You are on page 1of 34

G.R. No.

175492

February 27, 2013

CARLOS L. OCTAVIO, Petitioner, vs. PI LIPPIN! LONG ISTANC! T!L!P"ON! CO#PAN$, Respondent. DECISION !L CASTILLO, J.: Every Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA s!all provide a grievance mac!inery to "!ic! all disp#tes arising $rom its implementation or interpretation "ill %e s#%&ected to comp#lsory negotiations. '!is essential $eat#re o$ a CBA provides t!e parties "it! a simple, ine(pensive and e(pedient system o$ $inding reasona%le and accepta%le sol#tions to disp#tes and !elps in t!e attainment o$ a so#nd and sta%le ind#strial peace. Be$ore #s is a Petition $or Revie" on Certiorari) assailing t!e A#g#st *), +,,- Decision+ o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals (CA in CA./.R. SP No. 0*123, "!ic! dismissed petitioner Carlos 4. Octavio5s (Octavio Petition $or Certiorari* assailing t!e Septem%er *,, +,,1 Resol#tion6 o$ t!e National 4a%or Relations Commission (N4RC . Said N4RC Resol#tion a$$irmed t!e A#g#st *,, +,,6 Decision1 o$ t!e 4a%or Ar%iter "!ic! dismissed Octavio5s Complaint $or payment o$ salary increases against respondent P!ilippine 4ong Distance Company (P4D' . 4i7e"ise assailed in t!is Petition is t!e Novem%er )1, +,,- Resol#tion- "!ic! denied Octavio8s 9otion $or Reconsideration.2 Factual Antecedents On 9ay +3, )000, P4D' and Gabay ng Unyon sa Telekominaksyon ng mga Superbisor (/:'S entered into a CBA covering t!e period ;an#ary ), )000 to Decem%er *), +,,) (CBA o$ )000. +,,) . Article <I, Section I t!ereo$ provides= Section 1. The COMPAN agrees to grant the !ollo"ing across#theboar$ salary increase $uring the three years co%ere$ by this Agreement to all employees co%ere$ by the bargaining unit as o! the gi%en $ates& '!!ecti%e (anuary 1) 1*** + 1,- o! basic "age or P.),,,.,, "hiche%er is higher/ '!!ecti%e (anuary 1) .,,, + 11- o! basic "age or P.).0,.,, "hiche%er is higher/ '!!ecti%e (anuary 1) .,,1 + 1.- o! basic "age or P.)0,,.,, "hiche%er is higher.3 On Octo%er ), +,,,, P4D' !ired Octavio as Sales System Analyst I on a pro%ationary stat#s. >e %ecame a mem%er o$ /:'S. ?!en Octavio "as reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ), +,,), !e "as receiving a mont!ly %asic salary o$ P),,,,,.,,. On Ae%r#ary ), +,,+, !e "as promoted to t!e position o$ Sales System Analyst + and !is salary "as increased to P)*,2*,.,,.

On 9ay *), +,,+, P4D' and /:'S entered into anot!er CBA covering t!e period ;an#ary ), +,,+ to Decem%er *), +,,6 (CBA o$ +,,+.+,,6 "!ic! provided $or t!e $ollo"ing salary increases= 3B o$ %asic "age or P+,,,,.,, "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e $irst year (+,,+ C ),B o$ %asic "age or P+,2,,.,, "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e second year (+,,* C and, ),B o$ %asic "age or P+,6,,.,, "!ic!ever is !ig!er $or t!e t!ird year (+,,6 .0 Claiming t!at !e "as not given t!e salary increases o$ P+,1,,.,, e$$ective ;an#ary ), +,,) and P+,,,,.,, e$$ective ;an#ary ), +,,+, Octavio "rote t!e President o$ /:'S, Adol$o Aa&ardo (Aa&ardo .), Acting t!ereon and on similar grievances $rom ot!er /:'S mem%ers, Aa&ardo "rote t!e P4D' >#man Reso#rce >ead to in$orm management o$ t!e /:'S mem%ers8 claim $or entitlement to t!e across.t!e.%oard salary increases.)) Accordingly, t!e /rievance Committee convened on Octo%er 2, +,,+ consisting o$ representatives $rom P4D' and /:'S. '!e /rievance Committee, !o"ever, $ailed to reac! an agreement. In e$$ect, it denied Octavio8s demand $or salary increases. '!e Resol#tion (Committee Resol#tion , reads as $ollo"s= Octo%er 2, +,,+ %NION ISS%! & ). 9r. Carlos 4. Octavio, Sales System Analyst I, CCI9.Data%ase, "as promoted to S+ $rom S) last Ae%r#ary ,), +,,+. >e claimed t!at t!e "!ole P+,,,, ()st yr. /:'S.CBA increase "as not given to !im. +. >e "as !ired as a pro%ationary employee on Octo%er ,), +,,, and "as reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ,), +,,). >e claimed t!at 9anagement $ailed to grant !im t!e /:'S.CBA increase last ;an#ary +,,). #ANAG!#!NT POSITION & Iss#e D )= A Promotional Policy= ad&#stment o$ %asic mont!ly salary to t!e minim#m salary o$ t!e ne" position. B 9r. Octavio8s salary at t!e time o$ !is promotion and %e$ore t!e concl#sion o$ t!e /:'S CBA "as P),,,,,.,,. C :pon t!e e$$ectivity o$ !is promotion on Ae%r#ary ), +,,+, !is %asic mont!ly salary "as ad&#sted to P)*,2*,.,,, t!e minim#m salary o$ t!e ne" position. D In ;#ne +,,+, t!e /:'S.CBA "as concl#ded and 9r. Octavio8s %asic salary "as recomp#ted to incl#de t!e P+,,,,.,, )st year increase retroactive ;an#ary +,,+. '!e res#lting %asic salary "as P)+,,,,.,,.

E Applying t!e a%ove.mentioned policy, 9r. Octavio8s %asic salary "as ad&#sted to t!e minim#m salary o$ t!e ne" position, "!ic! is P)*,2*,.,,. Iss#e D += All reg#lari@ed s#pervisory employees as o$ ;an#ary ) are not entitled to t!e /:'S CBA increase. >o"ever, as agreed "it! /:'S in t!e grievance case o$ )3 personnel o$ International E 4#@on Core Net"or7 9anagement Center, pro%ationary employees "!o "ere !ired o#tside o$ P4D' and reg#lari@ed as s#pervisorsFmanagement personnel on ;an#ary ), +,,+ s!all %e entitled to /:'S CBA. '!is decision s!all %e applied prospectively and all previo#s similar cases are not covered. R!SOL%TION & A$ter protracted deli%eration o$ t!ese iss#es, t!e committee $ailed to reac! an agreement. >ence, 9anagement position deemed adopted. #ANAG!#!NT GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG 'ILFR! O A. G%A IA GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG ROSALIN A S. R%I) GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG AL!(AN RO C. FA*IAN %NION GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG A OLFO L.FA(AR O GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG CONF!SOR A. !SPIRIT% GGGGGGG(signed GGGGGGG C"ARLITO A. AR!VALO)+

Aggrieved, Octavio $iled %e$ore t!e Ar%itration Branc! o$ t!e N4RC a Complaint $or payment o$ said salary increases. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter Octavio claimed entitlement to salary increases per t!e CBAs o$ )000.+,,) and +,,+.+,,6. >e insisted t!at "!en !e "as reg#lari@ed as a s#pervisory employee on ;an#ary ), +,,), !e %ecame entitled to receive t!e across.t!e.%oard increase o$ P+,1,,.,, as provided $or #nder t!e CBA o$ )000.+,,) "!ic! too7 e$$ect on ;an#ary ), )000. '!en p#rs#ant to t!e CBA o$ +,,+.+,,6, !e s!o#ld !ave received an additional increase o$ P+,,,,.,, apart $rom t!e merit increase o$ P*,2*,.,, "!ic! "as given !im d#e to !is promotion on Ae%r#ary ), +,,+. >o"ever, P4D' #nilaterally decided to deem as incl#ded in t!e said P*,2*,.,, t!e P+,,,,.,, across.t!e.%oard increase $or +,,+ as stip#lated in t!e CBA o$ +,,+.+,,6. '!is, according to Octavio, amo#nts to dimin#tion o$ %ene$its. 9oreover, Octavio averred t!at t!e CBA cannot %e t!e s#%&ect o$ $#rt!er negotiation as it !as t!e $orce o$ la" %et"een t!e parties. Ainally, Octavio claimed t!at P4D' committed an act o$ #n$air la%or practice %eca#se, "!ile it granted t!e claim $or salary increase o$ )3 s#pervisory employees "!o "ere reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ), +,,+ and on"ards, it

discriminated against !im %y re$#sing to grant !im t!e same salary increase. >e t!#s prayed $or an additional a"ard o$ damages and attorney8s $ees. P4D' co#ntered t!at t!e iss#es advanced %y Octavio !ad already %een resolved %y t!e :nion. 9anagement /rievance Committee "!en it denied !is claims t!ro#g! t!e Committee Resol#tion. 9oreover, t!e grant o$ across.t!e %oard salary increase $or t!ose "!o "ere reg#lari@ed starting ;an#ary ), +,,+ and t!e e(cl#sion t!ereto o$ t!ose "!o "ere reg#lari@ed on ;an#ary ), +,,), do not constit#te an act o$ #n$air la%or practice as "o#ld res#lt in any discrimination or enco#rage or disco#rage mem%ers!ip in a la%or organi@ation. In $act, "!en t!e :nion.9anagement /rievance Committee came #p "it! t!e Committee Resol#tion, t!ey considered t!e same as t!e most practica%le and reasona%le sol#tion $or %ot! management and #nion. At any rate, t!e said Committee Resol#tion !ad already %ecome $inal and concl#sive %et"een t!e parties $or $ail#re o$ Octavio to elevate t!e same to t!e proper $or#m. In addition, P4D' claimed t!at t!e N4RC !as no &#risdiction to !ear and decide Octavio8s claims. In a Decision dated A#g#st *,, +,,6, t!e 4a%or Ar%iter dismissed t!e Complaint o$ Octavio and #p!eld t!e Committee Resol#tion. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission :pon Octavio8s appeal, t!e N4RC, in its Septem%er *,, +,,1 Resol#tion, a$$irmed t!e 4a%or Ar%iter8s Decision. It #p!eld t!e 4a%or Ar%iter8s $inding t!at Octavio8s salary !ad already %een ad&#sted in accordance "it! t!e provisions o$ t!e CBA. '!e N4RC $#rt!er r#led t!at it !as no &#risdiction to decide t!e iss#es presented %y Octavio, as t!e same involved t!e interpretation and implementation o$ t!e CBA. According to it, Octavio s!o#ld !ave %ro#g!t !is claim %e$ore t!e proper %ody as provided in t!e +,,+.+,,6 CBA8s provision on grievance mac!inery and proced#re. Octavio8s 9otion $or Reconsideration "as li7e"ise dismissed %y t!e N4RC in its Novem%er +), +,,1 Resol#tion.)* Ruling of the Court of Appeals Octavio t!#s $iled a Petition $or Certiorari)6 "!ic! t!e CA $o#nd to %e "it!o#t merit. In its A#g#st *), +,,- Decision,)1 t!e CA declared t!e Committee Resol#tion to %e %inding on Octavio, !e %eing a mem%er o$ /:'S, and %eca#se !e $ailed to H#estion its validity and en$orcea%ility. In !is 9otion $or Reconsideration,)- Octavio disclaimed !is alleged $ail#re to H#estion t!e Committee Resol#tion %y emp!asi@ing t!at !e $iled a Complaint %e$ore t!e N4RC against P4D'. >o"ever, t!e CA denied Octavio8s 9otion $or Reconsideration in its Novem%er )1, +,,Resol#tion.)2 I++ue+ >ence, Octavio $iled t!is Petition raising t!e $ollo"ing iss#es $or o#r consideration=

a. ?!et!er ( ( ( t!e employer and %argaining representative may amend t!e provisions o$ t!e collective %argaining agreement "it!o#t t!e consent and approval o$ t!e employeesC %. I$ so, "!et!er t!e said agreement is %inding IonJ t!e employeesC c. ?!et!er ( ( ( merit increases may %e a"arded sim#ltaneo#sly "it! increases given in t!e Collective Bargaining AgreementC d. ?!et!er ( ( ( damages may %e a"arded to t!e employee $or violation %y t!e employer o$ its commitment #nder its e(isting collective %argaining agreement.)3 Octavio s#%mits t!at t!e CA erred in #p!olding t!e Committee Resol#tion "!ic! denied !is claim $or salary increases %#t granted t!e same reH#est o$ )3 ot!er similarly sit#ated employees. >e li7e"ise asserts t!at %ot! P4D' and /:'S !ad t!e d#ty to strictly implement t!e CBA salary increasesC !ence, t!e Committee Resol#tion, "!ic! e$$ectively res#lted in t!e modi$ication o$ t!e CBAs8 provision on salary increases, is void. Octavio also insists t!at P4D' is %o#nd to grant !im t!e salary increase o$ P+,,,,.,, $or t!e year +,,+ on top o$ t!e merit increase given to !im %y reason o$ !is promotion. It is !is stance t!at merit increases are distinct and separate $rom across.t!e.%oard salary increases provided $or #nder t!e CBA. Our Ru,-./ '!e Petition !as no merit. :nder Article +-,)0 o$ t!e 4a%or Code, grievances arising $rom t!e interpretation or implementation o$ t!e parties8 CBA s!o#ld %e resolved in accordance "it! t!e grievance proced#re em%odied t!erein. It also provides t!at all #nsettled grievances s!all %e a#tomatically re$erred $or vol#ntary ar%itration as prescri%ed in t!e CBA. In its 9emorand#m,+, P4D' set $ort! t!e grievance mac!inery and proced#re provided #nder Article K o$ t!e CBA o$ +,,+.+,,6, %i1= Section ). /RIE<ANCE 9AC>INERL . t!ere s!all %e a :nion.9anagement /rievance Committee composed o$ t!ree (* :nion representatives designated %y t!e :NION Board o$ Directors and t!ree (* 9anagement representatives designated %y t!e company President. '!e committee s!all act #pon any grievance properly processed in accordance "it! t!e prescri%ed proced#re. '!e :nion representatives to t!e Committee s!all not lose pay $or attending meetings "!ere 9anagement representatives are in attendance. Section +. /RIE<ANCE PROCED:RE . '!e parties agree t!at all disp#tes %et"een la%or and management may %e settled t!ro#g! $riendly negotiationsC t!at t!e parties !ave t!e same interest in t!e contin#ity o$ "or7 #ntil all points in disp#te s!all !ave %een disc#ssed and settledC t!at an open con$lict in any $orm involves losses to t!e partiesC and t!at t!ere$ore, every e$$ort s!all %e

