ues that the creation of e&plo,&ent relations bet/een
for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees and BP" $i.e., BP"0s selection and en)a)e&ent of for&er
-EB!C e&plo,ees, its pa,&ent of their /a)es, po/er of dis&issal and of control
over the e&plo,ees0 conduct% occurred after the &er)er, or to be &ore precise, after
the Securities and E1chan)e Co&&ission0s $SEC% approval of the &er)er.
''
!he
nion li#e/ise points out that BP" failed to offer an, counterar)u&ent to the Court0s
reasonin) that3
!he rationale for upholdin) the validit, of union shop clauses in a CBA, even if the,
i&pin)e upon the individual e&plo,eeBs ri)ht or freedo& of association, is not to
protect the union for the unionBs sa#e. La/s and 5urisprudence pro&ote unionis&
and afford certain protections to the certified bar)ainin) a)ent in a unioni=ed
co&pan, because a stron) and effective union presu&abl, benefits all e&plo,ees in
the bar)ainin) unit since such a union /ould be in a better position to de&and
i&proved benefits and conditions of /or# fro& the e&plo,er. 1 1 1.
1 1 1 Nonetheless, settled 5urisprudence has alread, s/un) the balance in favor of
unionis&, in reco)nition that ulti&atel, the individual e&plo,ee /ill be benefited b,
that polic,. "n the hierarch, of constitutional values, this Court has repeatedl, held
that the ri)ht to abstain fro& 5oinin) a labor or)ani=ation is subordinate to the polic,
of encoura)in) unionis& as an instru&ent of social 5ustice.
'+
8hile &ost of the ar)u&ents offered b, BP" have alread, been thorou)hl,
addressed in the Au)ust '*, +*'* (ecision, /e find that a 6ualification of our rulin)
is in order onl, /ith respect to the interpretation of the provisions of the Articles of
Mer)er and its i&plications on the for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees0 securit, of tenure.
!a#in) a second loo# on this point, /e have co&e to a)ree /ith <ustice Brion0s vie/
that it is &ore in #eepin) /ith the dictates of social 5ustice and the State polic, of
accordin) full protection to labor to dee& e&plo,&ent contracts as auto&aticall,
assu&ed b, the survivin) corporation in a &er)er, even in the absence of an
e1press stipulation in the articles of &er)er or the &er)er plan. "n his dissentin)
opinion, <ustice Brion reasoned that3
!o &, &ind, due consideration of Section @* of the Corporation Code, the
constitutionall, declared policies on /or#, labor and e&plo,&ent, and the specific
-EB!C2BP" situation C i.e., a &er)er /ith co&plete .bod, and soul. transfer of all
that -EB!C e&bodied and possessed and /here both participatin) ban#s /ere
/illin) $albeit b, deed, not b, their /ritten a)ree&ent% to provide for the affected
hu&an resources b, reco)ni=in) continuit, of e&plo,&ent C should point this Court
to a declaration that in a co&plete &er)er situation /here there is total ta#eover b,
one corporation over another and there is silence in the &er)er a)ree&ent on /hat
the fate of the hu&an resource co&ple&ent shall be, the latter should not be left in
le)al li&bo and should be properl, provided for, b, co&pellin) the survivin) entit, to
absorb these e&plo,ees. !his is /hat Section @* of the Corporation Code
co&&ands, as the survivin) corporation has the le)al obli)ation to assu&e all the
obli)ations and liabilities of the &er)ed constituent corporation.
Not to be for)otten is that the affected e&plo,ees &ana)ed, operated and /or#ed
on the transferred assets and properties as their &eans of livelihoodD the,
constituted a basic co&ponent of their corporation durin) its e1istence. "n a &er)er
and consolidation situation, the, cannot be treated /ithout consideration of the
applicable constitutional declarations and directives, or, /orse, be si&pl,
disre)arded. "f the, are so treated, it is up to this Court to read and interpret the la/
so that the, are treated in accordance /ith the le)al re6uire&ents of &er)ers and
consolidation, read in li)ht of the social 5ustice, econo&ic and social provisions of our
Constitution. 9ence, there is a need for the survivin) corporation to ta#e
responsibilit, for the affected e&plo,ees and to absorb the& into its /or#force /here
no appropriate provision for the &er)ed corporationBs hu&an resources co&ponent
is &ade in the Mer)er Plan.
