2/21/2017 G.R. No.

183122

FIRSTDIVISION


GENERAL MILLING G.R.No.183122
CORPORATIONINDEPENDENT
LABORUNION(GMCILU),
Petitioner,


versus



GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
xx

GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION, G.R.No.183889
Petitioner,

Present:

VELASCOJ.,*
versus ActingChairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BERSAMIN,**
DELCASTILLO,and
PEREZ,JJ.
GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATIONINDEPENDENT
LABOR UNION (GMCILU), ET. Promulgated:
AL,
Respondents. June15,2011
xx


DECISION


PEREZ,J.:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 1/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

AssailedinthesepetitionsforreviewoncertiorarifiledpursuanttoRule45ofthe1997Rules
ofCivilProcedurearetheCourtofAppeals(CA)resolutionoftheseparatepetitionsforcertiorari
[1] [2]
questioningthe20July2006Decision renderedandthe23August2006Resolution issuedby
the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Cebu City, in NLRC
CaseNo.V0006322005.InG.R.No.183122,petitionerGeneralMillingCorporationIndependent
LaborUnion(theUnion)seeksthereversalofthe10October2007DecisionrenderedbytheSpecial
[3]
TwentiethDivisionoftheCAinCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226, thedispositiveportionofwhich
states:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby
PARTIALLYGRANTED.

TheJuly20,2006DecisionofrespondentNLRCinNLRCCaseNo.V0006322005ishereby
AFFIRMED insofar as it affirmed the October 27, 2005 Order of Executive Labor Arbiter Ortiz in
RABCaseNo.VII0604751992withthemodificationof:a)excludingthevacationleavesalaryrate
differentials,sickleavesalaryratedifferentials,b)excludingemployeeswhohaveexecutedquitclaims
which are hereby declared valid, and c) deducting salary increases and other employment benefits
voluntarilygivenbyrespondentGMCinthecomputationofbenefits.

Accordingly,theinstantcaseisherebyREFERREDtotheGRIEVANCEMACHINERYunder
theimposedCBAfortherecomputationofbenefitsclaimedbypetitionerGMCILUunderthesaid
imposedCBAtakingintoconsiderationtheguidelineslaiddownbytheCourtinthisDecisionaswell
asthevalidityofthesubjectquitclaimshereinbeforediscussed.

[4]
SOORDERED.

InG.R.No.183889,petitionerGeneralMillingCorporation(GMC)praysforthesettingaside
of the 16 November 2007 Decision rendered by the Eighteenth Division of the CA in CAG.R.
[5]
CEBSPNo.02232, thedecretalportionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE,theDecisiondatedJuly20,2006andtheResolutiondatedAugust23,2006of
publicrespondentNLRCareherebyAFFIRMEDINTOTOandtheinstantpetitionisDISMISSED.

[6]
SOORDERED.

TheFacts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 2/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

On28April1989,GMCandtheUnionenteredintoacollectivebargainingagreement(CBA)which
provided,amongotherterms,thelattersrepresentationofthecollectivebargainingunitforathree
year term made to retroact to 1 December 1988. On 29 November 1991 or one day before the
expiration of the subject CBA, the Union sent a draft CBA proposal to GMC, with a request for
counterproposals from the latter, for the purpose of renegotiating the existing CBA between the
parties.InviewofGMCsfailuretocomplywithsaidrequest,theUnioncommencedthecomplaint
forunfairlaborpracticewhich,underdocketofRABCaseNo.VII06047592,wasdismissedfor
lackofmeritinadecisiondated21December1993issuedbytheRegionalArbitrationBranchVII
[7]
(RABVII) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On appeal, however, said
dismissal was reversed and set aside in the 30 January 1998 decision rendered by the Fourth
[8]
DivisionoftheNLRCinNLRCCaseNo.V011294, thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated
December 21, 1993 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one issued ordering the
imposition upon the respondent company of the complainant union[s] draft CBA proposal for the
remainingtwoyearsdurationoftheoriginalCBAwhichisfromDecember1,1991toNovember30,
1993andfortherespondenttopayattorneysfees.

[9]
SOORDERED.

WiththereconsiderationandsettingasideoftheforegoingdecisionintheNLRCsresolutiondated6
[10]
October1998, theUnionfiledthepetitionsforcertioraridocketedbeforetheCAasCAG.R.SP
Nos.50383and51763.In a decision dated 19 July 2000, the then Fourteenth Division of the CA
reversedandsetasidetheNLRCs6October1998resolutionandreinstatedtheaforesaid30January
1998decision,exceptwithrespecttotheundeterminedawardofattorneysfeeswhichwasdeleted
[11]
for lack of statement of the basis therefor in the assailed decision. Aggrieved by the CAs 26
October2000resolutiondenyingitsmotionforreconsideration,GMCelevatedthecasetothisCourt
via the petition for review on certiorari docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 146728. In a
decisiondated11February2004renderedbytheCourtsthenSecondDivision,theCAs30January
[12]
1998decisionand26October2000resolutionwereaffirmed, uponthefollowingfindingsand
conclusions,towit:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 3/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

GMCsfailuretomakeatimelyreplytotheproposalspresentedbytheunionisindicativeofitsutter
lackofinterestinbargainingwiththeunion.Itsexcusethatitfelttheunionnolongerrepresentedthe
worker,wasmainlydilatoryasitturnedouttobeutterlybaseless.