e(erted to avoid s#c! an open con$lict. In $#rt!erance o$ t!ese principles, t!e parties agree to o%serve t!e $ollo"ing grievance proced#res. Step ). Any employee (or gro#p o$ employees "!o %elieves t!at !e !as a &#sti$ia%le grievance s!all present t!e matter initially to !is division !ead, or i$ t!e division is involved in t!e grievance, to t!e company o$$icial ne(t !ig!er to t!e division !ead (t!e local manager in t!e provincial e(c!anges not later t!at $i$teen ()1 days a$ter t!e occ#rrence o$ t!e incident giving rise to t!e grievance. '!e initial presentation s!all %e made to t!e division !ead eit!er %y t!e aggrieved party !imsel$ or %y t!e :nion Ste"ard or %y any E(ec#tive O$$icer o$ t!e :nion "!o is not a mem%er o$ t!e grievance panel.12"phi1 '!e initial presentation may %e made orally or in "riting. Step +. Any party "!o is not satis$ied "it! t!e resol#tion o$ t!e grievance at Step ) may appeal in "riting to t!e :nion.9anagement /rievance Committee "it!in seven (2 days $rom t!e date o$ receipt o$ t!e department !ead8s decision. Step *. I0 12e /r-e3a.4e -+ .o1 +e11,e5 e-12er be4au+e o0 5ea5,o46 or 12e 0a-,ure o0 12e 4o77-11ee 1o 5e4-5e 12e 7a11er, 12e /r-e3a.4e +2a,, be 1ra.+0erre5 1o a *oar5 o0 Arb-1ra1or+ 0or 12e 0-.a, 5e4-+-o.. '!e Board s!all %e composed o$ t!ree (* ar%itrators, one to %e nominated %y t!e :nion, anot!er to %e nominated %y t!e 9anagement, and t!e t!ird to %e selected %y t!e management and #nion nominees. '!e decision o$ t!e %oard s!all %e $inal and %inding %ot! t!e company and t!e :nion in accordance "it! la". E(penses o$ ar%itration s!all %e divided eH#ally %et"een t!e Company and t!e :nion.+) (Emp!asis s#pplied Indisp#ta%ly, t!e present controversy involves t!e determination o$ an employee8s salary increases as provided in t!e CBAs. ?!en Octavio8s claim $or salary increases "as re$erred to t!e :nion.9anagement /rievance Committee, t!e clear intention o$ t!e parties "as to resolve t!eir di$$erences on t!e proper interpretation and implementation o$ t!e pertinent provisions o$ t!e CBAs. And in accordance "it! t!e proced#re prescri%ed t!erein, t!e said committee made #p o$ representatives o$ %ot! t!e #nion and t!e management convened. :n$ort#nately, it $ailed to reac! an agreement. Octavio8s reco#rse p#rs#ant to t!e CBA "as to elevate !is grievance to t!e Board o$ Ar%itrators $or $inal decision. Instead, nine mont!s later, Octavio $iled a Complaint %e$ore t!e N4RC. It is settled t!at M"!en parties !ave validly agreed on a proced#re $or resolving grievances and to s#%mit a disp#te to vol#ntary ar%itration t!en t!at proced#re s!o#ld %e strictly o%served.M++ 9oreover, "e !ave !eld time and again t!at M%e$ore a party is allo"ed to see7 t!e intervention o$ t!e co#rt, it is a precondition t!at !e s!o#ld !ave availed o$ all t!e means o$ administrative processes a$$orded !im. >ence, i$ a remedy "it!in t!e administrative mac!inery can still %e resorted to %y giving t!e administrative o$$icer concerned every opport#nity to decide on a matter t!at comes "it!in !is &#risdiction, t!en s#c! remedy s!o#ld %e e(!a#sted $irst %e$ore t!e co#rt8s &#dicial po"er can %e so#g!t. '!e premat#re invocation o$ t!e co#rt8s &#dicial intervention is $atal to one8s ca#se o$ action.M+* M'!e #nderlying principle o$ t!e r#le on e(!a#stion o$ administrative remedies rests on t!e pres#mption t!at "!en t!e administrative %ody, or grievance mac!inery, is a$$orded a c!ance to pass #pon t!e matter, it "ill decide t!e same correctly.M+6

By $ailing to H#estion t!e Committee Resol#tion t!ro#g! t!e proper proced#re prescri%ed in t!e CBA, t!at is, %y raising t!e same %e$ore a Board o$ Ar%itrators, Octavio is deemed to !ave "aived !is rig!t to H#estion t!e same. Clearly, !e departed $rom t!e grievance proced#re mandated in t!e CBA and denied t!e Board o$ Ar%itrators t!e opport#nity to pass #pon a matter over "!ic! it !as &#risdiction. >ence, and as correctly !eld %y t!e CA, Octavio8s $ail#re to assail t!e validity and en$orcea%ility o$ t!e Committee Resol#tion ma7es t!e same %inding #pon !im. On t!is score alone, Octavio8s reco#rse to t!e la%or tri%#nals %elo", as "ell as to t!e CA, and, $inally, to t!is Co#rt, m#st t!ere$ore $ail. At any rate, Octavio cannot claim t!at t!e Committee Resol#tion is not valid, %inding and concl#sive as to !im $or %eing a modi$ication o$ t!e CBA in violation o$ Article +1*+1 o$ t!e 4a%or Code. It %ears to stress t!at t!e said resol#tion is a prod#ct o$ t!e grievance proced#re o#tlined in t!e CBA itsel$. It "as arrived at a$ter t!e management and t!e #nion t!ro#g! t!eir respective representatives cond#cted negotiations in accordance "it! t!e CBA. On t!e ot!er !and, Octavio never assailed t!e competence o$ t!e grievance committee to ta7e cogni@ance o$ !is case. Neit!er did !e H#estion t!e a#t!ority or credi%ility o$ t!e #nion representativesC !ence, t!e latter are deemed to !ave properly %argained on !is %e!al$ since M#nions are t!e agent o$ its mem%ers $or t!e p#rpose o$ sec#ring &#st and $air "ages and good "or7ing conditions.M+- In $ine, it cannot %e gainsaid t!at t!e Committee Resol#tion is a modi$ication o$ t!e CBA. Rat!er, it only provides $or t!e proper implementation o$ t!e CBA provision respecting salary increases. Ainally, Octavio8s arg#ment t!at t!e denial o$ !is claim $or salary increases constit#tes a violation o$ Article ),,+2 o$ t!e 4a%or Code is devoid o$ merit. Even ass#ming t!at t!ere !as %een a dimin#tion o$ %ene$its on !is part, Article ),, does not pro!i%it a #nion $rom o$$ering and agreeing to red#ce "ages and %ene$its o$ t!e employees as t!e rig!t to $ree collective %argaining incl#des t!e rig!t to s#spend it.+3 P4D' averred t!at one o$ t!e reasons "!y Octavio8s salary "as recomp#ted as to incl#de in !is salary o$ P)*,2*,.,, t!e P+,,,,.,, increase $or +,,+ is to avoid salary distortion. At t!is point, it is "ell to emp!asi@e t!at %argaining s!o#ld not %e eH#ated to an Madversarial litigation "!ere rig!ts and o%ligations are delineated and remedies applied.M+0 Instead, it covers a process o$ $inding a reasona%le and accepta%le sol#tion to sta%ili@e la%or. management relations to promote sta%le ind#strial peace.*, Clearly, t!e Committee Resol#tion "as arrived at a$ter considering t!e intention o$ %ot! P4D' and /:'S to $oster ind#strial peace. All told, "e $ind no error on t!e part o$ t!e 4a%or Ar%iter, t!e N4RC and t!e CA in #nanimo#sly #p!olding t!e validity and en$orcea%ility o$ t!e /rievance Committee Resol#tion dated Octo%er 2, +,,+. '"!R!FOR!, t!e petition is !NI! . '!e A#g#st *), +,,- Decision and Novem%er )1, +,,- Resol#tion o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals in CA./.R. SP No. 0*123 are AFFIR#! . GO$A, INC., Petitioner, %. GO$A, INC. !#PLO$!!S %NION8FF', 3espon$ent. !CISION P!RALTA, J.&

'!is petition $or revie" on certiorari #nder R#le 61 o$ t!e R#les o$ Civil Proced#re see7s to reverse and set aside t!e ;#ne )-, +,,1 Decision) and Octo%er )+, +,,1 Resol#tion+ o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals in CA./.R. SP No. 32**1, "!ic! s#stained t!e Octo%er +-, +,,6 Decision* o$ <ol#ntary Ar%itrator Bienvenido E. 4ag#esma, t!e dispositive portion o$ "!ic! reads=crala"li%rary ?>EREAORE, &#dgment is !ere%y rendered declaring t!at t!e Company is NO' g#ilty o$ #n$air la%or practice in engaging t!e services o$ PESO. '!e company is, !o"ever, directed to o%serve and comply "it! its commitment as it pertains to t!e !iring o$ cas#al employees "!en necessitated %y %#siness circ#mstances.6NrNl) '!e $acts are simple and appear to %e #ndisp#ted. Sometime in ;an#ary +,,6, petitioner /oya, Inc. (Company , a domestic corporation engaged in t!e man#$act#re, importation, and "!olesale o$ top H#ality $ood prod#cts, !ired contract#al employees $rom PESO Reso#rces Development Corporation (PESO to per$orm temporary and occasional services in its $actory in Parang, 9ari7ina City. '!is prompted respondent /oya, Inc. Employees :nionAA? (:nion to reH#est $or a grievance con$erence on t!e gro#nd t!at t!e contract#al "or7ers do not %elong to t!e categories o$ employees stip#lated in t!e e(isting Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA .1 ?!en t!e matter remained #nresolved, t!e grievance "as re$erred to t!e National Conciliation and 9ediation Board (NC9B $or vol#ntary ar%itration. D#ring t!e !earing on ;#ly ), +,,6, t!e Company and t!e :nion mani$ested %e$ore <ol#ntary Ar%itrator (<A Bienvenido E. 4ag#esma t!at amica%le settlement "as no longer possi%leC !ence, t!ey agreed to s#%mit $or resol#tion t!e solitary iss#e o$ MI"J!et!er or not t!e Company is g#ilty o$ #n$air la%or acts in engaging t!e services o$ PESO, a t!ird party service provider, #nder t!e e(isting CBA, la"s, and &#rispr#dence.M- Bot! parties t!erea$ter $iled t!eir respective pleadings. '!e :nion asserted t!at t!e !iring o$ contract#al employees $rom PESO is not a management prerogative and in gross violation o$ t!e CBA tantamo#nt to #n$air la%or practice (:4P . It noted t!at t!e contract#al "or7ers engaged !ave %een assigned to "or7 in positions previo#sly !andled %y reg#lar "or7ers and :nion mem%ers, in e$$ect violating Section 6, Article I o$ t!e CBA, "!ic! provides $or t!ree categories o$ employees in t!e Company, to "it=crala"li%rary Section 6. Categories o$ Employees. '!e parties agree on t!e $ollo"ing categories o$ employees=crala"li%rary (a Pro%ationary Employee. One !ired to occ#py a reg#lar ran7.and.$ile position in t!e Company and is serving a pro%ationary period. I$ t!e pro%ationary employee is !ired or comes $rom o#tside t!e Company (non./oya, Inc. employee , !e s!all %e reH#ired to #ndergo a pro%ationary period o$ si( (- mont!s, "!ic! period, in t!e sole &#dgment o$ management, may %e s!ortened i$ t!e employee !as already acH#ired t!e 7no"ledge or s7ills reH#ired o$ t!e &o%. I$ t!e employee is

!ired $rom t!e cas#al pool and !as "or7ed in t!e same position at any time d#ring t!e past t"o (+ years, t!e pro%ationary period s!all %e t!ree (* mont!s. (% Reg#lar Employee. An employee "!o !as satis$actorily completed !is pro%ationary period and a#tomatically granted reg#lar employment stat#s in t!e Company. (c Cas#al Employee, One !ired %y t!e Company to per$orm occasional or seasonal "or7 directly connected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e Company, or one !ired $or speci$ic pro&ects o$ limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e Company. It "as averred t!at t!e categories o$ employees !ad %een a part o$ t!e CBA since t!e )02,s and t!at d#e to t!is provision, a pool o$ cas#al employees !ad %een maintained %y t!e Company $rom "!ic! it !ired "or7ers "!o t!en %ecame reg#lar "or7ers "!en #rgently necessary to employ t!em $or more t!an a year. 4i7e"ise, t!e Company sometimes !ired pro%ationary employees "!o also later %ecame reg#lar "or7ers a$ter passing t!e pro%ationary period. ?it! t!e !iring o$ contract#al employees, t!e :nion contended t!at it "o#ld no longer !ave pro%ationary and cas#al employees $rom "!ic! it co#ld o%tain additional :nion mem%ersC t!#s, rendering in#tile Section ), Article III (:nion Sec#rity o$ t!e CBA, "!ic! states=crala"li%rary Section ). Condition o$ Employment. As a condition o$ contin#ed employment in t!e Company, all reg#lar ran7.and.$ile employees s!all remain mem%ers o$ t!e :nion in good standing and t!at ne" employees covered %y t!e appropriate %argaining #nit s!all a#tomatically %ecome reg#lar employees o$ t!e Company and s!all remain mem%ers o$ t!e :nion in good standing as a condition o$ contin#ed employment. '!e :nion moreover advanced t!at s#staining t!e Companys position "o#ld easily "ea7en and #ltimately destroy t!e $ormer "it! t!e latters resort to retrenc!ment andFor retirement o$ employees and not $illing #p t!e vacant reg#lar positions t!ro#g! t!e !iring o$ contract#al "or7ers $rom PESO, and t!at a possi%le scenario co#ld also %e created %y t!e Company "!erein it co#ld MimportM "or7ers $rom PESO d#ring an act#al stri7e. In co#ntering t!e :nions allegations, t!e Company arg#ed t!at= (a t!e la" e(pressly allo"s contracting and s#%contracting arrangements t!ro#g! Department o$ 4a%or and Employment (DO4E Order No. )3.,+C (% t!e engagement o$ contract#al employees did not, in any "ay, pre&#dice t!e :nion, since not a single employee "as terminated and neit!er did it res#lt in a red#ction o$ "or7ing !o#rs nor a red#ction or splitting o$ t!e %argaining #nitC and (c Section 6, Article I o$ t!e CBA merely provides $or t!e de$inition o$ t!e categories o$ employees and does not p#t a limitation on t!e Companys rig!t to engage t!e services o$ &o% contractors or its management prerogative to address temporaryFoccasional needs in its operation. On Octo%er +-, +,,6, <A 4ag#esma dismissed t!e :nions c!arge o$ :4P $or %eing p#rely spec#lative and $or lac7ing in $act#al %asis, %#t t!e Company "as directed to o%serve and comply "it! its commitment #nder t!e CBA. '!e <A opined=crala"li%rary ?e e(amined t!e CBA provision Section 6, Article I o$ t!e CBAallegedly violated %y t!e Company and indeed t!e agreement prescri%es t!ree (* categories o$ employees in t!e Company

