Famit vs CA

The petitioner FAMIT is the union in the respondent school MAPUA Institute.
FAMIT and MIT entered into a new CBA in which they incorporated the new
faculty ranking system provided that it will not result in the diminution in the
existing rank and pay.
There are two disputes in this case. First, when faculty ranking system was
implemented it resulted in diminution in the rank of college faculty. Second,
when MAPUA instituted new high school curriculum which changes the
number of hours for certain subjects. Hence, it adopted new formula for
determining pay rates for high school faculty.
FIRST ISSUE: MAPUA argued that the new faculty ranking system was made in
good faith in the exercise of its inherent prerogative to freely regulate all
aspect of employment.
SECOND ISSUE: MAPUA contended that it has the right to change the pay
formula since the curriculum changed the number of teaching hours of the
high school faculty.

ISSUE:

1. WON the new faculty ranking evaluation unlawful and inconsistent with the
existing CBA?
2. WON the development of new salary formula for the HS department unlawful
and inconsistent with the existing CBA?

HELD:

1. YES.

The SC held that the new point range system in unauthorized modification of
the CBA. It is made up of a faculty classification that is substantially different from
the one originally incorporated in the current CBA between the parties. Thus, the
proposed system contravenes the existing provisions of the CBA, hence, violative of
the law between the parties.

Until a new CBA is executed by and between the parties, they are duty-bound
to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement. The law does not provide for any exception
nor qualification on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to
retain its force and effect. Therefore, it must be understood as encompassing all the
terms and conditions in the said agreement.

The CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the CBA
must be respected since its terms and conditions "constitute the law between the
parties." Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event
that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right
to go to court and ask redress. The CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner
and private respondent and compliance therewith is mandated by the express
policy of the law.

2. YES.

The SC held that MIT cannot adopt its unilateral interpretation of terms in the
CBA. It is clear from the provisions of the 2001 CBA that the salary of a high school
faculty member is based on a rate per load and not on a rate per hour basis.

YSS Employees Union vs YSS Laboratories

YSS Lab retrenched 11 employees due to business losses. Nine out of 11

retrenched employees were officers and members of union.
YSS Union staged a strike on the ground of union-busting.
Due to failed conciliation, SOL exercised its assumption jurisdiction and
certified the labor dispute to NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
SOL ordered that all striking workers were directed to return to work within 24
hours and YSS Lab to accept them under T/C prevailing before the strike.
DISPUTE: YSS Lab refused to comply with the directive of the SOL on the
ground that those 9 union members and officers were validly retrenched and
staged illegal strike. Therefore should be excluded from the return-to-work
order.
SOL directed YSS Lab to accept the 9 retrenched employees either physically
or in the payroll while the determination of validity of strike and retrenchment
is pending.
CA reversed the decision of the SOL. Hence, YSS union filed petition for
review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the

coverage of the R-T-W-O?

Held:

By harping on the validity of the retrenchment and on the exclusion of the

retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order, YSS
Laboratories undermines the underlying principle embodied in Article 263(g) of the
Labor Code on the settlement of labor disputes -- that assumption and certification
orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties,
even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. Regardless
therefore of its motives, or of the validity of its claims, YSS Laboratories
must readmit all striking employees and give them back their respective
jobs. Accepting back the workers in this case is not a matter of option, but of
obligation mandated by law for YSS Laboratories to faithfully comply with. Its
compulsory character is mandated, not to cater to a narrow segment of society, or
to favor labor at the expense of management, but to serve the greater interest of
society by maintaining the economic equilibrium.

Suico vs NLRC

There are 3 consolidated cases in this case. All arises when the union MKP
staged a strike against PLDT.
The 3 cases involved strike-related violence to PLDT'S employees and
customers.
PLDT sent a letter demanding an explanation why they committed violence
during strike.
The petitioners did not comply to write written explanation. Instead, they
demanded PLDT to conduct a formal hearing about the complaints against
them.
Due to their refusal to write written explanation, PLDT terminated their
employment.
PLDT contended that the dismissal of employees for strike-related violence is
sufficient to declare the latter to have lost their employment without having
to comply with any procedure for their termination.

Issue:

Whether or not procedural due process is needed to be observed when the

employees committed strike-related violence?

Held:

PLDT is mistaken. Art. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 264 (a) and (e) recognizes
the right to due process of all workers, without distinction as to the cause of their
termination. Where no distinction is given, none is construed. Hence, the foregoing
standards of due process apply to the termination of employment of Suico, et al.
even if the cause therefor was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence
prohibited under Art. 264 (a) and (e).
Perez vs PT&T

The petitioners (Perez and Doria) were placed on preventive suspension for
30 days because they allegedly participated in jacking up freight costs and
falsifying shipping documents. The suspension was extended for 15 days
twice.
After the investigation of PT&T they were terminated which prompted Perez
to file illegal suspension and termination before LA. Hence present petition.
LA ruled in favor of the petitioners but it was reversed by NLRC and later
affirmed by CA. CA upheld the dismissal due to loss of confidence of PT&T to
the petitioners.

