Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts: PSSLU had an existing CBA with Sanyo Philippines Inc. (Sanyo, for short) effective July 1, 1989
to June 30, 1994. The same CBA contained a union security clause. PSSLU, through its national
president, informed the management of Sanyo that there are employees that were notified that their
membership with PSSLU were cancelled for anti-union, activities, economic sabotage, threats, coercion
and intimidation, disloyalty and for joining another union.
On February 14, 1990, Some employers executed a pledged of cooperation with PSSLU promising
cooperation with the latter union and among others, respecting, accepting and honoring the CBA
between Sanyo and specifically:
1. That we shall remain officers and members of KAMAO until we finally decide to rejoin
Sanyo Phil. Workers Union-PSSLU;
2. That henceforth, we support and cooperate with the duly elected union officers of
Sanyo Phil. Workers Union-PSSLU in any and all its activities and programs to insure
industrial peace and harmony;
3. That we collectively accept, honor, and respect the Collective Bargaining Agreement
entered into between Sanyo Phil. Inc. and Sanyo Phil. Workers Union-PSSLU dated
February 7, 1990;
4 That we collectively promise not to engage in any activities inside company premises
contrary to law, the CBA and existing policies;
5 That we are willing to pay our individual agency fee in accordance with the provision
of the Labor Code, as amended;
6 That we collectively promise not to violate this pledge of cooperation.
On March 4, 1991, PSSLU through its national and local presidents, wrote another letter to Sanyo
recommending the dismissal of some union workers because they were engaged and were still
engaging in anti-union activities; 2) they willfully violated the pledge of cooperation with PSSLU which
they signed and executed on February 14, 1990; and 3) they threatened and were still threatening with
bodily harm and even death the officers of the union.
Pursuant to a letter of the union that recommended their dismissal, the company sent a memorandum
to the same workers advising them that:
As per the attached letter from the local union President SPWU and the federation
President, PSSLU, requesting management to put the herein mentioned employees on
preventive suspension, effective immediately, preliminary to their subsequent
dismissal, please be informed that the following employees are under preventive
suspension effective March 13, 1991 to wit: Some employees.
On May 20, 1991, the dismissed employees filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal.
Named respondent were PSSLU and Sanyo.
On June 20, 1991, PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the Labor Arbiter was
without jurisdiction over the case, relying on Article 217 (c) of P.D. 442, as amended by Section 9 of
Republic Act No. 6715 which provides that cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of
the collective bargaining agreements shall be disposed of by the labor arbiter by referring the same to
the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration.
The complainants opposed the motion to dismiss complaint on these grounds: 1) the series of
conferences before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board had been terminated; 2) the NLRC
Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case which was a termination dispute pursuant to Article 217 (2)
of the Labor Code; and 3) there was nothing in the CBA which needs interpretation or implementation
(pp. 44-46, Rollo).
On August 7, 1991, the respondent Labor Arbiter issued the first questioned order. LA
stated that there are contradictory provisions in the afore cited Labor codehe better
interpretation will be to give effect to both, and termination dispute being clearly
spelled as falling under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the same shall be
respected. The jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration shall
cover other controversies.
Labor Arbiter suspended the case.
On August 27, 1991, PSSLU filed another motion to resolve motion to dismiss complaint with a prayer
that the Labor Arbiter resolve the issue of jurisdiction.
On September 4, 1991, the respondent Labor Arbiter issued the second questioned order which held
that it was assuming jurisdiction over the complaint of private respondents, in effect, holding that it
had jurisdiction over the case.
The private respondents also claimed that insofar as Salvo, Baybon, Ricohermoso, Solibel, Valencia,
Misterio and Lasala were concerned, they joined another union, KAMAO during the freedom period
which commenced on May 1, 1989 up to June 30, 1989 or before the effectivity of the July 1, 1989 CBA.
Hence, they are not covered by the provisions of the CBA between Sanyo and PSSLU. Private
respondents Tangkay, Atanacio and Dionisio admit that in September 1989, they resigned from KAMAO
and rejoined PSSLU
Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.
Held: The court cited Article 217 of the Labor Code on jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the
Commission.
It is clear from the above article that termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It
should be noted however that said article at the outset excepted from the said provision cases
otherwise provided for in other provisions of the same Code, thus the phrase "Except as otherwise
provided under this Code . . . ." Under paragraph (c) of the same article, it is expressly provided that
"cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those
arising from the interpretation and enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by
the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may
be provided in said agreements.