and provides $or t!e de$inition, $#nctions and d#ties o$ eac!. 9aterial to t!e case at !and is t!e de$inition as regards t!e $#nctions o$ a cas#al employee descri%ed as $ollo"s=crala"li%rary Cas#al Employee One !ired %y t!e CO9PANL to per$orm occasional or seasonal "or7 directly connected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANL, or one !ired $or speci$ic pro&ects o$ limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANL. ?!ile t!e $oregoing agreement %et"een t!e parties did eliminate managements prerogative o$ o#tso#rcing parts o$ its operations, it serves as a limitation on s#c! prerogative partic#larly i$ it involves $#nctions or d#ties speci$ied #nder t!e a$oreH#oted agreement. It is clear t!at t!e parties agreed t!at in t!e event t!at t!e Company needs to engage t!e services o$ additional "or7ers "!o "ill per$orm Moccasional or seasonal "or7 directly connected "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANL,M or Mspeci$ic pro&ects o$ limited d#ration not connected directly "it! t!e reg#lar operations o$ t!e CO9PANLM, t!e Company can !ire cas#al employees "!ic! is a7in to contract#al employees. I$ "e note t!e Companys o"n declaration t!at PESO "as engaged to per$orm Mtemporary or occasional servicesM (See t!e Companys Position Paper, at p. ) , t!en it s!o#ld !ave directly !ired t!e services o$ cas#al employees rat!er t!an do it t!ro#g! PESO. It is evident, t!ere$ore, t!at t!e engagement o$ PESO is not in 7eeping "it! t!e intent and spirit o$ t!e CBA provision in H#estion. It m#st, !o"ever, %e stressed t!at t!e rig!t o$ management to o#tso#rce parts o$ its operations is not totally eliminated %#t is merely limited %y t!e CBA. /iven t!e $oregoing, t!e Companys engagement o$ PESO $or t!e given p#rpose is ind#%ita%ly a violation o$ t!e CBA.2NrNl) ?!ile t!e :nion moved $or partial reconsideration o$ t!e <A Decision,3 t!e Company immediately $iled a petition $or revie"0 %e$ore t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals (CA #nder R#le 6* o$ t!e Revised R#les o$ Civil Proced#re to set aside t!e directive to o%serve and comply "it! t!e CBA commitment pertaining to t!e !iring o$ cas#al employees "!en necessitated %y %#siness circ#mstances. Pro$essing t!at s#c! order "as not covered %y t!e sole iss#e s#%mitted $or vol#ntary ar%itration, t!e Company assigned t!e $ollo"ing errors=crala"li%rary '>E >ONORAB4E <O4:N'ARL ARBI'RA'OR EKCEEDED >IS PO?ER ?>IC> ?AS EKPRESS4L /RAN'ED AND 4I9I'ED BL BO'> PAR'IES IN R:4IN/ '>A' '>E EN/A/E9EN' OA PESO IS NO' IN OEEPIN/ ?I'> '>E IN'EN' AND SPIRI' OA '>E CBA.),NrNl) '>E >ONORAB4E <O4:N'ARL ARBI'RA'OR CO99I''ED A PA'EN' AND PA4PAB4E ERROR IN DEC4ARIN/ '>A' '>E EN/A/E9EN' OA PESO IS NO' IN OEEPIN/ ?I'> '>E IN'EN' AND SPIRI' OA '>E CBA.))NrNl) On ;#ne )-, +,,1, t!e CA dismissed t!e petition. In dispensing "it! t!e merits o$ t!e controversy, it !eld=crala"li%rary '!is Co#rt does not $ind it ar%itrary on t!e part o$ t!e >on. <ol#ntary Ar%itrator in r#ling t!at Mt!e engagement o$ PESO is not in 7eeping "it! t!e intent and spirit o$ t!e CBA.M '!e said r#ling is interrelated and intert"ined "it! t!e sole iss#e to %e resolved t!at is, M?!et!er or not

t!e Company is g#ilty o$ #n$air la%or practice in engaging t!e services o$ PESO, a t!ird party service provider, #nder e(isting CBA, la"s, and &#rispr#dence.M Bot! iss#es concern t!e engagement o$ PESO %y t!e Company "!ic! is perceived as a violation o$ t!e CBA and "!ic! constit#tes as #n$air la%or practice on t!e part o$ t!e Company. '!is is easily discerni%le in t!e decision o$ t!e >on. <ol#ntary Ar%itrator "!en it !eld=crala"li%rary ( ( ( ( ?!ile t!e engagement o$ PESO is in violation o$ Section 6, Article I o$ t!e CBA, it does not constit#te #n$air la%or practice as it (sic not c!aracteri@ed #nder t!e la" as a gross violation o$ t!e CBA. <iolations o$ a CBA, e(cept t!ose "!ic! are gross in c!aracter, s!all no longer %e treated as #n$air la%or practice. /ross violations o$ a CBA means $lagrant andFor malicio#s re$#sal to comply "it! t!e economic provisions o$ s#c! agreement. ( ( ( Anent t!e second assigned error, t!e Company contends t!at t!e >on. <ol#ntary Ar%itrator erred in declaring t!at t!e engagement o$ PESO is not in 7eeping "it! t!e intent and spirit o$ t!e CBA. '!e Company &#sti$ied its engagement o$ contract#al employees t!ro#g! PESO as a management prerogative, "!ic! is not pro!i%ited %y la". Also, it $#rt!er alleged t!at no provision #nder t!e CBA limits or pro!i%its its rig!t to contract o#t certain services in t!e e(ercise o$ management prerogatives. /ermane to t!e resol#tion o$ t!e a%ove iss#e is t!e provision in t!eir CBA "it! respect to t!e categories o$ t!e employees=crala"li%rary ((( A care$#l reading o$ t!e a%ove.en#merated categories o$ employees reveals t!at t!e PESO contract#al employees do not $all "it!in t!e en#merated categories o$ employees stated in t!e CBA o$ t!e parties. Aollo"ing t!e said categories, t!e Company s!o#ld !ave o%served and complied "it! t!e provision o$ t!eir CBA. Since t!e Company !ad admitted t!at it engaged t!e services o$ PESO to per$orm temporary or occasional services "!ic! is a7in to t!ose per$ormed %y cas#al employees, t!e Company s!o#ld !ave tapped t!e services o$ cas#al employees instead o$ engaging PESO. In &#sti$ying its act, t!e Company posits t!at its engagement o$ PESO "as a management prerogative. It %ears stressing t!at a management prerogative re$ers to t!e rig!t o$ t!e employer to reg#late all aspects o$ employment, s#c! as t!e $reedom to prescri%e "or7 assignments, "or7ing met!ods, processes to %e $ollo"ed, reg#lation regarding trans$er o$ employees, s#pervision o$ t!eir "or7, lay.o$$ and discipline, and dismissal and recall o$ "or7, pres#pposing t!e e(istence o$ employer.employee relations!ip. On t!e %asis o$ t!e $oregoing de$inition, t!e Companys engagement o$ PESO "as indeed a management prerogative. '!is is in consonance "it! t!e prono#ncement o$ t!e S#preme Co#rt in t!e case o$ 9anila Electric Company v. P#is#m%ing "!ere it r#led t!at contracting o#t o$ services is an e(ercise o$ %#siness &#dgment or management prerogative. '!is management prerogative o$ contracting o#t services, !o"ever, is not "it!o#t limitation. In contracting o#t services, t!e management m#st %e motivated %y good $ait! and t!e contracting o#t s!o#ld not %e resorted to circ#mvent t!e la" or m#st not !ave %een t!e res#lt o$ malicio#s

ar%itrary actions. In t!e case at %enc!, t!e CBA o$ t!e parties !as already provided $or t!e categories o$ t!e employees in t!e Companysesta%lis!ment. '!ese categories o$ employees partic#larly "it! respect to cas#al employees serve as limitation to t!e Companys prerogative to o#tso#rce parts o$ its operations especially "!en !iring contract#al employees. As stated earlier, t!e "or7 to %e per$ormed %y PESO "as similar to t!at o$ t!e cas#al employees. ?it! t!e provision on cas#al employees, t!e !iring o$ PESO contract#al employees, t!ere$ore, is not in 7eeping "it! t!e spirit and intent o$ t!eir CBA. (Citations omitte$ )+NrNl) '!e Company moved to reconsider t!e CA Decision,)* %#t it "as deniedC)6 !ence, t!is petition. Incidentally, on ;#ly )-, +,,0, t!e Company $iled a 9ani$estation)1 in$orming t!is Co#rt t!at its stoc7!olders and directors #nanimo#sly voted to s!orten t!e Companys corporate e(istence only #ntil ;#ne *,, +,,-, and t!at t!e t!ree.year period allo"ed %y la" $or liH#idation o$ t!e Companys a$$airs already e(pired on ;#ne *,, +,,0. Re$erring to /elano v. Co#rt o$ Appeals,)P#%lic Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma,)2 and Atien@a v. <illarosa,)3 it #rged :s, !o"ever, to still resolve t!e case $or $#t#re g#idance o$ t!e %enc! and t!e %ar as t!e iss#e raised !erein allegedly calls $or a clari$ication o$ a legal principle, speci$ically, "!et!er t!e <A is empo"ered to r#le on a matter not covered %y t!e iss#e s#%mitted $or ar%itration. Even i$ t!is Co#rt "o#ld %r#s! aside tec!nicality %y ignoring t!e s#pervening event t!at renders t!is case moot and academic)0 d#e to t!e permanent cessation o$ t!e Companys %#siness operation on ;#ne *,, +,,0, t!e arg#ments raised in t!is petition still $ail to convince :s. ?e con$irm t!at t!e <A r#led on a matter t!at is covered %y t!e sole iss#e s#%mitted $or vol#ntary ar%itration. Res#ltantly, t!e CA did not commit serio#s error "!en it s#stained t!e r#ling t!at t!e !iring o$ contract#al employees $rom PESO "as not in 7eeping "it! t!e intent and spirit o$ t!e CBA. Indeed, t!e opinion o$ t!e <A is germane to, or, in t!e "ords o$ t!e CA, Minterrelated and intert"ined "it!,M t!e sole iss#e s#%mitted $or resol#tion %y t!e parties. '!is %eing said, t!e Companys invocation o$ Sections 6 and 1, R#le I<+, and Section 1, R#le <I+) o$ t!e Revised Proced#ral /#idelines in t!e Cond#ct o$ <ol#ntary Ar%itration Proceedings dated Octo%er )1, +,,6 iss#ed %y t!e NC9B is plainly o#t o$ order. 4i7e"ise, t!e Company cannot $ind solace in its cited case o$ 4#do E 4#ym Corporation v. Saornido.++ In 4#do, t!e company "as engaged in t!e man#$act#re o$ cocon#t oil, corn starc!, gl#cose and related prod#cts. In t!e co#rse o$ its %#siness operations, it engaged t!e arrastre services o$ C4AS $or t!e loading and #nloading o$ its $inis!ed prod#cts at t!e "!ar$. '!e arrastre "or7ers deployed %y C4AS to per$orm t!e services needed "ere s#%seH#ently !ired, on di$$erent dates, as 4#dos reg#lar ran7.and.$ile employees. '!erea$ter, said employees &oined 4E:, "!ic! acted as t!e e(cl#sive %argaining agent o$ t!e ran7.and.$ile employees. ?!en 4E: entered into a CBA "it! 4#do, providing $or certain %ene$its to t!e employees (t!e amo#nt o$ "!ic! vary according to t!e lengt! o$ service rendered , it reH#ested to incl#de in its mem%ers period o$ service t!e time d#ring "!ic! t!ey rendered arrastre services so t!at t!ey co#ld get !ig!er %ene$its. '!e matter "as s#%mitted $or vol#ntary ar%itration "!en 4#do $ailed to act. Per s#%mission agreement e(ec#ted %y %ot! parties, t!e sole iss#e $or resol#tion "as t!e date o$ reg#lari@ation o$ t!e "or7ers. '!e <A Decision r#led t!at= () t!e s#%&ect employees "ere engaged in activities necessary and desira%le to t!e %#siness o$ 4#do, and (+ C4AS is a la%or.