Issue:

Whether or not PT&T illegally suspended and dismissed the petitioners?

Held:

Illegal Dismissal:

Yes.

The SC held that respondents evidence was insufficient to clearly and

convincingly establish the facts from which the loss of confidence resulted. (It was
never proven that petitioners alone had control of or access to these documents).

Respondents illegal act of dismissing petitioners was aggravated by their

failure to observe due process. To meet the requirements of due process in the
dismissal of an employee, an employer must furnish the worker with two written
notices: (1) a written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving to
said employee a reasonable opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written
notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have
been established to justify the employer's decision to dismiss the employee.

Illegal Suspension:

Yes.

An employee may be validly suspended by the employer for just cause

provided by law. Such suspension shall only be for a period of 30 days, after which
the employee shall either be reinstated or paid his wages during the extended
period.
 In this case, petitioners contended that they were not paid during the two 15-
day extensions, or a total of 30 days, of their preventive suspension. Respondents
failed to adduce evidence to the contrary. Thus, they are entitled to reinstatement
with backwages and 13th month pay.

In this case, however, reinstatement is no longer possible because of the

length of time that has passed from the date of the incident to final resolution.
Fourteen years have transpired from the time petitioners were wrongfully dismissed.
To order reinstatement at this juncture will no longer serve any prudent or practical
purpose.

Petitioners should be paid their separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

Fujitsu vs CA, De Guzman and Alvarez

Private Respondent (de Guzman) was employed by the petitioner (Fujitsu) as

Facilities Section Manager while Alvarez was employed as Senior Engineer.
De Guzman was preventively suspended due to anomalous disposal of steel
(purlins) owned by Fujitsu. Thereafter, he was terminated on the ground of
loss of trust and confidence.
On the other hand, Alvarez was terminated after sending sympathetic emails
to his co-employees containing information that De Guzman was innocent to
charges against him. According to Fujitsu such act is tantamount to gross
misconduct
Due to petitioners dismissal, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Fujitsu.
LA and NLRC ruled in favor of Fujitsu but CA reversed the decision of the
lower court.

Issue:

Whether respondents De Guzman and Alvarez were illegally dismissed?

Held:

De Guzman: Yes
 After a careful and painstaking study of the records of the case, the Court
rules that the respondents dismissal from employment was not grounded on any of
the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

To be valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based
on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is
willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse,
as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or
inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers
arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally
remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be
indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the dismissal
of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal,
the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee
concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer

Alvarez: Yes

In this case, the Court finds that respondent Alvarezs act of sending an e-
mail message as an expression of sympathy for the plight of a superior can hardly
be characterized as serious misconduct as to merit the penalty of dismissal.

There is no showing that the sending of such e-mail message had any bearing
or relation on respondent Alvarezs competence and proficiency in his job. To
reiterate, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal
under the law, the act must have been done in relation to the performance of his
duties as would show him to be unfit to continue working for his employer.

Kimberly Clark vs Facundo

KILUSAN-OLALIA a labor union in Kimberly Clark Inc. staged a strike on the

ground of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain collectively and
dismissing union members and officers.
Kimberly Clark filed a complaint for illegal strike alleging that the union went
on strike without complying with the requirements of the LC.
The LA declared the strike was illegal and said that Kimberly Clark was in
pari delicto. since it provoked the illegal strike by prematurely concluding a
CBA with another labor union.
Both parties appealed. Pending appeal, the LA issued a writ for execution for
the reinstatement of private respondents.
The main problem in this case was when NLRC reversed the decision of LA.
NLRC declared that the strike was illegal and the company is not guilty of ULP.
 The employees contended that they are entitled to payment of salary based
on the order of reinstatement by the LA during the period of appeal.
Kimberly Clark averred that reinstatement in the payroll of the private
respondent was not legally feasible due to strained relations of the parties
and the finding of NLRC that they were legally dismissed.

Issue:

Is the private respondents' payroll reinstatement feasible despite the parties'

restrained relations and the finding of NLRC that the private respondents were
illegally dismissed?

Held:

Labor disputes naturally involve strained relations between labor and

management, and that in most strikes, the relations between the strikers and the
non-strikers will similarly be tense. Bitter labor disputes always leave an aftermath
of strong emotions and unpleasant situations. Thus, the doctrine of strained
relations should be strictly applied and must be demonstrated as a fact. This,
petitioner failed to do. Nevertheless, in case of strained relations or the non-
availability of positions, the employer is given the option to reinstate the
employee merely in the payroll precisely to avoid the intolerable presence
in the workplace by the unwanted employee.

Also, the finding of the NLRC that private respondents were legally dismissed
did not alter the fact that their reinstatement pending appeal was immediately
executory. This Court has ruled that even if the Labor Arbiter's order of
reinstatement is reversed on appeal, it is the employer's obligation to reinstate and
pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal
by the NLRC. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the
appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee
is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such,
more so if he actually rendered services during the period.