Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 149758 August 25, 2005
PHILE GOL! PHILIPPINES, INC., GERAR!O H. "RIMO, LEONAR! P. #OSE$, %&'
#OSE ". ANIE(AS, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILE "ULA)AN SUPER(ISORS UNION, *+,*+s+&t+' -. /ts P*+s/'+&t, #OSE !.
PAMPLIEGA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
A0CUNA, J.1
This is petition for revie! on certiorari, !ith pr"er for the issunce of te#porr"
restrinin$ nd%or sttus quo order, ssilin$ the Decision of the Court of &ppels in C&'
(.R. SP No. )**+, pro#ul$ted on &pril -., -++, nd its Resolution, pro#ul$ted on
&u$ust -/, -++,, den"in$ petitioner0s 1otion for Reconsidertion. The sid Decision of
the Court of &ppels reversed nd set side the Resolution dted Februr" -/, -+++ of
the Voluntr" &rbitrtor nd reinstted the Voluntr" &rbitrtor0s Resolution dted
2nur" ,3, -+++ !ith #odifiction.
The ntecedents
,
of the cse re s follo!s4
Respondent Phile5 6ul!n Supervisors 7nion 89Phile5 Supervisors 7nion9: is the sole
nd e5clusive br$inin$ representtive of ll supervisors of petitioner Phile5 (old
Philippines, Incorported 89Phile5 (old9:, $old #inin$ co#pn" !ith #ine site t Vist
&le$re, Nbulo, Sipl", Ne$ros Occidentl. On 2ul" -, ,//*, respondent union
entered into Collective 6r$inin$ &$ree#ent 8C6&: !ith petitioner co#pn" effective
&u$ust ,, ,//; up to 2ul" .,, -++,.
It ppers, ho!ever, tht fter the si$nin$ of the C6&, Phile5 (old #de the e#plo"ees
of Phile5 1inin$ Corportion fro# Pdcl, Tub, 6en$uet, its re$ulr supervisor"
e#plo"ees effective 2ul" ,, ,//*. So#e of the so'clled 9e5'Pdcl9 supervisors be$n
to !or< in the 6ul!n #ines of Phile5 1inin$ Corportion in ,//- s ordinr" rn<'
nd'file !or<ers. =hen Phile5 (old !s incorported in ,//; to e5clusivel" hndle $old
#inin$, it too< over the opertions of the 6ul!n #ines nd bsorbed so#e of the e5'
Pdcl e#plo"ees.
Phile5 (old conve"ed to Phile5 Supervisors 7nion the sttus of the e5'Pdcl
supervisors in Nove#ber ,//* upon the insistence of the union to be infor#ed of their
stndin$.
It turned out tht the e5'Pdcl supervisors !ere #intined under confidentil
p"roll, receivin$ different set of benefits nd hi$her slries co#pred to the locll"
hired supervisors of si#ilr rn< nd clssifiction doin$ prllel duties nd functions.
Phile5 Supervisors 7nion filed Co#plint
-
$inst Phile5 (old !ith the Ntionl
Concilition nd 1edition 6ord 8NC16:, 6colod Cit", for the p"#ent of !$e
differentil nd d#$es nd the rectifiction of the discri#intor" slr" structure nd
benefits bet!een the e5'Pdcl supervisors nd the locl'hires.
&fter the sub#ission of the prties0 respective position ppers nd
re>oinders%supple#entl position ppers, the Voluntr" &rbitrtor rendered decision on
2nur" ,3, -+++ in fvor of respondent 7nion.
&s re$rds the supervisors0 !$e rtes
.
!hich !s sub#itted b" Phile5 (old, the
Voluntr" &rbitrtor held4
. . .
The =$e rtes of the e#plo"ers s clssified nd clssed b" the# re not lso
resonble nd undiscri#intor".
This is sho!n b" the fct tht the #5i#u# rte for S'3 t P,?,+;) per #onth is hi$her
thn the #ini#u# rte for S'), the hi$hest cte$or" t P,.,-/) #onth onl". The rte
difference bet!een the #5i#u# rte of S'3 nd the #ini#u# rte for S') is P3,**+,
the #5i#u# rte of S'3 bein$ hi$her thn the #ini#u# rte of S').