WeholdthatGMCsrefusaltomakeacounterproposaltotheunionsproposalforCBAnegotiationis
an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the
bargainingproposalsoftheunion,thereisaclearevasionofthedutytobargaincollectively.

Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the unions proposals, GMC
violateditsdutytobargaincollectively,makingitliableforunfairlaborpractice.Perforce,theCourt
of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
findingthatGMCis,underthecircumstances,guiltyofunfairlaborpractice.

xxxx

xxx(I)twouldbeunfairtotheunionanditsmembersifthetermsandconditionscontainedintheold
CBAwouldcontinuetobeimposedonGMCsemployeesfortheremainingtwo(2)yearsoftheCBAs
duration.WearenotinclinedtogratifyGMCwithanextendedtermoftheoldCBAafteritresortedto
delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain
collectively,basedonKiokLoyandDivineWorldUniversityofTacloban,ithadlostitsstatutoryright
tonegotiateorrenegotiatethetermsandconditionsofthedraftCBAproposedbytheunion.

xxxx

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to
precipitatelyacceptoragreetotheproposalsoftheother.Butanerringpartyshouldnotbeallowed
withimpunitytoschemesfeigningnegotiationsbygoingthroughemptygestures.Thus,byimposing
onGMCtheprovisionsofthedraftCBAproposedbytheunion,inourview,theinterestsofequity
andfairplaywereproperlyservedandboththepartiesregainedequalfooting,whichwaslostwhen
[13]
GMCthwartedthenegotiationsforneweconomictermsoftheCBA.

Withtheensuingfinalityoftheforegoingdecision,theUnionfiledamotionforissuanceofawritof
executiondated21March2005,toenforcetheclaimsofthecoveredemployeeswhichitcomputed
inthesumofP433,786,786.36 and to require GMC to produce said employees time cards for the
purpose of computing their overtime pay, night shift differentials and labor standard benefits for
[14]
work rendered on rest days, legal holidays and special holidays. On 18 April 2005, however,
GMCopposedsaidmotionontheground,amongothermatters,thatthebargainingunitnolonger
exist in view of the resignation, retrenchment, retirement and separation from service of workers
who have additionally executed waivers and quitclaims acknowledging full settlement of their
claimsthatthecoveredemployeeshavealreadyreceivedsalaryincreasesandbenefitsfortheperiod
1991 to 1993 and, that aside from the aforesaid supervening events which precluded the
enforcement thereof, the decision rendered in the case simply called for the execution of a CBA
[15]
incorporatingtheUnionsproposal,nottheoutrightcomputationofbenefitsthereunder.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 4/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

InaSubmissiondated27May2005,GMCfurthermanifestedthattheUnionmembershipin
thebargainingunitdidnotexceed286andthatfollowingemployeesshouldbeexcludedfromthe
coverageofthedecisionsoughttobeenforced:(a)47employeeswhowerehiredafter1992(b)234
employeeswhohadbeenseparatedfromtheservice(c)37employeeswho,asdailypaidrankand
file employees, were represented by another union and covered by a different CBA and, (d) 41
[16]
workersholdingmanagerial/supervisory/confidentialpositions. Initscommenttotheforegoing
Submission,however,theUnionarguedthatthebenefitsderivedfromitsproposedCBAextendedto
bothunionmembersandnonmembersthatthenewlyhiredemployeeswereentitledtothebenefits
accruing after their employment by GMC that the employees who had, in the meantime, been
separatedfromservicecouldnothavevalidlywaivedthebenefitswhichwereonlydeterminedwith
finalityinthe11February2004decisionrenderedinG.R.No.146728thattheCBAbenefitscanbe
extendedthedailypaidemployeesupontheirreclassificationasmonthlypaidemployeesaswellas
toGMCsmanagerialandsupervisoryemployees,priortotheirpromotionand,thattheimposition
[17]
ofitsCBAproposalsnecessarilycallsforthecomputationofthebenefitsthereinprovided.

[18]
Acting on the memoranda the parties filed in support of their respective positions,
Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta OrtizBantug issued the 27 October 2005 order, limiting the
computationofthebenefitsoftheUnionsCBAproposaltotheremainingtwoyearsoftheduration
oftheoriginalCBAorfrom1December1991upto30November1993.Thecomputationcovered
the436employeesincludedintheUnionslist,lessthefollowing:(a)77employeeswhowerehired
orregularizedafter30November1993(b)36dailypaidrankandfileemployeeswhowerecovered
by a separate CBA (c) 41 managerial/supervisory employees and (d) 1 employee for whom no
[19]
salaryrateinformationwassubmittedinthepremises. Asaconsequence,saidExecutiveLabor
Arbiterdisposedoftheaforesaidpendingmotionandincidentsinthefollowingwise:

Basedonalltheforegoing,computationshavebeenmade,detailsofwhicharepreparedand
reflectedinseparatepagesbutwhichstillformpartofthisOrder.Bywayofsummary,thegrandtotal
consistsofthefollowing:

SalaryIncreaseDifferentialsP17,575,000.00
RestDay4,320,148.50
VacationLeaveDifferentials920,013.42
SickLeaveDifferentials920,013.42

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 5/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

SchoolOpeningBonus5,094,044.69
13thMonthPayDifferentials1,468,999.98
ChristmasBonus4,560,816.78
SigningBonus1,310,000.00
TotalMoneyClaimsP36,169,036.79

SacksofRice6,372

Issuetheappropriatewritofexecutionbasedontheforegoingcomputations.

