7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14 http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compiled-labor-6th-meeting-updated-as-of-10714 1/33 LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr. G.R. No. L-55703 November 27, 198 !"ILI!!INE O#ERSEAS DRILLING AND OIL DE#ELO!$ENT COR!ORATION, petitioner, vs. T"E "ON. $INISTR% O& LABOR, "ON. &RANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, Re'(o)*+ D(reor, Re'(o) I#, $()(r/ o L*bor *) Em+o/me), $ARIANO $. $ELENDRES, R., *) S4er( ABE ESTRADA *) !ERCI#AL GRANADO, respondents. &ACTS6 Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in petroleum exploration and exploitation. Private Respondent is the Chief Geologist of the Petitioner for almost ten years before he nally decided to resign. !n "ovember #$, %&'&, private respondent (rote petitioner in in)uiring (hether any action had been ta*en on his resignation and +*(m()' e*r*(o) */ *) o4er be)e 4(4 e((o)er ee)e o o4er em+o/ee 4o 4* e*r+(er re(')e. !n +ecember ', %&'&, petitioner, (ithout replying to the letter of private respondent, led (ith the oce of the +irector of -ureau of abor Relations, "ational Capital Region, a veried application for clearance to terminate the employment of private respondent e/ective September #&, %&'& due to the latter0s resignation. A copy thereof (as received by private respondent on +ecember %#, %&'&. !n +ecember %1, %&'&, private respondent led (ith the aforementioned oce a veried complaint2opposition to clearance application charging petitioner (ith unfair labor practice and undue discrimination in refusing to grant him separation pay. Respondent +irector of abor issued an order in favor of Private Respondent (hich reads3 xxx Careful examination of the record disclosed that complainant is legally entitled to separation benets of pay pursuant to company policy. 4he documented evidence xxx re5ect payment of benets to employees (ho (ere similarly situated. "on6grant of the same benet to complainant (ould inferentially be interpreted as unfair discrimination or 7P. ogically, the a(ard of this benet as per company policy is (arranted. ISS:E6 8hether or not Private Respondent is legally entitled to separation benet. R:LING6 %ES. 98ell6established is the principle that ndings of administrative agencies (hich have ac)uired expertise because their :urisdiction is conned to specic matters are generally accorded not only respect but even nality. Judicial revie( by this Court on labor cases do not go so far as to evaluate the suciency of the evidence upon (hich the +eputy ;inister and the Regional +irector based their determinations but are limited to issues of :urisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.9 -e that as it may, the nding of respondent +irector, that there (as a company policy to grant separation benet or pay e)uivalent to one <%= month pay for every year of service to employees (ho (ere similarly situated as private respondent, is supported by substantial evidence (hich means 9such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade)uate to support a conclusion.9 <Ang4ibay vs. C>R, ?& Phil. ?@B Caete vs. 8or*men0s Compensation Commission, ;ay 1, %&1, %@? SCRA @$#, @$1=. +ocuments to this e/ect (ere presented by private respondent at the hearing on January #D, %&1$ as Annexes 9+9 thru 9+6' 9 of his position paper.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
G.R. "o. '#1& August @%, %&1&
;A$A%A !OINT "OTEL, e((o)er, v. NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS CO$$ISSION, &EDERATION O& &REE <OR;ERS*) $E$IA =:IA$BAO, reo)e).
&ACTS3 ;emia uiambao (ith thirty others, members of Hederation of Hree 8or*ers <HH8=, (ere employed by petitioner ashotel cre(. !n the basis of the protability of the company0sbusiness operations, management granted a %Dth month pay to itsemployees starting in %&'&. >n January %&1#, operations ceased togive (ay to the hotel0s conversion into a training center for ibyanscholars. Eo(ever, due to technical and nancing problems, theibyans pre6terminated the program on July ', %&1#, leavingpetitioner (ithout any business, aside from the fact that it (as notpaid for the use of the hotel premises and in addition had tounderta*e repairs of the premises damaged by the ibyanstudents. >t allegedly su/ered losses amounting to P# million.
Although it reopened the hotel premises to the public, it (as notable to pic*6up its lost patronage. >n a couple of months it e/ecteda retrenchment program until nally on it totally closed itsbusiness.
HH8 led a complaint against petitioner for illegal suspension,violation of the C-A and non6payment of the %Dth month pay.
ISS:E3 Records sho( that the case (as submitted for decision onthe sole issue of alleged non6payment of the %Dth month pay forthe year %&1# .
R:LING3 "!, 4EFK ARF "!4 F"4>4F+. 8e nd it dicult to
comprehend (hy the "RC and the abor Arbiter, despite theiradmission that the %Dth month pay has no contractual or legalbasis, still chose to rule in favor of private respondents. >t ispatently obvious that Article %$$ is clearly (ithout applicability. 4he date of e/ectivity of the abor Code is ;ay %, %&'D. >n thecase at bar, petitioner extended its %Dth month pay beginning%&'& until %&1%. 8hat is demanded is payment of the %Dth monthpay for %&1#. I)>b(*b+/ rom 4ee * *+o)e, Ar(+e 100o 4e L*bor Coe *))o *+/.
;oreover, there is )o +* 4* m*)*e 4e */me) o 4e1?4 mo)4 */. O)+/ 4e 134 mo)4 */ ( m*)*e.
"*v()' e)@o/e 4e *((o)*+ ()ome () 4e orm o 4e134 mo)4 */, r(v*e reo)e) ()(e)e o) 4e1?4 mo)4 */ or 1982 ( *+re*/ *) >)*rr*)ee*)(o) o 4e +(ber*+(/ o 4e +*.
Also contractually, as gleaned from the collective bargaining
agreement bet(een management and the union, there is nostipulation as to such extra remuneration. Ev(e)+/, 4(om((o) ( *) *)o+e'me) 4* >4 be)e (e)(re+/ o)(+*'e) or ee)e) o) 4e ro*b(+(/ o 4eom*)/ oer*(o).
A %Dth month pay is a misnomer because it is basically a bonusand, therefore, gratuitous in nature. 4he granting of the %Dthmonth pay is a management prerogative (hich cannot be forcedupon the employer. >t is something given in addition to (hat isordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient. >t is a gratuity to(hich the recipient has no right to ma*e a demand.