only contractor o$ 4#do. It t!en disposed as $ollo"s= (a t!e complainants "ere considered reg#lar employees si( mont!s $rom t!e $irst day o$ service at C4ASC (% t!e complainants, %eing entitled to t!e CBA %ene$its d#ring t!e reg#lar employment, "ere a"arded sic7 leave, vacation leave, and ann#al "age and salary increases d#ring s#c! periodC (c respondents s!all pay attorneys $ees o$ ),B o$ t!e total a"ardC and (d an interest o$ )+B per ann#m or )B per mont! s!all %e imposed on t!e a"ard $rom t!e date o$ prom#lgation #ntil $#lly paid. '!e <A added t!at all separation andFor retirement %ene$its s!all %e constr#ed $rom t!e date o$ reg#lari@ation s#%&ect only to t!e appropriate government la"s and ot!er social legislation. 4#do $iled a motion $or reconsideration, %#t t!e <A denied it. On appeal, t!e CA a$$irmed in toto t!e assailed decisionC !ence, a petition "as %ro#g!t %e$ore t!is Co#rt raising t!e iss#e, among ot!ers, o$ "!et!er a vol#ntary ar%itrator can a"ard %ene$its not claimed in t!e s#%mission agreement. In denying t!e petition, ?e r#led=crala"li%rary /enerally, t!e ar%itrator is e(pected to decide only t!ose H#estions e(pressly delineated %y t!e s#%mission agreement. Nevert!eless, t!e ar%itrator can ass#me t!at !e !as t!e necessary po"er to ma7e a $inal settlement since ar%itration is t!e $inal resort $or t!e ad&#dication o$ disp#tes. '!e s#ccinct reasoning en#nciated %y t!e CA in s#pport o$ its !olding, t!at t!e <ol#ntary Ar%itrator in a la%or controversy !as &#risdiction to render t!e H#estioned ar%itral a"ards, deserves o#r conc#rrence, t!#s=crala"li%rary In general, t!e ar%itrator is e(pected to decide t!ose H#estions e(pressly stated and limited in t!e s#%mission agreement. >o"ever, since ar%itration is t!e $inal resort $or t!e ad&#dication o$ disp#tes, t!e ar%itrator can ass#me t!at !e !as t!e po"er to ma7e a $inal settlement. '!#s, ass#ming t!at t!e s#%mission empo"ers t!e ar%itrator to decide "!et!er an employee "as disc!arged $or &#st ca#se, t!e ar%itrator in t!is instance can reasona%ly ass#me t!at !is po"ers e(tended %eyond giving a yes.or.no ans"er and incl#ded t!e po"er to reinstate !im "it! or "it!o#t %ac7 pay. In one case, t!e S#preme Co#rt stressed t!at M((( t!e <ol#ntary Ar%itrator !ad plenary &#risdiction and a#t!ority to interpret t!e agreement to ar%itrate and to determine t!e scope o$ !is o"n a#t!ority s#%&ect only, in a proper case, to t!e certiorari &#risdiction o$ t!is Co#rt. '!e Ar%itrator, as already indicated, vie"ed !is a#t!ority as em%racing not merely t!e determination o$ t!e a%stract H#estion o$ "!et!er or not a per$ormance %on#s "as to %e granted %#t also, in t!e a$$irmative case, t!e amo#nt t!ereo$. By t!e same to7en, t!e iss#e o$ reg#lari@ation s!o#ld %e vie"ed as t"o.tiered iss#e. ?!ile t!e s#%mission agreement mentioned only t!e determination o$ t!e date or reg#lari@ation, la" and &#rispr#dence give t!e vol#ntary ar%itrator eno#g! lee"ay o$ a#t!ority as "ell as adeH#ate prerogative to accomplis! t!e reason $or "!ic! t!e la" on vol#ntary ar%itration "as created speedy la%or &#stice. It %ears stressing t!at t!e #nderlying reason "!y t!is case arose is to settle, once and $or all, t!e #ltimate H#estion o$ "!et!er respondent employees are entitled to !ig!er %ene$its. 'o reH#ire t!em to $ile anot!er action $or payment o$ s#c! %ene$its "o#ld certainly #ndermine la%or proceedings and contravene t!e constit#tional mandate providing $#ll protection to la%or.+*NrNl)

Ind#%ita%ly, 4#do $orti$ies, not diminis!es, t!e so#ndness o$ t!e H#estioned <A Decision. Said case rea$$irms t!e plenary &#risdiction and a#t!ority o$ t!e vol#ntary ar%itrator to interpret t!e CBA and to determine t!e scope o$ !isF!er o"n a#t!ority. S#%&ect to &#dicial revie", t!e lee"ay o$ a#t!ority as "ell as adeH#ate prerogative is aimed at accomplis!ing t!e rationale o$ t!e la" on vol#ntary ar%itration speedy la%or &#stice. In t!is case, a complete and $inal ad&#dication o$ t!e disp#te %et"een t!e parties necessarily called $or t!e resol#tion o$ t!e related and incidental iss#e o$ "!et!er t!e Company still violated t!e CBA %#t "it!o#t %eing g#ilty o$ :4P as, needless to state, :4P is committed only i$ t!ere is gross violation o$ t!e agreement. 4astly, t!e Company 7ept on !arping t!at %ot! t!e <A and t!e CA conceded t!at its engagement o$ contract#al "or7ers $rom PESO "as a valid e(ercise o$ management prerogative. It is con$#sed. 'o emp!asi@e, declaring t!at a partic#lar act $alls "it!in t!e concept o$ management prerogative is signi$icantly di$$erent $rom ac7no"ledging t!at s#c! act is a valid e(ercise t!ereo$. ?!at t!e <A and t!e CA correctly r#led "as t!at t!e Companys act o$ contracting o#tFo#tso#rcing is "it!in t!e p#rvie" o$ management prerogative. Bot! did not say, !o"ever, t!at s#c! act is a valid e(ercise t!ereo$. O%vio#sly, t!is is d#e to t!e recognition t!at t!e CBA provisions agreed #pon %y t!e Company and t!e :nion delimit t!e $ree e(ercise o$ management prerogative pertaining to t!e !iring o$ contract#al employees. Indeed, t!e <A opined t!at Mt!e rig!t o$ t!e management to o#tso#rce parts o$ its operations is not totally eliminated %#t is merely limited %y t!e CBA,M "!ile t!e CA !eld t!at Mt!is management prerogative o$ contracting o#t services, !o"ever, is not "it!o#t limitation. ( ( ( '!ese categories o$ employees partic#larly "it! respect to cas#al employees serve as limitation to t!e Companys prerogative to o#tso#rce parts o$ its operations especially "!en !iring contract#al employees.MNNNQrN%lNR NNrSNNl lNN lN%rN rT A collective %argaining agreement is t!e la" %et"een t!e parties=crala"li%rary It is $amiliar and $#ndamental doctrine in la%or la" t!at t!e CBA is t!e la" %et"een t!e parties and t!ey are o%liged to comply "it! its provisions. ?e said so in >onda P!ils., Inc. v. Sama!an ng 9alayang 9anggaga"a sa >onda=crala"li%rary A collective %argaining agreement or CBA re$ers to t!e negotiated contract %et"een a legitimate la%or organi@ation and t!e employer concerning "ages, !o#rs o$ "or7 and all ot!er terms and conditions o$ employment in a %argaining #nit. As in all contracts, t!e parties in a CBA may esta%lis! s#c! stip#lations, cla#ses, terms and conditions as t!ey may deem convenient provided t!ese are not contrary to la", morals, good c#stoms, p#%lic order or p#%lic policy. '!#s, "!ere t!e CBA is clear and #nam%ig#o#s, it %ecomes t!e la" %et"een t!e parties and compliance t!ere"it! is mandated %y t!e e(press policy o$ t!e la". 9oreover, i$ t!e terms o$ a contract, as in a CBA, are clear and leave no do#%t #pon t!e intention o$ t!e contracting parties, t!e literal meaning o$ t!eir stip#lations s!all control. ( ( (.+6NrNl) In t!is case, Section 6, Article I (on categories o$ employees o$ t!e CBA %et"een t!e Company and t!e :nion m#st %e read in con&#nction "it! its Section ), Article III (on #nion sec#rity . Bot! are interconnected and m#st %e given $#ll $orce and e$$ect. Also, t!ese provisions are clear and #nam%ig#o#s. '!e terms are e(plicit and t!e lang#age o$ t!e CBA is not s#scepti%le to any

ot!er interpretation. >ence, t!e literal meaning s!o#ld prevail. As repeatedly !eld, t!e e(ercise o$ management prerogative is not #nlimitedC it is s#%&ect to t!e limitations $o#nd in la", collective %argaining agreement or t!e general principles o$ $air play and &#stice+1 Evidently, t!is case !as one o$ t!e restrictions. t!e presence o$ speci$ic CBA provisions.#nli7e in San 9ig#el Corporation Employees :nion.P'/?O v. Bersamira,+- De Ocampo v. N4RC,+2 Asian Alco!ol Corporation v. N4RC,+3 and Serrano v. N4RC+0cited %y t!e Company. 'o reiterate, t!e CBA is t!e norm o$ cond#ct %et"een t!e parties and compliance t!ere"it! is mandated %y t!e e(press policy o$ t!e la".*,NrNl) ?>EREAORE, t!e petition is DENIED. '!e assailed ;#ne )-, +,,1 Decision, as "ell as t!e Octo%er )+, +,,1 Resol#tion o$ t!e Co#rt o$ Appeals, "!ic! s#stained t!e Octo%er +-, +,,6 Decision o$ t!e <ol#ntary Ar%itrator, are !ere%y AAAIR9ED. SO OR !R! .

Ace Navigation vs P4D' On October 9, 2008, seaman Teodorico Fernandez ( Fernandez), assisted by his wife, Glenita Fernandez, filed with the NLRC a complaint for disability benefits, with prayer for moral and e emplary dama!es, pl"s attorney#s fees, a!ainst $ce %a&i!ation'o(, )nc(, *ela )nternational +arine ,td(, and-or .odolfo /amint"an ( petitioners)( The petitioners mo&ed to dismiss the complaint,0 contendin! that the labor arbiter had no 1"risdiction o&er the disp"te( They ar!"ed that e cl"si&e ori!inal 1"risdiction is with the &ol"ntary arbitrator or panel of &ol"ntary arbitrators, p"rs"ant to 2ection 29 of the /O3$ 2tandard 3mployment 'ontract (POEA-SEC), since the parties are co&ered by the $+O24/T'' or $+O24/5*3,$ (as later cited by the petitioners) collecti&e bar!ainin! a!reement (CBA)( 4nder 2ection 60 of the '7$, a disp"te between a seafarer and the company shall be settled thro"!h the !rie&ance machinery and mandatory &ol"ntary arbitration( Fernandez opposed the motion(8 9e ar!"ed that inasm"ch as his complaint in&ol&es a money claim, ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction o&er the case is &ested with the labor arbiter( On :ecember 9, 2008, ,abor $rbiter .ioflorido denied the motion to dismiss, holdin! that "nder 2ection 60 of .$ %o( 8002, the +i!rant ;or<ers and O&erseas Filipinos $ct of 6998, the labor arbiter has ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction o&er money claims arisin! o"t of an employer5employee relationship or by &irt"e of any law or contract, notwithstandin! any pro&ision of law to the contrary(= The petitioners appealed to the %,.', b"t the labor a!ency denied the appeal( $ccordin!ly, it remanded the case to the labor arbiter for f"rther proceedin!s( The petitioners mo&ed for reconsideration, b"t the %,.' denied the motion, promptin! the petitioners to ele&ate the case to the '$ thro"!h a petition for certiorari "nder ."le =8 of the ."les of 'o"rt( The CA Decision

Thro"!h its decision of 2eptember 22, 2060,> the '$ denied the petition on proced"ral and s"bstanti&e !ro"nds( On the merits of the case, the '$ belie&ed that the petition cannot prosper( The '$ clarified that while the law9 allows parties to s"bmit to &ol"ntary arbitration other labor disp"tes, incl"din! matters fallin! within the ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction of the labor arbiters "nder $rticle 26> of the ,abor 'ode as this 'o"rt reco!nized in Vivero v. Co rt o! Appea"s60, the parties# s"bmission a!reement m"st be e pressed in "ne?"i&ocal lan!"a!e( )t fo"nd no s"ch "ne?"i&ocal lan!"a!e in the $+O24/-T'' '7$ that the parties a!reed to s"bmit money claims or, more specifically, claims for disability benefits to &ol"ntary arbitration( Ta<in! note of 2ection 29 of the /O3$523'66, the '$ e plained that the rele&ant /O3$523' pro&isions sho"ld li<ewise be ?"alified by the r"lin! in the Vivero case, the ,abor 'ode, and other applicable laws and 1"rispr"dence( )n s"m, the '$ stressed that the 1"risdiction of &ol"ntary arbitrators is limited to the seafarers# claims which do not fall within the labor arbiter#s ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction or e&en in cases where the labor arbiter has 1"risdiction, the parties ha&e a!reed in "nmista<able terms (thro"!h their '7$) to s"bmit the case to &ol"ntary arbitration( The petitioners mo&ed for reconsideration of the '$ decision, b"t the appellate co"rt denied the motion( ISSUE: ;ho has the ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction o&er Fernandez#s disability claim @ the labor arbiter "nder 2ection 60 of .($( %o( 8002, as amended, or the &ol"ntary arbitration mechanism as prescribed in the parties# '7$ and the /O3$523'A RULING: ;e find merit in the petition( The 2tate#s labor relations policy laid down in the 'onstit"tion and fleshed o"t in the enablin! stat"te, the ,abor 'ode ($rt( 2=0, 2=6 and 2=2) and the /O3$523'6 pro&ide that the &ol"ntary arbitrator or panel of &ol"ntary arbitrators has ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction o&er Fernandez#s disability claim( There is no disp"te that the claim arose o"t of Fernandez#s employment with the petitioners and that their relationship is co&ered by a '7$ @ the$+O24/-T'' or $+O24/5*3,$ '7$( The '7$ pro&ides for a !rie&ance proced"re for the resol"tion of !rie&ances or disp"tes which occ"r d"rin! the employment relationship and, li<e the !rie&ance machinery created "nder $rticle 2=6 of the ,abor 'ode, it is a two5tiered mechanism, with &ol"ntary arbitration as the last step( 'ontrary to the '$#s readin! of the '7$#s $rticle 60, there is "ne?"i&ocal or "nmista<able lan!"a!e in the a!reement which mandatorily re?"ires the parties to s"bmit to the !rie&ance proced"re any disp"te or ca"se of action they may ha&e a!ainst each other( ;hat mi!ht ha&e ca"sed the '$ to miss the clear intent of the parties in prescribin! a !rie&ance proced"re in their '7$ is, as the petitioners# ha&e intimated, the "se of the a" iliary &erb BmayB in $rticle 60(>(a) of the '7$ which provides that "if by reason of the nature of the Dispute, the parties are unable to ami ably settle the dispute, either party may refer the ase to a !"ND"#$R% "R&I#R"#I$N '$!!I##EE(B28 ;hile the '$ did not ?"alify its readin! of the s"b1ect pro&ision of the '7$, it is reasonable to concl"de that it &iewed as optional the referral of a disp"te to the