[20]
SOORDERED.

Aggrieved, the Union filed a partial appeal dated 2 November 2005, on the ground that the
ExecutiveLaborArbiterabusedherdiscretionin:(a)confiningthecomputationofthebenefitsfrom
1December1991to30November1993infavorofonly281employeesoutofthe436includedin
itslist(b)computingonly10outofthe15benefitsprovidedunderitsCBAproposaland(c)failing
todirecttheGMCtoproducetheemployeestimecardsandotherpertinentdocumentsessentialfor
[21]
thecomputationofthebenefitsdueinthepremises. Inturn,GMCfiledits17November2005
Objectionstotheaforesaid22October2005order,arguingthattheExecutiveLaborArbiternotonly
varied the dispositive portion of the NLRC decision dated 30 January 1998 but also ignored the
[22]
quitclaims executed and the benefits actually paid in the premises. Reiterating the foregoing
argumentsinits16May2006oppositiontotheUnionspartialappeal,GMCfurthermaintainedthat
its not being duly heard on the computation of the award in the subject 27 October 2005 order
renderedtheUnionspartialappealprematureand,thatitsCBAwiththeUnionhadexpiredon30
[23]
November1993,withthelatterexertingnoeffortatallforitsrenewal.

On 20 July 2006, the NLRC rendered a decision in NLRC Case No. V0006322005,
affirming the aforesaid 27 October 2005 order of execution. Finding that the duty to maintain the
statusquoandtocontinueinfullforceandeffectthetermsoftheexistingagreementunderArticle
253 of the Labor Code of the Philippines applies only when the parties agreed to the terms and
conditionsoftheCBA,theNLRCupheldtheExecutiveLaborArbiterscomputationontheground,
amongothers,thatthedecisionsoughttobeenforcedcoveredonlytheremainingtwoyearsofthe
duration of the original CBA, i.e., from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993 that like GMCs
supposed grant of additional benefits during the remaining term of the original CBA, the Unions
claims for payment of vacation leave salary differentials, sick leave salary rate differentials,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 6/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

dislocation allowance, separation pay for voluntary resignation and separation pay salary rate
differentials were not sufficiently established that required by law to preserve its records for a
periodoffiveyears,GMCcannotpossiblybeexpectedtopreserveemployeesrecordsfortheperiod
1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993 and, that the claimant has the burden of proving
entitlementtoholidaypay,premiumforholidayandrestdayaswellnightshiftdifferentials.Giving
short shrift to GMCs objections as aforesaid, the NLRC likewise ruled that computation of the
monetary award was necessary for the enforcement of this Courts 11 February 2004 decision and
[24]
avoidanceofmultiplicityofsuits.

Dissatisfied with the NLRCs 23 August 2006 denial of their motions for reconsideration of
[25]
theforegoingdecision, GMCandtheUnionfiledseparateRule65petitionsforcertioraribefore
theCA.DocketedasCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226beforetheCAsSpecialTwentiethDivision,the
[26]
Unionspetitionwaspartiallygrantedinthe10October2007decisionrenderedinthecase, upon
thefindingthatthepartiesoldCBAwassupersededbytheimposedCBAwhichprovidedatermof
fiveyearsfrom1December1991andremainedinforceuntilanewCBAisconcludedbetweenthe
parties. Brushing aside the Executive Labor Arbiters computation of the benefits as too sweeping
andinaccurate,theCAruledthat:(a)employeeshiredaftertheeffectivityoftheimposedCBAare
entitledtoitsbenefitsontheirfirstdayofwork(b)dailypaidemployeesareentitledtosaidbenefits
from the first day they became regular monthly paid employees (c) managerial and supervisory
employeesareentitledtothesamebenefitsuntiltheirpromotionassuch(d)employeesforwhom
noinformationastosalaryrateweresubmittedareentitledtotheCBAbenefitsuponsubmissionof
proofinrespecttheretoand,(e)employeeswhosignedDeedsofwaiver,releaseandquitclaimare
[27]
nolongerentitledtosaidbenefits.