It was provided in the CBA executed between PSSLU and Sanyo that a member's voluntary resignation
from membership, willful refusal to pay union dues and his/her forming, organizing, joining, supporting,
affiliating or aiding directly or indirectly another labor union shall be a cause for it to demand his/her
dismissal from the company. The demand for the dismissal and the actual dismissal by the company
on any of these grounds is an enforcement of the union security clause in the CBA. This act is
authorized by law provided that enforcement should not be characterized by arbitrariness (Manila
Mandarin Employee Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76989, 29 Sept. 1987, 154 SCRA 368) and always with due
process (Tropical Hut Employees Union v. Tropical Food Market, Inc., L-43495-99, Jan. 20, 1990).
he failure of the parties to the CBA to establish the grievance machinery and its unavailability is not an
excuse for the Labor Arbiter to assume jurisdiction over disputes arising from the implementation and
enforcement of a provision in the CBA. In the existing CBA between PSSLU and Sanyo, the procedure
and mechanics of its establishment had been clearly laid out as follows:
ARTICLE XV GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
the instant case, both the union and the company are united or have come to an agreement regarding
the dismissal of private respondents. No grievance between them exists which could be brought to a
grievance machinery. The problem or dispute in the present case is between the union and the
company on the one hand and some union and non-union members who were dismissed, on the other
hand. The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. The grievance machinery with members
designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed
employees. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an
impartial body. Since there has already been an actual termination, the matter falls within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
was the interpretation of a contract, the CBA, which was cognizable by the regular courts; and (2) that
petitioners had no locus standi, not being privy to the CBA executed between the union and Philtread.
Petitioners, however, challenging Philtreads motion to dismiss, stressed that the complaint was
one for unfair labor practice precipitated by the unjust and unreasonable refusal of Philtread to reemploy them, as mandated by the provisions of Section 4, Article III of the 1986 and 1983 CBAs. Being
one for unfair labor practice, petitioners concluded that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case,
pursuant to Article 217 (a) (1) of the Labor Code.
Being of the impression that the April 15, 1992 resolution of the NLRC had been properly served at
the address of the law firm of Atty. Gutierrez and that no seasonable motion for reconsideration was
ever filed by Philtread, petitioners moved for its execution.
On November 18, 1992, the NLRC, acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Atty.
Gutierrez, promulgated one of its challenged resolutions dismissing the complaint of petitioners. It
ruled that while petitioners had standing to sue, the complaint should have been filed with the
voluntary arbitrator, pursuant to Article 261 of the Labor Code, since the primary issue was the
implementation and interpretation of the CBA.
Issue: The implementation and interpretation of the CBA
Held: The petition is impressed with merit.
Time and again, this Court has been emphatic in ruling that the seasonable filing of a motion for
reconsideration within the 10-day reglementary period following the receipt by a party of any order,
resolution or decision of the NLRC, is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such order,
resolution or decision.[5] The statutory bases for this is found in Article 223 of the Labor Code [6] and
Section 14, Rule VII of the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission. [7]
In the case at bar, it is uncontroverted that Philtreads counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of
the April 15, 1992 resolution only on June 5, 1992, [8] or 31 days after receipt of said resolution. [9] It was
thus incumbent upon the NLRC to have dismissed outright Philtreads late motion for
reconsideration. By doing exactly the opposite, its actuation was not only whimsical and capricious but
also a demonstration of its utter disregard for its very own rules. Certiorari, therefore, lies.
To be sure, it is settled doctrine that the NLRC, as an administrative and quasi-judicial body, is not
bound by the rigid application of technical rules of procedure in the conduct of its proceedings.
[10]
However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it ON TIME are not mere technicalities
of procedure. These are jurisdictional and mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied
with. Although there are exceptions to said rule, the case at bar presents no peculiar circumstances
warranting a departure therefrom.
The Court is aware of Philtreads obvious attempt to skirt the requirement for seasonable filing of a
motion for reconsideration by persuading us that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no
jurisdiction over petitioners complaint. Jurisdiction, Philtread claims, lies instead with the
voluntary arbitrator so that when the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC took cognizance of the case, their
decisions thereon were null and void and, therefore, incapable of attaining finality. In short, Philtread
maintains that the ten-day reglementary period could not have started running and, therefore, its
motion could not be considered late.
The argument is not tenable. While we agree with the dictum that a void judgment cannot attain
finality, said rule, however, is only relevant if the tribunal or body which takes cognizance of a
particular subject matter indeed lacks jurisdiction over the same. In this case, the rule adverted to is
misapplied for it is actually the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC which possess jurisdiction over petitioners
complaint and NOT the voluntary arbitrator, as erroneously contended by Philtread.
Finally, the contention that it was Atty. Gutierrez who exclusively represented Philtread and that the
law firm of Borreta, Gutierrez and Leogardo had been dissolved, are lame excuses to cast doubt on the
propriety of service to Atty. Borreta. It must be noted that the complaint of petitioners was filed on
December 5, 1988. Presumably, the preliminary conferences adverted to by Atty. Borreta, where Atty.
Gutierrez supposedly declared that he was exclusively representing Philtread, transpired at around that
date. The Court, however, is surprised to discover that the record bears a Notice of Change of Address
dated March 12, 1990, filed by Atty. Gutierrez, indicating therein that the counsel for respondent
(Philtread) was Borreta, Gutierrez and Leogardo whose address could be found at the 3rd Floor,
Commodore Condominium Arquiza corner M. Guerrero Streets, Ermita, Manila. If, indeed, Atty.
