Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8
TodayisTuesday,August02,2016

TodayisTuesday,August02,2016

TodayisTuesday,August02,2016
TodayisTuesday,August02,2016

G.R.No.110854February13,1995

RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

PIER8ARRASTRE&STEVEDORINGSERVICES,INC.,petitioner,

vs.

HON.MA.NIEVESROLDAN­CONFESOR,inhercapacityasSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,and

GENERALMARITIME&STEVEDORESUNION(GMSU),respondents.

PUNO,J.:

Petitioner corporation and private respondent labor union entered into a three­year Collective Bargaining

Agreement(CBA)withexpirydateonNovember27,1991.DuringthefreedomperiodtheNationalFederationof

Labor Unions (NAFLU) questioned the majority status of Private respondent through a petition for certification

election.TheelectionconductedonFebruary27,1992waswonbyprivaterespondent.OnMarch19,1992,private

respondentwascertifiedasthesoleandexclusivebargainingagentofpetitioner'srank­and­fileemployees.

OnJune22,1992,privaterespondent'sCBAproposalswerereceivedbypetitioner.Counter­proposalsweremade

bypetitioner.Negotiationscollapsed,andonAugust24,1992,private­respondentfiledaNoticeofStrikewiththe

NationalConciliationandMediationBoard(NCMB).TheNCMBtriedbutfailedtosettletheparties'controversy.

OnSeptember30,1992,publicrespondentSecretaryofLaborassumedjurisdictionoverthedispute.Sheresolved

thebargainingdeadlockbetweenthepartiesthroughanOrder,datedMarch4,1993,whichreads,inpart:

A.Thenon­economicissues

xxxxxxxxx

1.Scope/coverageoftheCBA.ArticleIofthe1988CBAprovides:

The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative ofallthe stevedores,dockworkers,gang bosses,foremen,rankand file

employeesworkingatPier8,NorthHarboranditsofficesandsaidpositionsare[sic]listed

inANNEX"A"hereof.

AssuchrepresentativetheUNIONisdesignatedasthecollectivebargainingagentwith

respecttoandconcerningthetermsandconditionsofemploymentandtheinterpretations

andimplementationoftheprovisionsandconditionsofthisAgreement.

Annex"A"oftheCBAisthelistingofpositionscoveredthereby.Theseare:

1.Foremen;

2.Gangbosses;

3.Winchmen;

4.Signalmen;

5.Stevedores;

6.Dockworkers;

7.Tallymen;

8.Checkers;

9.Forkliftandcraneoperators;

10.Sweepers;

11.Mechanics;

12.Utilitymen;

13.Carpenters;and

14.Otherrankandfileemployees;

The companyarguesin the firstinstance thatunder Article 212(m) in relation to Article 245 ofthe LaborCode,supervisorsareineligiblefor.membershipinalabororganizationofrankandfile.Being supervisors,foremenshouldbeexcludedfromthebargainingunit.

The Company likewise seeks the exclusion on the ground of lack of community of interest and divergenceinfunctions,modeofcompensationandworkingconditionsofthefollowing:

1.Accountingclerk;

2.Auditclerk;

3.Collector;

4.Payrollclerk;

5.Nurse;

6.Chiefbiller;

7.Biller;

8.Teller/biller;

9.Personnelclerk;

10.Timekeeper;

11.Asst.timekeeper;

12.Legalsecretary;

13.Telephoneoperator;

14.Janitor/Utility;and

15.Clerk

Thesepositions,theCompanyargues,cannotbelumpedtogetherwiththestevedoresordockworkers whomostlycomprisethebargainingunit.Further,notwithstandingthecheck­offprovisionsoftheCBA, the incumbents in these positions have never paid union dues. Finally, some of them occupy confidentialpositionsandthereforeoughttobeexcludedfromthebargainingunit.