mandatory arbitration committee when the parties are "nable to amicably settle the disp"te( ;e find this a strained interpretation of the '7$ pro&ision( The '$ read the pro&ision separately, or in isolation of the other sections of $rticle 60, especially 60(>(h), which, in clear, e plicit lan!"a!e, states that the "referral of all unresolved disputes from the Grievan e Resolution 'ommittee to the !andatory "rbitration 'ommittee shall be un(aivable prere)uisite or ondition pre edent for brin*in* any a tion, laim, or ause of a tion, le*al or other(ise, before any ourt, tribunal, or panel in any +urisdi tion",- and that the failure by a party or seaman to so refer the dispute to the pres ribed dispute resolution me hanism shall bar any le*al or other a tion( .ead in its entirety, the '7$#s $rticle 60 (Grie&ance /roced"re) "nmista<ably reflects the parties# a!reement to s"bmit any "nresol&ed disp"te at the !rie&ance resol"tion sta!e to mandatory &ol"ntary arbitration "nder $rticle 60(>(h) of the '7$( $nd, it sho"ld be added that, in compliance with 2ection 29 of the /O3$523' which re?"ires that in cases of claims and disp"tes arisin! from a seafarer#s employment, the parties co&ered by a '7$ shall s"bmit the claim or disp"te to the ori!inal and e cl"si&e 1"risdiction of the &ol"ntary arbitrator or panel of &ol"ntary arbitrators( Sin e the parties used une)uivo al lan*ua*e in their '&" for the submission of their disputes to voluntary arbitration, (e find that the '" ommitted a reversible error in its rulin*. It bears stressin* at this point that (e are upholdin* the +urisdi tion of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators over the present dispute, not only be ause of the lear lan*ua*e of the parties/ '&" on the matter0 more importantly, (e so uphold the voluntary arbitrator/s +urisdi tion, in re o*nition of the State/s e1press preferen e for voluntary modes of dispute settlement, su h as on iliation and voluntary arbitration as e1pressed in the 'onstitution, the la( and the rules.. It is settled that (hen the parties have validly a*reed on a pro edure for resolvin* *rievan es and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that pro edure should be stri tly observed( I.1er92-, Labora1or-e+ !e %.-o. 3+ I.1er92-, Labora1or-e+ GR 142:24 Fa41+& Petitioner is t!e sole and e(cl#sive %argaining agent o$ t!e ran7.and.$ile employees o$ Respondent. '!ey !ad a CBA. Prior to t!e e(piration o$ t!e CBA, respondent company "as approac!ed %y t!e petitioner, t!ro#g! its o$$icers. '!e :nion inH#ired a%o#t t!e stand o$ t!e company regarding t!e d#ration o$ t!e CBA "!ic! "as set to e(pire in a $e" mont!s. Sala@ar told t!e #nion o$$icers t!at t!e matter co#ld %e %est disc#ssed d#ring t!e $ormal negotiations "!ic! "o#ld start soon. All t!e ran7.and.$ile employees o$ t!e company re$#sed to $ollo" t!eir reg#lar t"o.s!i$t "or7 sc!ed#le. '!e employees stopped "or7ing and le$t t!eir "or7place "it!o#t sealing t!e containers and sec#ring t!e ra" materials t!ey "ere "or7ing on.

'o minimi@e t!e damage t!e overtime %oycott "as ca#sing t!e company, Sala@ar immediately as7ed $or a meeting "it! t!e #nion o$$icers. In t!e meeting, Enrico /on@ales, a #nion director, told Sala@ar t!at t!e employees "o#ld only ret#rn to t!eir normal "or7 sc!ed#le i$ t!e company "o#ld agree to t!eir demands as to t!e e$$ectivity and d#ration o$ t!e ne" CBA. Sala@ar again told t!e #nion o$$icers t!at t!e matter co#ld %e %etter disc#ssed d#ring t!e $ormal renegotiations o$ t!e CBA. Since t!e #nion "as apparently #nsatis$ied "it! t!e ans"er o$ t!e company, t!e overtime %oycott contin#ed. In addition, t!e employees started to engage in a "or7 slo"do"n campaign d#ring t!e time t!ey "ere "or7ing, t!#s s#%stantially delaying t!e prod#ction o$ t!e company. Respondent company $iled "it! t!e National N4RC a petition to declare illegal petitioner #nion8s Uovertime %oycottV and U"or7 slo"do"nV "!ic!, according to respondent company, amo#nted to illegal stri7e. It also $iled "it! O$$ice Secretary o$ 4a%or a petition $or ass#mption o$ &#risdiction. Secretary o$ 4a%or Nieves Con$esor iss#ed an ass#mption order over t!e la%or disp#te. 4a%or Ar%iter Caday s#%mitted !is recommendation to t!e t!en Secretary o$ 4a%or 4eonardo A. P#is#m%ing. '!en Secretary P#is#m%ing approved and adopted t!e report in !is Order, $inding illegal stri7e on t!e part o$ petitioner :nion. I++ue= ?ON t!e 4a%or Secretary !as &#risdiction to r#le over an illegal stri7e. "e,5& On t!e matter o$ t!e a#t!ority and &#risdiction o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment to r#le on t!e illegal stri7e committed %y petitioner #nion, it cannot %e denied t!at t!e iss#es o$ Uovertime %oycottV and U"or7 slo"do"nV amo#nting to illegal stri7e %e$ore 4a%or Ar%iter Caday are intert"ined "it! t!e la%or disp#te %e$ore t!e 4a%or Secretary. '!e appellate co#rt also correctly !eld t!at t!e H#estion o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment8s &#risdiction over la%or.related disp#tes "as already settled in International P!armace#tical, Inc. vs. >on. Secretary o$ 4a%or and Associated 4a%or :nion (A4: "!ere t!e Co#rt declared= In t!e present case, t!e Secretary "as e(plicitly granted %y Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code t!e a#t!ority to ass#me &#risdiction over a la%or disp#te ca#sing or li7ely to ca#se a stri7e or loc7o#t in an ind#stry indispensa%le to t!e national interest, and decide t!e same accordingly. Necessarily, t!is a#t!ority to ass#me &#risdiction over t!e said la%or disp#te m#st incl#de and e(tend to all H#estions and controversies arising t!ere$rom, incl#ding cases over "!ic! t!e la%or ar%iter !as e(cl#sive &#risdiction. 9oreover, Article +)2 o$ t!e 4a%or Code is not "it!o#t, %#t contemplates, e(ceptions t!ereto. '!is is evident $rom t!e opening proviso t!erein reading W(e (cept as ot!er"ise provided #nder t!is Code ( ( (.8 Plainly, Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code "as meant to ma7e %ot! t!e Secretary (or t!e vario#s regional directors and t!e la%or ar%iters s!are &#risdiction,

s#%&ect to certain conditions. Ot!er"ise, t!e Secretary "o#ld not %e a%le to e$$ectively and e$$iciently dispose o$ t!e primary disp#te. 'o !old t!e contrary may even lead to t!e a%s#rd and #ndesira%le res#lt "!erein t!e Secretary and t!e la%or ar%iter concerned may !ave diametrically opposed r#lings. As "e !ave said, Wit is $#ndamental t!at a stat#te is to %e read in a manner t!at "o#ld %reat!e li$e into it, rat!er t!an de$eat it. In $ine, t!e iss#ance o$ t!e assailed orders is "it!in t!e province o$ t!e Secretary as a#t!ori@ed %y Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code and Article +)2(a and (1 o$ t!e same Code, ta7en con&ointly and rationally constr#ed to s#%serve t!e o%&ective o$ t!e &#risdiction vested in t!e Secretary. Petition denied. N%'"RAIN 3+ CA GR 1;3942 a.5 1;;295 Fa41+& Beca#se o$ t!e collective %argaining deadloc7, petitioner :nion staged a stri7e against t!e >otel, !erein private respondent. '!is stri7e "as declared illegal %y t!e SC. I++ue= '!e e$$ects o$ an illegal stri7e on employees. "e,5& Regarding t!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers8 lia%ilities $or t!eir participation in t!e illegal pic7et and stri7e, Article +-6(a , paragrap! * o$ t!e 4a%or Code provides t!at Uany #nion o$$icer "!o 7no"ingly participates in an illegal stri7e and any "or7er or #nion o$$icer "!o 7no"ingly participates in t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring a stri7e may %e declared to !ave lost !is employment stat#s ( ( (.V '!e la" ma7es a distinction %et"een #nion o$$icers and mere #nion mem%ers. :nion o$$icers may %e validly terminated $rom employment $or t!eir participation in an illegal stri7e, "!ile #nion mem%ers !ave to participate in and commit illegal acts $or t!em to lose t!eir employment stat#s. '!#s, it is necessary $or t!e company to add#ce proo$ o$ t!e participation o$ t!e stri7ing employees in t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring t!e stri7es. Clearly, t!e +0 :nion o$$icers may %e dismissed p#rs#ant to Art. +-6(a , par. * o$ t!e 4a%or Code "!ic! imposes t!e penalty o$ dismissal on Uany #nion o$$icer "!o 7no"ingly participates in an illegal stri7e.V ?e, !o"ever, are o$ t!e opinion t!at t!ere is room $or leniency "it! respect to t!e :nion mem%ers. It is pertinent to note t!at t!e >otel "as a%le to prove %e$ore t!e N4RC t!at t!e stri7ers %loc7ed t!e ingress to and egress $rom t!e >otel. B#t it is H#ite apparent t!at t!e >otel $ailed to speci$ically point o#t t!e participation o$ eac! o$ t!e :nion mem%ers in t!e commission o$ illegal acts d#ring t!e pic7et and t!e stri7e. Aor t!is lapse in &#dgment or diligence, "e are constrained to reinstate t!e -) :nion mem%ers.

A#rt!er, "e !eld in one case t!at #nion mem%ers "!o participated in an illegal stri7e %#t "ere not identi$ied to !ave committed illegal acts are entitled to %e reinstated to t!eir $ormer positions %#t "it!o#t %ac7"ages. C,ub F-,-9-.o, I.4. 3. *au1-+1a, e1. a,., GR No. 1;:40;< (u,y 13, 2009 FACTS= Petitioner Cl#% Ailipino, Inc. (t!e company is a non.stoc7, non pro$it. ?!ile, respondents "ere $ormer o$$icers and mem%ers o$ t!e Cl#% Ailipino Employees Association (t!e #nion . '!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e "it! t!e NC9B on t!e gro#nds o$ %argaining deadloc7 and $ail#re to %argain. A$ter"ards, t!e company $ormally responded to t!e demands o$ t!e #nion "!en it s#%mitted t!e $irst part o$ its economic co#nter.proposal t!en t!e second part. 9ean"!ile, t!e #nion cond#cted a stri7e vote #nder t!e s#pervision o$ t!e Department o$ 4a%or and Employment. In response to t!e company8s co#nter.proposal, t!e #nion sent t!e company its improved proposal, %#t t!e company re$#sed to improve on its o$$er. '!is prompted t!e #nion to stage a stri7e on t!e gro#nd o$ a CBA %argaining deadloc7. '!e company $iled %e$ore t!e National 4a%or Relations Commission (N4RC a petition to declare t!e stri7e illegal. '!e company $#rt!er prayed t!at all #nion o$$icers "!o participated in t!e illegal stri7e %e considered separated $rom t!e service.* '!e la%or ar%iter6 declared t!e stri7e Uproced#rally Iin$irmJ and t!ere$ore illegal.V N4RC a$$irmed. >o"ever, CA set aside t!e r#lings o$ t!e N4RC and t!e la%or ar%iter. ISS%!= ?ON t!e stri7e staged %y respondents "as legal "!L = In cases o$ %argaining deadloc7s, t!e notice s!all, a+ 0ar a+ 9ra41-4ab,e, $#rt!er state t!e #nresolved iss#es in t!e %argaining negotiations and %e accompanied %y t!e "ritten proposals o$ t!e #nion, t!e co#nter.proposals o$ t!e employer and t!e proo$ o$ a reH#est $or con$erence to settle di$$erences. In cases o$ #n$air la%or practices, t!e notice s!all, as $ar as practica%le, state t!e acts complained o$, and e$$orts ta7en to resolve t!e disp#te amica%ly.)avvp!i) Any notice "!ic! does not con$orm "it! t!e reH#irements o$ t!is and t!e $oregoing section s!all %e deemed as not !aving %een $iled and t!e party concerned s!all %e so in$ormed %y t!e regional %ranc! o$ t!e Board. (emp!asis s#pplied In t!e instant case, t!e #nion cannot %e $a#lted $or its omission. '!e #nion co#ld not !ave attac!ed t!e co#nter.proposal o$ t!e company in t!e notice o$ stri7e it s#%mitted to t!e NC9B as t!ere "as no s#c! co#nter.proposal. 'o recall, t!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e on April -, +,,) a$ter several reH#ests to start negotiations proved $#tile. It "as only on April ++, +,,), or a$ter t"o "ee7s, "!en t!e company $ormally responded to t!e #nion %y s#%mitting t!e $irst part o$ its co#nter.proposal. ?orse, it too7 t!e company anot!er t!ree "ee7s to complete it %y s#%mitting on 9ay )), +,,) t!e second part o$ its co#nter.proposal. '!is "as almost a year a$ter t!e e(piration o$ t!e CBA so#g!t to %e rene"ed. '!e Implementing R#les #se t!e "ords Uas $ar as practica%le.V In t!is case, attac!ing t!e co#nter. proposal o$ t!e company to t!e notice o$ stri7e o$ t!e #nion "as not practica%le. It "as a%s#rd to e(pect t!e #nion to prod#ce t!e company8s co#nter.proposal "!ic! it did not !ave. One cannot