Si#pl" stted, n S'3 e#plo"ee $ettin$ the #5i#u# slr" of P,?,+;) #onth !ill
#erel" $et reduced or di#inished slr" of P,.,-/) upon his pro#otion to S'), the
hi$hest clss or cte$or" of supervisors upon his pro#otion. This condition is not n
idel lbor reltion but sitution !hich !ill surel" i$nite lbor conflicts nd disputes in
the !or< plce.
In !htever shde or color tht !e shll loo< upon the issue of !hether or not the
herein e#plo"er cn be held lible to p" the !$e differentil p" to the @OC&@@A
BIRED S7PERVISORS due to its obvious discri#intor" !$e polic", one thin$ stnds
outCsupervisors of the s#e rn<s re not pid the s#e rtes of p".
1
This ineDuitble rtes of p" bein$ i#ple#ented b" respondents result nturll" into the
herein e#plo"ers0 discri#intor" !$e polic" !hich &rticle -3? 8e: of the @&6OR CODE
prohibits nd defines s 7NF&IR @&6OR PR&CTICE OF E1P@OAERS.
3
The dispositive portion of the Decision reds4
)HERE$ORE, in vie! of ll the FORE(OIN(, >ud$#ent is hereb" decreed
ORDERIN( the respondent PBI@EE (O@D PBI@IPPINES, INC.%(ER&RD B.
6RI1O%@EON&RD P. 2OSEF%2OSE 6. &NIEV&S, 2OINT@A nd SEVER&@@A to4
,. Red>ust the 1ONTB@A R&TES OF P&A of locll" hired S7PERVISORS in the
cte$ories of S', to S') R&NFS in the s#e level%or #ount !ith tht of P&DC&@
S7PERVISORS of the s#e R&NFS n#el"4
S', ''''''''''''''''' P,.,+?,.;+
S'- ''''''''''''''''' P,.,?/..;+
S'. ''''''''''''''''' P,),-+/.;+
S'3 ''''''''''''''''' P,*,3*-.++
S') ''''''''''''''''' P-+,.++.++
effective Nove#ber ,, ,//? nd to p" =$e differentil p" fro# Nove#ber ,, ,//? up
to the dte of the Decision to ll ffected locll" hired supervisors.
-. To revise or #odif" its e5istin$ !$e rtes per supervisor" rn<in$, #<in$ the
#5i#u# rte of lo!er cte$or" lo!er thn the #ini#u# rte of the ne5t hi$her
cte$or"G nd,
.. P" to the 7NION &TTORNEA0S FEES t )H of the totl su# of the =$e differentil
p" !rded !ithin ten 8,+: d"s fro# receipt of this Decision.
The respondent is further ordered to deposit !ith the cshier of the NC16 the su#
!hich is eDuivlent to the !$e differentil p" co#puted t differentil of P),)+,.-3
per person%supervisor per #onth fro# Nove#ber ,, ,//? up to the dte of this decision,
for S',G P),;;..-3 per #onth per supervisor, for S'-G P),/*/.-3 per supervisor per
#onth, for S'.G P*,+;).*) per supervisor per #onth for S'3 nd P?,3-?.3; per
supervisor per #onth for S'), nd the &TTORNEA0S FEE !hich is )H of the totl !$e
differentil p" lso !ithin ten 8,+: d"s fro# receipt of this decision.
SO OR!ERE!.
)
Phile5 Supervisors 7nion filed 1otion for Prtil Reconsidertion dted 2nur" -+,
-+++, see<in$, #on$ others, the #odifiction of the effectivit" of the red>ust#ent of
the #onthl" rtes of p" of the locll" hired supervisors nd of the co#puttion of their
!$e differentil fro# Nove#ber ,, ,//? to &u$ust ,, ,//* lthou$h the discri#intion
in !$es strted upon the re$ulriItion of the e5'Pdcl supervisors on 2ul" ,, ,//*.
On 2nur" -), -+++, Phile5 (old lso filed #otion for reconsidertion, !hich !s
lle$edl" filed d" lte, contendin$ tht it !s denied due process s the Voluntr"
&rbitrtor decided the
cse !ithout its supple#entl position pper, tht the decision under#ined the
collective br$inin$ process bet!een the prties reltive to !$e differentils, nd tht
there !s neither unl!ful discri#intion nor !$e distortion bet!een the e5'Pdcl
supervisors nd the locll" hired supervisors.
