art 1-6 case briefs labor standards

7/21/2019 Art 1-6 Case Briefs LABOR STANDARDS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/art-1-6-case-briefs-labor-standards 1/14

LABOR STANDARDS

TOPIC: Article IV Labor Code

GR No. 174631Uy vs. Centro Ceramica Cororation an!"or Sy an! GarciaOcto#er 1$% &'11

NLRC(s )n!in* o+ i,,e*a, !ismissa, is s-orte! #y te tota,ity o+ evi!encean! more consistent /it ,o*ic an! or!inary -man e0erience tan tecommon )n!in* o+ te CA an! La#or Ar#iter tat etitioner in+orma,,ysevere! is em,oyment re,ationsi /it te comany.

Cr-cia, +actor is te ver#a, or!er !irect,y *iven #y Sy% te comanyresi!ent% +or etitioner to imme!iate,y t-rn over is acco-nta#i,ities

Uy(s act o+ t-rnin* over te comany ),es an! sam,es is roo+ o+ isvo,-ntary in+orma, resi*nation rater tan o+ te s-mmary !ismissa,eecte! #y mana*ement.

2vi!ence on recor! s-**ests tat etitioner !i! not resi*n e /as ora,,y!ismisse! #y Sy. t is tis ,ac5 o+ c,ear% va,i! an! ,e*a, ca-se% not tomention !-e rocess% tat ma!e is !ismissa, i,,e*a,% /arrantin*reinstatement an! te a/ar! o+ #ac5/a*es.

en tere is no so/in* o+ a c,ear% va,i! an! ,e*a, ca-se +or tetermination o+ em,oyment% te ,a/ consi!ers it a case o+ i,,e*a, !ismissa,.-rtermore% Artic,e 4 o+ te La#or Co!e e0resses te #asic rinci,e tata,, !o-#ts in te interretation an! im,ementation o+ te La#or Co!eso-,! #e interrete! in +avor o+ te /or5in*man. Tis rinci,e as #eene0ten!e! #y 8-risr-!ence to cover !o-#ts in te evi!ence resente! #yte em,oyer an! te em,oyee. T-s /e ave e,! tat i+ te evi!enceresente! #y te em,oyer an! te em,oyee are in e9-ioise% te sca,eso+ 8-stice m-st #e ti,te! in +avor o+ te ,atter.

Ponente: Justice Villarama, Jr.FACTS:Petitioner Uy was hired by respondent company on arch !", "###, a$ter which, hebecame a re%ular employee on ay &", !&&&.

'e alle%ed that his predicament be%an when $ormer VP (arcia was re)hired bycompany in the last *uarter o$ !&&". +ncidents inolin% lon%time clients led to astrained relationship between him and (arcia.

February "#, !&&!, he was in$ormed by his superisor that he was to assume a newposition in the mar-etin% department to which he replied that he will thin- it oer.'is $riends warned him to be care$ul sayin% ainit -a -ay (arcia/.



5. 'is act o$ turnin% oer his accountabilities to his superisor cannot beconsidered oluntary on his part as it was done by him -nowin% that he wasalready terminated and upon the speci0c instructions o$ Sy and (arcia.

Company’s Arguments:". =idence clearly show that Uy was not dismissed but re*uired merely to

e3plain why he $ailed to report $or wor- a$ter meetin% the company president.!. Uy1s act o$ turnin% oer his accountabilities cannot be proo$ o$ his ille%al

dismissal because it was done oluntarily in line with his proposedresi%nation.

5. That when the company was about to conduct inesti%ation on Uy who wentA@49 since February "#, !&&!, the latter re$used to accept the memos sentto him< thus, con0rmin% that the company was inesti%atin% his $ailure toreport $or wor- and %iin% him all the opportunity to e3plain his absence.

Whether petitioner was dismissed or voluntarily severed his employment

by abandoning his job.

=C+S+4B: The court %ranted Uy1s petition by reersin% CA1s decision and reinstatin% B96C1swith modi0cations to the monetary rewards Uy is entitled to.

