Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 185556 (Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Supreme Independent Union). - For the Court's resolution are the petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated March 28, 2011, which disposed of the labor dispute between the parties for alleged violations of the Compromise Bargaining Agreement, as follows: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The CA Decision [dated] September 30, 2008 and Resolution dated December V 2008 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the order for petitioner to continue implementing Wage Order No. RBIII-10 and 11 across the board is SET ASIDE. Accordingly, item 10 of the NLRC Decision dated March 30, 2007 is modified to read "dismiss the claim for implementation of Wage Order Nos. RBIII-10 and 11 to the employees who are not minimum wage earners." 

SO ORDERED.^[1]

The CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision dated March 30, 2007, which reads: 

WHEREFORE, Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation (the Company) is hereby ordered to: 

	1)	implement general wage increase to Juan Nino, Eddie Dalagon and Rommel Talavera pursuant to the CBA in June 2003, 2004 and 2005;
	2)	regularize workers Dindo Buella and 60 other workers and to respect CBA provision on contracting-out labor;
	3)	recondition the company vehicle pursuant to the CBA;
	4)	answer for expenses involved in providing first aid services including transportation expenses for this purpose, as well as to reimburse Rodrigo Solitario the sum of P2,113.00;
	5)	pay wages of union members/officers who attended grievance meetings as follows:
		x x x x
	6)	pay workers their salary for the 3 hours of the 4 hour brownout as follows:
		x x x x
	7)	reinstate Diosdado Madayag to his Former position without loss of seniority rights and to pay full backwages and other benefits from 14 March 2005, date of dismissal, until the date of this Decision; if reinstatement is impossible[,] to pay separation pay of one month pay for every year of service in addition to backwages;
	8)	dismiss the claim for paternity leave for failure of claimants to observe the requirements;
	9)	dismiss the charge of harassment and discrimination for lack of merit; and to
	10)	continue to implement COLA under Wage Order Nos. [RBIII]-10 & 11 across the board.

�

The issue on Visitor' Free Access to Company Premises is dismissed for being moot and academic after it was settled during the scheduled conferences. 

SO ORDERED.^[2]

Respondent moves for the reconsideration of the discontinuance of the across-the-board implementation of Wage Order Nos. RBIII-10 and 11. It reiterates its argument that for a number of years, petitioner has deliberately implemented wage increases pursuant to regional wage orders across-the-board. Respondent intimates that the Court may .have failed to consider the payslips of one of the employees, which respondent presented as proof of such company practice.^[3]

For its part, petitioner moves for the reconsideration of the orders to (a) regularize Dindo Buella and 60 other employees; (b) implement the general wage increase; (c) recondition the shuttle service; (d) reimburse first aid expenses and pay time-off for attendance in grievance meetings/hearings and for the time when there was a brownout; (e) respect the provision on contracting out labor; and (f) reinstate Diosdado Madayag.^[4]

Most of the parties' arguments in their respective motions for reconsideration are mere rehash of the arguments adduced in their previous pleadings that have been thoroughly considered and passed upon by the Court. The arguments do not deserve a revaluation, except for petitioner's argument that the identity of the 60 temporary employees has not been duly proven by competent evidence. On this point, petitioner argues� 

As to the alleged sixty other contractual employees, the records are bereft of substantial evidence that will establish their identity, the position they occupy, the nature of their work, and the period of their employment, if they are indeed workers of petitioner. Establishing these facts through competent evidence is vital in entertaining their regularization. Instead of fully supporting their claim, respondent union only submitted a handwritten list of names, appended as Annex "O" of its position paper, which cannot be treated as substantial evidence.^[5]

Petitioner's allegation is crucial as it goes into the veracity and probative weight of the document relied upon by the NLRC in its decision. We have scrutinized the NLRC's decision and noted the cursory way by which it relied on the list submitted by respondent.

We therefore deem it fair to both parties that the case be remanded to the NLRC for consideration of the reliability of respondent's list and the reception of other evidence, if necessary, to establish the identity of the 60 temporary employees who are purportedly assigned to departments other than the Warehouse and Packing Section and whose services have been continuously employed by petitioner.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED, while respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court's Decision dated March 28, 2011 is MODIFIED to read: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 and the Resolution dated December 4, 2008 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: 

(a) The order for petitioner to continue implementing Wage Order Nos. RBIII-10 and 11 across-the-board is SET ASIDE. Accordingly, item 10 of the NLRC decision dated March 30, 2007 is modified to read "dismiss the claim for implementation of Wage Order Nos. RBIII-10 and 11 to the employees who are not minimum wage earners.� 

(b) Item 6 of the same NLRC decision is MODIFIED to read "regularize Dindo Buella and 60 other temporary employees assigned to departments/sections other than the Warehouse and Packing Section and to respect CBA provision on contracting-out labor, subject to verification by the NLRC of the identity of these 60 temporary employees." For this purpose, the case is REMANDED to the NLRC for the required verification. 

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 483.

^[2] Id. at 133-136. 

^[3] Id. at 504-507. 

^[4] Id. at 486-500. 

^[5] Id. at 487.