On Februr" -/, -+++, the Voluntr" &rbitrtor issued the ssiled Resolution #odif"in$
his erlier Decision dted 2nur" ,3, -+++, this ti#e findin$ tht there !s no
discri#intion in the deter#intion of the rtes of p" of the supervisors. The Voluntr"
&rbitrtor, ho!ever, red>usted the #ount of !$es of locl supervisors b" ddin$ or
incresin$ their !$es in the unifor# su# of P?++.++ #onth effective October ,, ,///
9to erse the shdo!s of ineDuities #on$ the vrious $rdes of supervisors.9 The
dispositive portion of the Decision reds4
=BEREFORE, IN VIE= of the fore$oin$, the Decision dted 2nur" ,3, -+++ is
hereb" #odified in the follo!in$ #nner, to !it4
,. The respondent e#plo"er is hereb" ordered to re'd>ust the !$e rtes of S', to S')
supervisors b" ddin$ or incresin$ their !$es in the unifor# su# of P?++.++ #onth
ech effective October ,, ,///G nd to co#pute nd p" their differentil p" fro#
October ,, ,/// up to the ti#e it is pid nd i#ple#entedG
-. The respondent is further ordered to p" &ttorne"0s Fee to the 7nion0s l!"er t )H
of the totl #ount of =&(E DIFFERENTI&@ P&AG
2
.. Finll", the respondent e#plo"er is ordered to deposit to the cshier of the NC16 the
=&(E DIFFERENTI&@ P&A nd the &ttorne"0s Fee d>ud$ed !ithin ,+ d"s fro#
receipt of this Resolution.
SO OR!ERE!.
;
On 1rch ,., -+++, respondent 7nion filed petition for revie! before the Court of
&ppels risin$ the follo!in$ issues4 8,: !hether or not the Voluntr" &rbitrtor erred in
d#ittin$ petitioner0s #otion for reconsidertion !hich !s filed be"ond the
re$le#entr" periodG 8-: !hether or not the Voluntr" &rbitrtor erred in #odif"in$ his
decision b" findin$ petitioner to be lible to its locll" hired #e#bers in the su# of P?++
per #onth s !$e d>ust#ent effective October ,///G nd 8.: !hether or not the
Voluntr" &rbitrtor erred in filin$ to $rnt ,+ percent ttorne"0s fees on the totl
!rds.
On 1rch -, -+++, petitioners filed 1nifesttion of Co#plince !ith the Voluntr"
&rbitrtor lle$in$ tht on ccount of its p"#ent to respondent union #e#bers of
#onetr" benefits 8in the #ount of P,,+++: provided b" the &#end#ents nd
Supple#ent to the C6&, it hs co#plied !ith the Resolution dted Februr" -/, -+++.
In Resolution dted &pril 3, -+++, the Voluntr" &rbitrtor denied
*
sid 1nifesttion
of Co#plince for lc< of #erit.
=hile C&'(.R. SP No. )**+, !s pendin$, respondent 7nion filed on &pril ?, -+++
1otion for Issunce of =rit of E5ecution of the Resolution dted Februr" -/, -+++.
In n Order dted 2une -*, -+++, the Voluntr" &rbitrtor issued =rit of E5ecution
enforcin$ the Resolution dted Februr" -/, -+++.
On 2une -/, -+++, Phile5 (old filed 1otion to @ift =rit of E5ecution, !hich !s not
cted upon b" the Voluntr" &rbitrtor.
On 2ul" ,+, -+++, Phile5 (old filed petition for revie! before the Court of &ppels,
doc<eted s C&'(.R. SP No. ;++;), Duestionin$ the propriet" nd vlidit" of the
Voluntr" &rbitrtor0s Order $rntin$ e5ecution pendin$ ppel. Sid petition !s
denied for lc< of #erit.