NLRC(s )n!in* o+ i,,e*a, !ismissa, is s-orte! #y te tota,ity o+ evi!encean! more consistent /it ,o*ic an! or!inary -man e0erience tan tecommon )n!in* o+ te CA an! La#or Ar#iter tat etitioner in+orma,,ysevere! is em,oyment re,ationsi /it te comany.

The court is not coninced that a$ter declinin% his supposed trans$er to another

department as per the in$ormation relayed to him by his superisor, petitionerwould readily turn oer his 0les and samples unless somethin% critical indeed too-place in his subse*uent closed)door meetin% with Sy and (arcia.

Cr-cia, +actor is te ver#a, or!er !irect,y *iven #y Sy% te comanyresi!ent% +or etitioner to imme!iate,y t-rn over is acco-nta#i,ities

Uy(s act o+ t-rnin* over te comany ),es an! sam,es is roo+ o+ isvo,-ntary in+orma, resi*nation rater tan o+ te s-mmary !ismissa,eecte! #y mana*ement.Uy directly con0rmed $rom the company president hersel$ that he was already bein%dismissed.

2vi!ence on recor! s-**ests tat etitioner !i! not resi*n e /as ora,,y!ismisse! #y Sy. t is tis ,ac5 o+ c,ear% va,i! an! ,e*a, ca-se% not tomention !-e rocess% tat ma!e is !ismissa, i,,e*a,% /arrantin*reinstatement an! te a/ar! o+ #ac5/a*es.oreoer, the 0lin% o$ a complaint $or ille%al dismissal ?ust three wee-s later isdicult to reconcile with oluntary resi%nation.



e0ten!e! #y 8-risr-!ence to cover te !o-#ts in te evi!ence resente!#y te em,oyer an! em,oyee.

Ponente: Justice DrionFACTS:PeEaor was hired on September "### as probationary 'uman 6esources

epartment G'6H ana%er o$ respondent 4CC. 'is relationship with the companywent well durin% the 0rst $ew months wherein he desi%ned and created thecompany1s Policy anual, Personnel 'andboo-, Job =3pectations and 4r%aniIationalSet)Up durin% this period.

'is woes be%an when the company1s Vice President $or 4perations, =d%ar 9ee, le$tthe company a$ter a bi% 0%ht between him and Chie$ Corporate 4cer Sy$u. Sincehe was in close association with 9ee, he claimed that he was amon% those who boreSy$u1s ire.

PeEaor alle%ed that when the company1s downsiIin% pro%ram due to ne%atiebusiness returns be%an, his department had been sin%led out. 'is two sta8

members were dismissed in which he became a one)man department $or thecompany carryin% out all clerical, administratie and liaison wor-.

@hen employee Padilla su8ered incident in a bombin% incident, the companyre*uired him to attend to her hospitaliIations needs< he had to wor- outside theoce premises to underta-e this tas-. @hen he considered himsel$ to be on ocialbusiness, he was surprised to discoer that the company deducted si3 days1 salarycorrespondin% to the time he assisted Padilla. Finance ana%er emo%enae3plained that PeEaor $ailed to submit his trip tic-et which the latter belied as atrip tic-et was re*uired only when a company ehicle was used and he did not useany company ehicle when attended to his o8)premises wor-.

4n arch "5, !&&&, PeEaor learned that while he was away, Sy$u appointedDuenaobra as the new '6 ana%er. This was con0rmed by Sy$u1s memorandum o$ !&"& to the entire oce statin% that Duenaobra was the concurrent '6 andAccountin% ana%er. Surprised by the news, he tried to tal- to Sy$u to clari$y thematter but he was unable to do so. Under these circumstances, PeEaor alle%e thathe had no option but to resi%n. 'e submitted a letter to Sy$u declarin% hisirreocable resi%nation $rom his employment on arch ", !&&&.

Then, ;e<a=or ),e! a com,aint +or i,,e*a, !ismissa, /it te ,a#or ar#iteron the %rounds that he had been constructiely dismissed. 'e included a prayer $orreinstatement and payment o$ bac-wa%es, ille%ally deducted salaries, dama%es,attorney1s $ees and other monetary claims.