give "!at one does not !ave. Indeed, compliance "it! t!e reH#irement "as impossi%le %eca#se no co#nter.proposal e(isted at t!e time t!e #nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e. '!e la" does not e(act compliance "it! t!e impossi%le. Nemo tenet#r ad impossi%ile. Sa.1a Ro+a Co4a Co,a P,a.1 !79,oyee %.-o. 3+ Co4a Co,a *o11,er+ P2-, GR 1;4302803 Fa41+& '!e Sta. Rosa Coca.Cola Plant Employees :nion (:nion is t!e sole and e(cl#sive %argaining representative o$ t!e reg#lar daily paid "or7ers and t!e mont!ly paid non.commission.earning employees o$ t!e Coca.Cola Bottlers P!ilippines, Inc. (Company in its Sta. Rosa, 4ag#na plant. :pon t!e e(piration o$ t!e CBA, t!e :nion in$ormed t!e Company o$ its desire to renegotiate its terms. '!e CBA meetings commenced on ;#ly +-, )000, "!ere t!e :nion and t!e Company disc#ssed t!e gro#nd r#les o$ t!e negotiations. '!e :nion insisted t!at representatives $rom t!e Alyansa ng mga :nyon sa Coca.Cola %e allo"ed to sit do"n as o%servers in t!e CBA meetings. '!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers also insisted t!at t!eir "ages %e %ased on t!eir "or7 s!i$t rates. Aor its part, t!e Company "as o$ t!e vie" t!at t!e mem%ers o$ t!e Alyansa "ere not mem%ers o$ t!e %argaining #nit. '!e Alyansa "as a mere aggregate o$ employees o$ t!e Company in its vario#s plantsC and is not a registered la%or organi@ation. '!#s, an impasse ens#ed. On A#g#st *,, )000, t!e :nion, its o$$icers, directors and si( s!op ste"ards $iled a UNotice o$ Stri7eV "it! t!e NC9B. '!e :nion decided to participate in a mass action organi@ed %y t!e Alyansa in $ront o$ t!e Company8s premises. '!#s, t!e :nion o$$icers and mem%ers !eld a pic7et along t!e $ront perimeter o$ t!e plant on Septem%er +), )000. As a res#lt, all o$ t!e )6 personnel o$ t!e Engineering Section o$ t!e Company did not report $or "or7, and 2) prod#ction personnel "ere also a%sent. As a res#lt, only one o$ t!e t!ree %ottling lines operated d#ring t!e day s!i$t. All t!e t!ree lines "ere operated d#ring t!e nig!t s!i$t "it! c#m#lative do"ntime o$ $ive (1 !o#rs d#e to lac7 o$ manning, complement and s7ills reH#irement. '!e vol#me o$ prod#ction $or t!e day "as s!ort %y -,,,,, p!ysical cases vers#s %#dget. On Octo%er )*, )000, t!e Company $iled a UPetition to Declare Stri7e IllegalV I++ue& ?ON t!e stri7e, d#%%ed %y petitioner as pic7eting, is illegal. "e,5= Article +)+(o o$ t!e 4a%or Code de$ines stri7e as a temporary stoppage o$ "or7 %y t!e concerted action o$ employees as a res#lt o$ an ind#strial or la%or disp#te. In Bangalisan v. CA, t!e Co#rt r#led t!at Ut!e $act t!at t!e conventional term Wstri7e8 "as not #sed %y t!e stri7ing employees to descri%e t!eir common co#rse o$ action is inconseH#ential, since t!e s#%stance o$ t!e sit#ation, and not its appearance, "ill %e deemed to %e controlling.V

Pic7eting involves merely t!e marc!ing to and $ro at t!e premises o$ t!e employer, #s#ally accompanied %y t!e display o$ placards and ot!er signs ma7ing 7no"n t!e $acts involved in a la%or disp#te. As applied to a la%or disp#te, to pic7et means t!e stationing o$ one or more persons to o%serve and attempt to o%serve. '!e p#rpose o$ pic7ets is said to %e a means o$ peacea%le pers#asion. '!e %asic elements o$ a stri7e are present in t!is case. '!ey marc!ed to and $ro in $ront o$ t!e company8s premises d#ring "or7ing !o#rs. '!#s, petitioners engaged in a concerted activity "!ic! already a$$ected t!e company8s operations. '!e mass concerted activity constit#ted a stri7e. Aor a stri7e to %e valid, t!e $ollo"ing proced#ral reH#isites provided %y Art +-* o$ t!e 4a%or Code m#st %e o%served= (a a notice o$ stri7e $iled "it! t!e DO4E *, days %e$ore t!e intended date t!ereo$, or )1 days in case o$ #n$air la%or practiceC (% stri7e vote approved %y a ma&ority o$ t!e total #nion mem%ers!ip in t!e %argaining #nit concerned o%tained %y secret %allot in a meeting called $or t!at p#rpose, (c notice given to t!e DO4E o$ t!e res#lts o$ t!e voting at least seven days %e$ore t!e intended stri7e. '!ese reH#irements are mandatory and t!e $ail#re o$ a #nion to comply t!ere"it! renders t!e stri7e illegal. It is clear in t!is case t!at petitioners totally ignored t!e stat#tory reH#irements and em%ar7ed on t!eir illegal stri7e. Petition denied. #SF T-re a.5 Rubber 3+ CA GR 12:;32 Fa41+& Respondent :nion $iled a notice o$ stri7e in t!e NC9B c!arging (P!ildtread "it! #n$air la%or practice. '!erea$ter, t!ey pic7eted and assem%led o#tside t!e gate o$ P!iltread8s plant. P!iltread, on t!e ot!er !and, $iled a notice o$ loc7o#t. S#%seH#ently, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or ass#med &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te and certi$ied it $or comp#lsory ar%itration. D#ring t!e pendency o$ t!e la%or disp#te, P!iltread entered into a 9emorand#m o$ Agreement "it! Siam 'yre "!ere%y its plant and eH#ipment "o#ld %e sold to a ne" company, !erein petitioner, 3,B o$ "!ic! "o#ld %e o"ned %y Siam 'yre and +,B %y P!iltread, "!ile t!e land on "!ic! t!e plant "as located "o#ld %e sold to anot!er company, -,B o$ "!ic! "o#ld %e o"ned %y P!iltread and 6,B %y Siam 'yre. Petitioner t!en as7ed respondent :nion to desist $rom pic7eting o#tside its plant. As t!e respondent :nion re$#sed petitioner8s reH#est, petitioner $iled a complaint $or in&#nction "it! damages %e$ore t!e R'C. Respondent :nion moved to dismiss t!e complaint alleging lac7 o$ &#risdiction on t!e part o$ t!e trial co#rt. Petitioner asserts t!at its stat#s as an Uinnocent %ystanderV "it! respect to t!e la%or disp#te %et"een P!iltread and t!e :nion entitles it to a "rit o$ in&#nction $rom t!e civil co#rts.

Iss#e= ?ON petitioner !as s!o"n a clear legal rig!t to t!e iss#ance o$ a "rit o$ in&#nction #nder t!e Uinnocent %ystanderV r#le. "e,5& In P!ilippine Association o$ Aree 4a%or :nions (PAA4: v. Clori%el, t!is Co#rt, t!ro#g! ;#stice ;.B.4. Reyes, stated t!e Uinnocent %ystanderV r#le as $ollo"s= '!e rig!t to pic7et as a means o$ comm#nicating t!e $acts o$ a la%or disp#te is a p!ase o$ t!e $reedom o$ speec! g#aranteed %y t!e constit#tion. I$ peace$#lly carried o#t, it cannot %e c#rtailed even in t!e a%sence o$ employer.employee relations!ip. '!e rig!t is, !o"ever, not an a%sol#te one. ?!ile peace$#l pic7eting is entitled to protection as an e(ercise o$ $ree speec!, "e %elieve t!e co#rts are not "it!o#t po"er to con$ine or locali@e t!e sp!ere o$ comm#nication or t!e demonstration to t!e parties to t!e la%or disp#te, incl#ding t!ose "it! related interest, and to ins#late esta%lis!ments or persons "it! no ind#strial connection or !aving interest totally $oreign to t!e conte(t o$ t!e disp#te. '!#s t!e rig!t may %e reg#lated at t!e instance o$ t!ird parties or Uinnocent %ystandersV i$ it appears t!at t!e inevita%le res#lt o$ its e(ercise is to create an impression t!at a la%or disp#te "it! "!ic! t!ey !ave no connection or interest e(ists %et"een t!em and t!e pic7eting #nion or constit#te an invasion o$ t!eir rig!ts. '!#s, an Uinnocent %ystander,V "!o see7s to en&oin a la%or stri7e, m#st satis$y t!e co#rt it is entirely di$$erent $rom, "it!o#t any connection "!atsoever to, eit!er party to t!e disp#te and, t!ere$ore, its interests are totally $oreign to t!e conte(t t!ereo$. In t!e case at %ar, petitioner cannot %e said not to !ave s#c! connection to t!e disp#te. ?e $ind t!at t!e Unegotiation, contract o$ sale, and t!e post transactionV %et"een P!iltread, as vendor, and Siam 'yre, as vendee, reveals a legal relation %et"een t!em "!ic!, in t!e interest o$ petitioner, "e cannot ignore. 'o %e s#re, t!e transaction %et"een P!iltread and Siam 'yre, "as not a simple sale "!ere%y P!iltread ceased to !ave any proprietary rig!ts over its sold assets. On t!e contrary, P!iltread remains as +,B o"ner o$ private respondent and -,B o"ner o$ S#cat 4and Corporation "!ic! "as li7e"ise incorporated in accordance "it! t!e terms o$ t!e 9emorand#m o$ Agreement "it! Siam 'yre, and "!ic! no" o"ns t!e land "ere s#%&ect plant is located. '!is, toget!er "it! t!e $act t!at private respondent #ses t!e same plant or $actoryC similar or s#%stantially t!e same "or7ing conditionsC same mac!inery, tools, and eH#ipmentC and man#$act#re t!e same prod#cts as P!iltread, lead #s to sa$ely concl#de t!at private respondent8s personality is so closely lin7ed to P!iltread as to %ar its entitlement to an in&#nctive "rit. Petition denied. P"ILIPPIN! LONG ISTANC! T!L!P"ON! CO. INC., 3. #ANGGAGA'A NG =O#%NI=AS$ON SA PILIPINAS a.5 12e CO%RT OF APP!ALS, G.R. No. 1;27:3> (u,y 14, 2005 FACTS& Petitioner P!ilippine 4ong Distance 'elep!one Co., Inc. (P4D' is a domestic

corporation engaged in t!e telecomm#nications %#siness. Private respondent 9anggaga"a ng Oom#ni7asyon sa Pilipinas (9OP is a la%or #nion o$ ran7 and $ile employees in P4D'. '!e mem%ers o$ respondent #nion learned t!at a red#ndancy program "o#ld %e implemented %y t!e petitioner. '!ere#pon it $iled a Notice o$ Stri7e "it! t!e National Conciliation and 9ediation Board (NC9B on ,6 Novem%er +,,+. '!e Notice $#ndamentally contained t!e $ollo"ing= :NAAIR 4ABOR PRAC'ICES, to "it= ). P4D'8s a%olition o$ t!e Provisioning S#pport Division, in violation o$ t!e d#ty to %argain collectively "it! 9OP in good $ait!. +. P4D'8s #nreasona%le re$#sal to !onor its commitment %e$ore t!is >onora%le O$$ice t!at it "ill provide 9OP its compre!ensive planFs "it! respect to personnel do"nsi@ingFreorgani@ation and clos#re o$ e(c!anges. S#c! re$#sal violates its d#ty to %argain collectively "it! 9OP in good $ait!. *. P4D'8s contin#ed !iring o$ Ucontract#alV, UtemporaryV, Upro&ectV and Ucas#alV employees $or reg#lar &o%s per$ormed %y #nion mem%ers, res#lting in t!e decimation o$ t!e #nion mem%ers!ip and in t!e denial o$ t!e rig!t to sel$.organi@ation to t!e concerned employees. 6. P4D'8s gross violation o$ t!e legal and CBA provisions on overtime "or7 and compensation. 1. P4D'8s gross violation o$ t!e CBA provisions on promotions and &o% grade re. eval#ation or reclassi$ication. On )) Novem%er +,,+, anot!er Notice o$ Stri7e "as $iled %y t!e private respondent, "!ic! contained t!e $ollo"ing= :NAAIR 4ABOR PRAC'ICES, to "it= P4D'8s alleged restr#ct#ring o$ its /99 Operation Services. A n#m%er o$ conciliation meetings, cond#cted %y t!e NC9B, National Capital Region, "ere !eld %et"een t!e parties. >o"ever, t!ese e$$orts proved $#tile. On +* Decem%er +,,+, t!e private respondent staged a stri7e. On *) Decem%er +,,+, t!ree !#ndred eig!ty t!ree (*3* #nion mem%ers "ere terminated $rom service p#rs#ant to P4D'8s red#ndancy program.