Gutierrez declared during the Labor Arbiters proceedings that he was exclusively representing
Philtread, why then did he use the firms name, and its new address at that, in the aforementioned
notice to the NLRC? Moreover, why did Atty. Borreta take fifteen days to file his Manifestation and
inform the NLRC of the improper service of the resolution to him? Why did he not object immediately to
the service by the bailiff? Considering that Atty. Gutierrez and Atty. Borreta were once partners in their
law firm, it behooves Atty. Borreta to have at least advised his former partner of the receipt of the
resolution. As a lawyer, his receipt of the adverse resolution should have alerted him of the adverse
consequences which might follow if the same were not acted upon promptly, as what in fact happened
here. As for Atty. Gutierrez, if the law firm of Borreta, Gutierrez, and Leogardo were really dissolved, it
was incumbent upon him not to have used the firms name in the first place, or he should have
withdrawn the appearance of the firm and entered his own appearance, in case the dissolution took
place midstream. By failing to exercise either option, Atty. Gutierrez cannot now blame the NLRC for
serving its resolution at the address of the firm still on record. [18] To our mind, these excuses cannot
camouflage the clever ploy of Philtreads counsel to earn a last chance to move for
reconsideration. This Court, it bears emphasizing, is not impressed, but looks incredulously at such
superficial moves.
promote industrial peace. Thus, when a valid and binding CBA had been entered into by the workers
and the employer, the latter is behooved to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union
dues and representation. If the employer grossly violates its CBA with the duly recognized union, the
former may be held administratively and criminally liable for unfair labor practice.
However, as to respondents Remigio and Villareal, the court finds that petitioners complaint was
validly dismissed. The ULP complaint cannot prosper as against them because the issue, essentially
involves an intra-union dispute.
Apalisok v Radio Phil Network
Facts: Marilou Gaunzon Apalisok the petitioner, received a Memorandum from branches operations
manager Gilito Datoc asking her to submit a written explanation why no disciplinary action should be
taken against her for performance of acts hostile to RPN, and arrogant, disrespectful and defiant
behavior towards her superior station manager George Suazo.
16 days later, petitioner received an other memo from the administrative manager of RPN, informing
her of the termination of her services effective the close of regular office hours of June 15, 1995.
On one 5, 12995, petitioner informed RPN, by letter, of her decision to waiver her right to resolve her
case through the grievance machinery of RPN as provided for in the CBA and to lodge her case before
the proper government forum. She then filed a complaint against RPN DYKC and Suazo for illegal
dismissal before the NLRC, Regional Arbitration branch of Region 7 which referred it to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Petitioner and respondents agreed to submit for voluntary arbitration the issue of whether petitioners
dismissal was valid and to abide by the decision of the voluntary arbitrator. Then the VA awarded in
favor of the petitioner.
The Coaurt of Appeals stated that the option of petition not to subject the dispute to the grievance
machinery provided for the in the CBA was tantamount to relinquishing her right to avail of the aid of a
voluntary arbitrator in settli8ng the dispute which likewise converted an unresolved grievance into a
resolved one, it further held that the voluntary arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over petitioners
complaint and accordingly nullified and set aside the voluntary arbitration award.
Issues: Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator had jurisdiction over petitioners Complaint.
Held: Yes. Art. 262 of the Labor code of the Philippines stats that Jurisdiction over other labor disputes.
The Voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall hear
and decide all other labor disputes, including ULP and bargaining deadlocks.
The above-quoted Article of the labor code provides that upon agreement of the parties, the voluntary
arbitrator can hear and decide all other labor disputes.
In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article
263 of the Labor Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed; (b) a strike-vote must
be taken; and (c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
that no strike vote meeting ever took place and averred that the strike staged by the respondent union
was illegal
\In the interim, the case before NLRC continued. The labor arbiter then found that the overtime boycott
and the work slowdown as illegal strike. Petitioner union contended that according to the provisions of
their CBA on working hours clearly state that the normal working hours were from 7:30 am to 4:30pm.
The labor arbiter should not have admitted other evidence than that stated in the CBA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the working hours of the petitioner is only from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
HELD NO. The parties in the CBA stipulated that: the schedule of shift work shall be maintained;
however the company may change the prevailing work time at its discretion, should change be
necessary in the operations of the Company. All employees shall observe such rules as have been laid
down by the company for the purpose of effecting control over working hours. It is evident from the
foregoing provisions that the working hours may be changed, at the discretion of the company, should
such change be necessary for its operations and that the employees shall observe such rules as have
been laid down by the company. The company had to adopt a continuous 24-hour work daily schedule
by reason of the nature of its business and the demands of its clients. It was established that the
employees adhered to the said work schedule since 1988. The employees are deemed to have waived
the eight hour schedule since they followed, without any question or complain, the two shift schedule
while their CBA was still in force and even prior thereto. As the employees assented by practice to this
arrangement, they cannot now be heard to claim that the overtime boycott is justified because they
were not obliged to work beyond eight hours.