ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 113673. September 20, 2006]

ALFREDO R. MARANON, ALEXANDER MERCADO, RENATO MERCADO AND ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) LOCAL NO. 1 vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND COCA-COLA BOTTLERS' PHILS., INC.

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006 .

G.R. No. 113673 (Alfredo R. Maranon, Alexander Mercado, Renato Mercado and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Local No. 1 vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Coca-Cola Bottlers' Phils., Inc.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari [1] cralaw assailing the 16 April 1993 Decision [2] cralaw and the 19 November 1993 Resolution [3] cralaw of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CN. RAB-III-11-2454-91.

Pursuant to St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC [4] cralaw and A.M. No. 99-2-01 -SC, [5] cralaw all special civil actions arising out of any decision, final resolution or order of the NLRC must be filed directly with the Court of Appeals. Labor cases pending before this Court were referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition except those filed after 1 June 1999 which were no longer referred to the Court of Appeals but were forthwith dismissed. However, this case was no longer referred to the Court of Appeals since the Memoranda of the parties were filed with the Court prior to the promulgation of St. Martin Funeral Home. [6] cralaw

The facts are as follows:

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa Local No. 1 ("petitioner union") is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all regular rank-and-file daily paid workers, regular route drivers and route helpers employed at the San Fernando, Pampanga Plant ("San Fernando Plant") of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. ("respondent"). On 16 April 1987, respondent and petitioner union entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) covering all daily paid employees at the San Fernando Plant. The MOA grants a wage increase of P50 per day to all regular daily paid workers within the bargaining unit who are in the company payroll on the date of the signing of the MOA.

On 1 June 1987, respondent hired Alexander Mercado and Renato Mercado ("Mercados") as regular bottling crews. On 16 June 1987, respondent hired Alfredo R. Maranon ("Maranon") as regular relief operator. Maranon and the Mercados ("petitioner employees") are members of petitioner union.

On 16 July 1987, respondent hired Luis Tulabot ("Tulabot") as regular plant route driver/helper. Respondent granted Tulabot the wages and benefits negotiated by petitioner union under the MOA. However, respondent did not grant the same wages and benefits to petitioner employees. Thus, petitioner employees, assisted by petitioner union, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and discrimination against respondent.

In a Decision [7] cralaw dated 30 April 1992, Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos ("Labor Arbiter Ramos") found that respondent committed unfair labor practice. Labor Arbiter Ramos ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

1. Declaring respondent company guilty of unfair labor practice, as charged, and ordering it to cease and desist from further committing the same or similar act complained of;

2. Declaring complainants Alfredo Maranon, Alexander Mercado and Renato Mercado as entitled to the wage/salary adjustments and other benefits and privileges under the 16 April 1987 Memorandum of Agreement and subsequent Wage Increase effective 16 July 1988;

3. Ordering respondent company to pay each complainants their wage/salary differentials in the amount of P50.00 per day effective on the date of their regularization and �10.00 per day as another wage increase effective 16 July 1988, including all benefits and privileges under the 16 April 1987 Memorandum of Agreement, partially computed as follows:

1. Alfredo Maranon

a) From 6-16-87 to 4-30-92 = 58.05 mos.

58.05 mos. x 26 days = 1,521 days

P50.00/day x 1,521 days = P76,050.00

b) From 7-16-88 to 4-30-92 = 45.05 mos.

45.05 mos. x 26 days = 1,183 days

P10.00/day x 1,183 days = P11,830.00

Total --------------------------------- P87,880.00

2. Alexander Mercado

a) From 6-01-87 to 4-30-92 = 59 mos.

59 mos. x 26 days = 1,534 days

P50.00/day x 1,534 days = P76,700.00

b) From 7-16-88 to 4-30-92 = 45.05 mos.

45.05 mos. x 26 days = 1,183 days

P10.00/day x 1,183 days = P11,830.00

Total ---------------������������������� P88,530.00

3. Renato Mercado

(The same computation as Alexander Mercado)

Total ---------------������������������� P88,530.00

Grand Total ---------------������������������� P264,940.00

�������������������������������������������������������������� vvvvvvvvvvvv

Note: Computation of other benefits and privileges are not included yet.

