ALEJANDRE, ANNE REYAH C.

HRMGT – 3101

11.

ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. vs. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-11745
October 31, 1960
PARAS, J.

FACTS:

The Royal Interocean Lines (petitioner), is a foreign corporation licensed to do

business in the Philippines, with head office in Hongkong. Its branch office in Manila
employed Ermidia A. Mariano (respondent) who had worked for the petitioner since
January 5, 1932, until her discharge on October 23, 1953.

In or about October, 1953, the respondent and the manager of the Manila Branch
(Kamerling) developed strained relationship that led the former to lodge with the
managing director in Hongkong a complaint against Kamerling. The latter, with the
approval of the head office in Hongkong, dismissed the respondent on October 23,
1953. She charged the petitioner and Kamerling with unfair labor practice under section
4 (a), subsection 5 of Republic Act No. 875 in the Court of Industrial Relations which
held the petitioner and Kamerling guilty thereof and ordered the respondent’s
reinstatement, with backpay from the date of her dismissal. The petitioner has appealed
by way of certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice in having
dismissed the respondent because the latter had filed charges against Kamerling not
connected with or necessarily arising from union activities.
RULINGS:

NO. Despite the employees' right to self-organization, the employer still retains
his inherent right to discipline his employees, his normal prerogative to hire or dismiss
them. The prohibition is directed only against the use of the right to employ or discharge
as an instrument of discrimination, interference or oppression because of one's labor or
union activities. As the respondent’s dismissal has no relation to union activities and the
charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not arise from
her union activities, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and the directive for the
respondent’s reinstatement with back pay revoked.

12.

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LOCAL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, and CECILIA

MATRIANO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SINGAPORE
AIRLINES LIMITED
G.R. No. L-65786
July 16, 1984
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

FACTS:

Cecilia Matriano was employed by Singapore Airlines and became a member of

Singapore Airlines Local Employees Association which has Collecting Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) with Singapore Airlines that grants hospitalization and maternity
benefits to employees. She underwent a caesarean operation and sought
reimbursement of expenses pursuant to the provision on hospitalization benefits.
Singapore Airlines refused to reimburse on the ground that its liability in maternity cases
is limited to maternity leave benefit provision in the CBA which does not allow
reimbursement. Cecilia Matriano argued that the maternity leave benefit under the CBA
is separate and distinct from the hospitalization benefits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Singapore Airlines was guilty of unfair labor practice.

RULINGS:

The Singapore Airlines is not guilty of unfair labor practice. SIA's refusal to grant
benefits was not a willful evasion of its obligations under the CBA but was due to an
honest mistake in the belief that the same is not covered by the aforementioned CBA
provision. An error in interpretation without malice or bad faith does not constitute unfair
labor practice. The court take judicial notice of the fact that honest differences in
construction may arise in the actual application of contractual provisions.