On &pril -., -++,, the Court of &ppels rendered the ssiled Decision, in C&'(.R. SP
No. )**+,, findin$ tht petitioners filed to prove tht the" did not discri#inte $inst
the locll" hired supervisors in p"in$ the# lo!er slries thn the e5'Pdcl
supervisors. It held, thus4
Phile5 (old0s tte#pt to e5plin the disprit" in the slr" rtes bet!een 9e5'Pdcl9
supervisors nd the locl'hires filed to convince 7s. It presented slr" structure for
supervisors clssified into five cte$ories, n#el"4 9S',, S'-, S'., S'3, nd S')9 !ith
different rtes of p". Ech clssifiction is further divided in ter#s of !$e rtes into
#ini#u#, #ediu#, nd #5i#u#. =hile the 9e5'Pdcl9 supervisors received the
#5i#u# for ech cte$or", presu#bl" becuse of seniorit" in e#plo"#ent, lon$er
!or< e5perience in $old #inin$, speciliIed s<ills, nd the 9disloction fctor9, the locl'
hires received the #ini#u#.
This e5plntion is fru$ht !ith inconsistencies. First, the C6& bet!een the prties did
not disclose this #ulti'tiered clssifiction of supervisors 8Rollo, pp. .;'.*, 3;'*3:.
Second, s found b" the voluntr" rbitrtor in his ori$inl decision, the locl'hires
ctull" received slries less thn those the" !ere supposed to be entitled 8Rollo, p.
3,:. Third, the #ini#u# !$e rte for hi$her cte$or" hppened to be lesser thn the
#5i#u# rte of lo!er cte$or" such tht supervisor !ith rn< of 9S',9 #5i#u#
!ould $et less upon his pro#otion to 9S'-9 #ini#u# 8Rollo, pp. .?'./, /+:. &nd finll",
this p" structure !s <ept fro# the <no!led$e of the union nd !s onl" reveled in
the course of the proceedin$s before the voluntr" rbitrtor. These fctors onl"
ccentute the fct !hich Phile5 (old tried to hide, tht is, it undul" fvored the 9e5'
Pdcl9 supervisors over the locl'hires throu$h s"ste# of confidentil slr"
structure.
The lon$ honored le$l truis# of 9eDul p" for eDul !or<,9 #enin$, 9persons !ho
!or< !ith substntill" eDul Dulifiction, s<ill, effort nd responsibilit", under si#ilr
conditions, should be pid si#ilr slries,9 hs been institutionliIed in our >urisdiction.
Such tht 9if n e#plo"er ccords e#plo"ees the s#e position nd rn<, the
presu#ption is tht these e#plo"ees perfor# eDul !or<9 s 9borne b" lo$ic nd hu#n
e5perience.9 The r#ifiction is tht 98i:f the e#plo"er p"s one e#plo"ee less thn the
rest, it is not for tht e#plo"ee to e5plin !h" he receives less or !h" the others receive
#ore. Tht !ould be ddin$ insult to in>ur". The e#plo"er hs discri#inted $inst tht
e#plo"eeG it is for the e#plo"er to e5plin !h" the e#plo"ee is treted unfirl".9
8International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, et al., (.R. No. ,-??3), 2une
,, -+++:.
Phile5 (old hvin$ filed to dischr$e this burden, =e opt therefore to reinstte, lbeit
!ith #odifiction, the ori$inl decision dted ,3 2nur" -+++ of the voluntr" rbitrtor
s the s#e is dul" supported b" the pledin$s filed before 7s.
?

The dispositive portion of the Decision reds4
=BEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the ssiled resolution of -/ Februr" -+++ is
RE(ERSE! nd SET ASI!E nd ne! one entered REINSTATING the ,3 2nur"
-+++ decision sub>ect to the MO!I$ICATION tht the red>ust#ent of the #onthl" rtes
3
of p" of locll" hired supervisors s !ell s their !$e differentil p" be #de
effective , &u$ust ,//* up to the finlit" of this decision. This cse is REMAN!E! to
the voluntr" rbitrtor for the proper co#puttion of !$e differentil nd ttorne"0s
fees. No costs.
SO OR!ERE!.
/

Petitioners0 #otion for reconsidertion !s denied b" the ppellte court in its
Resolution dted &u$ust -/, -++,.
Petitioners thus filed this petition !ith pr"er for the issunce of te#porr"
restrinin$ order. The Court issued te#porr" restrinin$ order en>oinin$ the
e5ecution of the Decision of the Court of &ppels dted &pril -., -++, nd its
Resolution dted &u$ust -/, -++, fter petitioners posted csh bond.