Rejecting the argument that the NLRC erred in upholding the Executive Labor Arbiters
computationofonly10outofthe15benefitsprovidedundertheimposedCBA,theCAwentonto
takeappropriatenoteofthefactthatnoproofwassubmittedbytheUniontojustifythegrantofsaid
benefits.WhilerulingthattheimposedCBAhadthesameforceandeffectasanegotiatedCBA,the
CA,however,faultedtheUnionforitshastyandprematurefilingofitsmotionforissuanceofawrit
of execution, instead of first demanding the enforcement of the imposed CBA from GMC and,
failingthesame,referringthemattertothegrievancemachineryorvoluntaryarbitrationprovided
under the imposed CBA, in accordance with Articles 260 and 261 of the Labor Code.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 7/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

AcknowledgingthedifficultyofcomputingthebenefitsdemandedbytheUnionintheabsenceof
evidenceuponwhichtobasethesame,theCAreferredthecasetotheGrievanceMachineryunder
theimposedCBAanddirectedtheexclusionofthefollowingitemsfromsaidcomputation:(a)the
Unionsclaimsforvacationleavesalaryratedifferentialsandsickleavesalaryratedifferentials(b)
thebenefitsinfavoroftheemployeeswhohavealreadyexecutedquitclaimsinfavorofGMCand
(c) the salary increases and other employment benefits GMC had, in the meantime, extended its
[28]
employees. Discontented with the CAs 14 May 2008 resolution denying its motion for
[29]
reconsiderationoftheforegoingdecision, theUnionfileditsRule45petitioncurrentlydocketed
[30]
beforethisCourtasG.R.No.183122.

Ontheotherhand,GMCspetitionforcertiorariassailingtheNLRCs20July2006decision
[31]
was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. CEBSP No. 02232 before the CAs Eighteenth Division
whichsubsequentlyrenderedthedecisiondatedon16November2007,dismissingthesameforlack
of merit. Finding that both parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions
during the preexecution conference conducted a quo, the CA ruled that the Executive Labor
Arbiters 27 October 2005 order had attained finality insofar as GMC is concerned, in view of its
failure to perfect an appeal therefrom by paying the required appeal fee and posting the cash or
surety bond in an amount equivalent to the benefits computed. In addition to rejecting GMCs
argumentthatthequitclaimsexecutedbyitsemployeeswereinthenatureofasuperveningevent
whichrenderedexecutionproceedingsimpossible,theCAheldthatsaidquitclaimsdidnotextendto
thebenefitsprovidedundertheimposedCBAandthattheadditionalbenefitssupposedlyreceived
byGMCsemployeesshouldnotbedeductedtherefrom,forlackofsufficientevidencetoprovethe
[32]
same. Aggrievedbythedenialofitsmotionforreconsiderationoftheforegoingdecisioninthe
[33]
CAsresolutiondated10July,2008, GMC filed the petition for review on certiorari docketed
[34]
beforeusasG.R.No.183889.

TheIssues
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 8/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

InG.R.No.183122,theUnionproffersthefollowinggroundsforthegrantofitspetition,to
wit:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND

COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE
COMPUTATION OF THE NLRC IN ITS DECISION DATED JULY 20,
2006ANDDISTORTINGTHEAPPLICATIONOFARTICLE253OFTHE
LABOR CODE IN THE EXECUTION OF THE DECISION OF THIS
HONORABLECOURTING.R.NO.146728.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN EXCLUDING FROM THE
COMPUTATION THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED
QUITCLAIMS, IN EXCLUDING FROM THE COMPUTATION
VACATION AND SICK LEAVE SALARY DIFFERENTIALS, AND IN
DEDUCTING ALLEGED SALARY INCREASES AND OTHER
BENEFITSGIVENBY[GMC].

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REFERRING THE INSTANT
CASE TO THE GRIEVANCE MACHINERY FOR COMPUTATION OF
THEBENEFITSDUEUNDERTHEIMPOSEDCBA.

IV. THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT
WITH THE DECISION OF ANOTHER DIVISION OF THE COURT OF
[35]
APPEALSINVOLVINGTHESAMEISSUES.

InG.R.No.183889,GMCpraysforthesettingasideoftheCAs16November2007decision
inCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02232,onthefollowinggrounds,towit:

A. THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF

JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO
LAW.

B. THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF
JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT IN ACCORD
WITHTHEAPPLICABLEDECISIONSOFTHISHONORABLECOURT.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 9/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

C. THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF

JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO
THEESTABLISHEDFACTS.

D. THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF
JULY10,2008OFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSVIOLATETHELAWOF
THECASE.

E. THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF
JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CONTRAVENE THEIR
OWN DECISION IN AN EXACTLY SIMILAR CASE INVOLVINGTHE
[36]
SAMEPARTIES.

As may be gleaned from the grounds GMC and the Union interpose in support of their
respectivepetitions,itisevidentthatwearecalledupontodeterminethefollowingmatters:(a)the
periodofeffectivityoftheimposedCBA(b)theemployeescoveredbytheimposedCBAand,(c)
thebenefitstobeincludedintheexecutionofthe11February2004decisionrenderedinG.R.No.
146728. Preliminary to the foregoing considerations is the effect of the rendition of diametrically
opposeddecisionsinCAG.R.CEB.SPNos.02226and02232bytheCAsSpecialTwentiethand
EighteenthDivisionsonthepartiesconflictingclaims.

TheCourtsRuling

Wefindthereversaloftheassaileddecisionsinorder.

