4. NESTL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NLRC and UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES G.R. No. 91231 F !

"#a"$ 4, 1991 %Y& 'USTINE LYNE C(RR(N)( %OR%E F(CTS& 1. There were Four (4) collective bargaining agreements separately covering the petitioner's employees in their; Alabang/ abuyao !actories an" #a$ati A"ministration %!!ice (&oth were represente" by 'nion o! Filipro (mployees )'F(*(+(,-%./(.T); agayan "e %ro Factory represente" by 0AT'; an" ebu//avao ,ales %!!ices represente" by the Tra"e 'nion o! the -hilippines an" Allie" ,ervices (T'-A,)1 all e2pire" on 3une 451 1678. 9. 'F( was later certi!ie" as the sole an" e2clusive bargaining agent !or all regular ran$:an":!ile employees. 4. August1 1678: while in negotiation1 the employees at abuyao resorte" to a ;slow"own; an" wal$:outs prompting the petitioner to shut "own the !actory. 4. ,eptember 91 1678: the 'F( "eclare" a bargaining "ea"loc$. <. ,eptember 71 1678: the ,ecretary o! =abor issue" a return to wor$ or"er. >. ?n spite o! that or"er1 the union struc$1 without notice1 at three o! their o!!ices !or almost three months. The company retaliate" by "ismissing the union o!!icers an" members o! the negotiating panel who participate" in the illegal stri$e. 7. The .=+ a!!irme" the "ismissals. 6. 3anuary 9>1 1677: 'F( !ile" a notice o! stri$e on the same groun" o! &A "ea"loc$ an" un!air labor practices. 15. #arch 451 1677: the company was able to conclu"e a &A with the union at the ebu//avao ,ales %!!ice1 an" agayan "e %ro !actory wor$ers. The union assaile" the vali"ity o! these agreements an" !ile" a case o! un!air labor practice. 11. There were no conciliation between the two parties an" so the "ispute was certi!ie" to the .=+ by the ,ecretary o! =abor. 19. A!ter the parties ha" !ile" their plea"ings1 the .=+ issue" a resolution whose pertinent "isposition regar"ing the union's "eman" !or liberali@ation o! the company's retirement plan !or its wor$ers1 provi"es as !ollowsA a) !or 1< years o! service or less B an amount eCual to 155D o! the employee's monthly salary !or every year o! service; b) more than 1< but less than 95 years B 19<D o! the employee's monthly salary !or every year o! service; c) 95 years or more B 1<5D o! the employee's monthly salary !or every year o! service. 14. &oth parties separately move" !or reconsi"eration o! the "ecision. 14. August 71 1676: the .=+ issue" a resolution "enying the motions !or reconsi"eration on the groun" that while the plan is non:contributory on the part o! the wor$ers1 it "oes not mean that it will automatically be remove" !rom the ambit o! collective bargaining negotiations. 1<. /ecember 141 1676: the petitioner !ile" this petition !or certiorari1 alleging that since its retirement plan is non:contributory1 it (.estlE) has the sole an" e2clusive prerogative to "e!ine the terms o! the plan ;because the wor$ers have no veste" an" "eman"able rights1 the grant being not a contractual obligation but merely gratuitous. At most the company can only

be "irecte" to maintain the same but not to change its terms. ?t shoul" be le!t to the "iscretion o! the company on how to improve or molli!y the same;. ISSUE*1& 0%. the company has the sole an" e2clusive prerogative to "e!ine the terms o! the retirement plan. .%. The company's contention that its retirement plan is non:negotiable1 is not well:ta$en. The .=+ correctly observe" that the inclusion o! the retirement plan in the collective bargaining agreement as part o! the pac$age o! economic bene!its e2ten"e" by the company to its employees to provi"e them a measure o! !inancial security a!ter they shall have cease" to be employe" in the company1 rewar" their loyalty1 boost their morale an" e!!iciency an" promote in"ustrial peace1 gives ;a consensual character; to the plan so that it may not be terminate" or mo"i!ie" at will by either party. ISSUE * 2 0%. the retirement plan as non contributory is a vali" &A issue. F(,. The !act that the retirement plan is non:contributory1 "oes not ma$e it a non:issue in the &A negotiations. As a matter o! !act1 almost all o! the bene!its that the petitioner has grante" to its employees un"er the &A (salary increases1 rice allowances1 mi":year bonuses1 14th an" 14th month pay1 seniority pay1 me"ical an" hospitali@ation plans1 health an" "ental services1 vacation1 sic$ G other leaves with pay) are non:contributory bene!its. ,ince the retirement plan has been an integral part o! the &A1 the 'nion's "eman" to increase the bene!its "ue the employees un"er sai" plan1 is a vali" &A issue. ISSUE *3 0%. the employees has no veste" rights !or retirement plans are non contributory. .%. The petitioner's contention1 that employees have no veste" or "eman"able right to a non:contributory retirement plan1 has no merit !or employees "o have a veste" an" "eman"able right over e2isting bene!its voluntarily grante" to them by their employer. The latter may not unilaterally with"raw1 eliminate or "iminish such bene!its. This ourt rule" similarly in +epublic ement orporation vs. Honorable -anel o! Arbitrators1 I.+. .o. 768>>1 Feb. 161 1665A . . . -etitioner's claim that retirement bene!its1 being noncontributory in nature1 are not proper subJects !or voluntary arbitration is "evoi" o! merit. The e2pire" &A previously entere" into by the parties inclu"e" provisions !or the implementation o! a ;+etirement an" ,eparation -lan.; it is only to be e2pecte" that the parties woul" see$ a renewal or an improvement o! sai" item in the new &A. ?n !act1 the parties themselves e2pressly inclu"e" retirement bene!its among the economic issues to be resolve" by voluntary arbitration. -etitioner is estoppe" !rom now contesting the vali"ity o! the increase" awar" grante" by the arbitrators. ISSUE *4 0%. the .=+ committe" grave abuse o! "iscretion in this case. .%. The .=+ 's resolution o! the bargaining "ea"loc$ between .estlE an" its employees is neither arbitrary1 capricious1 nor whimsical. The bene!its an" concessions given to the employees were base" on the .=+ 's evaluation o! the union's "eman"s1 the evi"ence a""uce" by the parties1 the !inancial capacity o! the ompany to grant the "eman"s1 its longterm viability1 the economic con"itions prevailing in the country as they a!!ect the purchasing power o! the employees as well as its concommitant e!!ect on the other !actors o! pro"uction1 an" the recent tren"s in the in"ustry to which the ompany belongs. ?ts "ecision is not vitiate" by abuse o! "iscretion. /?,-%,?T?%.A the petition !or certiorari is "ismisse"1 with costs against the petitioner.