Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b50574bae09458ef6000a0082004500cc/p/AMP128/?username=Guest
1/13
2/4/2015
199
199
2/13
2/4/2015
200
200
BRION,J.:
We pass upon the petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court1 filed by FVC Labor Union
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(FVCLUPTGWO) to challenge the Court of Appeals (CA)
decision of July 25, 20062 and its resolution rendered on
January 15, 20073 in CAG.R. SP No. 83292.4
The Antecedents
The facts are undisputed and are summarized below.
On December 22, 1997, the petitioner FVCLUPTGWO
the recognized bargaining agent of the rankandfile
employees of the FVC Philippines, Incorporated (company)
signed a fiveyear collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
with the company. The fiveyear CBA period was from
February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003.5 At the end of the
3rd year of the fiveyear term and pursuant to the CBA,
FVCLUPTGWO and the company entered into the
renegotiation of the CBA and modified, among other
provisions, the CBAs duration. Article XXV, Section 2 of
the renegotiated CBA provides that this renegotiation
agreement shall take effect beginning February 1, 2001 and
until May
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 317.
2Id., at pp. 6985. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan
Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar
Fernando and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam.
3Id., at pp. 9496.
4SamaSamang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVCSolidarity of
Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMAFVCSIGLO) v.
Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas, Secretary of Labor and Employment, FVC Labor
UnionPTGWO and FVC Philippines.
5Petition, Annex A; Rollo, pp. 1935.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b50574bae09458ef6000a0082004500cc/p/AMP128/?username=Guest
3/13
2/4/2015
201
201
4/13
2/4/2015
202
203
5/13
2/4/2015
The CA Decision
The CA found SANAMASIGLOs petition meritorious
on the basis of the applicable law10 and the rules,11 as
interpreted in the congressional debates. It set aside the
challenged DOLE Secretary decisions and reinstated her
earlier ruling calling for a certification election. The
appellate court declared:
It is clear from the foregoing that while the parties may
renegotiate the other provisions (economic and noneconomic) of
the CBA, this should not affect the fiveyear representation aspect
of the original CBA. If the duration of the renegotiated agreement
does not coincide with but rather exceeds the original fiveyear
term, the same will not adversely affect the right of another union
to challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent within sixty (60) days before the lapse of the original five (5)
year term of the CBA. In the event a new union wins in the
certification election, such union is required to honor and
administer the renegotiated CBA throughout the excess period.
204
6/13
2/4/2015
FVCSIGLO)
205
7/13
2/4/2015
206
8/13
2/4/2015
207
9/13
2/4/2015
entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the
duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the
renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties
may exercise their rights under this Code.
extension
or
renewal
of
the
collective
208
10/13
2/4/2015
209
11/13
2/4/2015
210
12/13
2/4/2015
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b50574bae09458ef6000a0082004500cc/p/AMP128/?username=Guest
13/13