PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

CMC MONTHLY EMPLOYEES UNION TUPAS LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 992, for and in behalf of RENATO SERAFIN, MELANO VILLANUEVA, ROGELIO FRANCISCO FORTEVILLAR LACERNA, CRISPIN MATEO, JOSE CRUZ, SATURNINO GUILLERMO, and TEOFILO DURAN, Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CONTINENTAL MILLING CORPORATION, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

GANCAYCO, J:

This is a special civil action for certiorari which seeks to annul the decision of the public respondent in Case No. AB-4-10741-8l. 1

On March 24, 1981, the petitioners filed a complaint against the private respondent with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). The case was docketed as Case No. AB-4-10741-81 and was assigned to the sala of Labor Arbiter Pofirion E. Villanueva of the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Eventually, the parties agreed to dispense with a hearing of the case on the merits, and instead opted to submit the same for decision on the basis of position papers, affidavits and other documentary evidence.chanrobles virtual law library

The petitioners claimed that the private respondent violated Article 1 1 8 of the Labor Code and thereby committed an Unfair Labor Practice. ²Allegedly, the eight individual petitioners, being monthly paid employees, were reverted in status by the private respondent to daily paid employees, and thus they suffered a dimunition in pay. This act was apparently done by the private respondent because the individual petitioners were about to testify in a certification election case filed by the petitioner union (comprised of monthly paid rank-and-file employees).chanrobles virtual law library

On the other hand, the private respondent contended that prior to the filing of the case at bar, there was a decision rendered by Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla in Case No. AB-8 7930-80. The private respondent averred that in that case, tile complaining union (NAMAWU local 180), a union composed of daily rank-and-file employees, claimed that the individual petitioners are its members and the private respondent erroneously converted them to monthly paid employees status. Arbiter Sevilla allegedly ordered in his decision that the individual petitioners be reverted back to daily paid workers status. Therefore, the private respondent maintained that the act complained of by the herein petitioners was a mere act of compliance with the decision of Arbiter Sevilla and was thus justified.chanrobles virtual law library

In his decision dated January 27, 1983, Arbiter Villanueva disposed of the preceding contention of the private respondent by stating that:

With deference to the above-mentioned Decision [of Arbiter Sevilla] this Office believes that the issue and/or issues involved in the two cases are entirely distinct and different from one another. The issue raised by complainants in this case is the conversion of their monthly salaries to daily basis which they have enjoyed long before the signing of the CBA between NAMAWU and the company. This case was filed subsequent to the promulgation of the Decision dated January 28, 1981. ³

He later found the private respondent to be guilty of violating Article 118 of the Labor Code so he thus held in the dispositive portion of the decision that:

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered:

1. to restore complainants to their former status as regular employees receiving monthly salaries; and

2. to pay complainants the difference of their salaries from daily salaried workers to monthly salaried workers. ⁴

The private respondent immediately filed its appeal with the public respondent,

On November 17, 1983, the public respondent promulgated its decision in favor of the private respondent. its ruling is as follows:

The record shows that the parties in the instant case and those in the case decided by Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla are the same, albeit in the latter case the complainants appear to be NAMAWU LOCAL 180 AND MARINO PICONES.chanrobles virtual law library

Obviously, we cannot now modify the terms and conditions of employment as set by the terms of the Decision of Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla for the reason that the said Decision having attained finality has become the law of the case, and for the peace and harmony in the bargaining unit as well as for all legal intents and purposes, it has to be respected. ...chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision should be, as it is hereby, Reversed and the complaint dismissed for lack of merit. ⁵

The petitioners' Motion For Reconsideration was denied by the public respondent in an order dated February 29, 1984. Hence, they filed this instant petition for certiorari.chanrobles virtual law library

To rule upon the correctness of the public respondent's decision, We carefully examined the decision of Arbiter Sevilla in Case No. AB-8-7930-80.chanrobles virtual law library

Quoted hereunder are the portions in the decision of Arbiter Sevilla that are pertinent for the adjudication of the case at bar. They are as follows:

... They [complainants NAMAWU Local 180 and its president, Marino Picones] average that respondents circumvent the "union shop" clause as provided in Section 2, Article 11 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by converting the daily wage workers who are about to become permanent to monthly paid employees so that they are excluded from the bargaining unit;

xxx xxx xxxx

Respondents denied all the allegations of complainants. They claim that the conversion from the daily to monthly status of ten (not eleven) workers were effected before the signing of the CBA on December 11, 1979. They are Jose Cruz, Israel Sarmiento, Eugene Llanera Jess Camacho, Renato Serafin Melanio Villanueva, Rogelio Francisco, Fortivillar Lacerna, Crispin Mateo, and Emesto Abella.

xxx xxx xxx

On the issue of whether unfair labor practice was committed by respondents in converting the daily wage workers to monthly basis it is noted that the 25 names mentioned by complainants who were excluded from the bargaining unit (Annex "B-3") and thus deprived of the benefits under the CBA have been acknowledged by Marcel Vantomme Plant Administrative Services Manager of respondent as included in the bargaining unit as per his sworn affidavit and are therefore included in the salary increase under the CBA of 11 December 1979 granting an adjustment of 1.00 per day effective December 1, 1979 as per Section 1, Article VI of the CBA. These workers are:

1. Abad, Eduardo 14. Guillermo, Saturnino

2. Anievas Rolando 15. Gabriel, Romeo

3. Alvarez, Edgardo 16. Lao, Juanito

4. Corpuz, Tirso 17. Mamuyak Geronimo

5. Caponpon, Menandro 18. Patag, Roberto

6. Duetas, Pedro 19. Taneza Danilo

7. Deus Cayetano 20. Valbarez Antero

8. Dilig, Guillermo 21. Vargas, Enrico

9. Damian, Florentino 22. Abuda, Norberto

10. Estacio, Dionisio 23. Casinao Ireneo

11. Fuertes Joseph 24. Ditablan Hernando

12. Feliciano, Jaime 25. Eborde Antonio

13. Francisco, Ricardo

Because they belong to the bargaining unit at the time the CBA was executed they should not be excluded from the benefits therein granted.

			FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> THE LAW FIRM: Home Page Law Firm Overview Law Firm Services  Law Firm Offices & Communication Links  Chan Robles & Wy, CPAs The ChanRobles Group THE LAW LIBRARY: Foreword  Table of Contents  Site Map  What's New?  Philippines: Country Guide  Philippine Constitution  Constitutional Laws of Nations of the World  Philippine Corporate Bulletin On-Line  Philippine Environment Laws  Philippine Foreign Investment Brief  Philippine Foreign Investment Laws  Philippine Human Rights Law Resources  Philippine Intellectual Property Brief  Philippine Labor Circular On-Line  Philippine Law Update On-Line  Philippine Legal Resources Institute for Strategic Philippine Political Reform & Development  Vox Populi: Survey of Burning Issues of the Day  Philippine Political Inquirer  Philippine Judicial System  Philippine Supreme Court Decisions On-Line  Philippine Supreme Court Circulars  Philippine Tax Update On-Line  Primary Sources of Philippine Law Repository of Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes  RP-US Treaties  Rules of Court of the Philippines  U. S. Government Resources  U. S. Jurisprudence  U. S. Supreme Court Decisions On-Line  Worldwide Human Rights Law Resources  Worldwide Legal Resources-Alphabetical List  Worldwide Legal Resources-By Country  Worldwide Legal Resources-By Topic  United Nations & World Governments International Court of Justice Worldwide Jurisprudence: Supreme Court Decisions [By Country] Global Political Resources  CRALAW Search Engine  The Business Page The Entertainment Page The Sports Page Kidstuff Page  Y2K Global Resources Law List - Free Listing Databank for Lawyers & Law Firms Philippine Listing of Lawyers & Law Firms Worldwide Listing of Lawyers & Law Firms

Search for www.chanrobles.com

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908	1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919	1920
1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960
1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000
2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011

 

Copyright©1998-2011 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

RED