BothGMCandtheUnioncallourattentiontothefactthatthe10October2007decisionrendered
by the CAs Special Twentieth Division in CAG.R. CEBSP No. 02226 is in conflict with the 16
November2007decisionrenderedbythesamecourtsEighteenthDivisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.
02232.InG.R.No.183122,theUnionarguesthat,giventheidentityofpartiesandissuesraisedin
saidcases,the16November2007decisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02232shouldhavebeentaken
considered and adopted by the CAs Special Twentieth Division in resolving its motion for

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 10/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

[37]
reconsiderationofthe10October2007decisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226. In G.R. No.
183889,ontheotherhand,GMCmaintainsthat,havingbeenrenderedaheadofthe16November
2007 decision in CAG.R. CEBSP No. 02232, the CAs Special Twentieth Divisions 10 October
2007 in CAG.R. CEBSP No. 02226 is the law of the case which the Eighteenth Division
[38]
erroneouslycontravenedwhenitdismisseditspetitionforcertiorari.

TheconflictingdecisionsinCAG.R.CEBSPNos.02226and02232wouldhavebeen,inthefirst
place,avoidedhadtheCAconsolidatedsaidcasespursuanttoSection3,RuleIIIofits2002Internal
[39]
Rules(IRCA). Beingintimatelyandsubstantiallyrelatedcases,theirconsolidationshouldhave
[40]
beenorderedtoavertthepossibilityofconflictingdecisionsinthetwocases. Althoughrendered
on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction acting within its authority, neither one of said
decisions can, however, be invoked as law of the case insofar as the other case is concerned. The
doctrine of law of the case means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling
legalruleordecisionbetweenthesamepartiesinthesamecasecontinuestobethelawofthecase,
[41]
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
[42]
predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. Considering that a decision
[43]
becomesthelawofthecaseonceitattainsfinality, itisevidentthat,withouthavingachieved
saidstatus,thehereinassaileddecisionscannotbeinvokedasthelawofthecasebyeitherGMCor
theUnion.

Anent its period of effectivity, Article XIV of the imposed CBA provides that (t)his
Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from 1 December 1991,
providedthatsixty(60)dayspriortothelapseofthethirdyearofeffectivityhereof,thepartiesshall
open negotiations on economic aspect for the fourth and fifth years effectivity of this Agreement.
[44]
ConsideringthatnonewCBAhadbeen,inthemeantime,agreeduponbyGMCandtheUnion,
we find that the CAs Special Twentieth Division correctly ruled in CAG.R. CEBSP No. 02226
[45]
that,pursuanttoArticle253oftheLaborCode, theprovisionsoftheimposedCBAcontinuesto
have full force and effect until a new CBA has been entered into by the parties. Article 253
mandates the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 11/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

conditionsoftheexistingagreementduringthe60dayperiodpriortotheexpirationoftheoldCBA
[46]
and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. In the same manner that it does not
provideforanyexceptionnorqualificationonwhicheconomicprovisionsoftheexistingagreement
[47]
aretoretainitsforceandeffect, thelawdoesnotdistinguishbetweenaCBAdulyagreedupon
bythepartiesandanimposedCBAliketheoneunderconsideration.

The foregoing disquisition notwithstanding, it bears emphasizing, however, that the
dispositiveportionofthe30January1998decisionrenderedbytheFourthDivisionoftheNLRCin
NLRCCaseNo.V011294specificallyorderedtheimpositionupon[GMC]ofthe[Unions] draft
CBAproposalfortheremainingtwoyearsdurationoftheoriginalCBAwhichisfrom1December
[48]
1991 to 30 November 1993. Initially set aside in the 6 October 1998 resolution issued in the
[49]
samecasebytheNLRC andreinstatedinthe19July2000decisionrenderedbytheCAsthen
[50]
FourteenthDivisioninCAG.R.SPNos.50383and51763, said30January1998decisionwas
upheldinthe11February2004decisionrenderedbythisCourtinG.R.No.146728which,inturn,
[51]
affirmed the CAs 19 July 2000 decision as aforesaid. Considering that the 30 January 1998
decisionsoughttobeenforcedconfinedtheapplicationoftheimposedCBAtotheremainingtwo
yeardurationoftheoriginalCBA,wefindthatthecomputationofthebenefitsdueGMCscovered
employees was correctly limited to the period 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993 in the 27
October2005orderissuedbyExecutiveLaborArbiterVioletaOrtizBantugandthe20July2006
decisionrenderedbytheNLRCinNLRCCaseNo.V0006322005.