4his Court is not prepared to compel petitioner to grant the %Dthmonth pay solely because it has allegedly ripened into a companypractice9 as the labor arbiter has put it. Eaving lost its cateringbusiness derived from ibyan students, Lamaya Eotel should notbe penaliMed for its previous liberality.
An employer may not be obliged to assume a 9double burden9 of paying the %@th month pay in addition to bonuses or other benetsaside from the employee0s basic salaries or (ages.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
S:!RE$E STEEL COR!ORATION vNAG;A;AISANG$ANGGAGA<A NG S:!RE$E INDE!ENDENT :NION N$S-IND-A!L
Petitioner Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation is a domesticcorporation engaged in the business of manufacturing steel pipesfor domestic and foreign mar*ets. Respondent"ag*a*aisang;anggaga(a ng Supreme >ndependent 7nion is thecertied bargaining agent of petitionerNs ran*6and6le employees.
HAC4S3 !n July #', #$$, respondent led a notice of stri*e (ith the"ational Conciliation and ;ediation -oard <"C;-= on the groundthat petitioner violated certain provisions of the C-A. 4he partiesfailed to settle their dispute. Conse)uently, the Secretary of aborcertied the case to the "RC for compulsory arbitration pursuantto Article #?@<g= of the abor Code.
Respondent alleged eleven C-A violations, delineated as follo(s3De)(*+ o o>r em+o/ee o 4e CBA- rov(e *'e()re*e, Contracting6out labor, Hailure to provide shuttle service,Refusal to ans(er for the medical expenses incurred by threeemployees, Hailure to comply (ith the time6o/ (ith pay provision,OisitorsN free access to company premises Respondent chargedpetitioner (ith violation of Article >>, Section ' of the C-A, Hailure tocomply (ith reporting time6o/ provision, +ismissal of +iosdado;adayag, +enial of paternity leave benet to t(oemployees, +iscrimination and harassment, and No)-(m+eme)*(o) o COLA () <*'e Orer No. RBIII-10 *)11Ar(+e 100 L*bor Coe.
Regarding the C-A6provided (age increase<%=, Article >>, Section %of the C-A provides3
Section %. 4he C!;PA"K shall grant a general (age increase, overand above to all employees, according to the follo(ing schedule3
A. F/ective June %, #$$@ P%D.$$ per (or*ing dayB
-. F/ective June %, #$$D P%#.$$ per (or*ing dayB and
C. F/ective June %, #$$ P%#.$$ per (or*ing day. @
Respondent alleged that petitioner has repeatedly denied theannual C-A increases to at least four individuals3 Juan "io,
Reynaldo Acosta, Rommel 4alavera, and Fddie +alagon. Accordingto respondent, petitioner gives an anniversary increase to itsemployees upon reaching their rst year of employment. 4he fouremployees received their respective anniversary increases andpetitioner used such anniversary increase to :ustify the denial of their C-A increase for the year. Petitioner explained that it hasbeen the companyNs long standing practice that upon reaching oneyear of service, a (age ad:ustment is granted, and, once (agesare ad:usted, the increase provided for in the C-A for that year isno longer implemented. Petitioner claimed that this practice (asnot ob:ected to by respondent as evidenced by the employeesN payslips. Respondent countered that petitioner failed to prove that, asa matter of company practice, the anniversary increase too* theplace of the C-A increase. >t contended that all employees shouldreceive the C-A stipulated increase for the years #$$@ to #$$.
8ith regards to the "on6implementation of C!A in 8age !rder"os. R->>>6%$ and %%<#=. Respondent posited that any form of (ageincrease granted through the C-A should not be treated ascompliance (ith the (age increase given through the (age boards.Respondent claimed that, for a number of years, petitioner hascomplied (ith Article >>, Section # of the C-A (hich provides3
Section #. All salary increase granted by the C!;PA"K shall not becredited to any future contractual or legislated (age increases.-oth increases shall be implemented separate and distinct from
the increases stated in this Agreement. >t should be understood byboth parties that contractual salary increase are separate anddistinct from legislated (age increases, thus the increase broughtby the latter shall be en:oyed also by all covered employees.
Respondent maintained that for every (age order that (as issuedin Region @, petitioner never hesitated to comply and grant asimilar increase. Specically, respondent cited petitionerNscompliance (ith 8age !rder "o. R->>>6%$ and grant of themandated P%.$$ cost of living allo(ance <C!A= to all itsemployees. Petitioner, ho(ever, stopped implementing it to non6
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
minimum (age earners on July #D, #$$. >t contended that thisviolates Article %$$ of the abor Code (hich prohibits thediminution of benets already en:oyed by the (or*ers and thatsuch grant of benets had already ripened into a companypractice.D%
!e((o)er e+*()e 4* 4e COLA rov(e >)er <*'eOrer No. RBIII-10 *+(e o m()(m>m *'e e*r)er o)+/*) 4*, b/ m(*e, ( (m+eme)e 4e *me *ro 4ebo*r or o *++ ( em+o/ee. Aer re*+(()' ( m(*e, (oe ()e'r*()' 4e COLA o 4e b*( */ o 4eorer 4o ere e*r)()' *bove 4e m()(m>m *'e.
4he "RCNs Ruling
!ut of the eleven issues raised by respondent, eight (ere decided
in its favorB t(o <denial of paternity leave benet anddiscrimination of union members= (ere decided in favor of petitionerB (hile the issue on visitorNs free access to companypremises (as deemed settled during the mandatory conference.
<%= 4he "RC correctly held that every employee is entitled to the(age increase under the C-A despite receipt of an anniversaryincrease. 4he CA concluded that, based on the (ording of the C-A,(hich uses the (ords 9general increase9 and 9over and above,9 itcannot be said that the parties have intended the anniversaryincrease to be given in lieu of the C-A (age increase.
2 T4e CA e+*re 4* 4e (4r**+ o 4e COLA >)er<*'e Orer No. RBIII-10 rom 4e em+o/ee 4o ere )om()(m>m *'e e*r)er *mo>)e o * (m()>(o) o be)e be*>e >4 'r*) 4* *+re*/ r(e)e ()o *om*)/ r*(e. I o()e o> 4* 4ere * )o*mb('>(/ or o>b * o 4o ere overe b/ 4e *'eorer. !e((o)er, 4ereore, m*/ )o ()voe error orm(*e () ee)()' 4e COLA o *++ em+o/ee *) >4* *) o)+/ be o)r>e * F* * vo+>)*r/ * o) 4e *ro 4e em+o/er.9D? 4he CA opined that, considering theforegoing, the ruling in Globe ;ac*ay Cable and Radio Corp. v.
