COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC.

, petitioner
vs
BACOLOD SALES FORCE UNION, respondents
GR No. 220605 September 21, 2016
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
In 2001, Cosmos Bottling Corporation ceded its sales functions to petitioner which resulted in the integration
of a number of Cosmos’ salesmen into petitioner’s workforce as route salesmen. When herein petitioner
changed its manner of production distribution from direct selling, which was the job of a route salesman, to
route-to-market system, this abolished the route salesman position, being replaced by the Account
developer(AD) position. Fortunately, through internal selection process, the cosmos integrated employees
were eventually designated as ADs.

Petitioner, however, hired new Account Developers. These newly hired personnel were subjected to a
different qualification from the internally selected account developers. With this, the new ADs received a
higher basic monthly pay. They were also given, upon union membership, a monthly 45-kg rice provision with
a corresponding monthly deduction of the amount of P550 from their salaries.

Aggrieved by the difference in treatment, respondent union, the recognized bargaining agent of the rank-and-
file sales personnel of petitioner’s bacolod plant, submitted its concerns to the grievance machinery in
accordance with the CBA demanding:
(A) Readjustment of the salaries of cosmos integrees to equal that of the newly hired ADs
(B) Conversion of P550/month deduction from salaries for 45-kgs of rice as a violation of the non-
diminution rule of the Labor Code
(C) Employees concerned be reimbursed for the amounts illegally deducted

After the grievance process failed, the parties agreed to submit the unresolved matters to Voluntary
Arbitration.
For its part, petitioner contended that the fixing of hiring rates is a management prerogative, since newly hired
ADs were not similarly situated due to the apparent variance in the manner of employment, qualifications,
skills, and responsibilities. Citing further that the cosmos integrees failed to meet such qualifications.
Regarding the salary deduction for rice provision, it contended that in reality, it is valued more than the
amount of said subsidy and, thus, was not tantamount to any diminution of benefits.

RULING OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR: (February 3, 2012)

(A) Disparity in wages was discriminatory, lacking substantial valid criteria
(B) Petitioner should readjust basic salaries of complainants at par with the new ADs salaries
(C) P550 monthly salary deduction was a violation of Art. X of the CBA (Free rice provision)
(D) Cease and desist from further P550/month deductions

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Petitioner received notice of VA decision on may 21, 2012; Filed petition for review with CA on June 5, 2012.
Respondent Union: VA Decision had become final and executory after ten(10) calendar daysfrom receipt
thereof

CA Decision: (December 22, 2014)

-Petition denied; VA Decision already attained finality pursuant to sec 5,Art. 5 of the CBA, which explicitly
provides:
“The decision of the Arbitration Committee shall be final and binding upon the COMPANY and the UNION, and
the employees and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE VA DECISION CAN NO LONGER BE THE
SUBJECT OF ITS REVIEW FOR HAVING ATTAINED FINALITY PURSUANT TO THE EXPRESS PROVISION UNDER
SECTION – ARTICLE 5 OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

RULING:
Voluntary Arbitrators act in a quasi-judicial capacity; their judgments or final orders which are declared final
by law are not so exempt from judicial review when so warranted. Any agreement stipulating that ‘the
decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable’ and ‘that no further judicial recourse if either party
disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator’s award may be availed of’ cannot be held to preclude in
proper cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts.

There is prima facie reasonableness of petitioner’s asseverations and finds that the merits of its case, based on
such argumentation, properly warrant judicial review. SC remanded the case back to the CA, and stated that
the latter should look into the soundness of the VA rulings in relation to the nuances averred, particularly, the
impact of the differences in the selection processes applied and relevant qualifications between the
employees.

CA should also determine the proper application of the “equal work, equal pay” compensation scheme. CA
also left untouched the issue on the conversion of the P550/month salary deduction for 45-kgs of rice, if
indeed it is a violation, and whether or not the petition for review was filed out of time.