On ,+ ;an#ary +,,*, t!e Secretary, Patricia Sto. 'omas, iss#ed an OrderI6J in NC9B. NCR.NS.)).6,1.,+ and NC9B.NCR.NS.)).6)+.,+. Portions o$ t!e Order are reprod#ced !ere#nder= ((( Accordingly, t!e stri7e staged %y t!e :nion is !ere%y en&oined. All stri7ing "or7ers are !ere%y directed to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in t"enty $o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom receipt o$ t!is Order, e(cept t!ose "!o "ere terminated d#e to red#ndancy. '!e employer is !ere%y en&oined to accept t!e stri7ing "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing prior to t!e stri7e. '!e parties are li7e"ise directed to cease and desist $rom committing any act t!at mig!t "orsen t!e sit#ation. ((( ISS%!= ?>E'>ER '>E S:B;EC' ORDERS OA '>E SECRE'ARL OA '>E DO4E EKC4:DIN/ ARO9 '>E RE':RN.'O.?ORO ORDER '>E ?OROERS DIS9ISSED D:E 'O '>E RED:NDANCL PRO/RA9 OA PE'I'IONER, ARE <A4ID OR NO'. R%LING= . . . Ass#mption o$ &#risdiction over a la%or disp#te, or as in t!is case t!e certi$ication o$ t!e same to t!e N4RC $or comp#lsory ar%itration, al"ays co.e(ists "it! an order $or "or7ers to ret#rn to "or7 immediately and $or employers to readmit all "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e or loc7o#t. 'ime and again, t!is Co#rt !as !eld t!at "!en an o$$icial %ypasses t!e la" on t!e asserted gro#nd o$ attaining a la#da%le o%&ective, t!e same "ill not %e maintained i$ t!e intendment or p#rpose o$ t!e la" "o#ld %e de$eated.I*,J One last piece. Records "o#ld s!o" t!at t!e stri7e occ#rred on +* Decem%er +,,+. Article +-*(g directs t!at t!e employer m#st readmit all "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e. Since t!e stri7e "as !eld on t!e a$orementioned date, t!en t!e condition prevailing %e$ore it, "!ic! "as t!e condition present on ++ Decem%er +,,+, m#st %e maintained. :ndo#%tedly, on ++ Decem%er +,,+, t!e mem%ers o$ t!e private respondent "!o "ere dismissed d#e to alleged red#ndancy "ere still employed %y t!e petitioner and !olding t!eir respective positions. '!is is t!e stat#s H#o t!at m#st %e maintained. <alid. CAPITOL #! ICAL C!NT!R, INC., 3. "ON. CR!S!NCIANO *. TRA(ANO, -. 2-+ 4a9a4-1y a+ Se4re1ary o0 12e e9ar17e.1 o0 Labor a.5 !79,oy7e.1, a.5 CAPITOL #! ICAL C!NT!R !#PLO$!!S ASSOCIATION8AF' G.R. No. 155;90> (u.e 30, 2005

FACTS= Petitioner is a !ospital "it! address at Panay Aven#e corner Sco#t 9ag%an#a Street, P#e@on City. :pon t!e ot!er !and, Respondent is a d#ly registered la%or #nion acting as t!e certi$ied collective %argaining agent o$ t!e ran7.and.$ile employees o$ petitioner !ospital. Respondent sent petitioner a letter reH#esting a negotiation o$ t!eir Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA . Petitioner, !o"ever, c!allenged t!e #nion8s legitimacy and re$#sed to %argain "it! respondent. S#%seH#ently petitioner $iled "it! t!e (B4R , Department o$ 4a%or and Employment, a petition $or cancellation o$ respondent8s certi$icate o$ registration. Aor its part, respondent $iled "it! t!e (NC9B , National Capital Region, a notice o$ stri7e. Respondent alleged t!at petitioner8s re$#sal to %argain constit#tes #n$air la%or practice. Despite several con$erences and e$$orts o$ t!e designated conciliator.mediator, t!e parties $ailed to reac! an amica%le settlement. Respondent staged a stri7e. Aormer 4a%or Secretary 4eonardo A. P#is#m%ing, no" Associate ;#stice o$ t!is Co#rt, iss#ed an Order ass#ming &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te and ordering all stri7ing "or7ers to ret#rn to "or7 and t!e management to res#me normal operations, t!#s= ((( all stri7ing "or7ers are directed to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in t"enty.$o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom t!e receipt o$ t!is Order and t!e management to res#me normal operations and accept %ac7 all stri7ing "or7ers #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e. A#rt!er, parties are directed to cease and desist $rom committing any act t!at may e(acer%ate t!e sit#ation. 9oreover, parties are !ere%y directed to s#%mit "it!in ), days $rom receipt o$ t!is Order proposals and co#nter.proposals leading to t!e concl#sion o$ t!e collective %argaining agreement in compliance "it! a$orementioned Resol#tion o$ t!e O$$ice as a$$irmed %y t!e S#preme Co#rt. ((( ISS%!= ?!et!er or not Secretary o$ 4a%or cannot e(ercise !is po"ers #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code "it!o#t o%serving t!e reH#irements o$ d#e process. R%LING= '!e discretion to ass#me &#risdiction may %e e(ercised %y t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment "it!o#t t!e necessity o$ prior notice or !earing given to any o$ t!e parties. '!e rationale $or !is primary ass#mption o$ &#risdiction can &#sti$ia%ly rest on !is o"n consideration o$ t!e e(igency o$ t!e sit#ation in relation to t!e national interests.

((( In la%or disp#tes adversely a$$ecting t!e contin#ed operation o$ s#c! !ospitals, clinics or medical instit#tions, it s!all %e t!e d#ty o$ t!e stri7ing #nion or loc7ing.o#t employer to provide and maintain an e$$ective s7eletal "or7$orce o$ medical and ot!er !ealt! personnel, "!ose movement and services s!all %e #n!ampered and #nrestricted, as are necessary to ins#re t!e proper and adeH#ate protection o$ t!e li$e and !ealt! o$ its patients, most especially emergency cases, $or t!e d#ration o$ t!e stri7e or loc7o#t. In s#c! cases, t!ere$ore, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment is mandated to immediately ass#me, "it!in t"enty.$o#r (+6 !o#rs $rom 7no"ledge o$ t!e occ#rrence o$ s#c! a stri7e or loc7o#t, &#risdiction over t!e same or certi$y it to t!e Commission $or comp#lsory ar%itration. Aor t!is p#rpose, t!e contending parties are strictly en&oined to comply "it! s#c! orders, pro!i%itions andFor in&#nctions as are iss#ed %y t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment or t!e Commission, #nder pain o$ immediate disciplinary action, incl#ding dismissal or loss o$ employment stat#s or payment %y t!e loc7ing.o#t employer o$ %ac7"ages, damages and ot!er a$$irmative relie$, even criminal prosec#tion against eit!er or %ot! o$ t!em. '!e $oregoing not"it!standing, t!e President o$ t!e P!ilippines s!all not %e precl#ded $rom determining t!e ind#stries t!at, in !is opinion, are indispensa%le to t!e national interest, and $rom intervening at any time and ass#ming &#risdiction over any s#c! la%or disp#te in order to settle or terminate t!e same. ((( P"I#CO IN %STRI!S, INC., vs."ONORA*L! ACTING S!CR!TAR$ OF LA*OR (OS! *RILLANT!S a.5 P"I#CO IN %STRI!S LA*OR ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 120751 #ar42 17, 1999 FACTS& On 9arc! 0, )001, t!e private respondent, P!imco Ind#stries 4a%or Association (PI4A , d#ly certi$ied collective %argaining representative o$ t!e daily paid "or7ers o$ t!e petitioner P>I9CO $iled a notice o$ stri7e "it! t!e NC9B against P>I9CO, a corporation engaged in t!e prod#ction o$ matc!es, a$ter a deadloc7 in t!e collective %argaining and negotiation. Parties $ailed to resolve t!eir di$$erences PI4A (d#ring t!e conciliation con$erences , composed o$ *1+ mem%ers, staged a stri7e. P>I9CO sent notice o$ termination to some 62 "or7ers incl#ding several #nion o$$icers. Secretary Brillantes ass#med &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#teC iss#ed a ret#rn.to."or7 order. >ence, petitioner $iles t!is petition. ISS%!& "!et!er or not t!e p#%lic respondent acted "it! grave a%#se o$ discretion amo#nting to lac7 or e(cess o$ &#risdiction in ass#ming &#risdiction over s#%&ect la%or disp#te. "!L & $!S, t!e petition is impressed "it! merit. Art. +-*, paragrap! (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, provides=

(g ?!en, in !is opinion, t!ere e(ist a la%or disp#te ca#sing or li7ely to ca#se a stri7e or loc7o#t in an ind#stry indispensa%le to t!e national interest, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or and Employment may ass#me &#risdiction over t!e disp#te and decide it or certi$y t!e same to t!e Commission $or comp#lsory ar%itration . . . '!e 4a%or Code vests in t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or t!e discretion to determine "!at ind#stries are indispensa%le to t!e national interest. Accordingly, #pon t!e determination %y t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or t!at s#c! ind#stry is indispensa%le to t!e national interest, !e "ill ass#me &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te in t!e said ind#stry. : T2-+ 9o?er, 2o?e3er, -+ .o1 ?-12ou1 a.y ,-7-1a1-o.. It stressed in t!e case o$ 4ree telephone 5orkers Union %s. 6onorable Minister o! 7abor an$ 'mployment, et al., 10 t!e limitation set %y t!e legislat#re on t!e po"er o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or to ass#me &#risdiction over a la%or disp#te, t!#s= ((( cannot %e any clearer, t!e coverage %eing limited to Ustri7es or loc7o#ts adversely a$$ecting t!e national interest. 11 In t!is case at %ar, !o"ever, t!e very admission %y t!e p#%lic respondent dra"s t!e la%or disp#te in H#estion o#t o$ t!e am%it o$ t!e Secretary8s prerogative, to "it. ?!ile t!e case at %ar appears on its $ace not to $all "it!in t!e strict categori@ation o$ cases im%#ed "it! Unational interestV, t!is o$$ice %elieves t!at t!e o%taining circ#mstances "arrant t!e e(ercise o$ t!e po"ers #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, as amended. 12 T2e 9r-3a1e re+9o.5e.1 5-5 .o1 e3e. 7a6e a.y e00or1 1o 1ou42 o. 12e -.5-+9e.+ab-,-1y o0 12e 7a142 0a41ory 1o 12e .a1-o.a, -.1ere+1. I1 7u+1 2a3e bee. a?are 12a1 a 7a142 0a41ory, 12ou/2 o0 3a,ue, 4a. +4ar4e,y be 4o.+-5ere5 a+ a. -.5u+1ry @-.5-+9e.+ab,e 1o 12e .a1-o.a, -.1ere+1A as it cannot %e in t!e same category as Ugeneration and distri%#tion o$ energy, or t!ose #nderta7en %y %an7s, !ospitals, and e(port.oriented ind#stries.V 13 Let, t!e p#%lic respondent ass#med &#risdiction t!ereover. 'o #p!old t!e action o$ t!e p#%lic respondent #nder t!e premises "o#ld %e stretc!ing too $ar t!e po"er o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or as every case o$ a stri7e or loc7o#t "!ere t!ere are inconveniences in t!e comm#nity, or "or7 disr#ptions in an ind#stry t!o#g! not indispensa%le to t!e national interest, "o#ld t!en come "it!in t!e Secretary8s po"er. I1 ?ou,5 be 9ra41-4a,,y a,,o?-./ 12e Se4re1ary o0 Labor 1o -.1er3e.e -. a.y Labor 5-+9u1e a1 2-+ 9,ea+ure. '!is is precisely "!y t!e la" sets and de$ines t!e standard= even in t!e e(ercise o$ !is po"er o$ comp#lsory ar%itration #nder Article +-* (g o$ t!e 4a%or Code, t!e Secretary m#st $ollo" t!e la". P!TITION GRANT! . FAR !AST!RN %NIV!RSIT$ B R. NICANOR R!$!S #! ICAL FO%N ATION CF!%8NR#FD a.5 LILIA P. L%NA. #. ., Pe1-1-o.er+, 3er+u+ F!%8NR#F !#PLO$!!S

ASSOCIATION8ALLIANC! OF FILIPINO 'OR=!RS CF!%8NR#F!A8AF'D, e1 a, Re+9o.5e.1+., G.R. No. 1;:3;2< O41ober 12, 200; FACTS& In )006, petitioner AE:.NR9A (a medical instit#tion organi@ed and e(isting #nder t!e P!ilippine la"s , and respondent #nion (a legitimate la%or organi@ation and is t!e d#ly recogni@ed representative o$ t!e ran7 and $ile employees o$ petitioner , entered into a CBA t!at "ill e(pire on *, April )00-. In vie" o$ t!e $ort!coming e(piry, respondent #nion sent a letter. proposal to petitioner AE:.NR9A stating t!eir economic and non.economic proposals $or t!e negotiation o$ t!e ne" CBA. Petitioner AE:.NR9A re&ected respondent #nion8s demands and proposed to maintain t!e same provisions o$ t!e old CBA reasoning t!at d#e to $inancial constraints, it cannot a$$ord to accede to a n#m%er o$ t!eir demands. In an e$$ort to arrive at a compromise, s#%seH#ent conciliation proceedings "ere cond#cted %e$ore t!e NC9B, %#t t!e negotiation $ailed. Respondent #nion $iled a Notice o$ Stri7e %e$ore NC9B on t!e gro#nd o$ %argaining deadloc7. :nion staged a stri7e. Petitioner AE:.NR9A $iled a Petition $or t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction or $or Certi$ication o$ 4a%or Disp#te "it! t!e N4RC, #nderscoring t!e $act t!at it is a medical instit#tion engaged in t!e %#siness o$ providing !ealt! care $or its patients. Secretary o$ 4a%or granted t!e petition and an Order ass#ming &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te "as iss#ed, t!ere%y pro!i%iting any stri7e or loc7o#t and en&oining t!e parties $rom committing any acts "!ic! may e(acer%ate t!e sit#ation. Septem%er -, )00-, Arancisco Esc#adra, t!e N4RC process server, certi$ied t!at, on Septem%er 1, )00- at aro#nd 6=,, P.9., !e attempted to serve a copy o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order (A;O to t!e #nion o$$icers %#t since no one "as aro#nd at t!e stri7e area, !e &#st posted copies o$ t!e said Order at several conspic#o#s places "it!in t!e premises o$ t!e !ospital. Stri7ing employees contin#ed !olding a stri7e #ntil )+ Septem%er )00-, claiming t!at t!ey !ad no 7no"ledge t!at t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or already ass#med &#risdiction over t!e pending la%or disp#te as t!ey "ere not a%le to receive a copy o$ t!e A;O. Secretary o$ 4a%or iss#ed anot!er Order directing all t!e stri7ing employees to ret#rn to "or7 and t!e petitioner AE:.NR9A to accept t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e. A Ret#rn to ?or7 Agreement "as e(ec#ted %y t!e disp#ting parties. S#%seH#ently, petitioner AE:.NR9A $iled a case %e$ore t!e N4RC, contending t!at respondent #nion staged t!e stri7e in de$iance o$ t!e A;O, !ence, it "as illegal. 4A declared t!e stri7e illegal and allo"ed dismissal o$ #nion o$$icers $or cond#cting t!e stri7e in de$iance o$ t!e A;O. Respondent #nion $iled an Appeal %e$ore t!e N4RC. N4RC a$$irmed in toto t!e Decision o$ t!e 4A. Respondent #nion $iled 9R, it "as denied. Respondent #nion %ro#g!t a Petition $or Certiorari %e$ore CA. CA granted t!e Petition and reversed t!e Resol#tions o$ N4RC. Petitioner $iled 9R %#t it "as denied. >ence t!is petition. ISS%!= ?!et!er t!e service o$ t!e A;O "as validly e$$ected %y t!e process server so as to %ind t!e respondent #nion and !old t!em lia%le $or t!e acts committed s#%seH#ent to t!e iss#ance o$ t!e said Order.