"RCD' clearly did not apply as there (as no doubtful or dicult)uestion involved in the present case.D1
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the CANs decision but CAdenied the motion for lac* of merit. Eence, the case.
>SS7FS3
%. 8!" the employees are entitled to the general (age increasedespite the given anniversary increase.
#. <ON 4ere * (m()>(o) o be)e 4e) !e((o)eroe (m+eme)()' 4e COLA rov(e >)er *'eorer )o RBIII-10 o )o)-m()(m>m *'e e*r)er.
EF+3 7pon these (ell6established precepts, (e sustain the CANsndings and conclusions on all the issues, except the issuepertaining to the denial of the C!A under 8age !rder "o. R->>>6%$and %% to the employees (ho are not minimum (age earners.
<%= KFS. 4he (ording of the C-A on general (age increase cannotbe interpreted any other (ay3 4he C-A increase should be given toall employees 9over and above9 the amount they are receiving,even if that amount already includes an anniversary increase.Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in isolationfrom one another.' Consideration of Article >>>, Section # <non6crediting provision=, bolsters such interpretation. Section # statesthat 9aIll salary increase granted by the company shall not becredited to any future contractual or legislated (age increases.9Clearly then, even if petitioner had already a(arded an anniversary
increase to its employees, such increase cannot be credited to the9contractual9 increase as provided in the C-A, (hich is considered9separate and distinct.9
!e((o)er +*(m 4* ( 4* bee) 4e om*)/ r*(e ooe 4e *))(ver*r/ ()re*e (4 4e CBA ()re*e. I4oever *(+e o rove >4 m*er(*+ *. Com*)/r*(e, @> +(e *)/ o4er *, 4*b(, >om, >*'e or*er) o o)> m> be rove). T4e oer()' *r/m> *++e'e *) rove e(, ree((ve o)> 4*m('4 o)(>e ev(e)e o 4*b(, or om*)/ r*(e.
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
Ev(e)+/, 4e */ +( o 4e o>r em+o/ee o )o erve* >(e) roo.
<#="!. "o diminution of benets (ould result if the (age orders arenot implemented across the board, as no such company practicehas been established.
+iminution of benets is the unilateral (ithdra(al by the employerof benets already en:oyed by the employees. T4ere ((m()>(o) o be)e 4e) ( ( 4o) 4*6 1 4e 'r*)or be)e ( o>)e o) * o+(/ or 4* r(e)e ()o *r*(e over * +o)' er(o o (meH 2 4e r*(e (o)(e) *) e+(ber*eH 3 4e r*(e ( )o >e oerror () 4e o)r>(o) or *+(*(o) o * o>b>+ or(>+ >e(o) o +*H *) ? 4e (m()>(o) or(o)()>*)e ( o)e >)(+*er*++/ b/ 4e em+o/er.
4o recall, the CA arrived at its ruling by relying on the fact that
there (as no ambiguity in the (ording of the (age order as to theemployees covered by it. Hrom this, the CA concluded thatpetitioner actually made no error or mista*e, but acted voluntarily,in granting the C!A to all its employees. >t therefore too*exception to the Globe ;ac*ay case (hich, according to it, appliesonly (hen there is a doubtful or dicult )uestion involved.
4he CA failed to note that Globe ;ac*ay primarily emphasiMedthat, for the grant of the benet to be considered voluntary, 9itshould have been practiced over a long period of time, and mustbe sho(n to have been consistent and deliberate.9 4he fact thatthe practice must not have been due to error in the construction orapplication of a doubtful or dicult )uestion of la( is a distinct
re)uirement.
4he implementation of the C!A under 8age !rder "o. R->>>6%$across the board2all employees, (hich only lasted for less than ayear, cannot be considered as having been practiced 9over a longperiod of time.9 8hile it is true that :urisprudence has not laiddo(n any rule re)uiring a specic minimum number of years inorder for a practice to be considered as a voluntary act of theemployer, under existing :urisprudence on this matter, an actcarried out (ithin less than a year (ould certainly not )ualify assuch. Eence, the (ithdra(al of the C!A 8age !rder "o. R->>>6%$
from the salaries of non6minimum (age earners did not amount toa 9diminution of benets9 under the la(.
4here is also no basis in en:oining petitioner to implement 8age!rder "o. R->>>6%% across the board. Similarly, no proof (aspresented sho(ing that the implementation of (age orders acrossthe board has ripened into a company practice. >n the same (aythat (e re)uired petitioner to prove the existence of a companypractice (hen it alleged the same as defense, at this instance, (ealso re)uire respondent to sho( proof of the company practice asit is no( the party claiming its existence. Abe) *)/ roo o e(, ree((ve o)> 4* m('4 o)(>e ev(e)eo 4e r*(e, e *))o '(ve ree)e o reo)e)J+*(m. T4e (o+*e * o (m+eme)()' * *'e orer*ro 4e bo*r *) 4*r+/ be o)(ere * om*)/r*(e, more o 4e) >4 (m+eme)*(o) *erro)eo>+/ m*e.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
%&1'. Since Santos0 latest performance rating (as only
satisfactory, his gratuity pay should be based on the minimum and
not on the maximum amount of the rate of the salary of the ran*
next higher. >n this regard, (e )uote (ith approval the Commentof the Solicitor General that 6
"othing in the provisions of the %&'% C-A from (hich emanated
the one ran* higher policy indicates a minimum or maximum range
of the next higher ran*. >nstead, (hat is provided is an un)ualied
one ran* higher concept. Petitioner is, therefore, precluded from
dra(ing a distinction (here none has been stated in the contract.
-esides, assuming that an ambiguity does exist, the same must be
resolved in the light of Article %'$# of the Civil Code that3 >n case
of doubt, the labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be
construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
Such should be liberally construed in favor of the persons intendedto be beneted thereby.
;oreover, petitioner, by invo*ing the salary structure and criteria
for promotion as basis for determining the amount of gratuity has
confused the t(o distinct concepts of gratuity and salary.