Consequently, insofar as the execution of the 30 January 1998 decision is concerned, the
UnionisoutonalimbinespousingacomputationwhichextendsthebenefitsoftheimposedCBA
beyond the remaining twoyear duration of the original CBA. The rule is, after all, settled that an
orderofexecutionwhichvariesthetenorofthejudgmentorexceedsthetermsthereofisanullity.
[52] [53]
Since execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity, it must conform,
moreparticularly,tothatordainedordecreedinthedispositiveportionofthedecisionsoughttobe
enforced. Considering that the decision sought to be enforced pertains to the period 1 December
1991 to 30 November 1993, it necessarily follows that the computation of benefits under the
imposed CBA should be limited to covered employees who were in GMCs employ during said
period of time. While it is true that the provisions of the imposed CBA extend beyond said
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 12/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

remainingtwoyeardurationoftheoriginalCBAinviewofthepartiesadmittedfailuretoconclude
a new CBA, the corresponding computation of the benefits accruing in favor of GMCs covered
employees after the term of the original CBA was correctly excluded in the aforesaid 27 October
2005 order issued in RAB VII0604751992. Rather than the abbreviated preexecution
proceedings before Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta OrtizBantug, the computation of the same
benefits beyond 30 November 1993 should, instead, be threshed out by GMC and the Union in
accordance with the Grievance Procedure outlined as follows under Article XII of the imposed
CBA,towit:

ArticleXII
GRIEVANCEPROCEDURE

Section 1. Whenever an employee covered by the terms of this Agreement believes that the
COMPANYhasviolatedtheexpresstermsthereof,orisaggrievedontheenforcementorapplication
oftheCOMPANYspersonnelpolicies,he/sheshallberequiredtofollowtheprocedurehereinafterset
forthinprocessingthegrievance.TheCOMPANYwillnotberequiredtoconsideragrievanceunless
it is presented within 7 days from the alleged breach of the express terms of this Agreement or the
COMPANYpersonnelpolicies,

STEPI.Theemployee,throughtheUNIONSteward,shallpresenttheallegedgrievanceinwritingto
theimmediatesuperiorandtheyshallendeavortosettlethegrievancewithinten(10)days.

STEPII.FailingthesettlementinStepI,theUNIONPresidentandthePersonnelOfficershallmeet
andadjustthegrievancewithinfifteen(15)days.

STEP III. Any unresolved grievance shall be referred to the Arbitration Committee provided
hereunder.

Section2.ProcedurebeforetheGrievanceCommittee.

A.Intheeventadisputearisesconcerningtheapplicationorinterpretationofthetermsof
this Agreement or enforcement/application of the COMPANY personnel policies which cannot be
settledpursuanttoSectionIandII,Section1hereof,anArbitrationCommitteeshallbeformedforthe
purposeofsettlingthatparticulardisputeonly.TheGrievanceCommitteeshallbecomposedofthree
(3)members,onetobeappointedbytheCOMPANYasitsrepresentative,anothertobeappointedby
theUNION,andthethirdtobeappointedbycommonagreementofthetworepresentativesselected
fromamongthelistofaccreditedvoluntaryarbitratorsintheProvinceofCebu,orfromgovernment
officialsorcivicleadersandresponsiblecitizensinthecommunity.

B.InallmeetingsoftheGrievanceCommitteeorganizedforthepurposeofresolvinga
particular dispute, all members must be present and no business shall be deliberated upon if any
member thereof is absent. However, if any member is unable to attend the meeting, he/she shall
immediately appoint one to represent him/her, but if the one appointed by agreement of both
representativesoftheCOMPANYandtheUNIONistheoneabsent,thetworepresentativespresent
shallagreebetweenthemselvesonanypersontotaketheplaceoftheabsentmember.Anybusinessor
mattershallbeconsideredaspassedandapprovedbytheCommitteewhenthereisavotethereo[n]by
atleasttwo(2)memberspresentandthesameshallbefinalandbindingonthepartiesconcerned.

C.AlldecisionsoftheCommitteeshallbefinal:provided,however,thatalldecisionsof
theCommitteeshallbelimitedtothetermsandprovisionsofthisAgreementandinnoeventmaythe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 13/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

[54]
termsandprovisionsofthisAgreementbealtered,amendedormodifiedbytheCommittee.

ArticleIIoftheimposedCBA,relatedly,providesthat(t)heemployeescoveredbythisAgreement
are those employed as regular monthly paid employees at the [GMC] offices in Cebu City and
LapulapuCity,includingcadetengineers,salesmen,veterinarians,fieldandlaboratoryworkers,with
the exception of managerial employees, supervisory employees, executive and confidential
secretaries,probationaryemployeesandtheemployeescoveredbyaseparateCollectiveBargaining
[55]
AgreementattheCompanysMillinLapulapuCity. Gauged from the express language of the
foregoingprovision,wefindthatExecutiveLaborArbiterVioletaOrtizBantugcorrectlyexcluded
[56]
the following employees from the list of 436 employees submitted by the Union and the
computationofthebenefitsfortheperiod1December 1991 to 30 November 1993, to wit: (a) 77
employeeswhowerehiredorregularizedafter30November1993(b)36dailypaidrankandfile
employeeswhowerecoveredbyaseparateCBA(c)41managerial/supervisoryemployeesand,(d)
[57]
1employeeforwhomnosalaryrateinformationwassubmittedinthepremises. However, we
findthatthe234employeeswhohadalreadybeenseparatedfromGMCsemploybythetimeofthe
rendition of the 11 February 2004 decision in G.R. No. 146728 should further be added to these
excludedemployees.

