ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
[
G.R. No. 117878.
MANILA FASHIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NONITO ZAMORA and NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG MANILA FASHIONS, INC., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On P12
increase in wages effective
Petitioner countered that the failure to comply with the
pertinent Wage Order was brought about by the tremendous losses suffered by it
which were aggravated when the workers staged a strike on account of the
non-adjustment of their basic pay. To forestall continuous suspension/closure
of business operations, which petitioner did for three (3) months, the strikers
sent a notice that they were willing to condone the implementation of the
increase. The condonation was distinctly stated in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) dated
Sec. 3. The Union realizes the companys closeness to insolvency and, as such, sympathizes with the companys financial condition. Therefore, the Union has agreed, as it hereby agrees, to condone the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-02 and 02-A.
The complainants admitted the existence of the aforementioned provision in the CBA; however they denied the validity thereof inasmuch as it was not reached after due consultation with the members.
The Labor Arbiter sustained the claim that the subject provision of the CBA was void but based its conclusion on a different ground
x x x x While it is true that both union officers/members and (petitioner) signed the agreement, however, the same is not enforceable since said agreement is null and void, it being contrary to law. It is only the Tripartite Wage Productivity Board of (the) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) that could approve exemption (of) an establishment from coverage of (a) Wage Order x x x x [1cräläwvirtualibräry
Thus on P900,012.00. All other claims
were dismissed for lack of merit.
2cräläwvirtualibräry
Both parties were unsatisfied with the decision, prompting them to seek relief from respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The basis of petitioners appeal was that the ruling was not in accordance with the facts and the law. On the part of the private respondents, they assailed the computation of the award as erroneous.
Respondent NLRC was not persuaded by petitioner. On the other
hand, the appeal of private respondents was no longer considered as it was
filed beyond the reglementary period. Thus on
Was the condonation of the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-02 and 02-A contained in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of the CBA valid?
Petitioner maintains that the condonation is valid. In support thereof, it invokes cases decided by this Court applying the rule that if the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement it is binding on the parties and may not be disowned simply because of a change of mind. 4 Granting the CBA provision is indeed void, petitioner offers the alternative argument that the computation of the award was erroneous and arbitrary.
We sustain the decision of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by respondent NLRC that the condonation appearing in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of the CBA did not exempt petitioner from compliance with Wage Order No. NCR-02 and 02-A.
A Collective Bargaining Agreement refers to the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning
wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit, including mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration
machineries.
5
As
in all other contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
6
Section 3, Art. VIII, of the CBA is a void provision because by agreeing to
condone the implementation of the Wage Order the parties thereby contravened
its mandate on wage increase of P12.00 effective
If petitioner is a financially distressed company then it should have applied for a wage exemption so that it could meet its labor costs without endangering its viability or its very existence upon which both management and labor depend for a living. 7 The Office of the Solicitor General emphasizes the point that parties to a CBA may not, by themselves, set a wage lower than the minimum wage. To do so would render nugatory the purpose of a wage exemption, not to mention the possibility that employees may be duped or be unwittingly put in a position to accept a lower wage. 8cräläwvirtualibräry
The cases that petitioner relies on are simply inapplicable because, unlike the present case which involves a stipulation in the CBA in contravention of law, they are concerned with compromise settlements as a means to end labor disputes recognized by Art. 227 of the Labor Code and considered not against public policy by doctrinal rules established by this Court. 9cräläwvirtualibräry
As regards the alternative argument of petitioner that the computation of the award was erroneous and arbitrary, it must be rejected outright as it was apparently never brought to the attention of respondent NLRC. Consequently, it cannot be raised for the first time before this Court since that would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process. 10 Moreover, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of respondent NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence but confined merely to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. 11cräläwvirtualibräry
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The order of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission which affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter awarding the total amount of P900,012.00 to the
complainants is likewise AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 29.
2 Decision penned by Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco; Rollo, pp. 30-33.
3 Decision penned by Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez, concurred in by Commissioner Rogelio I. Rayala; Rollo, p. 26.
4 Cruz v. NLRC, G.R. No. 98273, 28 October 1991, 203 SCRA 286; Olaybar v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108713, 28 October 1994, 237 SCRA 819; Sicangco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110261, August 1994, 235 SCRA 96; and, Jag & Haggar Jeans and Sportswear Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105710, 23 February 1995, 241 SCRA 635.
5 Sec. jj, Rule I, Bk. V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
6 Art. 1306, Civil Code.
7 Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Wages Council, G.R. No. 93044, 26 March 1992, 207 SCRA 581.
8 Rollo, p. 90.
9 See Note 4.
10 Huang v. CA, G.R. No. 108525, 13 September 1994, 236 SCRA 420.