Gr*>(/ */, >)+(e *+*r/, ( *( o 4e be)e(*r/ or 4e* erv(e or *vor re)ere >re+/ o> o 4e'e)ero(/ o 4e '(ver or 'r*)or. Gr*>(/, 4ereore, ()o ()e)e o */ * orer or *>*+ erv(e re)ereor or *>*+ erorm*)e. I ( * mo)e/ be)e or bo>)/
'(ve) o 4e orer, 4e >roe o 4(4 ( o re*rem+o/ee 4o 4*ve re)ere *(*or/ erv(e o 4eom*)/. S*+*r/, o) 4e o4er 4*), ( * *r o +*bor*)*r +* b*e o) 4e *>*+ *mo>) o or re)ereor 4e )>mber o */ ore over 4e er(o o /e*r. Eence, petitioner0s attempt to apply the salary structure to
determine gratuity (ould eradicate the very essence of a gratuity
a(ard, and ma*e it parta*e of the character of a (age or salary
given on the basis of actual (or* or performance. Such (as never
the intendment of the la( and (ould run counter to essential social
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
I)er)*(o)*+ S4oo+ o A++(*)e E>*or v. =>((mb()'333 SCRA 13
>)e 1, 2000;*>)*), .
&*6 Private respondent, >nternational School, >nc., is a domestic
educational institution that is established primarily for dependentsof foreign diplomatic school personnel. >t is created pursuant toPresidential +ecree "o. '@# (hereby under Section #<c= thereof, itgives the school the po(er to hire employees either locally orabroad.
Conse)uently, the respondent hires t(o types of personnel. 4heseare the foreign hires and the local hires. +espite the fact that theforeign hires and the local hires are of the same position andperform similar tas*s, duties and responsibilities, the Schoolcompensates these employees di/erently. 4he foreign hires receivebetter benets than the local hires. 4hey are paid salaries that is# more than the salaries received by the local hires. >n addition,
they are also granted housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxesand home leave travel allo(ance.
-ecause of these, the petitioner contested the di/erences of thebenets and salaries received bet(een the foreign and local hirescontending that such constitutes racial discrimination invo*ing thee)ual protection clause under the %&1' Constitution. >t alsocontends that such di/erence violates the e)ual pay for e)ual (or*principle under the abor Code.
!n the other hand, the private respondent contends that bettersalaries and benets are o/ered to foreign hires because of t(ofactors3 %. the dislocation factor and #. limited tenure. >t furthercontends that there being a valid :ustication for the better salaryand benets given to foreign hires, it cannot therefore constitutediscrimination. ;oreover, they contend that there are foreignnationals (ho are given the benets of a local hire (hich furtherdiscredits the contention that there is racial discrimination.
4he Acting Secretary of +!F gave credence to the contention of the private respondent and stated that the di/erences in salaryrates does not constitute discrimination because there is asubstantial di/erence or a valid classication bet(een local andforeign heirs. ;oreover, such di/erences are :ustied becauseforeign heirs are under di/erent (or*ing conditions in contrast (ith
the local hires as they are under limited tenure and they su/erinconveniences because they are separated from their home andfamily.
Eence, the current petition.
I>e6 8hether or not the salary di/erences received by the localand foreign hires violates the e)ual protection clause and theprinciple of e)ual pay for e)ual (or* principle.
R>+()'6 4he Supreme Court reversed the decision of the +!F anddeclared that the grant of better benets in favor of the foreignhired employees constitutes discrimination and a violation not onlyof the e)ual protection clause but also of the rule on e)ual pay fore)ual (or*.
4he general principles of la( abhor discrimination and upholdfairness and e)uality in favor of the abor. 4his is embodied notonly in the statutes promulgated by this country but it is also
established in the Constitution itself and even in internationalconventions. 4he constitution provides that the labor shall beentitled to humane conditions of (or*. 4his right of the labor doesnot only pertain to the physical (or*ing conditions in the (or*place but it also includes the manner in (hich the employees aretreated. >n addition, the Constitution and the abor Code alsoprovides that the State shall ensure e)uality of employmentopportunities for all employees regardless of their age, sex andreligion.
4his pronouncements and principles (ould necessarily lead to theconclusion that discrimination, in (hatever manner, of theemployees especially in the payment of the (ages is fro(ned uponby the la( including the abor Code. >n line (ith this, in cases of payment of (ages the principle of e)ual pay for e)ual (or* mustbe follo(ed. 4his means that persons (ho (or* (ith substantiallye)ual )ualications, s*ill, e/ort and responsibility, under similarconditions should be paid similar salaries.
>n the case at bar, it is apparent that the foreign and local hires areof e)ual footing in terms of their s*ills, duties, responsibilities andthat they are under similar circumstances. 4hey therefore shouldbe paid e)ually. 4he fact that there is a dislocation factor andlimited tenure in foreign hires does not :ustify that they should begiven higher salary rates. 4hese inconvenience, as declared by the
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
Supreme Court, is already compensated by the additional benetsgiven to them by the School. As it is found that no substantialdistinctions lie bet(een foreign and local hires, it is but :ust togrant them similar salary rates and to do other(ise (ould violatethe e)ual protection clause and the e)ual pay for e)ual (or*principle.
4he Supreme Court ruled that salaries should not be used asenticement to the pre:udice of the other (or*ers. Salaries are givenas a compensation for the (or* performed by the employees and itshould be given to them (ithout any form of discrimination.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
T(*)'o v. Leo'*ro
G.R. No. L-573 $*/ 1, 1983
Hacts3
Reynaldo 4iangco, petitioner, is a shing operator (ho o(ns theReynaldo 4iangco Hishing Company and a 5eet of shing vessels
engaged in deep sea shing (hich operates from "avotas, RiMal.
Eis business is capitaliMed at P#,$$$,$$$.$$, (hile petitioner
Oictoria 4iangco is a sh bro*er (hose business is capitaliMed at
P%$$,$$$.$$.
Some of the private respondents (ere engaged by Reynaldo
4iangco as batillos, (ho (ere tas*ed to unload the sh catch from
the vessels and ta*e them to the Hish Stall of the petitioner Oictoria
4iangco. 4he other private respondents (ere batillos engaged by
Oictoria 4iangco.
