G.R.

 No. 195297 December 05, 2018
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI)
, petitioner, vs.
Iloilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees LaborUnion (ICCPELU)
, as represented by
Wilfredo L. Aguirre
, respondentA. Reyes, Jr.,
 J
 Iloilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU) filed a complaint for disallowing the employees
to report during Saturday as a violation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement against Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI).

FACTS:
CCBPI’s Manufacturing Manager met with ICCP
ELU to propose to stop the work schedule onduring Saturdays, citing operational necessity as the reason
for the decision, however, this was opposedand rejected. The CBA defined Saturday that the
management has the option to schedule work on thebasis of operational necessity. Despite opposition,
CCBPI pushed through.CCBPI brought its grievances to the office of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board(NMCB) whether the CCBPI could be compelled to provide work during Saturdays under
the CBA, andwhether the respondents were entitled to receive their basic pay during Saturdays under
the CBA even ifthey would not report for work. The Panel of Arbitrators ruled in favour of CCBPI, causing
ICCPELU toelevate the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision.

ISSUE:Are the employees entitled to work on Saturdays?

RULING:The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of NMCB. The Court finds that a more logical
andharmonious interpretation of the CBA provisions wherein Saturday work is optional and mandatory
keepsmore with the agreement between the parties. There is no ambiguity to the provisions, in which
there is
no other interpretation of the word “work” other than the work itself and not the working hours. If
Saturday work is indeed mandatory
under the CBA, the phrase in its CBA provision “required to work onSaturday” would be superfluous. It is made more
apparent that workers who work on Saturdays are paid
a premium for such work.
Moreover, the Court with the CA’s ruling that Saturday work
ripened into company practice whichis covered by Article 100 of the Labor Code that diminution of
benefits is prohibited. The fact that Saturdaywork was made subject to a condition and such condition
prevails, i.e., on the basis of operationalnecessity, negates the application of Article 100.In labor law and
social legislation, the scales of justice usually tilts in favour of the workingman,however this has not
blinded the Court, for the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destructionof the employer.
Management also has its own rights, entitled to respect and enforcement in the interestof simple fair
play.

Facts:
Iloilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU) filed a complaint for disallowing the employees
to report during Saturday as a violation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement against Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI).
FACTS:
The conflict arose due to CCBPI’s policy involving Saturday work. The grievances were brought to the
office of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NMCB),.
After the presentation of evedince and subsequent deliberations, the panel of arbitrators ruled in favor
of CCBPI. Unwilling to accept the NMCB’s decision, ICCPELU elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
via a Petition for Review. After a review of the same, the CA rendered a decision granting the petition
and reversing the NMCB’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the employee are entitled to receive their basic pay during Saturdays if they are not
reporting for work;
Whether or not CCBPi can be compelled to provide works for its employees during Saturdays under the
CBAfor lack of legal and facrual basis

RULING:

NO. In order
In order for there to be proscribed diminution of benefits that prejudiced the affected employees, CCBPI should have
unilaterally withdrawn the 50% premium pay without abolishing Saturday work. These are not the facts of the case at
bar. CCBPI withdrew the Saturday work itself, pursuant, as already held, to its management prerogative. In fact, this
management prerogative highlights the fact that the scheduling of the Saturday work was actually made subject to a
condition, i.e., the prerogative to provide the company's employees with Saturday work based on the existence of
operational necessity.

No. The Court disagrees with the interpretation of the CA. In the perusal of the same, the Court finds that a more
logical and harmonious interpretation of the CBA provisions wherein Saturday work is optional and not mandatory
keeps more with the agreement between the parties.