TheUniongenerallyarguesthattheCompany'sproposedexclusionsretrogressive

WeseenocompellingjustificationtoorderthemodificationofArticleIofthe1988CBAasworded.For

bylumpingtogetherstevedoresandotherrankandfileemployees,theobviousintentoftheparties wastotreatallemployeesnotdisqualifiedfromunionmembershipasmembersofonebargainingunit. This is regardless of working conditions, mode of compensation, place of work, or other considerations. In the absence of mutual agreement of the parties or evidence that the present compositionsofthebargainingunitisdetrimentaltotheindividualandorganizationalrightseitherof theemployeesoroftheCompany,thisexpressedintentcannotbesetaside.

ItmaywellbethatasaconsequenceofRepublicActNo.6715,foremenareineligibletojointheunion

oftherankandfile.Butthisprovisioncanbeinvokedonlyuponproofthattheforemensoughttobe excluded from the bargaining unit are cloaked with effective recommendatory powers such as to qualifythemunderthelegaldefinitionsofsupervisors.

xxxxxxxxx

7.EffectivityoftheCBA.TheUniondemandsthattheCBAshouldbefullyretroactiveto28November

1991.TheCompanyisopposedonthegroundthatunder Article253­Aofthelabor code,thesix­ month period within which the parties must come to an agreement so that the same will be automaticallyretroactiveislongpast.

TheUnion'sdemandforfullretroactivity,wenote,willresultinunduefinancialburdentotheCompany.

Ontheotherhand,theCompany'srelianceonArticle253­Aismisplacedasthisappliesonlytothe

renegotiatedtermsofanexistingCBA.Here,thedeadlockarosefromnegotiationsforanewCBA.

Theseconsidered,theCBAshallbeeffectivefromthetimeweassumedjurisdictionoverthedispute,

thatis,on22September1992,andshallremaineeffectiveforfive(5)yearsthereafter.Itshallbe

understoodthatexceptfortherepresentationaspectallotherprovisionsthereofshallberenegotiated

notlaterthanthree(3)yearsafteritseffectivity,consistentlywithArticle253­AoftheLaborCode.

B.Theeconomicissues

Thecomparativepositionsofthepartiesare:

COMPANY

xxxxxxxxx

5 .Vacationandsickleave

UNION

17daysvacationandsickleave

17dayssickleaveperyear

foremploymentwithatleast

fiveyearsofservice.

i)Forallcoveredemployees

and17dayssickthangang

gangbosses:

15workingdaysvacationand

15workingdayssickleave

forthosewithatleast1year

ofservice

20workin da svacationand

xxxxxxxxx

7 .Deathaid

xxxxxxxxx

Providedthatinthecase ofarotationworker,he musthaveworkforat

least160daysinayear

foravailment

P1,500.00toheirs

ofcoveredemployees

wor ng aysvaca onan

20workingdayssickleave

forthosewithmorethanone

yearofserviceupto5years

ofservice

25workingdaysvacationand

25workingdayssickleave

forthosewithmorethan5

yearsofserviceupto10

yearsofservice

30workingdaysvacationand

30workingdayssickleave

forthosewithmorethan10

yearsofservice

Providedthatinthecaseofa rotationworker,hemusthave

workedfor140daysina

calendaryearasacondition

foravailment.

Provided,furtherthatinthe eventarotationworkerfails

tocomplete140daysworkin

acalendaryear,heshallstill

beentitledtovacationand

sickleavewithpay,asfollows:

139­120daysworked:90%

119­110daysworked:50%

ii)ForGangbosses:

Sameastheaboveschedule

exceptthat:

1)theconditionthatagang

bossesmusthaveworkedforat

least120daysinacalendar

yearshallbereducedto110

days;and

2)wheretheabovenumberof

daysworkedisnotmet,the

gangbossshallstillbeentitled

tovacationandsickleavewith

pay,asfollows:

109­90daysworked:90%

89­75daysworked:50%

P10,000.00toheirsofcovered

employees

P5,000.00assistancefordeath

ofimmediatememberof

coveredemployee'sfamily

12 .Emergencyloan

a)amountof

P700.00butdamage 30dayssalarypayable through

entitlement

todwellingbyfire

payrolldeductionintwelve

shall

beincluded

monthlyinstallments

b)cashbond

None

Thecompanyshallputupa

forloss,damage

cash bondofnotlessthan

P40,000.00

oraccident

forwinchmen,craneand

xxxxxxxxx

forklift

operators.