4he private respondents (ere all (or*ing as part6time since their
(or* (ere limited to days of arrival of the shing vessels and their
(or*ing days in a month are comparatively fe(. 4heir (or*ing
hours average four <D= hours a day.
4he private respondents led a complaint against the petitioners
(ith the ;inistry of abor and Fmployment for non6 payment of
their legal holiday pay and service incentive leave pay, * e++ *>)er*/me) o 4e(r emer'e)/ o o +(v()' *++o*)e4(4 >e o be *( () >++ (rree(ve o 4e(r or()'*/, b> 4(4 ere re>e ee(ve &ebr>*r/ 1980, ()o)r*ve)(o) o Ar(+e 100 o 4e )e L*bor Coe 4(4ro4(b( 4e e+(m()*(o) or (m()>(o) o e(()' be)e.
4he petitioners denied the laborersN contention, claiming that the
laborers (ere all given, in addition to their regular daily (age, a
daily extra pay in amounts ranging from @$ centavos to %$ pesos
(hich are sucient to o/set the laborersN claim for service
incentive leave and legal holiday pay.
As regards the claim for emergency allo(ance di/erentials, the
petitioners admitted that they discontinued their practice of paying
their employees a xed monthly allo(ance, and e/ective Hebruary
%&1$, they no longer paid allo(ances for non6 (or*ing days. 4hey
argued, ho(ever, that no la( (as violated as their refusal to pay
allo(ances for non6(or*ing days is in consonance (ith theprinciple of no (or*, no allo(anceTB and that they could not pay
private respondents a xed monthly allo(ance (ithout ris*ing the
viability of their business.
4he +irector of the "ational Capitol Region of the ;inistry of abor
and Fmployment ruled that the daily extra pay given to private
respondents (as a production incentive benetT, separate and
distinct from the service incentive leave pay and legal holiday pay,
payment of (hich cannot be used to o/set a benet provided by
la(, and ordered the petitioners to pay the private respondents
their service incentive leave pay and legal holiday pay.
Eo(ever, he denied the laborersN claim for di/erentials in the
emergency cost of living allo(ance for the reason that the
emergency cost of living allo(ance accrues only (hen the laborers
actually (or* follo(ing the principle of no (or*, no pay,T and
private respondents are not entitled to a xed monthly allo(ance
since they (or* on a part time basis (hich average only four <D=
days a (ee*. 4he private respondents should not be paid their
allo(ances during non6(or*ing days.
!n appeal, the +eputy ;inister of abor and Fmployment modied
the order and directed the petitioners to restore and pay the
individual respondents their xed monthly allo(ance from ;arch,%&1$ and to pay them the amount of P1,1?$.$$, as
underpayment of their living allo(ance from ;ay, %&'' to Hebruary
#%, %&1$.
8hen their motion for the reconsideration (as denied, the
petitioners interposed the present recourse.
>ssue3
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
8hether the +eputy ;inister of abor and Fmployment acted in
excess of :urisdiction in deciding that there is diminution of
benets in the discontinuance of giving of allo(ance
Ruling3
"o.
>ndeed, the record sho(s that the private respondents (or* for the
petitioners is on a part6time basis and their (or* average is only
four <D= days a (ee*. >t is not also disputed that the private
respondents (or* for more than one employer so that the private
respondents should be paid their living allo(ance only for the days
they actually (or*ed in a (ee* or month and all the employers of
the employee shall share proportionately in the payment of the
allo(ance of the employee.
T4e reo)e) De>/ $()(er o L*bor *) Em+o/me)orre+/ r>+e 4* ()e 4e e((o)er 4* bee) */()'4e r(v*e reo)e) * e mo)4+/ emer'e)/*++o*)e ()e November 197 > o &ebr>*r/ 1980, * *m*er o r*(e *)Kor verb*+ *'reeme) beee) 4ee((o)er *) 4e r(v*e reo)e), 4e(o)()>*)e o 4e r*(e *)Kor *'reeme)>)(+*er*++/ b/ 4e e((o)er o)r*ve)e 4e rov((o)o 4e L*bor Coe, *r(>+*r+/ Ar(+e 100 4ereo 4(4ro4(b( 4e e+(m()*(o) or (m()>(o) o e(()' be)e.
Article %$$ of the abor Code provides3
&%rticle 1. (rohibition against elimination or diminution
o benefts. )othing in this $ook shall be construed to
eliminate or in any *ay diminish supplements or other
employee benefts being en+oyed at the time o the
promulgation o this #ode.
Section % of the Rules on P.+. # and Section %? of the Rules on
P.+. %%#@ also prohibits the diminution of any benet granted to
the employees under existing la(s, agreements, and voluntary
employer practice.
Section % of the Rules on P.+. # provides, as follo(s3
2Section %6$ Relation to Agreement$ 7 Nothing herein shall
prevent the employer and his employees from entering into any
agreement with terms more favorable to the employees than those
provided therein, or be construed to sanction the diminution of any
bene't granted to the employees under e+isting laws, agreements,
and voluntary employer practice$5
Section %? of the Rules on P.+. %%#@ similarly prohibits diminution
of benets. >t provides3
2Section %8$ Relation to other agreements$ 7 Nothing herein shall
prevent employers from granting allowances to their employees in
e+cess of those provided under the 9ecree and the Rules nor shall
it be construed to countenance any reduction of bene'ts already
being en:oyed$5
4he petitioners further claim that the respondent +eputy ;inister
of abor and Fmployment erred in ordering them to pay the
amount of P1,1?$.$$ to the private respondents as underpayment
of respondentsN allo(ances from ;ay %&'' to Hebruary #$, %&1$.
4he petitioners contend that the emergency cost of living
allo(ances of the private respondents had been paid in full.
4he court nds no merit in the contention. Eo(ever, a revision of
the amount due the private respondents is in order for the reason
that the respondent +eputy ;inister of abor and Fmployment
failed to ta*e into consideration, in computing the amount due
each (or*er, the fact that the private respondents are employedby t(o di/erent individuals (hose businesses are divergent and
capitaliMed at various amounts, contrary to the provisions of P.+.