'4
B, upholdin) the auto&atic assu&ption of the non2survivin) corporation0s e1istin)
e&plo,&ent contracts b, the survivin) corporation in a &er)er, the Court
stren)thens 5udicial protection of the ri)ht to securit, of tenure of e&plo,ees affected
b, a &er)er and avoids confusion re)ardin) the status of their various benefits /hich
/ere a&on) the chief ob5ections of our dissentin) collea)ues. 9o/ever, nothin) in
this Resolution shall i&pair the ri)ht of an e&plo,er to ter&inate the e&plo,&ent of
the absorbed e&plo,ees for a la/ful or authori=ed cause or the ri)ht of such an
e&plo,ee to resi)n, retire or other/ise sever his e&plo,&ent, /hether before or
after the &er)er, sub5ect to e1istin) contractual obli)ations. "n this &anner, <ustice
Brion0s theor, of auto&atic assu&ption &a, be reconciled /ith the &a5orit,0s
concerns /ith the successor e&plo,er0s prero)ative to choose its e&plo,ees and the
prohibition a)ainst involuntar, servitude.1avvphi1
Not/ithstandin) this concession, /e find no reason to reverse our previous
pronounce&ent that the absorbed -EB!C e&plo,ees are covered b, the nion
Shop Clause.
Even in our Au)ust '*, +*'* (ecision, /e alread, observed that the le)al fiction in
the la/ on &er)ers $that the survivin) corporation continues the corporate e1istence
of the non2survivin) corporation% is &ainl, a tool to ad5udicate the ri)hts and
obli)ations bet/een and a&on) the &er)ed corporations and the persons that deal
/ith the&.
':
Such a le)al fiction cannot be undul, e1tended to an interpretation of a
nion Shop Clause so as to defeat its purpose under labor la/. 9ence, /e stated in
the (ecision that3
"n an, event, it is of no &o&ent that the for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees retained the
re)ular status that the, possessed /hile /or#in) for their for&er e&plo,er upon their
absorption b, petitioner. !his fact /ould not re&ove the& fro& the scope of the
phrase .ne/ e&plo,ees. as conte&plated in the nion Shop Clause of the CBA,
contrar, to petitionerBs insistence that the ter& .ne/ e&plo,ees. onl, refers to those
/ho are initiall, hired as non2re)ular e&plo,ees for possible re)ular e&plo,&ent.
!he nion Shop Clause in the CBA si&pl, states that .ne/ e&plo,ees. /ho durin)
the effectivit, of the CBA .&a, be re)ularl, e&plo,ed. b, the Ban# &ust 5oin the
union /ithin thirt, $4*% da,s fro& their re)ulari=ation. !here is nothin) in the said
clause that li&its its application to onl, ne/ e&plo,ees /ho possess non2re)ular
status, &eanin) probationar, status, at the start of their e&plo,&ent. Petitioner
li#e/ise failed to point to an, provision in the CBA e1pressl, e1cludin) fro& the
nion Shop Clause ne/ e&plo,ees /ho are .absorbed. as re)ular e&plo,ees fro&
the be)innin) of their e&plo,&ent. 8hat is indubitable fro& the nion Shop Clause
is that upon the effectivit, of the CBA, petitionerBs ne/ re)ular e&plo,ees
$re)ardless of the &anner b, /hich the, beca&e e&plo,ees of BP"% are re6uired to
5oin the nion as a condition of their continued e&plo,&ent.