OC>C c,aime! tat ;e<a=or a! vo,-ntari,y resi*ne! +rom is /or5 andthat he had in $act continued wor-in% $or the company until his resi%nation onarch ", !&&& the company presented as eidence the security report PeEaorprepared and si%ned on arch "5, !&&&. OC>C !isc,aime! ,ia#i,ity +or any o+ ;ena=or(s monetary c,aims since the latter had oluntarily resi%ned he was notentitled to any bac-wa%es and dama%es. Company denied ma-in% ille%al deduction



$rom PeEaor1s salary since these were deducted due to the latter1s $ailure to report$or wor- durin% the dates the company *uestioned.

La#or Ar#iter $ound that PeEaor had been ille%ally dismissed and ordered 4CCto reinstate the latter to his $ormer position, to pay him his ille%ally deducted salary$or si3 days, "5th month pay, attorney1s $ees, moral and e3emplary dama%es.

OC>C appealed the decision to NLRC. The $ormer insisted". PeEaor had not been constructiely dismissed!. 'e tendered his resi%nation on arch &", !&&& because he saw no $uture

with the corporation due to its dire 0nancial standin%5. Sy$u alle%e that he was compelled to appoint Duenaobra throu%h a

memorandum dated arch &", !&&& to coer the position that PeEaor wouldsoon acate and that the same was also made to address the matter that hadto be ta-en care o$ while PeEaor was on unauthoriIed leae.

K. They had %ien PeEaor two notices on arch &2 and arch "", !&&& $or hisunauthoriIed absences.

;e<a=or co-ntere!:". The arch &", !&&& memorandum, Duenaobra1s arch &5, !&&&

memorandum and the A@49 memoranda were $abricated and were neerpresented be$ore the labor arbiter.

!. 'e rebutted Sy$u1s claim that he submitted his letter on arch &", !&&& butwas instead submitted on arch ", !&&&.

5. A@49 memoranda could not be relied on since he was neer $urnished copieso$ these.

K. 'e could not be on prolon%ed absence without ocial leae, as his residencewas ?ust a $ew meters away $rom his oce.

NLRC overt-rne! ,a#or ar#iter(s !ecision on te +o,,o/in* *ro-n!s:". +t characteriIed PeEaor1s resi%nation to 4CC1s downward 0nancial spiral.!. Bo malice was present in the company1s decision to dismiss PeEaor1s two

sta8 members. PeEaor, in $act, dra$ted that dismissal o$ his sta8 members.

;e<a=or ),e! a etition +or certiorari /it CA on the %round that B96C1sdecision was tainted with %rae abuse o$ discretion, althou%h he essentially adoptedthe same ar%uments he presented be$ore the 9abor Arbiter and the B96C.

CA arme! NLRC(s !ecision statin% that PeEaor $ailed to present sucienteidence supportin% his claim that he had been constructiely dismissed andsubse*uently denied PeEaor1s motion $or reconsideration< hence, this instantpetition.

+SSU=>S:Peñafor’s Arguments:'e had been constructiely dismissed and that:

". ismissal o$ his two sta8 members!. emeanin% liaison wor- he had to per$orm as '6 ana%er5. Salary deduction $or his alle%ed unauthoriIed absencesK. Appointment o$ Duenaobra



were clear acts o$ discrimination which made his employment unbearable and thus,he was $orced to resi%n.

OCC’s Arguments:PeEaor oluntarily resi%ned, his alle%ations were all unsubstantiated and that:

". '6 was not sin%led out but was the 0rst to lose its sta8 members because

the company had to downsiIe.!. PeEaor unreasonably $elt humiliated in per$ormin% wor- that lo%ically $ell

under his department.5. Absented himsel$ $rom wor- without ocial leae< andK. emanded payment $or his unauthoriIed absences.

ain Issue:Whether Peñafor’s undisputed resignations was voluntary or a orced one- constructive dismissal equivalent to an illegal dismissal.

Critical Issue:Whether Peñafor led his letter o resignation beore or ater the

appointment o !uenaobra as the new"concurrent #$% manager

=C+S+4B: The court %ranted PeEaor1s petition, reersed B96C and CA1s decision andresolution, reinstated 9abor Arbiter1s decision with modi0cation that due to thestrained relations between the parties, respondents are additionally ordered to payseparation pay e*uialent to the petitioner1s one month1s salary.