BalancingtherightoftheCompanytoremainviableandtojustreturnstoitsinvestmentswithrightof

theUnionmemberstojustrewardsfortheirlabors,wefindthefollowingawardtobefairand

reasonable:

xxxxxxxxx

6 .VacationandSickLeave

a)Non­rotationworkers

17daysvacation/17days

sickleave

forthosewithatleast1year

ofservice

b)Rotationworkersother

17daysvacation/17days

thangangboss

sickleave, providedthatthecovered worker musthaveworkedforatleast

155days

inacalendaryear

c)Gangbosses

17daysvacation/17days

xxxxxxxxx

sickleave, providedthatthegangboss musthave

workedforatleast115days

ina

calendaryear

8.DeathaidP3,000.00totheheirsofeachcoveredemployee

xxxxxxxxx

12.Emergencyloan30dayspay,payablethroughpayrolldeductionsof1/12ofmonthlysalary

WHEREFORE,thePier8ArrastreandStevedoringServicesandtheGeneralMaritimeServicesUnion

areherebyorderedtoexecutenewcollectivebargainingagreementtheincorporatingthedispositions herein contained. These shall be in addition to all other existing terms, conditions and benefits of employment,exceptthosespecificallydeletedherein,whichhavepreviouslygovernedtherelationsof theparties.Allotherdisputeditemsnotspecificallytoucheduponhereinaredeemeddenied,without prejudicetosuchotheragreementsasthepartiesmayhavereachedinthemeantime.Thecollective

bargainingagreementsoexecutedshallbeeffectivefrom22September1992anduptofiveyears

thereafter,subjecttorenegotiationonthethirdyearofitseffectivitypursuanttoArticle253­Aofthe

LaborCode. 1

PetitionersoughtpartialreconsiderationoftheOrder.OnJune8,1993,publicrespondentaffirmedherfindings,

except for the date of effectivity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which was changed to September 30,

1992.Thisisthedatewhensheassumedjurisdictionoverthedeadlock.

PetitionernowassailstheOrderasfollows:

I

THEHONORABLESECRETARYOFLABORCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONINNOT

EXCLUDINGCERTAINPOSITIONSFROMTHEBARGAININGAGREEMENTUNIT

II

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN MAKING THECBAEFFECTIVEONSEPTEMBER30, 1992 WHENSHEASSUMEDJURISDICTION

OVERTHELABORDISPUTEANDNOTMARCH4,1993WHENSHERENDEREDJUDGMENTOVER

THEDISPUTE

III

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REDUCINGTHENUMBEROFDAYSANEMPLOYEESHOULDACTUALLYWORKTOBEENTITLED TOVACATIONANDSICKLEAVEBENEFITS

IV

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN INCREASINGWITHOUTFACTUALBASISTHEDEATHAIDANDEMERGENCYLOAN 2

Thepetitionispartiallymeritorious.

Firstly,petitionerquestionspublicrespondentfornotexcludingfour(4)foremen,alegalsecretary,atimekeeper

andanassistanttimekeeperfromthebargainingunitcomposedofrank­and­fileemployeesrepresentedbyprivate respondent. Petitioner argues that: (1) the failure of private respondent to object when the foremen and legal secretarywereprohibitedfromvotinginthecertificationelectionconstitutesanadmissionthatsuchemployeeshold

supervisory/confidentialpositions;and(2)theprimarydutyandresponsibilityofthetimekeeperandassistanttimekeeperis"toenforcecompanyrulesand

regulationsbyreportingtopetitioner

beconsideredasrank­and­fileemployees.

thoseworkerswhocommittedinfractions,suchasthosecaughtabandoningtheirposts."andhence,theyshouldnot

The applicable law governing the proper composition of bargaining unit is Article 245 of the labor Code, as amended,whichprovidesasfollows:

Art.245.Ineligibilityofmanagerialemployeesto join anylabor organization; employeesto join any labororganization;rightofsupervisoryemployees.—Managerialemployeesarenoteligibletojoin, assistorformanylabororganization.Supervisoryemployeesshallnotbeeligibleformembershipina labor organization of the rank­and­file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizationsoftheirown.