';
Althou)h b, virtue of the &er)er BP" steps into the shoes of -EB!C as a successor
e&plo,er as if the for&er had been the e&plo,er of the latter0s e&plo,ees fro& the
be)innin) it &ust be e&phasi=ed that, in realit,, the le)al conse6uences of the
&er)er onl, occur at a specific date, i.e., upon its effectivit, /hich is the date of
approval of the &er)er b, the SEC. !hus, /e observed in the (ecision that BP" and
-EB!C stipulated in the Articles of Mer)er that the, /ill both continue their
respective business operations until the SEC issues the certificate of &er)er and in
the event no such certificate is issued, the, shall hold each other bla&eless for the
non2consu&&ation of the &er)er.
'>
8e li#e/ise previousl, noted that BP" &ade its
assi)n&ents of the for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees effective on April '*, +***, or after the
SEC approved the &er)er.
'?
"n other /ords, the obli)ation of BP" to pa, the salaries
and benefits of the for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees and its ri)ht of discipline and control
over the& onl, arose /ith the effectivit, of the &er)er. Conco&itantl,, the obli)ation
of for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees to render service to BP" and their ri)ht to receive
benefits fro& the latter also arose upon the effectivit, of the &er)er. 8hat is &aterial
is that all of these le)al conse6uences of the &er)er too# place durin) the life of an
e1istin) and valid CBA bet/een BP" and the nion /herein the, have &utuall,
consented to include a nion Shop Clause.
-ro& the plain, ordinar, &eanin) of the ter&s of the nion Shop Clause, it covers
e&plo,ees /ho $a% enter the e&plo, of BP" durin) the ter& of the CBAD $b% are part
of the bar)ainin) unit $defined in the CBA as co&prised of BP"0s ran# and file
e&plo,ees%D and $c% beco&e re)ular e&plo,ees /ithout distin)uishin) as to the
&anner the, ac6uire their re)ular status. Conse6uentl,, the nu&ber of such
e&plo,ees &a, adversel, affect the &a5orit, status of the nion and even its
e1istence itself, as alread, a&pl, e1plained in the (ecision.
"ndeed, there are differences bet/een $a% ne/ e&plo,ees /ho are hired as
probationar, or te&porar, but later re)ulari=ed, and $b% ne/ e&plo,ees /ho, b,
virtue of a &er)er, are absorbed fro& another co&pan, as re)ular and per&anent
fro& the be)innin) of their e&plo,&ent /ith the survivin) corporation. "t bears
reiteratin) here that these differences are too insubstantial to /arrant the e1clusion
of the absorbed e&plo,ees fro& the application of the nion Shop Clause. "n the
(ecision, /e noted that3
7eril,, /e a)ree /ith the Court of Appeals that there are no substantial differences
bet/een a ne/l, hired non2re)ular e&plo,ee /ho /as re)ulari=ed /ee#s or &onths
after his hirin) and a ne/ e&plo,ee /ho /as absorbed fro& another ban# as a
re)ular e&plo,ee pursuant to a &er)er, for purposes of appl,in) the nion Shop
Clause. Both e&plo,ees /ere hiredEe&plo,ed onl, after the CBA /as si)ned. At the
ti&e the, are bein) re6uired to 5oin the nion, the, are both alread, re)ular ran# and
file e&plo,ees of BP". !he, belon) to the sa&e bar)ainin) unit bein) represented b,
the nion. !he, both en5o, benefits that the nion /as able to secure for the&
under the CBA. 8hen the, both entered the e&plo, of BP", the CBA and the nion
Shop Clause therein /ere alread, in effect and neither of the& had the opportunit,
to e1press their preference for unionis& or not. 8e see no co)ent reason /h, the
nion Shop Clause should not be applied e6uall, to these t/o t,pes of ne/
e&plo,ees, for the, are undeniabl, si&ilarl, situated.
'@
A)ain, it is /orth/hile to hi)hli)ht that a contrar, interpretation of the nion Shop
Clause /ould dilute its efficac, and put the certified union that is supposedl, bein)
protected thereb, at the &erc, of &ana)e&ent. -or if the for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees
had no sa, in the &er)er of its for&er e&plo,er /ith another ban#, as petitioner BP"
repeatedl, decries on their behalf, the nion li#e/ise could not prevent BP" fro&
proceedin) /ith the &er)er /hich undisputedl, affected the nu&ber of e&plo,ees in
the bar)ainin) unit that the nion represents and &a, ne)ativel, i&pact on the
nion0s &a5orit, status. "n this instance, /e should be )uided b, the principle that
courts &ust place a practical and realistic construction upon a CBA, )ivin) due
consideration to the conte1t in /hich it is ne)otiated and purpose /hich it is intended
to serve.