Petitioners rise the follo!in$ issues4
,. Section 3, Rule 3. nd Luzon Development an! Jv. Association of Luzon
Development an! Emplo"ees, -3/ SCR& ,;- 8,//):K provide tht the decision of
voluntr" rbitrtor beco#es finl fter ,) d"s fro# notice of the !rd. &ssu#in$ the
vlidit" of service on Phile5 (old0s liison office, insted of its counsel0s ddress on
record, did the Court of &ppels co##it n error in l! b" sttin$ tht the Decision
dted ,3 2nur" -+++ of V& Sit>r bec#e 9finl nd e5ecutor"9 fter eleven d"s fro#
noticeL
-. (rntin$ arguendo tht Phile5 (old hd onl" period of ,+ d"s !ithin !hich to see<
reconsidertion of the Sit>r Decision, did the period be$in to run upon service of sid
Decision t n ddress !hich is not the ddress on record or upon the ctul receipt
thereof b" Phile5 (old0s counselL
.. V& Sit>r found petitioners 6ri#o, 2osef nd 2ose 6. &nievs, in their cpcit" s
corporte officers, >ointl" nd severll" lible for the lle$ed obli$tion of Phile5 (old to
p" !$e differentils to P6S7. Did the Court of &ppels commit an error in la# in
affirming $A Sit%ar !hen the ltter disposed of n issue not sub#itted to hi# for
rbitrtion nd in directin$ solidr" libilit" bet!een Phile5 (old nd its top officers
despite the bsence of n" findin$ of #lice, bd fith, or $ross ne$li$enceL
3. In levelin$ the !$es of the Pdcl Supervisors nd the @ocll"'Bired Supervisors,
the Court of &ppels pplied the e$litrin doctrine of 9eDul p" for eDul !or<9 in
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing. Does 9eDul p" for eDul
!or<9 unDulifiedl" re#ove #n$e#ent prero$tive to institute Dulittive difference in
p" nd benefits on the bsis of seniorit", s<ill, e5perience nd other vlid fctors in the
s#e clss of !or<ers doin$ the s#e <ind of !or<L
,+

The relevnt issues in this cse re s follo!s4
8,: =hether the notice sent throu$h petitioner co#pn"0s @iison Office cn be
considered s notice to counselG
8-: =hether the petitioners'corporte officers re solidril" lible !ith Phile5 (old in n"
libilit" to respondent 7nionG
8.: =hether the doctrine of 9eDul p" for eDul !or<9 should not re#ove #n$e#ent
prero$tive to institute difference in slr" on the bsis of seniorit", s<ill, e5perience nd
the disloction fctor in the s#e clss of supervisor" !or<ers doin$ the s#e <ind of
!or<.
First Issue : Whether the notice sent through petitioner
companys Liaison Office can be considered as notice to counsel
Petitioners contend tht the Court of &ppels erred in holdin$ tht their #otion for
reconsidertion of the Decision of the Voluntr" &rbitrtor dted 2nur" ,3, -+++ !s
filed out of ti#e.
Indeed, the Court of &ppels found tht 9JbKsed on the certifiction issued b" the
voluntr" rbitrtor hi#self, the decision !s received b" the respondents 8petitioners
herein: on ,3 2nur" -+++ 8Rollo, p. ,-.:, nd the" filed their #otion for
reconsidertion on -) 2nur" -+++, or on the eleventh d" fro# receipt of the
decision.9 The ppellte court ruled tht the lte filin$ rendered the decision finl nd
e5ecutor" s re$rds the petitioners, nd tht the Voluntr" &rbitrtor erred in d#ittin$
petitioners0 #otion for reconsidertion.
Petitioners r$ue tht the service of the Voluntr" &rbitrtor0s Decision on Phile5 (old0s
@iison Office t @ibertd St., 6colod Cit" on 2nur" ,3, -+++ !s i#proper since
their counsel0s ddress of record !s t Vist &le$re, Nbulo, Sipl", Ne$ros
Occidentl ;,,.. Petitioners stte tht Phile5 (old0s @iison Office for!rded sid
Decision to their counsel onl" the ne5t d" or on 2nur" ,), -+++, !hich should be the
dte of notice to counsel nd the bsis for co#puttion of the period to file #otion for
reconsidertion of sid Decision.
The contention is #eritorious.