Co-rt conc,-!es tat ;e<a=or !i! s-#mit is resi*nation on >arc 1%&''' on te +o,,o/in* *ro-n!s:

1. Sy+-(s memoran!-m o+ >arc '1% &''' !oes not constit-teconc,-sive evi!ence o+ teir !ates o+ rearation an!comm-nication.

&. B-enao#ra(s ac5no/,e!*ement an! accetance /ere on,y resente!to te NLRC on aea,% not #e+ore te La#or Ar#iter ) 4CC totally$ailed to e3plain the reason $or its omission. This is si%ni0cant since thesewere the clinchin% pieces o$ eidence that allowed B96C to ?usti$y thereersal o$ the 9abor Arbiter1s decision.

3. Circ-mstances an! evi!ences s-orts ;e<a=or(s c,aim tat e /ascome,,e! to resi*n +rom te comany Three o$ the company1s ocialsac-nowled%ed receipt on arch "5, !&&& o$ the arch "& emorandumshowin% that indeed it was only that day that the appointment o$ Duenaobrato the '6 position was disclosed. This was consistent in PeEaor1s positionthat it was only in the a$ternoon o$ arch "5, !&&& that he was told,in$ormally, that Duenaobra had ta-en oer his position.

;e<a=or /o-,! ave #ecome a re*-,ar em,oyee #y >arc '1% &'''. Co-rt)n!s it -n,i5e,y tat e /o-,! resi*n an! /o-,! sim,y ,eave *iven is-n!is-te! recor! o+ avin* s-ccess+-,,y /or5e! in te comany an! tate /o-,! ten!er is resi*nation on te very same !ay e /as entit,e! #y,a/ to #e consi!ere! a re*-,ar em,oyee /ere e co-,! ave avai,e! o+



its #ene)ts i+ e /o-,! #e searate! +rom te service o+ a re*-,arem,oyee.

Co-rt )n!s it stran*e tat ;e<a=or /o-,! s-#mit is resi*nation on >arc'1% &''' an! 5ee com,ete,y 9-iet a#o-t is !eve,oment -nti, its!e+ective on >arc 1% &'''.

+t is more consistent with human e3perience that PeEaor indeed learned o$ theappointment o$ Duenaobra only on arch "5, !&&& and reacted to this deelopmentthrou%h his resi%nation letter a$ter realiIin% that he would only $ace hostility and$rustration in his wor-in% enironment.

n em,oyee termination !is-tes% te em,oyer #ears te #-r!en o+ rovin* tat em,oyees( !ismissa, /as +or 8-st an! va,i! ca-se. 2vi!ence!oes not s-ort te e0istence o+ vo,-ntariness in ;e<a=or(s resi*nation.PeEaor1s letter o$ resi%nation does not help the company1s case since the companymust still proe that the employee oluntarily resi%ned. There can be no alidresi%nation where the acts was made under the compulsion or under circumstancesappro3imatin% compulsion, such as when an employee1s act o$ handin% in his

resi%nation was a reaction to circumstances leain% him no alternatie but toresi%n.

Te rinci,e tat a,, !o-#ts in te interretation an! im,ementation o+ te La#or Co!e so-,! #e interrete! in +avor o+ te /or5in*man as #eene0ten!e! #y 8-risr-!ence to cover te !o-#ts in te evi!ence resente!#y te em,oyer an! em,oyee.PeEaor has shown serious doubts about the merits o$ the company1s case,particularly in the appreciation o$ the clinchin% eidence on which B96C and CAdecision were based. Article K compels the court to rule in PeEaor1s $aor.

GR No. 1613De Castro vs. Li#erty Broa!castin* Net/or5% nc. an!

-io*-e% reson!entsSetem#er &3% &''E

CA erre! in areciation o+ evi!ence s-rro-n!in* De Castro(s termination+rom em,oyment. Te cite! *ro-n!s are !o-#t+-, -n!er rovencirc-mstances an! so-,! ave #een interrete! in De Castro(s +avor-rs-ant to Artic,e 4 o+ te La#or Co!e.