Article212(m)ofthesameCode,aswellasBookV,Rule1,Section1(o)oftheOmnibusRulesImplementingthe

Labor Code, as amended by the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A 6715, differentiate managerial, supervisory,andrank­and­fileemployees,thus:

"ManagerialEmployee"isone who isvested with powersor prerogativesto laydown and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommendsuchmanagerialactionsiftheexerciseofsuchauthorityisnotmerelyroutinaryorclerical innaturebutrequirestheuseofindependentjudgment.Allemployeesnotfallingwithinanyofthe abovedefinitionsareconsideredrank­and­fileemployeesforpurposesoftheBook.

This Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the test of supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer which authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires use of independent judgment. 3 What governs the determination of the nature of

employment is not theemployee's title, but his jobdescription. If thenatureof theemployee's jobdoes not fallunderthe definitionof"managerial"or"supervisory"intheLaborCode,heiseligibletobeamemberoftherank­and­filebargainingunit.

4

Foremenarechiefandoftenespecially­trainedworkmenwhoworkwithandcommonlyareinchargeofagroupof employees in an industrial plant or in construction work. 5 They are the persons designated by the employer­

management to direct the work of employees and to superintend and oversee them. 6 They are representatives of the employer­management withauthority overparticulargroups of workers, processes, operations, orsections of aplant oran entireorganization.Inthemodernindustrialplant,theyareatoncealinkinthechainofcommandandthebridgebetweenthe management and labor. 7 In the performance their work, foremen definitely use their independent judgment and are empoweredtomakerecommendationsformanagerialactionwithrespecttothoseemployeesundertheircontrol.Foremenfall squarelyunderthecategoryofsupervisoryemployees,andcannotbepartofrank­and­fileunions.

Upontheotherhand,legalsecretariesareneithermanagersnorsupervisors.Theirworkisbasicallyroutinaryand

clerical.However,theyshouldbedifferentiatedfromrank­and­fileemployeesbecausethey,aretaskedwith,among

others,thetypingoflegaldocuments,memorandaandcorrespondence,thekeepingofrecordsandfiles,thegiving

of and receiving notices and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. 8 Legal

secretaries therefore fall under the category of confidential employees. Thus, to them applies our holding in the case of

PhilipsIndustrialDevelopment,Inv.,v.NLRC,210SCRA339(1992),that:

Bytheveryfunctions,theyassistconfidentialcapacityto,orhaveaccesstoconfidential.matters of, persons to, exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the rationale behindtheineligibilityofmanagerialemployeestoform,assistorjoinalaborunionequallyappliesto them.

InBulletinPublishingCo.,Inc.,vs.Hon.AugustoSanchez,thisCourtelaboratedonthisrationale,thus:

Therationale,forthisinhibitionhasbeenstatedtobe,becauseifthesemanagerial employeeswouldbelongtoorbeaffiliatedwithUnionthelattermightnot,beassuredof their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company­dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.

InGoldenFarms,Inc.,vs.Ferrer­Calleja, 9 thiscourtexplicitlymadethisrationaleapplicabletoconfidential employees:

., who having access to

confidentialinformation,maybecomethesourceofundueadvantage.Saidemployee(s)

This rationale holds true also for confidential employees

mayactasaspyorspiesofeitherpartytoacollectivebargainingagreement

Wethusholdthatpublicrespondentactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninnotexcludingthefourforemenand

legalsecretaryfromthebargainingunitcomposedofrank­and­fileemployees.

Asfor thetimekeeper andassistanttimekeeper itisclear from petitioner'sownpleadingsthattheyare,neither managerialnor supervisoryemployees.Theyare merelytasked to reportthose who commitinfractionsagainst companyrulesandregulations.Thisreportorialfunctionisroutinaryandclerical.Theydonotdeterminethefateof thosewhoviolatecompanypolicyrulesandregulationsfunction.Itfollowsthattheycannotbeexcludedfromthe subjectbargainingunit.