4
Section 3, Rule III of the NC16 Procedurl (uidelines in the Conduct of Voluntr"
&rbitrtion Proceedin$s sttes4
S+2t/o& 4. Service of &leadings, 'otices and A#ards. M Copies of pledin$s, notices or
copies of JnK !rd #" be served throu$h personl service or b" re$istered #ils on
the prties to the dispute4 Provided, that here a party is represented by counsel or
authori!ed representative, service shall be made on the latter" Service b" re$istered
#il is co#plete upon receipt b" the ddressee or his $ents.
,,
In this cse, petitioners !ere represented before the Voluntr" &rbitrtor b" &tt"s.
Deo$rcis (. Contrers 2r. nd =eld" 7. 1nlon$. Bence, under the NC16
(uidelines, service of pledin$s, notices nd !rds should be #de on petitioners0
counsel.
The Court noted tht in petitioners0 Position Pper nd Supple#entl Position Pper
filed !ith the Voluntr" &rbitrtor, the ddress of petitioners0 counsel !s indicted s
Vist &le$re, Nbulo, Sipl", Ne$ros Occidentl, ;,,.. Bo!ever, the Decision of the
Voluntr" &rbitrtor dted 2nur" ,3, -+++ !s sent throu$h the @iison Office of
Phile5 (old, thus4
&TTA. =ENDA 7. 1&N@ON(
Counsel for the Respondents
PBI@EE (O@D PBI@IPPINES, INC.
(ER&RDO 6RI1O, @EON&RD P. 2OSEF,
2OSE 6. &NIEV&S
C%O @iison Office, @ibertd St.
6colod Cit"
Even the Court of &ppels stted tht 9bsed on the certifiction issued b" the voluntr"
rbitrtor hi#self, the decision !s received b" the respondents on ,3 2nur" -+++. . .
.9 Sid service on Phile5 (old0s @iison Office or on the petitioners the#selves cnnot
be considered s notice in l! to petitioners0 counsel.
7nder the circu#stnces, relince #" be plced on the ssertion of petitioners tht
cop" of the Decision of the Voluntr" &rbitrtor dted 2nur" ,3, -+++ !s delivered to
their counsel the ne5t d" or on 2nur" ,), -+++, !hich #ust be dee#ed s the dte
of notice to counsel of sid Decision.
,-

Bence, !hen petitioners0 #otion for reconsidertion !s filed on 2nur" -), -+++, it
!s filed !ithin the ,+'d" re$le#entr" period under &rticle -;-'& of the @bor Code.
The Court of &ppels,
therefore, erred in holdin$ tht sid #otion for reconsidertion !s filed out of ti#e.
#econd Issue : Whether the petitioners$corporate officers are solidarily liable ith
Phile% &old in any liability to respondent 'nion
Petitioners officers contend tht the" should not be d>ud$ed solidril" lible !ith Phile5
(old.
The contention is #eritorious.
& corportion is >uridicl entit" !ith le$l personlit" seprte nd distinct fro# those
ctin$ for nd in its behlf nd, in $enerl, fro# the people co#prisin$ it.
,.
The rule is
tht obli$tions incurred b" the corportion, ctin$ throu$h its directors, officers nd
e#plo"ees, re its sole libilities.
,3
Bo!ever, it is possible for corporte director,
trustee or officer to be held solidril" lible !ith the corportion in the follo!in$
instnces4
,. =hen directors nd trustees or, in pproprite cses, the officers of corportion''
8: vote for or ssent to patentl" unl!ful cts of the corportionG
8b: ct in bad faith or !ith gross negligence in directin$ the corporte ffirsG
8c: re $uilt" of conflict of interest to the pre>udice of the corportion, its stoc<holders or
#e#bers, nd other persons.
-. =hen director or officer hs consented to the issunce of #atered stoc!s or !ho,
hvin$ <no!led$e thereof, did not forth!ith file !ith the corporte secretr" his !ritten
ob>ection thereto.
.. =hen director, trustee or officer hs contrctull" $reed or stipulted to hold
hi#self personll" nd solidril" lible !ith the Corportion.
5
'
3. =hen director, trustee or officer is #de, b" specific provision of l!, personll"
lible for his corporte ction.
,)
The corporte officers in this cse hve not been proven to fll under n" of the
forecited instncesG hence, the" cnnot be held solidril" lible !ith the co#pn" in
the p"#ent of n" libilit".