1. ;etitioner a! not even asse! is ro#ationary erio! /en teacts car*e! a,,e*e!,y too5 ,ace.



&. De Castro(s re,ationsis /itin te comany at te time tecar*es /ere ),e! so/e! tat e mi*t ave stee! in te /ron*toes in te co-rse o+ er+ormin* is !-ties.

3. Te timin* o+ te ),,in* o+ te car*es /as -n-s-a,

+ !o-#ts e0ist #et/een te evi!ence resente! #y te em,oyer an! te

em,oyee% te sca,es o+ 8-stice m-st #e ti,te! in +avor o+ te ,atter F it is atimeonore! r-,e in controversies #et/een a ,a#orer an! is master%!o-#ts reasona#,y arisin* +rom te evi!ence or in te interretation o+ a*reements an! /ritin* so-,! #e reso,ve! in te +ormer(s +avor.2m,oyer +ai,e! to rove a 8-st ca-se +or te termination o+ teetitioner(s em,oyment an! CA erre! /en it sa/ *rave a#-se o+ !iscretion in NLRC(s r-,in*.

Ponente: Justice DrionFACTS:Au%ust "##, e Castro commenced his employment as Duildin% Administrator $orrespondent company.

ay "##2, respondent company throu%h '6 Senior ana%er andap sent noticeto petitioner re*uirin% him to e3plain with K7 hours why he should not be madeliable $or iolation o$ Company Code o$ Conduct $or acts constitutin% seriousmisconduct, $raud and wil$ul breach o$ the trust reposed on him.

Petitioner denied the alle%ations made by Bi%uidula and Dalais and labeled ascompletely baseless and sham, desi%ned to protect them as they were $aorites o$ Luio%ue.

The company %ranted petitioner1s re*uest $or a $ormal hearin%, howeer, petitionersent notice that he would not participate when he learned $rom his wi$e that

criminal cases $or esta$a and *uali0ed the$t had been 0led a%ainst him in theProsecutor1s oce. 'e $elt that the said hearin% would be a oro)oro/inesti%ation.

ay !K, "##2, the company $urther char%ed e Castro $or iolation o$ the CompanyCode o$ Conduct based on adaits o$ Dalais, Samarita and Ayin%.

ay 5", "##2, the company dismissed e Castro on the $ollowin% %rounds:". Solicitin% money $or his own bene0t $rom suppliers Ayin% and Samarita.!. Solicitin% P"K &&& in commission $rom Ayin%.5. The$t o$ company property $or unauthoriIed remoal o$ one %allon o$ elo 4il

$rom the stora%e room.K. iscourtesy towards a co)employee $or o8ensie lan%ua%e a%ainst Bi%uidula.. isorderly behaior $or challen%in% Bi%uidula $or a 0%ht, thereby creatin% a

disturbance in the normal ow o$ actiities in the company.2. Threat and Coercion $or threatenin% bodily harm to Bi%uidula and coercin%

Dalais to solicit money in his behal$.M. Abuse o$ authority $or instructin% Dalais to collect commission $rom Ayin% and

Samarita.7. Slander $or utterin% libelous statement a%ainst Bi%uidula.



e Castro 0led a complaint $or ille%al dismissal in the B96C.

La#or Ar#iter ;ati: De Castro(s +avor, disbelieed the adaits submitted byBi%uidula, Dalais, Pacaldo, Samarita and Ayin%.

NLRC: Reverse! La#or Ar#iter(s !ecision % 9abor Arbiter erred in disre%ardin%the adaits o$ respondents1 witness. B96C adopted 9abor Arbiter Tamayo1s0ndin%s.NLRC >otion +or Reconsi!eration: De Castro(s +avor% char%es a%ainstpetitioner were neer really substantiated other than bare alle%ations in theadaits o$ witnesses who were company1s employees and who had altercationswith petitioner prior to e3ecution o$ their adaits.

CA: Comany(s +avor% B96C committed %rae abuse o$ discretion in disre%ardin%the adaits o$ all respondent1s witnesses.