4. Ordering respondent company to pay complainants moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each and exemplary damages in the amount of another P25,000.00 each or a total of P150,000.00, as damages;

5. Ordering respondent to pay the complainants attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED. [8] cralaw

Respondent appealed the Decision of Labor Arbiter Ramos before the NLRC.

In its 17 February 1993 Resolution, [9] cralaw the NLRC initially dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to pay the appeal fee. On respondent's motion for reconsideration, and upon proof that appeal fee had in fact been paid, the NLRC in its 16 April 1993 Decision set aside its 17 February 1993 Resolution. The NLRC likewise set aside the 30 April 1992 Decision [10] cralaw of Labor Arbiter Ramos. The NLRC ruled that petitioner employees and Tulabot are not similarly situated. As such, the benefits bestowed on Tulabot are not necessarily discriminatory against petitioner employees. Further, the NLRC ruled that petitioner employees are not covered by the wage increase provided under the MOA. Thus:

The fact that management granted an employee a wage increase for reasons of its own, in the absence of proof of malice and bad faith, cannot constitute illegal discrimination per se, much more unfair labor practice just because other employees in another department were not given similar increases more so when the wage increase in question is not a matter of right but merely a matter of privilege or discretion as in the case at bar.

It therefore results that the Labor Arbiter below erred and abused his discretion in awarding individual complainants wage differentials, damages and attorneys fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is granted and the instant appeal is hereby given due course. Our resolution dated February 17, 1993 is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED, and the appealed decision a quo dated April 20, 1992 is hereby SET ASIDE, thus dismissing the complaint below for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. [11] cralaw

Petitioners [12] cralaw moved for the reconsideration of the 16 April 1993 Decision. In its 19 November 1993 Resolution, the NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Petitioners came to this Court for relief on this sole issue:

Whether respondent committed unfair labor practice by discriminating against petitioner employees.

The petition has no merit.

Article 248 of the Labor Code provides that there is unfair labor practice by an employer when the employer "discriminate[s] in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." [13] cralaw In this case, petitioners impute unfair labor practice upon respondent for having granted wages and benefits to Tulabot while withholding the same wages and benefits to petitioner employees. Petitioner employees allege that they were not given the same wages and benefits because of their union membership and participation in the strike.

We do not agree with petitioners. In this case, there was no proof that respondent discriminated against petitioner employees because of their union activities. The wages and benefits were granted to Tulabot in July 1987 while the strike took place on 31 October 1987. Respondent could not have withheld the wages and benefits from petitioner employees because of their participation in the strike. The withholding of wages and benefits from petitioner employees could not also be due to their union membership since Tulabot is also a member of petitioner union. [14] cralaw

We sustain the NLRC in finding that petitioner employees and Tulabot are not similarly situated. Tulabot is a route driver/helper. He belongs to a different department. As the NLRC ruled, Tulabot is a field personnel. His job classification is different from that of petitioner employees. Petitioner employees belong to the Production Department while Tulabot belongs to the Sales Department.

The Court notes that respondent admitted that it might have committed a mistake in granting Tulabot wages and benefits under the MOA. However, there is nothing that would show that respondent acted in bad faith. Bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. [15] cralaw Respondent does not appear to have deliberately discriminated against petitioner employees.

Hence, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' complaint for unfair labor practice and discrimination against respondent.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the 16 April 1993 Decision and the 19 November 1993 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CN. RAB-III-11-2454-91.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

[2] cralaw Penned by Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo with Commissioners Lourdes C. Javier and Joaquin A. Tanodra, concurring. Rollo, pp. 19-30.

[3] cralaw Id. at 17-18.

[4] cralaw 356 Phil. 811 (1998).

[5] cralaw In Re: Dismissal of Special Civil Action in NLRC Cases, dated 9 February 1999.

[6] cralaw See Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union v. NLRC, 376 Phil. 18 (1999).

[7] cralaw Rollo, pp. 31-38.

[8] cralaw Id. at 37-38.

[9] cralaw Id. at 39-43.

[10] cralaw Not 20 April 1992 Decision as stated in the NLRC 16 April 1993 Decision.

[11] cralaw Rollo, pp. 28-29.

[12] cralaw "Petitioners" refer to both petitioner union and petitioner employees.

[13] cralaw Article 248(e) of the Labor Code.

[14] cralaw Rollo, p. 6.

[15] cralaw The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. v. Gramaje, G.R. No. 156963, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 274.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com