'A
8e no/ co&e to the 6uestion3 (oes our affir&ance of our rulin) that for&er -EB!C
e&plo,ees absorbed b, BP" are covered b, the nion Shop Clause violate their ri)ht
to securit, of tenure /hich /e e1pressl, upheld in this ResolutionF 8e ans/er in the
ne)ative.
"n Rance v. National Labor Relations Co&&ission,
+*
/e held that3
"t is the polic, of the state to assure the ri)ht of /or#ers to .securit, of tenure.
$Article G""", Sec. 4 of the Ne/ Constitution, Section A, Article "" of the 'A?4
Constitution%. !he )uarantee is an act of social 5ustice. 8hen a person has no
propert,, his 5ob &a, possibl, be his onl, possession or &eans of livelihood.
!herefore, he should be protected a)ainst an, arbitrar, deprivation of his 5ob. Article
+@* of the Labor Code has construed 'ec(r)t* o+ te,(re -' .e-,),/ t0-t 1t0e
e.23o*er '0-33 ,ot ter.),-te t0e 'er4)ce' o+ -, e.23o*ee e5ce2t +or - 6('t
c-('e or 70e, -(t0or)8e9 b*1 t0e Co9e. 1 1 1 $E&phasis supplied.%
8e have also previousl, held that the funda&ental )uarantee of securit, of tenure
and due process dictates that no /or#er shall be dis&issed e1cept for a 5ust and
authori=ed cause provided b, la/ and after due process is observed.
+'
Even as /e
no/ reco)ni=e the ri)ht to continuous, unbro#en e&plo,&ent of /or#ers /ho are
absorbed into a ne/ co&pan, pursuant to a &er)er, it is but lo)ical that their
e&plo,&ent &a, be ter&inated for an, causes provided for under the la/ or in
5urisprudence /ithout violatin) their ri)ht to securit, of tenure. As <ustice Carpio
discussed in his dissentin) opinion, it is /ell2settled that ter&ination of e&plo,&ent
b, virtue of a union securit, clause e&bodied in a CBA is reco)ni=ed in our
5urisdiction.
++
"n (el Monte Philippines, "nc. v. Saldivar,
+4
/e e1plained the rationale
for this polic, in this /ise3
Article +?A of the Labor Code ordains that .in cases of re)ular e&plo,&ent, the
e&plo,er shall not ter&inate the services of an e&plo,ee e1cept for a 5ust cause or
/hen authori=ed b, H!itle ", Boo# Si1 of the Labor CodeI..A9.)tte93*, t0e
e,+orce.e,t o+ - c3o'e9%'0o2 or (,)o, 'ec(r)t* 2ro4)')o, ), t0e CBA -' -
/ro(,9 +or ter.),-t)o, +),9' ,o e5te,')o, 7)t0), -,* o+ t0e 2ro4)')o,' (,9er
T)t3e !, Boo: S)5 o+ t0e "-bor Co9e. $et 6(r)'2r(9e,ce 0-' co,')'te,t3*
reco/,)8e9, t0('; 1!t )' St-te 2o3)c* to 2ro.ote (,)o,)'. to enable /or#ers to
ne)otiate /ith &ana)e&ent on an even pla,in) field and /ith &ore persuasiveness
than if the, /ere to individuall, and separatel, bar)ain /ith the e&plo,er. -or this
reason, the la/ has allo/ed stipulations for Bunion shopB and Bclosed shopB as &eans
of encoura)in) /or#ers to 5oin and support the union of their choice in the protection
of their ri)hts and interests vis2a2vis the e&plo,er..