# and subse)uent amendatory decrees, (herein the amount of
the emergency cost of living allo(ance to be paid to a (or*er is
made to depend upon the capitaliMation of the business of his
employer or its total assets, (hichever is higher.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
petitioner by respondent union through its ocers for various
concession, among (hich (ere
<a= an increase of P$.$ in (ages,
<b= commutation of sic* and vacation leave if not en:oyed
during the year,
<c= various privileges, such as free medical care, medicine,and hospitaliMation,
<d= right to a closed shop, chec* o/, etc.,
<e= no dismissal (ithout prior :ust cause and (ith a prior
investigation, etc.
Some of the demands, (ere granted by the petitioner, and
the other (ere re:ected, and so hearings (ere held and evidence
submitted on the latter.
After the hearing the respondent court <Court of >ndustrial
Relations= rendered a decision, the most important provisions of
(hich (ere those xing the minimum (age for the laborers at
P@.#$, declaring that *((o)*+ ome)*(o) reree)()'e(e)/ bo)> 4o>+ )o be ()+>e * *r o 4e*'e, *) m*()' 4e **r ee(ve rom Seember ?,1950. >t is against these portions of the decision that this appeal is
ta*en.
&IRST ISS:E6
O) 4e (>e o 4e *'e, it is contended by petitionerthat as the respondent court<Court of >ndustrial Relations= foundthat the laborer and his family at least need the amount of P#.1for food, this should be the basis for the determination of his (age,
not (hat he actually spends.
R:LING6
4he respondent court found that P#.1 is the minimum
amount actually needed by the laborer and his family. 4hat does
not mean that it is his actual expense. A person0s needs increase
as his means increase. 4his is true not only as to food but as to
everything else U education, clothing, entertainment, etc. 4he la(
guarantees the laborer a fair and :ust wage. 4he minimum must be
fair and :ust. 4he 9minimum (age9 can by no means imply only the
actual minimum.
Some margin or lee(ay must be provided, over and above
the minimum, to ta*e care of contingencies such as increase of
prices of commodities and desirable improvement in his mode of
living. Certainly, the amount of P$.## a day <di/erence bet(een
P#.1$ xed and P#.1 actual= is not excessive for this purpose.
4hat the P@ minimum (age xed in the la( is still far belo(
(hat is considered a fair and :ust minimum is sho(n by the fact
that this amount is only for the year after the la( ta*es e/ect, as
thereafter the la( xes it at PD.
"either may it be correctly contended that the demand for
increase is due to an alleged pernicious practice. Hre)uent
demands for increase are indicative of a healthy spirit of
(a*efulness to the demands of a progressing and an increasingly
more expensive (orld.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
Petitioner 8esleyan 7niversity6Philippines is a non6stoc*, non6prot
educational institution duly organiMed and existing under the la(s
of the Philippines. Respondent 8esleyan 7niversity6Philippines
Haculty and Sta/ Association, on the other hand, is a duly
registered labor organiMation acting as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all ran*6and6le faculty and sta/ employees of petitioner
Petitioner issued a ;emorandum providing guidelines on theimplementation of vacation and sic* leave credits as (ell asvacation leave commutation
RespondentNs President, Cynthia . +e ara <+e ara= (rote aletter to Atty. ;aglaya informing him that respondent is notamenable to the unilateral changes made by petitioner. +e ara
)uestioned the guidelines for being violative of existing practicesand the C-A,
abor ;anagement Committee <;C= ;eeting (as held during(hich petitioner advised respondent to le a grievance complainton the implementation of the vacation and sic* leave policy. I) 4e*me mee()', e((o)er *))o>)e ( +*) o (m+eme)()' * o)e-re(reme) o+(/,4(4 *>)*e*b+e o reo)e).
abor ;anagement Committee <;C= ;eeting (as held during(hich petitioner advised respondent to le a grievance complaint
on the implementation of the vacation and sic* leave policy. >n thesame meeting, petitioner announced its plan of implementing aone6retirement policy,(hich (as unacceptable to respondent.
!etitioner;s Argument
Petitioner argues that there is only one retirement plan as the C-ARetirement Plan and the PFRAA Plan are one and the same. >tmaintains that there is no established company practice or policyof giving t(o retirement benets to its employees. Assuming,(ithout admitting, that t(o retirement benets (erereleased, petitioner insists that these (ere done by mere oversightor mista*e as there is no -oard Resolution authoriMing theirrelease. And since these benets are unauthoriMed and irregular,these cannot ripen into a company practice or policy. As to theadavits submitted by respondent, petitioner claims that these areself6serving declarations, and thus, should not be given (eight andcredence.
Respondent;s Argument
Respondent belies the claims of petitioner and asserts that thereare t(o retirement plans as the PFRAA Retirement Plan, (hich hasbeen implemented for more than @$ years, is di/erent from theC-A Retirement Plan. Respondent further avers that it has al(aysbeen a practice of petitioner to give t(o retirement benets andthat this practice (as established by substantial evidence as foundby both the Ooluntary Arbitrator and the CA.cra
ISS:E8hether or not the reduction of the of the retirement benets
(hich has been implemented for more than @$ years is in violationof the labor codeV
R:LINGT4e No)-D(m()>(o) R>+e o>) () Ar(+e 100 o 4e L*borCoe e+((+/ ro4(b( em+o/er rom e+(m()*()' orre>()' 4e be)e ree(ve b/ 4e(r em+o/ee. T4(r>+e, 4oever, *+(e o)+/ ( 4e be)e ( b*e o) *)ere o+(/, * r(e) o)r*, or 4* r(e)e ()o *r*(e. To be o)(ere * r*(e, ( m> beo)(e)+/ *) e+(ber*e+/ m*e b/ 4e em+o/er over *+o)' er(o o (me.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
A) ee(o) o 4e r>+e ( 4e) 4e r*(e ( >e oerror () 4e o)r>(o) or *+(*(o) o * o>b>+ or(>+ >e(o) o +*.M T4e error, 4oever, m> beorree (mme(*e+/ *er ( (over/H o4er(e, 4er>+e o) No)-D(m()>(o) o Be)e o>+ (++ *+/.
>n this case, respondent (as able to present substantial evidencein the form of adavits to support its claim that there are t(oretirement plans. -ased on the adavits, petitioner has beengiving t(o retirement benets as early as %&&'. Petitioner, on theother hand, failed to present any evidence to refute the veracity of these adavits. PetitionerNs contention that these adavits areself6serving holds no (ater. 4he retired employees of petitionerhave nothing to lose or gain in this case as they have alreadyreceived their retirement benets. 4hus, they have no reason toper:ure themselves. !bviously, the only reason they executedthose adavits is to bring out the truth. As (e see it then, theiradavits, corroborated by the adavits of incumbent employees,are more than sucient to sho( that the granting of t(oretirement benets to retiring employees had already ripened intoa consistent and deliberate practice.