CA !enie! De Castro(s motion +or reconsi!eration< hence, this instant petition.

+SSU=>S:!e Castro’s Arguments:

". CA erred when it substituted its ?ud%ment $or that o$ the 9abor Arbiter andB96C who were trier o$ $acts/ who had the opportunity to reiew theeidence e3tensiely.

!. 'is termination was a hatchet ?ob maliciously concocted by Luio%ue. 'e*uestions the char%e that he conspired with his $ellow mana%ers in ecember"## and as-s why the inesti%ation and supportin% eidence came only in"##2.

5. Ayin%1s chan%e o$ statement proes that the char%es a%ainst him hae beenconcocted.

K. 'e belies that he slandered and challen%ed Bi%uidula to 0%ht< in $act, it wasBi%uidula who de$amed him. 'e een complained in writin% to Luio%ue aboutthe incident immediately a$ter it happened and $urnished copies to companyocials.

. Luio%ue $ailed to act on his complaint a%ainst Bi%uidula only to resurrect itunder the Botice o$ Violation sered on him. This time, howeer, Bi%uidulawas already the ictim.

2. +n the notice o$ iolation, althou%h he was %ien K7 hours to e3plain,Luio%ue, in bad $aith, immediately 0led complaints $or esta$a and *uali0edthe$t a%ainst him. andap een went to his residence and warned his wi$enot to 0le char%es a%ainst the company, or else, Luio%ue would 0le casesa%ainst him in re%ular courts.

"espondent Company’s Arguments:". CA correctly ruled that B96C committed %rae abuse o$ discretion. Positie

Testimonies o$ the witnesses should be %ien credence.!. Petitioner $ailed to rebut Samarita1s testimony that he was $orced to increase

the price $or the construction o$ the 0re e3its because e Castro as-ed $orcommissions.



5. e Castro1s claim that Luio%ue orchestrated his dismissal is not supported byeidence and that the %raity o$ the char%es $aced by e Castro are ?ustcauses $or termination o$ employment under the 9abor Code.

W"& %e 'astro was illegally dismissed.

=C+S+4B: The court %ranted e Castro1s petition by reersin% CA1s decision and reinstatin%B96C1s decision.

CA erre! in areciation o+ evi!ence s-rro-n!in* De Castro(s termination+rom em,oyment. Te cite! *ro-n!s are !o-#t+-, -n!er rovencirc-mstances an! so-,! ave #een interrete! in De Castro(s +avor-rs-ant to Artic,e 4 o+ te La#or Co!e.

4. ;etitioner a! not even asse! is ro#ationary erio! /en teacts car*e! a,,e*e!,y too5 ,ace. Tis rovi!es te +o,,o/in*im,ications:

a. As a new employee, his natural motiation was to ma-e an early

positie impression on his employer.b. 'is natural motiation as new employee and lac- o$ awareness o$ the

dynamics o$ relationships within the company supports his action o$ ob?ectin% to the way the contract $or the installation o$ the 0re escapeswas awarded to Samarita.

c. As a new employee, it is doubt$ul that he had already encoura%edsolicitation o$ commission $rom suppliers. This was supported by theturnaround o$ Ayin%1s testimony.

. De Castro(s re,ationsis /itin te comany at te time tecar*es /ere ),e! so/e! tat e mi*t ave stee! in te /ron*toes in te co-rse o+ er+ormin* is !-ties.

a. Samarita had hidden dynamics with Luio%ue since he was doin% thesteel balusters $or Luio%ue1s home.

b. andap Luio%ue1s subordinate.c. Bi%uidula, purchasin% mana%er, ) is one who mi%ht be e3pected to be

in char%e o$ actions re%ardin% supply deals. 'e would not welcome aIealous buildin% administrator who can see how supplies are procuredand used.

d. Pacaldo subordinate o$ Bi%uidulae. Dalais air)con maintenance whom e Castro reprimanded $or

unauthoriIed oertime wor- on an air)conditionin% unit.