The record shows that said 234 employees were union members whose employment with GMC
ceased as a consequence of death, termination due to redundancy, termination due to closure of
plant,terminationforcause,voluntaryresignation,separationordismissalfromserviceaswellas
[58] [59]
retirement. Upon compliance with GMCs clearance requirements and in consideration of
sums ranging from P38,980.12 to P631,898.72, due payment and receipt of which were duly
[60]
acknowledged,itappearsthatsaidemployeesexecuteddeedsofwaiver,releaseandquitclaim
whichuniformlystatedasfollows:

THAT,forandinconsiderationofthesaidpayment,Ihaveremised,releasedanddoherebydischarge,
and by these presents do for myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, remise, release and
foreverdischargesaidGENERALMILLINGCORPORATION,itssuccessorsandassigns,and/orany
ofitsofficersoremployeesofandfromanyandallmannerofactions,causeorcausesofactions,sum
or sums of money, account damages, claims and demands whatsoever by way of separation pay,
benefits,bonuses,andallotherrightstocompensation,salary,wage,emolument,reimbursement,or
monetary benefits, which I ever had, now have or which my heirs , executors and administrators
hereafter can, shall or may have, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or things whatsoever in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 14/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

connection with my former employment in and retirement from the said GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION.

THAT,IhavesignedthisDeedofWaiver,ReleaseandQuitclaimafterIhavereadthecontentsthereof
andunderstoodthesameanditslegaleffects.

Initsassailed16November2007decisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02232,theCAsthenEighteenth
Division brushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim on the ground, among other
matters,thatthesameonlycoveredtheemployeesseparationpayandretirementbenefitsbutdidnot
extend to the benefits which had accrued in their favor under the imposed CBA and, that to be
valid, the waiver should be couched in clear and unequivocal terms leaving no doubt as to the
[61]
intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them. In so doing,
however, the CAs Eighteenth Division egregiously disregarded the clear intent on the part of the
employees who executed said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim to relinquish all present and
future claims arising out of their employment with GMC. Although generally looked upon with
[62]
disfavor, itcannotbegainsaidthatlegitimatewaiversthatrepresentavoluntaryandreasonable
[63]
settlementoflaborers'claimsshouldbesorespectedbytheCourtasthelawbetweentheparties.
Itisonlywherethereisclearproofthatthewaiverwaswangledfromanunsuspectingorgullible
person,orthetermsofsettlementareunconscionableonitsface,thatthelawwillstepintoannul
[64]
thequestionabletransaction. Theabsenceofshowingofthesefactorsinthecaseatbenchimpels
us to uphold the validity of said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim and, to exclude the
employeeswhoexecutedthesamefromthosestillentitledtothebenefitsundertheimposedCBA
bothbeforeandaftertheremainingtermoftheoriginalCBA.Thewaiverwasallinclusive. There
wasnotevenahintofalimitationofcoverage.

Inasmuch as mere allegation is not evidence, the basic evidentiary rule is to the effect that the
burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden of
[65]
proving the same with such quantum of evidence required by law. In administrative or quasi
judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the standard of proof is substantial
evidencewhichisunderstoodtobemorethanjustascintillaorsuchamountofrelevantevidence
[66]
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Since it does not
meanjustanyevidenceintherecordofthecasefor,otherwise,nofindingoffactwouldbewanting
in basis, the test to be applied is whether a reasonable mind, after considering all the relevant
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 15/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

[67]
evidenceintherecordofacase,wouldacceptthefindingsoffactasadequate. Viewedinthe
lightofUnionsfailuretoprovethefactualbasesforthecomputationofthesame,wefindthatthe
NLRCcorrectlyaffirmedExecutiveLaborArbiterVioletaOrtizBantugsexclusionofthefollowing
benefitsfromtheorderdated27October,2005,towit:(a)vacationleavesalaryratedifferentials(b)
sick leave salary rate differentials (c) dislocation allowance (d) separation pay for voluntary
[68]
resignationand(e)separationpaysalaryratedifferentials. Forwantofsubstantialevidenceto
provethesame,theCAsEighteenthDivisionalsocorrectlybrushedasideGMCsinsistenceonthe
deductionoftheadditionalbenefitsitpurportedlyextendedtoitsemployeesfrom1December1991
[69]
to30November1993.

AsforthebenefitsaftertheexpirationofthetermofthepartiesoriginalCBA,wefindthatthe
extent thereof as well as identity of the employees entitled thereto will be better and more
thoroughly threshed out by the parties themselves in accordance with the grievance procedure
outlined in Article XII of the imposed CBA. Aside from being already beyond the scope of the
decisionsoughttobeenforced,thesematterswillnotbeaccuratelyascertainedfromthesummaries
of claims the parties have been wont to submit at the preexecution conference conducted a quo.
Taking into consideration such factors as hiring of new employees, personnel movement and/or
promotions as well as separations from employment which may have, in the meantime, occurred
aftertheexpirationoftheremainingtermoftheoriginalCBA,theidentityofthecoveredemployees
as well as the extent of the benefits due them should clearly be reckoned from acquisition and/or
until loss of their status as regular monthly paid GMC employees. Since the computation must
likewisenecessarilytakeintoconsiderationtheincreasesinsalariesandbenefitsthatmayhavebeen
given in the intervening period, both GMC and the Union are enjoined to make the pertinent
employmentandcompanyrecordsavailabletoeachother,tofacilitatetheexpeditiousandaccurate
determinationofsaidbenefits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered the assailed decisions dated 10 October 2007 and 16
November 2007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the 27 October 2005 order
issuedbyLaborArbiterVioletaOrtizBantugisorderedREINSTATEDandMODIFIEDtofurther
exclude the 234 employees who have executed deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim from the
computationofthebenefitsfortheremainingtermoftheoriginalCBA.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 16/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

SOORDERED.