R%LING= '!e process server resorted to posting t!e Order "!en personal service "as rendered impossi%le since t!e stri7ing employees "ere not present at t!e stri7e area. '!is mode o$ service, !o"ever, is not sanctioned %y eit!er t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re or t!e Revised R#les o$ Co#rt. '!e pertinent provisions o$ t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re read= USection -. Service o$ Notices and Resol#tions. (a Notices or s#mmons and copies o$ orders, s!all %e served on t!e parties to t!e case personally %y t!e Baili$$ or d#ly a#t!ori@ed p#%lic o$$icer "it!in * days $rom receipt t!ereo$ or %y registered mailC Provided t!at in special circ#mstances, service o$ s#mmons may %e e$$ected in accordance "it! t!e pertinent provisions o$ t!e R#les o$ Co#rtC Provided $#rt!er, t!at in cases o$ decisions and $inal a"ards, copies t!ereo$ s!all %e served on %ot! parties and t!eir co#nsel or representative %y registered mailC Provided $#rt!er, t!at in cases "!ere a party to a case or !is co#nsel on record personally see7s service o$ t!e decision #pon inH#iry t!ereon, service to said party s!all %e deemed e$$ected #pon act#al receipt t!ereo$C Provided $inally, t!at "!ere parties are so n#mero#s, service s!all %e made on co#nsel and #pon s#c! n#m%er o$ complainants, as may %e practica%le, "!ic! s!all %e considered s#%stantial compliance "it! Article ++6(a o$ t!e 4a%or Code, as amended.V An Order iss#ed %y t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or ass#ming &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te is not a $inal &#dgment $or it does not dispose o$ t!e la%or disp#te "it! $inality. ConseH#ently, t!e r#le on service o$ s#mmons and orders, and not t!e proviso on service o$ decisions and $inal a"ards, governs t!e service o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order. :nder t!e N4RC Revised R#les o$ Proced#re, service o$ copies o$ orders s!o#ld %e made %y t!e process server eit!er personally or t!ro#g! registered mail. >o"ever, d#e to t!e #rgent nat#re o$ t!e A;O and t!e p#%lic policy #nderlying t!e in&#nction carried %y t!e iss#ance o$ t!e said Order, service o$ copies o$ t!e same s!o#ld %e made in t!e most e(peditio#s and e$$ective manner, "it!o#t any delay, ens#ring its immediate receipt %y t!e intended parties as may %e "arranted #nder t!e circ#mstances. '!#s, personal service is t!e proper mode o$ serving t!e A;O. Personal service e$$ectively ens#res t!at t!e notice desired #nder t!e constit#tional reH#irement o$ d#e process is accomplis!ed. I$, !o"ever, e$$orts to $ind t!e party concerned personally "o#ld ma7e prompt service impossi%le, service may %e completed %y s#%stit#ted service, t!at is, %y leaving a copy, %et"een t!e !o#rs o$ eig!t in t!e morning and si( in t!e evening, at t!e party8s or co#nsel8s residence, i$ 7no"n, "it! a person o$ s#$$icient age and discretion t!en residing t!erein (R:4E )+ o$ Rev R#les o$ Co#rt . S#%stit#ted service derogates t!e reg#lar met!od o$ personal service. It is t!ere$ore reH#ired t!at stat#tory restrictions $or e$$ecting s#%stit#ted service m#st %e strictly, $ait!$#lly and $#lly o%served. Aail#re to comply "it! t!is r#le renders a%sol#tely void t!e s#%stit#ted service along "it! t!e proceedings ta7en t!erea$ter. '!e #nderlying principle o$ t!is rigid reH#irement is t!at t!e person, to "!om t!e orders, notices or s#mmons are addressed, is made to ans"er $or t!e conseH#ences o$ t!e s#it even t!o#g! notice o$ s#c! action is made, not #pon t!e party concerned, %#t #pon anot!er "!om t!e la" co#ld only pres#me "o#ld noti$y s#c! party o$ t!e pending proceedings. In t!e case at %ar, pres#mption o$ receipt o$ t!e copies o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order A;O co#ld not %e ta7en $or granted considering t!e adverse e$$ect in case t!e parties $ailed to !eed to t!e in&#nction directed %y s#c! Order. De$iance o$ t!e ass#mption and ret#rn.to."or7

orders o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or a$ter !e !as ass#med &#risdiction is a valid gro#nd $or t!e loss o$ employment stat#s o$ any stri7ing #nion o$$icer or mem%er. Employment is a property rig!t o$ "!ic! one cannot %e deprived o$ "it!o#t d#e process. D#e process !ere "o#ld demand t!at t!e respondent #nion %e properly noti$ied o$ t!e Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction Order o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or en&oining t!e stri7e and reH#iring its mem%ers to ret#rn to "or7. '!#s, t!ere m#st %e a clear and #nmista7a%le proo$ t!at t!e reH#irements prescri%ed %y t!e R#les in t!e manner o$ e$$ecting personal or s#%stit#ted service !ad %een $ait!$#lly complied "it!. 9erely posting copies o$ t!e A;O does not satis$y t!e rigid reH#irement $or proper service o#tlined %y t!e a%ove stated r#les. Needless to say, t!e manner o$ service made %y t!e process server "as invalid and irreg#lar. Respondent #nion co#ld not t!ere$ore %e ad&#dged to !ave de$ied t!e said Order since it "as not properly apprised t!ereo$. Accordingly, t!e stri7e cond#cted %y t!e respondent #nion "as valid #nder t!e circ#mstances. ?>EREAORE, premises considered, t!e instant Petition is DENIED. Costs against t!e petitioner %.-3er+-1y o0 12e I77a4u,a1e Co.4e91-o. 3+ Se4 o0 Labor GR 151379 Fa41+& '!is case stemmed $rom t!e collective %argaining negotiations %et"een petitioner :niversity o$ Immac#late Concepcion, Inc. (:NI<ERSI'L and respondent '!e :IC 'eac!ing and Non. 'eac!ing Personnel and Employees :nion (:NION . '!e :NION, as t!e certi$ied %argaining agent o$ all ran7 and $ile employees o$ t!e :NI<ERSI'L, s#%mitted its collective %argaining proposals to t!e latter on Ae%r#ary )-, )006. >o"ever, one item "as le$t #nresolved and t!is "as t!e incl#sion or e(cl#sion o$ some positions in t!e scope o$ t!e %argaining #nit. '!e :NION it $iled a notice o$ stri7e on t!e gro#nds o$ %argaining deadloc7 and #n$air la%or practice. D#ring t!e t!irty (*, day cooling.o$$ period, t"o #nion mem%ers "ere dismissed %y petitioner. ConseH#ently, t!e :NION "ent on stri7e. On ;an#ary +*, )001, t!e t!en Secretary o$ 4a%or, 9a. Nieves R. Con$essor, iss#ed an Order ass#ming &#risdiction over t!e la%or disp#te. On 9arc! ),, )001, t!e :NION $iled anot!er notice o$ stri7e, t!is time citing as a reason t!e :NI<ERSI'L8s termination o$ t!e individ#al respondents. '!e :NION alleged t!at t!e :NI<ERSI'L8s act o$ terminating t!e individ#al respondents is in violation o$ t!e Order o$ t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or. On 9arc! +3, )001, t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or iss#ed anot!er Order reiterating t!e directives contained in t!e ;an#ary +*, )001 Order. >ence, t!e :NI<ERSI'L "as directed to reinstate t!e individ#al respondents #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing prior to t!e la%or disp#te. '!e :NI<ERSI'L $iled a 9R. In t!e Order dated A#g#st )3, )001, t!en Acting Secretary ;ose S. Brilliantes denied t!e 9R, %#t modi$ied t!e t"o previo#s Orders %y adding=

Anent t!e :nion8s 9otion, "e $ind t!at s#perseding circ#mstances "o#ld not "arrant t!e p!ysical reinstatement o$ t!e t"elve ()+ terminated employees. >ence, t!ey are !ere%y ordered placed #nder payroll reinstatement #ntil t!e validity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved. I++ue& ?ON payroll reinstatement, instead o$ act#al reinstatement, is proper. "e,5= ?it! respect to t!e Secretary8s Order allo"ing payroll reinstatement instead o$ act#al reinstatement $or t!e individ#al respondents !erein, an amendment to t!e previo#s Orders iss#ed %y !er o$$ice, t!e same is #s#ally not allo"ed. Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code a$orementioned states t!at all "or7ers m#st immediately ret#rn to "or7 and all employers m#st readmit all o$ t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e or loc7o#t. '!e p!rase U#nder t!e same terms and conditionsV ma7es it clear t!at t!e norm is act#al reinstatement. '!is is consistent "it! t!e idea t!at any "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n in t!at partic#lar ind#stry can %e detrimental to t!e national interest. In ordering payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement, t!en Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or ;ose S. Brillantes said= Anent t!e :nion8s 9otion, "e $ind t!at s#perseding circ#mstances "o#ld not "arrant t!e p!ysical reinstatement o$ t!e t"elve ()+ terminated employees. >ence, t!ey are !ere%y ordered placed #nder payroll reinstatement #ntil t!e validity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved. As an e(ception to t!e r#le, payroll reinstatement m#st rest on special circ#mstances t!at render act#al reinstatement impractica%le or ot!er"ise not cond#cive to attaining t!e p#rposes o$ t!e la". '!e Us#perseding circ#mstancesV mentioned %y t!e Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or no do#%t re$er to t!e $inal decision o$ t!e panel o$ ar%itrators as to t!e con$idential nat#re o$ t!e positions o$ t!e t"elve private respondents, t!ere%y rendering t!eir act#al and p!ysical reinstatement impractica%le and more li7ely to e(acer%ate t!e sit#ation. '!e payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement ordered in t!ese cases, t!ere$ore, appears &#sti$ied as an e(ception to t!e r#le #ntil t!e validity o$ t!eir termination is $inally resolved. '!is Co#rt sees no grave a%#se o$ discretion on t!e part o$ t!e Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or in ordering t!e same. A#rt!ermore, t!e iss#e !as not %een raised %y any party in t!is case. Petition denied. #a.-,a -a7o.5 "o1e, !e %.-o. 3+ CA GR 14051: Fa41+&

'!e :nion $iled a petition $or a certi$ication election, "!ic! "as dismissed %y t!e DO4E. Despite t!e dismissal o$ t!eir petition, t!e :nion sent a letter to t!e >otel in$orming t!e latter o$ its desire to negotiate $or a collective %argaining agreement. '!e >otel, !o"ever, re$#sed to negotiate "it! t!e :nion, citing t!e earlier dismissal o$ t!e :nion8s petition $or certi$ication %y DO4E. Aailing to settle t!e iss#e, t!e :nion staged a stri7e against t!e >otel. N#mero#s con$rontations $ollo"ed, $#rt!er straining t!e relations!ip %et"een t!e :nion and t!e >otel. '!e >otel claims t!at t!e stri7e "as illegal and dismissed some employees $or t!eir participation in t!e allegedly illegal concerted activity. '!e :nion, on t!e ot!er !and, acc#sed t!e >otel o$ illegally dismissing t!e "or7ers. A Petition $or Ass#mption o$ ;#risdiction #nder Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code "as later $iled %y t!e :nion %e$ore t!e Secretary o$ 4a%or. '!erea$ter, Secretary o$ 4a%or 'ra&ano iss#ed an Order directing t!e stri7ing o$$icers and mem%ers o$ t!e :nion to ret#rn to "or7 "it!in t"enty.$o#r (+6 !o#rs and t!e >otel to accept t!em %ac7 #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing prior to t!e stri7e. A$ter receiving t!e a%ove order t!e mem%ers o$ t!e :nion reported $or "or7, %#t t!e >otel re$#sed to accept t!em and instead $iled a 9otion $or Reconsideration o$ t!e Secretary8s Order. Acting on t!e motion $or reconsideration, t!en Acting Secretary o$ 4a%or EspaQol modi$ied t!e one earlier iss#ed %y Secretary 'ra&ano and instead directed t!at t!e stri7ers %e reinstated only in t!e payroll. I++ue= ?ON payroll reinstatement is proper in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement #nder Article +-*(g o$ t!e 4a%or Code. "e,5& Payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement is not sanctioned #nder t!e provision o$ t!e said article. '!e Co#rt noted t!e di$$erence %et"een :S' vs. N4RC and t!e instant case. In :S' case t!e teac!ers co#ld not %e given %ac7 t!eir academic assignments since t!e order o$ t!e Secretary $or t!em to ret#rn to "or7 "as given in t!e middle o$ t!e $irst semester o$ t!e academic year. '!e N4RC "as, t!ere$ore, $aced "it! a sit#ation "!ere t!e stri7ing teac!ers "ere entitled to a ret#rn to "or7 order, %#t t!e #niversity co#ld not immediately reinstate t!em since it "o#ld %e impractica%le and detrimental to t!e st#dents to c!ange teac!ers at t!at point in time. In t!e present case, t!ere is no similar compelling reason t!at called $or payroll reinstatement as an alternative remedy. A strained relations!ip %et"een t!e stri7ing employees and management is no reason $or payroll reinstatement in lie# o$ act#al reinstatement. :nder Article +-*(g , all "or7ers m#st immediately ret#rn to "or7 and all employers m#st readmit all o$ t!em #nder t!e same terms and conditions prevailing %e$ore t!e stri7e or loc7o#t. '!e Co#rt pointed o#t t!at t!e la" #ses t!e precise p!rase o$ U#nder t!e same terms and

conditions,V revealing t!at it contemplates only act#al reinstatement. '!is is in 7eeping "it! t!e rationale t!at any "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n in t!at partic#lar ind#stry can %e inimical to t!e national economy. '!e Co#rt reiterates t!at Article +-*(g "as not "ritten to protect la%or $rom t!e e(cesses o$ management, nor "as it "ritten to ease management $rom e(penses, "!ic! it normally inc#rs d#ring a "or7 stoppage or slo"do"n. '!is la" "as "ritten as a means to %e #sed %y t!e State to protect itsel$ $rom an emergency or crisis. It is not $or la%or, nor is it $or management. Petition granted.

You might also like