6. Te timin* o+ te ),,in* o+ te car*es /as -n-s-a, F te roosa, toso,icit commission transire! in Decem#er% te car*es /ere ,ate/en tey came in >ay. A,so:

a. +t was in April "##2 when e Castro *uestioned Luio%ue1s decision toaward the contract to Samarita.

b. e Castro reprimanded Dalais on the 0rst wee- o$ ay, an incident hereported to Luio%ue.

c. 4n ay &#, "##2, e Castro had an altercation with Bi%uidula, anincident he reported to Lui%oue.



+ !o-#ts e0ist #et/een te evi!ence resente! #y te em,oyer an! teem,oyee% te sca,es o+ 8-stice m-st #e ti,te! in +avor o+ te ,atter F it is atimeonore! r-,e in controversies #et/een a ,a#orer an! is master%!o-#ts reasona#,y arisin* +rom te evi!ence or in te interretation o+ a*reements an! /ritin* so-,! #e reso,ve! in te +ormer(s +avor.

=mployer $ailed to proe a ?ust cause $or the termination o$ the petitioner1semployment and CA erred when it saw %rae abuse o$ discretion in B96C1s rulin%.

LABOR STANDARDS

TOPIC: #ocial $ustice

GR No. 17'$ENor5is ree an! n!een!ent or5er Union ?NU@ vs.

Nor5is Tra!in* Comany ?NTC@% nc

-ne 3'% &''

Sti-,ations in a contract m-st #e rea! to*eter not in iso,ation +rom oneanoter. Te terms an! c,a-ses are c,ear an! ,eave no room +or !o-#t asto te intention o+ te contractin* arties /ose ,itera, meanin*s so-,!revai,.

Te /a*e or!er /as inten!e! to )0 a ne/ minim-m /a*e on,y% not to*rant across Fte#oar! /a*e increases. A rea!in* o+ te /a*e or!erconvinces te co-rt tat te intention o+ RT;B /as to rescri#e a H=oor/a*eI not a Hsa,ary cei,in*I Tis /as arme! in a ,etteroinion sent #yRT;B in ans/erin* te reson!ent comany(s 9-eries.

RT;B /as on,y interretin* its o/n iss-ance% not a stat-tory rovision.Te #est a-tority to constr-e a r-,e or an iss-ance is its very so-rce%RT;B.

Socia, 8-stice !oes not man!ate tat every !is-te so-,! #ea-tomatica,,y !eci!e! in +avor o+ ,a#or. Co-rt as a,/ays #een *-i!e! #yte State o,icy ensrine! in te Constit-tion: socia, 8-stice an! terotection o+ te /or5in* c,ass. Socia, 8-stice !oes not% o/ever% man!atetat every !is-te so-,! #e a-tomatica,,y !eci!e! in +avor o+ ,a#or. nevery case% 8-stice is to #e *rante! to te !eservin* an! !isense! in te

,i*t o+ te esta#,ise! +acts an! te a,ica#,e ,a/ an! !octrine.

Ponente: Justice Pan%anibanFACTS:Petitioner BF+@U and respondent company BTC entered into a Collectie Dar%ainin%A%reement GCDAH.Section ! Article N++ o$ the same states: +n the eent a law is enacted increasin%the minimum wa%e, an across)the)board increase shall be %ranted by the companyaccordin% to the proisions o$ law./



4n arch "##7, 6e%ional Tripartite @a%e Productiity Doard G6T@PDH o$ 6e%ion V++issued @a%e 4rder 64V++)&2 establishin% the minimum wa%e o$ P"2.&& bymandatin% an increase o$ P.&& be%innin% April "##7 and another P.&& e8ectie4ctober &", "##7.

Prior to this order, BF+@U and BTC had a memorandum o$ a%reement statin%proidin%: P"&.&& increase e8ectie Au%ust &", "##M and another P"&.&& increasee8ectie Au%ust &", "##7./ Thus, by the time the minimum wa%e was set by law atP"2.&&, BTC pays their employees at a minimum wa%e o$ P"M.&&

+n accordance with the @a%e 4rder, BF+@U demand an across)the)board increase.BTC, howeer, re$used to implement the @a%e 4rder ar%uin% that lon% be$ore thepassa%e o$ the said order, they hae been payin% its employees a daily wa%e o$ P"2.&& while the minimum wa%e at that time was still P".&& per day. @hen the4rder became e8ectie prescribin% the new minimum wa%e o$ P"2.&& per day, theemployees were already receiin% P"M.&& per day.