+:
$E&phasis supplied.%
Althou)h it is accepted that non2co&pliance /ith a union securit, clause is a valid
)round for an e&plo,ee0s dis&issal, 5urisprudence dictates that such a dis&issal
&ust still be done in accordance /ith due process. !his &uch /e decreed in Jeneral
Millin) Corporation v. Casio,
+;
to /it3
!he Court reiterated in Mala,an) Sa&ahan n) &)a Man))a)a/a sa M. Jreenfield
v. Ra&os that3
8hile respondent co&pan, &a, validl, dis&iss the e&plo,ees e1pelled b, the union
for dislo,alt, under the union securit, clause of the collective bar)ainin) a)ree&ent
upon the reco&&endation b, the union, this dis&issal should not be done hastil,
and su&&aril, thereb, erodin) the e&plo,eesB ri)ht to due process, self2
or)ani=ation and securit, of tenure. !he enforce&ent of union securit, clauses is
authori=ed b, la/ provided such enforce&ent is not characteri=ed b, arbitrariness,
and al/a,s /ith due process. Even on the assu&ption that the federation had valid
)rounds to e1pel the union officers, due process re6uires that these union officers be
accorded a separate hearin) b, respondent co&pan,.
!he t/in re6uire&ents of notice and hearin) constitute the essential ele&ents of
procedural due process. !he la/ re6uires the e&plo,er to furnish the e&plo,ee
sou)ht to be dis&issed /ith t/o /ritten notices before ter&ination of e&plo,&ent
can be le)all, effected3 $'% a /ritten notice apprisin) the e&plo,ee of the particular
acts or o&issions for /hich his dis&issal is sou)ht in order to afford hi& an
opportunit, to be heard and to defend hi&self /ith the assistance of counsel, if he
desires, and $+% a subse6uent notice infor&in) the e&plo,ee of the e&plo,erBs
decision to dis&iss hi&. !his procedure is &andator, and its absence taints the
dis&issal /ith ille)alit,.
"rrefra)abl,, JMC cannot dispense /ith the re6uire&ents of notice and hearin)
before dis&issin) Casio, et al. even /hen said dis&issal is pursuant to the closed
shop provision in the CBA. !he ri)hts of an e&plo,ee to be infor&ed of the char)es
a)ainst hi& and to reasonable opportunit, to present his side in a controvers, /ith
either the co&pan, or his o/n union are not /iped a/a, b, a union securit, clause
or a union shop clause in a collective bar)ainin) a)ree&ent. 1 1 1
+>
$E&phases
supplied.%
"n li)ht of the fore)oin), /e find it appropriate to state that, apart fro& the fresh thirt,
$4*%2da, period fro& notice of finalit, of the (ecision )iven to the affected -EB!C
e&plo,ees to 5oin the nion before the latter can re6uest petitioner to ter&inate the
for&er0s e&plo,&ent, petitioner &ust still accord said e&plo,ees the t/in
re6uire&ents of notice and hearin) on the possibilit, that the, &a, have other
5ustifications for not 5oinin) the nion. Si&ilar to our Au)ust '*, +*'* (ecision, /e
reiterate that our rulin) presupposes there has been no &aterial chan)e in the
situation of the parties in the interi&.
89ERE-ORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is (EN"E(. !he (ecision dated
Au)ust '*, +*'* is A--"RME(, sub5ect to the 6ualifications that3
$a% Petitioner is dee&ed to have assu&ed the e&plo,&ent contracts of the
-ar East Ban# and !rust Co&pan, $-EB!C% e&plo,ees upon effectivit, of the
&er)er /ithout brea# in the continuit, of their e&plo,&ent, even /ithout
e1press stipulation in the Articles of Mer)erD and
$b% Aside fro& the thirt, $4*% da,s, counted fro& notice of finalit, of the Au)ust
'*, +*'* (ecision, )iven to for&er -EB!C e&plo,ees to 5oin the respondent,
said e&plo,ees shall be accorded full procedural due process before their
e&plo,&ent &a, be ter&inated.
SO OR(ERE(.
TERES!TA <. "EONAR#O%#E CASTRO
Associate <ustice