(hird Issue : Whether the doctrine of )e*ual pay for e*ual or+) should not
remove management prerogative to institute difference in salary ithin the same
supervisory level
Petitioners sub#it tht the 9eDul p" for eDul !or<9 doctrine in International School
Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing,
,;
!hich the Court of &ppels cited to support its
Decision should be nrro!l" construed to ppl" to sitution !here invidious
discri#intion e5ists b" reson of rce or ethnicit", but not !here vlid fctors e5ist to
>ustif" distinctive tret#ent of e#plo"ees even if the" do the s#e !or<.
Petitioners e5plined tht the e5'Pdcl supervisors !ere pid hi$her becuse of their
lon$er "ers of service, e5perience, their trinin$ nd s<ill in the under$round #inin$
#ethod !ntin$ in the locl supervisors, nd their reloction to 6ul!n, Ne$ros
Occidentl. The" ssert tht the differentil tret#ent of the e5'Pdcl supervisors is
not rbitrr", #licious or discri#intor" but >ustified b" the circu#stnces of their
reloction nd inte$rtion in the ne! #inin$ opertion in 6ul!n.
The Court is not persuded b" petitioners0 contention.
Petitioners d#it tht the 9s#e clss of !or<ers JreK doin$ the s#e <ind of !or<.9
This #ens tht n e5'Pdcl supervisor nd locll" hired supervisor of eDul rn< do
the s#e <ind of !or<. If n e#plo"er ccords e#plo"ees the s#e position nd rn<,
the presu#ption is tht these e#plo"ees perfor# eDul !or<.
,*
Bence, the doctrine of
9eDul p" for eDul !or<9 in International School Alliance of Educators !s correctl"
pplied b" the Court of &ppels.
Petitioners no! contend tht the doctrine of 9eDul p" for eDul !or<9 should not
re#ove #n$e#ent prero$tive to institute difference in slr" on the bsis of
seniorit", s<ill, e5perience nd the disloction fctor in the same class of supervisor"
!or<ers doing the same !ind of #or!.
,?

In this cse, the Court cnnot $ree becuse petitioners filed to dduce evidence to
sho! tht n e5'Pdcl supervisor nd locll" hired supervisor of the s#e rn< re
initill" pid the s#e bsic slr" for doin$ the s#e <ind of !or<. The" filed to
differentite this bsic slr" fro# n" <ind of slr" increse or dditionl benefit !hich
#" hve been $iven to the e5'Pdcl supervisors due to their seniorit", e5perience
nd other fctors.
The records onl" sho! tht n e5'Pdcl supervisor is pid hi$her slr" thn
locll" hired supervisor of the s#e rn<. Therefore, petitioner filed to prove !ith
stisfctor" evidence tht it hs not discri#inted $inst the locll" hired supervisor in
vie! of the uneDul slr".
To reiterte the rulin$ of &hilippine(Singapore )ransport Services, Inc. v. 'L*+,
,/
!hich
!s cited b" the Court of &ppels in its Decision4
. . .
It is note!orth" to stte tht n e#plo"er is free to #n$e nd re$ulte, ccordin$ to
his o!n discretion nd >ud$#ent, ll phses of e#plo"#ent, !hich includes hirin$, !or<
ssi$n#ents, !or<in$ #ethods, ti#e, plce nd #nner of !or<, supervision of
!or<ers, !or<in$ re$ultions, trnsfer of e#plo"ees, l"'off of !or<ers, nd the
discipline, dis#issl nd recll of !or<. =hile the l! reco$niIes nd sfe$urds this
ri$ht of n e#plo"er to e5ercise !ht re clerl" #n$e#ent prero$tives, such ri$ht
should not be bused nd used s tool of oppression $inst lbor. The co#pn"0s
prero$tive #ust be e5ercised in $ood fith nd !ith due re$rd to the ri$hts of lbor. A
priori, the" are not absolute prerogatives but are sub%ect to legal limits, collective
bargaining agreements and the general principles of fair pla" and %ustice.
-+
8E#phsis
supplied.:
)HERE$ORE, the petition is hereb" !ENIE!. No reversible error !s co##itted b"
the Court of &ppels in its Decision in C&'(.R. SP No. )**+, nd in its Resolution
pro#ul$ted on &u$ust -/, -++,. The Te#porr" Restrinin$ Order issued b" the Court
is LI$TE!.
No costs.
SO OR!ERE!.
6