;oreover, petitionerNs assertion that there is only one retirementplan as the C-A Retirement Plan and the PFRAA Plan are one andthe same is not supported by any evidence. 4here is nothing inArticle O> of the C-A to indicate or even suggest that the PlanTreferred to in the C-A is the PFRAA Plan. -esides, any doubt in theinterpretation of the provisions of the C-A should be resolved infavor of respondent. >n fact, petitionerNs assertion is negated bythe announcement it made during the ;C ;eeting on Hebruary 1,#$$? regarding its plan of implementing a one6retirement plan.THor if it (ere true that petitioner (as already implementing a one6
retirement policy, there (ould have been no need for suchannouncement. F)ually damaging is the letter6memorandum dated ;ay %%, #$$?, entitled Suggestions on thedefenses (e can introduce to :ustify the abolition of doubleretirement policy,T prepared by the petitionerNs legal counsel. 4hese circumstances, ta*en together, bolster the nding that thet(o6retirement policy is a practice. 4hus, petitioner cannot,(ithout the consent of respondent, eliminate the t(o6retirementpolicy and implement a one6retirement policy as this (ould violatethe rule on non6diminution of benets.
As a last ditch e/ort to abolish the t(o6retirement policy, petitionercontends that such practice is illegal or unauthoriMed and that thebenets (ere erroneously given by the previous administration."o evidence, ho(ever, (as presented by petitioner to substantiateits allegations.
Considering the foregoing dis)uisition, (e agree (ith the ndingsof the Ooluntary Arbitrator, as armed by the CA, that there issubstantial evidence to prove that there is an existing practice of giving t(o retirement benets, one under the PFRAA Plan andanother under the C-A Retirement Plan.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
sub:ect to certain concessions o/ered by +>EHF76"H in its
;anifesto.
Aor()'+/, reo)e) o)(e ( m*)oer r>>reo 100 r*)-*)-+e em+o/ee * e or4 () 4e erm o 4e $OA. $oreover, * *'ree >o) () 4e $OA, * )e */*+e * *+o re*re b/ reo)e).
4he retained employees individually signed a 9Reconrmation of
Fmployment9 (hich embodied the ne( terms and conditions of
their continued employment. Fach employee (as assisted by Ro:as
(ho also signed the document. !n June %, #$$%, respondent
resumed its business operations
!n August ##, #$$#, +arius Joves <Joves= and +ebbie Planas,
claiming to be local ocers of the "ational Hederation of abor
<"H=, led a "otice of ;ediation before the "ational Conciliation
and ;ediation -oard <"C;-=, Region >, +avao City. >n said "otice,
it (as stated that the 7nion involved (as 9+AR>7S J!OFS2+F-->F
PA"AS F4. A, "ational Hederation of abor.9 4he issue raised in
said "otice (as the 9+iminution of (ages and other benets
through unla(ful ;emorandum of Agreement.9
!n August #&, #$$#, the "C;- called Joves and respondent to aconference to explore the possibility of settling the con5ict. >n the
said conference, respondent and petitioner >nsular Eotel
Fmployees 7nion6"H <>EF76"H=, represented by Joves, signed a
Submission Agreement (herein they chose AOA Alfredo C. !lvida
<AOA !lvida= to act as voluntary arbitrator. S>bm(e or 4ereo+>(o) o A#A O+v(* * 4e eerm()*(o) o 4e4eror )o 4ere * * (m()>(o) o *'e *) o4er be)e4ro>'4 *) >)+*>+ $OA. I) >or o 4( *>4or(/ o +e4e om+*(), ove, *(e b/ A/. D*)(+o C>++o,
A#A $o)e@oJ )()'6 >n favor of Cullo. +eclared the ;!A in
)uestion invalid as contrary to la( and public policy and declared
that there is dimunition of the (ages and the other benets of the
7nion members and ocers under said invalid ;!A.
CA R>+()'6 +eclared the ;!A Oalid and enforceable.
I>e6 <4e4er or )o Ar(+e 100 o 4e L*bor Coe *+(eo)+/ o be)e e)@o/e r(or o 4e *o(o) o L*borCoe, () ee *++o 4e (m>)((o) o 4e be)ee)@o/e b/ 4e em+o/ee rom ( *o(o) 4e)eor4
S(e (>e6 #*+((/ o $OA I ( )o > (>e re'*r()'me(*(o), L*bRe+ )* /** />)
R>+()'6 %ES.Cullo argues that the CA must have erred in concluding that Article
%$$ of the abor Code applies only to benets already en:oyed at
the time of the promulgation of the abor Code.
Article %$$ of the abor Code provides3
!RO"IBITION AGAINST ELI$INATION OR DI$IN:TION O&BENE&ITS- No4()' () 4( Boo 4*++ be o)r>e oe+(m()*e or () *)/ */ (m()(4 >+eme), or o4erem+o/ee be)e be()' e)@o/e * 4e (me o 4erom>+'*(o) o 4( Coe.
!n this note, Apex ;ining Company, >nc. v. "RC? is instructive,
to (it3
C+e*r+/, 4e ro4(b((o) *'*() e+(m()*(o) or (m()>(o) o be)e e o> () Ar(+e 100 o 4e L*bor Coe (e(*++/ o)er)e (4 be)e *+re*/ e)@o/e * 4e(me o 4e rom>+'*(o) o 4e L*bor Coe. Ar(+e 100oe )o, () o4er or, >ror o *+/ o (>*(o)*r(()' *er 4e rom>+'*(o) *e o 4e L*bor Coe.