ThenextissueisthedatewhenthenewCBAofthepartiesshouldbegiveneffect.Publicrespondentfixedthe effectivitydate on September 30, 1992. when she assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. Petitioner maintainsit

shouldbeMarch4.1993,whenpublicrespondentrenderedjudgmentoverthedispute.

TheapplicablelawsareArticles253and253­AoftheLaborCode,thus:

Art.253.Dutytobargaincollectivelywhenthereexistsacollectivebargainingagreement.—When

thereisacollectivebargainingagreement,thedutytobargaincollectivelyshallalsomeanthatneither partyshallterminatenormodifysuchagreementduringitslifetime.However,eitherpartycanservea

writtennoticetoterminateormodifytheagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.

Itshallbethedutyofbothpartiestokeepthestatusquoandtocontinueinfullforceandeffectthe

termsandconditionsoftheexistingagreementduringthe60­dayperiodand/oruntilanewagreement

isreachedbytheparties.

and;

Art.253­A.Termsofacollectivebargainingagreement.—AnyCollectiveBargainingAgreementthat

thepartiesmayenterintoshall,insofarastherepresentationaspectisconcerned,beforatermoffive (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employmentoutsidethesixty­dayperiodimmediatelybeforethedateofexpiryofsuchfiveyearterm oftheCollectiveBargainingAgreement.Allother provisionsoftheCollectiveBargainingAgreement

shallberenegotiatednotlaterthanthree(3)yearsafteritsexecution.Anyagreementonsuchother

provisionsoftheCollectiveBargainingAgreemententeredintowithinsix(6)monthsfromthedateof

expiryof the term of such other provisionsasfixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroacttothedayimmediatelyfollowingsuchdate.Ifanysuchagreementisenteredintobeyondsix months,thepartiesshallagreeonthedurationofcollectivebargainingagreement,thepartiesmay exercisetheirrightsunderthisCode.

InUnionofFilipinoEmployeesv.NLRC,192SCRA414(1990),thiscourtinterpretedtheabovelawasfollows:

Inlightoftheforegoing,thisCourtupholdsthepronouncementoftheNLRCholdingtheCBAtobe signedbythepartieseffectiveuponthepromulgationoftheassailedresolution.Itisclearandexplicit

fromArticle253­AthatanyagreementonsuchotherprovisionsoftheCBAshallbegivenretroactive

effect onlywhen it isentered into within six(6) monthsfrom itsexpirydate. If the agreement was entered into outside the six (6) month period, then the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivitythereof.

TheassailedresolutionwhichincorporatedtheCBAtobesignedbythepartieswaspromulgatedJune 5,1989,the expirydate ofthe pastCBA.Based on the provision ofSection 253­A,itsretroactivity should be agreed upon. by the parties. But since no agreement to that effect was made, public respondentdidnotabuseitsdiscretioningivingthesaidCBAaprospectiveeffect.Theactionofthe

publicrespondentiswithintheambitofitsauthorityvestedbyexistinglaw.

InthecaseofLopezSugarCorporationv.FederationofFreeWorkers,189SCRA179(1991),thisCourtreiterated

therulethatalthoughaCBAhasexpired,itcontinuestohavelegaleffectsasbetweenthepartiesuntilanewCBA hasbeenenteredinto.Itisthedutyofbothpartiestothetokeepthestatusquo,andtocontinueinfullforceand effectthe termsand conditionsofthe existing agreementduring the 60­dayfreedom period and/or untila new

agreement is reached by the parties. 10 Applied to the case at bench, the legal effects of the immediate past CBA

betweenpetitionerandprivaterespondentterminated,andtheeffectivityofthenewCBAbegan,onlyonMarch4,1993when

publicrespondentresolvedtheirdispute.