For $ailure to settle this controersy, a complaint was 0led by petitioner in theBational Conciliation and ediation Doard where both parties selected an arbitratorto decide the controersy.

Ar#itrator: NU(s +avor, BTC $ailed to comply with contractual obli%ation,particularly, in Section ! o$ Article N++ o$ the CDA.

CA: NTC(s +avor, CA considered 6T@PD1s opinion in the scope and application o$ the wa%e order where it showed that BTC suciently complied with the said wa%eorder. The wa%e order e3empted enterprises already payin% salary e*ual to or morethan the prescribed minimum wa%e< thus, the order e8ectiely made the preiousoluntary increases %ien by respondent to its employees creditable a%ainst the

law)mandated increase.

'ence, this instant petition

+SSU=>S:W"& &(' violated the '!) in its reusal to grant its employees an across-the-board increase as a result o the passage o Wage *rder &o. $*+,,-.

=C+S+4B: The court denied this petition and armed CA1s decision.

Sti-,ations in a contract m-st #e rea! to*eter not in iso,ation +rom oneanoter. Te terms an! c,a-ses are c,ear an! ,eave no room +or !o-#t asto te intention o+ te contractin* arties /ose ,itera, meanin*s so-,!revai,.Collectie Dar%ainin% A%reement GCDAH Section ! Article N++ o$ the same states: +nthe eent a law is enacted increasin% the minimum wa%e, an across)the)boardincrease shall be %ranted by the company accordin% to the proisions o$ law./Petitioner disre%ards in its ar%ument the *uali$yin% phrase accordin% to theproisions o$ the law./ Stipulations in a contract must be read to%ether not in



isolation $rom one another. The terms and clauses are clear and leae no room $ordoubt as to the intention o$ the contractin% parties whose literal meanin%s shouldpreail.

Te /a*e or!er /as inten!e! to )0 a ne/ minim-m /a*e on,y% not to*rant across Fte#oar! /a*e increases.

+n %mployers Con&ederation o& t'e P'ils( Vs( )ational *ages and Producti+ity Commission, the court held that there are two methods o$ ad?ustin% the minimumwa%e:

". Floor @a%e 03in% o$ determinate amount to be added to the preailin%statutory minimum wa%e rates.

!. Salary Ceilin% wor-ers already paid more than the e3istin% minimum wa%eare also to be %ien a wa%e increase.

A rea!in* o+ te /a*e or!er convinces te co-rt tat te intention o+ RT;B /as to rescri#e a H=oor /a*eI not a Hsa,ary cei,in*I Tis /asarme! in a ,etteroinion sent #y RT;B in ans/erin* te reson!entcomany(s 9-eries.

RT;B /as on,y interretin* its o/n iss-ance% not a stat-tory rovision.Te #est a-tority to constr-e a r-,e or an iss-ance is its very so-rce%RT;B.

The board has the authority to interpret its own rules and issuances< any phrasecontained in its interpretation becomes a part o$ those rules or issuancesthemseles. Thus, it was proper $or CA to consider the letter)opinion written by6T@PD to e3plain the scope and import o$ its own order< as such interpretation isdeemed part o$ the order itsel$.

Socia, 8-stice !oes not man!ate tat every !is-te so-,! #ea-tomatica,,y !eci!e! in +avor o+ ,a#or. Co-rt as a,/ays #een *-i!e! #yte State o,icy ensrine! in te Constit-tion: socia, 8-stice an! terotection o+ te /or5in* c,ass. Socia, 8-stice !oes not% o/ever% man!atetat every !is-te so-,! #e a-tomatica,,y !eci!e! in +avor o+ ,a#or. nevery case% 8-stice is to #e *rante! to te !eservin* an! !isense! in te,i*t o+ te esta#,ise! +acts an! te a,ica#,e ,a/ an! !octrine.

art 1-6 case briefs labor standards

Documents