SMTFM-UWP vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. JOSE G. DE VERA and TOP FORM MANUFACTURING PHIL., INC.

FACTS Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing United Workers of the Philippines (SMTFM) was the certified collective bargaining representative of all regular rank and file employees of private respondent Top Form Manufacturing Philippines, Inc. At the collective bargaining negotiation held at the Milky Way Restaurant in Makati, Metro Manila on February 27, 1990, Union proposed a provision that any future wage increase given by the government should be implemented by the company across-the-board or nonconditional. Management requested the union to retain this provision since their sincerity was already proven when the P25.00 wage increase was granted across-the-board (implementation of RA 6727) The union decided to defer the said provision. The CBA was later affirmed without the said provision On October 15, 1990, the RTWPB-NCR issued Wage Order No. 01 granting an increase of P17.00 per day in the salary of workers. This was followed by Wage Order No. 02 dated December 20, 1990 providing for a P12.00 daily increase in salary.

Union requested the implementation of said wage orders. However, they demanded that the increase be on an across-the-board basis. Private respondent refused to accede to that demand. Instead, it implemented a scheme of increases purportedly to avoid wage distortion. Union wrote a letter to private respondent demanding that it should "fulfill its pledge of sincerity to the union by granting an across-the-board wage increases (sic) to all employees under the wage orders." private respondent adamantly maintained its position on the salary increases it had granted that were purportedly designed to avoid wage distortion. union filed a complaint with the NCR NLRC alleging that private respondent's act of "reneging on its undertaking/promise clearly constitutes act of unfair labor practice through bargaining in bad faith." It further alleges the violation of Art 100 of LC and prayed for damages. Private respondent contended that the scheme implemented was for the avoidance of "the existence of a wage distortion" that would arise from such implementation. It emphasized that only "after a reasonable length of time from the implementation" of the wage orders "that the union surprisingly raised the question that the company should have implemented said wage orders on an across-the-board basis." Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Two main issues were considered: (a) whether or not respondents are guilty of unfair labor practice, and (b) whether or not the respondents are liable to implement Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02 on an across-the-board basis. The charge of bargaining in bad faith is bereft of any certitude inasmuch as based on the union's own admission, the latter vacillated on its own proposal to adopt an across-the-board stand or future wage increases. That such union proposal was not adopted in the existing CBA was due to the fact that it was the union itself which decided for its deferment. The complainants asserted that the company implemented Republic Act No. 6727 which granted a wage increase of P25.00 effective July 1, 1989 on an across-theboard basis. Granting that the same is true, such isolated single act that respondents adopted

would definitely not ripen into a company practice. On the second issue, in the face of the above discussion as well as our finding that the respondents correctly applied the law on wage increases, this Branch rules in the negative. Petitioner appealed to NLRC appeal dismissed for lack of merit. petitioner sought reconsideration denied by NLRC. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari ISSUE whether or not private respondent committed an unfair labor practice in its refusal to grant across-the-board wage increases in implementing Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02, and whether or not there was a significant wage distortion of the wage structure in private respondent as a result of the manner by which said wage orders were implemented. RULING On the first issue: petitioner union anchors its arguments on the alleged commitment of private respondent to grant an automatic across-the-board wage increase in the event that a statutory or legislated wage increase is promulgated. It cites as basis therefor, the aforequoted portion of the Minutes of the collective bargaining negotiation on February 27, 1990 regarding wages, arguing additionally that said Minutes forms part of the entire agreement between the parties. The petitioners main point that the Minutes of the collective bargaining negotiation meeting forms part of the entire agreement is pointless, it could only be demandable in law if incorporated in the CBA, but in this case it was not. Minutes only reflects the proceedings and discussions undertaken in the process of bargaining for worker benefits in the same way that the minutes of court proceedings show what transpired therein. If there was indeed a promise or undertaking on the part of private respondent to obligate itself to grant an automatic acrossthe-board wage increase, petitioner union should have requested or demanded that such "promise or undertaking" be incorporated in the CBA. With the execution of the CBA, bad faith bargaining can no longer be imputed upon any of the parties thereto. All provisions in the CBA are supposed to have been jointly and voluntarily incorporated therein by the parties. 2nd issue: Since it is a question of fact, the NLRC has the jurisdiction. As such, the factual findings of the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect but also finality provided that its decisions are supported by substantial evidence and devoid of any taint of unfairness or arbitrariness. o the NLRC Decision in this case which was penned by the dissenter in that case, Presiding Commissioner Edna Bonto-Perez, unanimously ruled that no wage distortions marred private respondents implementation of the wage orders. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED and the questioned Resolutions of the NLRC AFFIRMED. TRADERS ROYAL BANK vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION FACTS On November 18, 1986, the Union, through its president, filed a letter-complaint against TRB with the Conciliation Division of the Bureau of Labor Relations claiming, among others that there was a diminution of benefits being enjoyed by the employees since time immemorial, e.g. mid-year bonus, from two (2) months gross pay to two (2) months basic and year-end bonus from three (3) months gross to only two (2) months.

 In its answer to the union's complaint, TRB pointed out that the NLRC, not the Bureau of Labor Relations, had jurisdiction over the money claims of the employees. On March 24, 1987, the Secretary of Labor certified the complaint to the NLRC for resolution In the meantime, the parties who had been negotiating for a collective bargaining agreement, agreed on the terms of the CBA, to wit: The whole of the bonuses given in previous years is not demandable, i.e., there is no diminution, as to be liable for a differential, if the bonus given is less than that in previous years. Since only two months bonus is guaranteed, only to that extent are bonuses deemed part of regular compensation. As regards the third and fourth bonuses, they are entirely dependent on the income of the bank, and not demandable as part of compensation. Despite the terms of the CBA, however, the union insisted on pursuing the case, arguing that the CBA would apply prospectively only to claims arising after its effectivity. Petitioner insisted that it had paid the employees holiday pay. The practice of giving them bonuses at year's end, would depend on how profitable the operation of the bank had been. Generally, the bonus given was two (2) months basic mid-year and two (2) months gross end-year. On September 2, 1988, the NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the employees which includes the order against the bank to pay the Mid-year bonus differential representing the difference between two (2) months gross pay and two (2) months basic pay and end-year bonus differential of one (1) month gross pay for 1986. A motion for reconsideration was filed by TRB but it was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUE WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering it to pay mid-year/year-end bonus differential for 1986 to its employees. RULING The granting of a bonus is basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer "who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the employee's basic salaries or wages" . . . (Kamaya Point Hotel vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Federation of Free Workers and Nemia Quiambao, G.R. No. 75289, August 31, 1989). The matter of giving them bonuses over and above their lawful salaries and allowances is entirely dependent on the profits, if any, realized by the Bank from its operations during the past year.From 1979-1985, the bonuses were less because the income of the Bank had decreased. In 1986, the income of the Bank was only 20.2 million pesos, but the Bank still gave out the usual two (2) months basic mid-year and two months gross year-end bonuses. However, the Bank weakened considerably after 1986 on account of political developments in the country. Suspected to be a Marcos-owned or controlled bank, it was placed under and is now managed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).The contention of the Union that the granting of bonuses to the employees had ripened into a company practice that may not be adjusted to the prevailing financial condition of the Bank has no legal and moral bases. Its fiscal condition having declined, the Bank may not be forced to distribute bonuses which it can no longer afford to pay and, in effect, be penalized for its past generosity to its employees.