Finally,wefindnoneedtodiscussatlengththemeritsofthethirdandfourthassignmentsoferror.Thequestioned

Orderrelevantlystates:

Intheresolutionoftheeconomicissues,theCompanyurgesustoconsideramongothers,present costsofliving,itsfinancialcapacity,thepresentwagesbeingpaidbytheothercargohandlersatthe

NorthHarbor,andthefactthatthepresentaveragewageofitsworkersisP127.75aday,whichis

higherthanthestatutoryminimumwageofP118.00aday.TheCompany'sevidence,consistingofits

financialstatementsforthepastthreeyears,showsthatitsnetincomewasP743,423.45for1989,

P2,108,569.03for1990,andP1,479,671.84for1991,oranaverageofP1,443,885.10overthethree­

yearperiod.ItarguesthatforjustthefirstyearofeffectivityoftheCBA,theCompany'sproposalson

wages,effectthereofonovertime,13thmonthpay,andvacationandsickleavecommutation,willcost

aboutP520,723,44,or35.19%ofitsnetincomefor1991.TheCompanylikewiseurgesustoconsider

themultipliereffectofitsproposalsonthesecondandthirdyearsoftheCBA.Asadditionalargument, the Company manifests that a portion of its pier will undergo a six­month to one­year renovation

startingJanuary1993.

Ontheotherhand,theUnion'smainlineofargument—thatis,asidefrombeingwithinthefinancial capacity of the Company to grant, its demands are fair and reasonable — is not supported by evidence controverting the Company's own presentation of its financial capacity. The Union in fact uses statements of the Company for 1989­1991, although it interprets these data as sufficient justificationforitsownproposals.Italsodrawsourattentiontothebargaininghistoryoftheparties,

particularlythe1988negotiationsduringwhichthecompanywasabletograntwageincreasesdespite

operationallosses.

BalancingtherightoftheCompanytoremainviableandtojustreturnstoitsinvestmentswithrightof

theUnionmemberstojust

rewardsfortheirlabors,wefindthefollowingawardtobefairandreasonable

11

It isevident that the above portion of the impugned Order isbased on well­studied evidence. The conclusions reachedbypublicrespondentinthedischargeofher statutorydutyascompulsoryarbitrator,demandthehigh respect of this Court. The study and settlement of these disputes fall within public respondent's distinct administrativeexpertise.Sheisespeciallytrainedforthisdelicatetask,andshehaswithinhercognizancesuch dataandinformationaswillassistherinstrikingtheequitablebalancebetweentheneedsofmanagement,labor andthepublic.Unlessthereisclearshowingofgraveabuseofdiscretion,thisCourtcannotandwillnotinterfere withthelaborexpertiseofpublicrespondentSecretaryofLabor.

INVIEWWHEREOF,publicrespondentsOrder,datedMarch4,1993,andResolution,datedJune8,1993,are

herebyMODIFIEDtoexcludeforemenandlegalsecretariesfromtherank­and­filebargainingunitrepresentedby privaterespondentunion,andtofixthedateofeffectivityofthefive­yearcollectivebargainingagreementbetween

petitionercorporationandprivaterespondentuniononMarch4,1993.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa,C.J.,Bidin,RegaladoandMendoza,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1OrderoftheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,datedMarch4,1993.SeeAnnex"A"toPetition,p.

27­47ofRollo.

2Rollo,pp.6­7.

3SeePhilippineApplianceCorporationv.Laguesma,226SCRA730(1993);Pagkakaisangmga

ManggagawasaTriumphInternational­UnitedLumberandGeneralWorkersofthePhilippinesv.

Ferrer­Calleja,181SCRA119(1990).SeealsoAtlasLithographicServices,Inc.v.Laguesma,205

SCRA12(1992);PhiltrancoServiceEnterprisesv.BureauofLaborRelations,174SCRA338(1989).

4SeeSouthernPhilippinesFederationofLabor(SPFL)v.Calleja,172SCRA676(1989).

5SeeBallentine'sLawDictionary,3rdEdition(1969);Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary

(1971).

6Black'sLawDictionary,6thEdition(1990).

7Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary(1971).

8SeeBlack'sLawDictionary,6thEdition(1990).

9210SCRA471(1989).

10NationalCongressofUnionsintheSugarIndustryofthePhilippinesv.Ferrer­Calleja,205SCRA

478(1992).

11Rollo,pp.44­45.

TheLawphilProject­ArellanoLawFoundation

478(1992). 11 Rollo ,pp.44­45. TheLawphilProject­ArellanoLawFoundation