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
Fven assuming arguendo that Article %$$ applies to the case at
bar, this Court agrees (ith respondent that 4e *me oe )oro4(b( * >)(o) rom oer()' *) *'ree()' o re>e*'e *) be)e o 4e em+o/ee. >n Rivera v. Fspiritu, this
Court ruled 4* 4e r('4 o ree o++e(ve b*r'*()()', *er*++, ()+>e 4e r('4 o >e) ( , thus3
A C"A is a contract e+ecuted upon reIuest of either the employer
or the e+clusive bargaining representative incorporating the
agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages,
hours of wor# and all other terms and conditions of employment,
including proposals for ad:usting any grievances or Iuestions
arising under such agreement$ 3he primary purpose of a C"A is
the stabili?ation of labor(management relations in order to create a
climate of a sound and stable industrial peace$ -n construing a
C"A, the courts must be practical and realistic and give due
consideration to the conte+t in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve$ 3he assailed !AL(!ALA
agreement was the result o voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations undertaken in the light o the severe fnancial
situation aced by the employer, *ith the peculiar and
uni2ue intention o not merely promoting industrial peace
at (%, but preventing the latter5s closure $ We 'nd no conKict
between said agreement and Article .60(A of the Labor Code$
Article .60(A has a two(fold purpose$ ne is to promote industrial
stability and predictability$ -nasmuch as the agreement sought to
promote industrial peace at !AL during its rehabilitation, said
agreement satis'es the 'rst purpose of Article .60(A$ 3he other is
to assign speci'c timetables wherein negotiations become a
matter of right and reIuirement$ Nothing in Article .60(A, prohibits
the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables
and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same$ -n the instant
case, it was !ALA, as the e+clusive bargaining agent of !AL;s
ground employees, that voluntarily entered into the #$% *ith
(%. It *as also (%6% that voluntarily opted or the 1-
year suspension o the #$%. 6ither case *as the union5s
exercise o its right to collective bargaining. he right to
ree collective bargaining, ater all, includes the right to
suspend it .
S(e (>e6 astly, this Court is not unmindful of the fact that
+>EHF76"H0s Constitution and -y6a(s specically provides that
9the results of the collective bargaining negotiations shall be
sub:ect to ratication and approval by ma:ority vote of the 7nion
members at a meeting convened, or by plebiscite held for such
special purpose.9 Aor()'+/, ( ( >)(>e 4* 4e $OA* )o >b@e o r*(*(o) b/ 4e 'e)er*+ member4(o 4e :)(o). T4e >e(o) o be reo+ve 4e) (, oe 4e)o)-r*(*(o) o 4e $OA () *or*)e (4 4e :)(o)o)(>(o) rove **+ o 4e v*+((/ 4ereo NO
>t must be remembered that after the ;!A (as signed, 4emember o 4e :)(o) ()(v(>*++/ (')e o)r*e)om()*e * FReo)rm*(o) o Em+o/me).F Cullo did
not dispute the fact that of the 1' members of the 7nion, (hosigned and accepted the 9Reconrmation of Fmployment,9 '% are
the respondent employees in the case at bar. ;oreover, it bears to
stress 4* *++ 4e em+o/ee ere *(e b/ Ro@*,DI"&E:-N&L re(e), 4o eve) o-(')e e*4 o)r*.
S(>+*e () e*4 Reo)rm*(o) o Em+o/me) ere 4e)e *+*r/ *) be)e 4eme. I) *((o), ( be*r ore 4* e( rov((o) o 4e )e o)r* *+om*e reere)e o 4e $OA. T4>, 4e ()(v(>*+ membero 4e >)(o) *))o e(') )o+e'e o 4e ee>(o) o 4e$OA. E*4 o)r* * ree+/ e)ere ()o *) 4ere ( )o()(*(o) 4* 4e *me * *e)e b/ r*>,m(reree)*(o) or >re. 4o this Court0s mind, 4e (')()'o 4e ()(v(>*+ FReo)rm*(o) o Em+o/me)F 4o>+,4ereore, be eeme *) (m+(e r*(*(o) b/ 4e :)(o)member o 4e $OA.
>n Planters Products, >nc. v. "RC,'% this Court refrained from
declaring a C-A invalid not(ithstanding that the same (as not
7/17/2019 COMPILED LABOR 6th Meeting Updated as of 10.7.14
LABOR STANDARDS CASE DIGEST Atty. Cesar Santamaria, Jr.
ratied in vie( of the fact that the employees had en:oyed benets
under it, thus3
Jnder Article .0% of the Labor Code and Sec$ %, Rule -, "oo# M of
the -mplementing Rules, the parties to a collective <bargaining=
agreement are reIuired to furnish copies of the appropriate
Regional ce with accompanying proof of rati'cation by the
ma:ority of all the wor#ers in a bargaining unit$ 3his was not done
in the case at bar$ $ut *e do not declare the 178-17! #$%
invalid or void considering that the employees have
en+oyed benefts rom it. hey cannot receive benefts
under provisions avorable to them and later insist that the
#$% is void simply because other provisions turn out not to
the liking o certain employees $ + + +$ @oreover, the two C"As
prior to the %/G&(%/GE C"A were not also formally rati'ed, yet the
employees are basing their present claims on these C"As$ -t is
iniIuitous to receive bene'ts from a C"A and later on disclaim its
validity$
A+(e o 4e *e * b*r, 4(+e 4e erm o 4e $OA>)o>be+/ re>e 4e *+*r(e *) er*() be)e
rev(o>+/ e)@o/e b/ 4e member o 4e :)(o), ( *))oe*e 4( Co>r *e)(o) 4* ( * 4e ee>(o) o 4e $OA 4(4 *ve 4e */ or 4e re-oe)()' o 4e4oe+, )o(4*)()' ( )*)(*+ (re. $ore(mor*)+/, 4e ee>(o) o 4e $OA *++oe reo)e)o ee 4e(r @ob. I o>+ er*()+/ be ()(>(o> or 4emember o 4e :)(o) o (') )e o)r* rom()' 4ere-oe)()' o 4e 4oe+ o)+/ o +*er o) re)e'e o) 4e(r*'reeme) o) 4e * o 4e )o)-r*(*(o) o 4e $OA.
I) *((o), ( be*r o o() o> 4* Ro@* ( )o *>)(+*er*++/ 4e) 4e )e'o(*e (4 reo)e)m*)*'eme). T4e Co)(>(o) *) B/-L* o DI"&E:-N&L+e*r+/ rov(e 4* 4e re(e) ( *>4or(e oreree) 4e >)(o) o) *++ o*(o) *) () *++ m*er ()4(4 reree)*(o) o 4e >)(o) m*/ be *'ree orre>(re. &>r4ermore, Ro@* * roer+/ *>4or(e