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice








WECONCUR:


PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson




TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROLUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice





CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 17/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122

*Per Special Order No. 1003, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., is designated asActing Chairperson of the First Division, in lieu of the
officialtripofChiefJusticeRenatoC.Corona.
**PerSpecialOrderNo.1000,AssociateJusticeLucasP.Bersaminisdesignatedadditionalmember.
[1]
Rollo,G.R.No.183122,pp.7686,20,NLRCsJuly2006DecisioninNLRCCaseNo.V0006322005.
[2]
Id.at8789,NLRCsResolutiondated23August2006.
[3]
Id.at2852,CAs10October2007DecisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226.
[4]
Id.at51.
[5]
Rollo,G.R.No.183889,pp.4053,CAs16November2007DecisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02232.
[6]
Id.at53.
[7]
Rollo,G.R.No.183122,p.117.
[8]
Record,CAG.R.SPNo.02226,Volume1,pp.3650,NLRCs30January1998DecisioninNLRCCaseNo.V011294.
[9]
Id.at46.
[10]
Id.at5657.
[11]
Id.at5259,CAsDecisiondated19July2000inCAG.R.SPNos.50383and51763.
[12]
Id.at6174,SCsDecisiondated11February2004inG.R.No.146728.
[13]
Rollo,G.R.No.18322,pp.124127128.
[14]
Records,CAG.R.No.CEBSPNo.02226,Volume1,pp.7577,UnionsMotionforExecutiondated21March2005.
[15]
Id.,VolumeII,pp.10141020,GMCsOppositiondated18April2005.
[16]
Id.at10211030,GMCSubmissiondated27May2005.
[17]
Id.at12741280,UnionsCommentdated9June2005.
[18]
Id.at1372138513861412.GMC&theUnionsMemorandadated3Augustand31,2005.
[19]
Id.at14211425,ExecutiveLabourArbitersOrderdated27October2005.
[20]
Id.at14241425.
[21]
Id.at14331444,UnionsPartialAppealdated2November2005.
[22]
Id.at14551468,GMCsObjectionsdated17November2005.
[23]
Id.at14691496,GMCsOppositiontotheUnionsPartialAppealdated16May2006.
[24]
Records,CAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226,Volume1,pp.21to31,NLRCs20July2006DecisioninNLRCCaseNo.V0006322005.
[25]
Id.at3234,NLRCs23August2006Resolution.
[26]
Id.,VolumeII,pp.19431966,CAs10October2007DecisioninCAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226.
[27]
Id.at19551956.
[28]
Id.at19571965.
[29]
Id.at20092012,CAs14May2008Resolution.
[30]
Rollo,G.R.No.183122,pp.327,UnionsPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.
[31]
Record,CAG.R.SPNo.02232,pp.736,GMCsPetitionforCertiorari.
[32]
Id.at12441257,CAs16November2007DecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.CEBSPNo.02232.
[33]
Id.at14431454,CAsResolutiondated10July,2008.
[34]
Rollo,G.R.No.183889,pp.337,GMCsPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.
[35]
Rollo,G.R.No.183122,p.12.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 18/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122
[36]
Rollo,G.R.No.183889,pp.1213.
[37]
Rollo,G.R.No.183122,pp.1923.
[38]
Id.,G.R.No.183889,pp.1519.
[39]
Sec.3.ConsolidationofCases.When related cases are assigned to different Justices, they may be consolidated and assigned to one
Justice.
(a) AttheinstanceofapartywithnoticetotheotherpartyorattheinstanceoftheJusticetowhomthecaseis
assigned,andwiththeconformityoftheJusticetowhomthecasesshallbeconsolidated,uponnoticetotheparties,consolidation
maybeallowedwhenthecasesinvolvethesamepartiesand/orrelatedquestionsoffactand/orlaw.
(b)ConsolidatedcasesshallpertaintotheJustice
(1)Towhomthecasewiththelowestdocketnumberisassigned,iftheyareofthesamekind
xxxx
(c)NoticeofconsolidationandreplacementshallbegiventotherafflestaffandtheJudicialRecordsDivision.
[40]
Chemphil Export and Import Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97217, 10 April 1992, 208 SCRA 95, 100 citing Benguet
Corporation,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals165SCRA265(1988).
[41]
Padillov.CourtofAppeals,422Phil.334,351(2001)citingDucatv.CourtofAppeals,322SCRA695,706707(2000)citingfurther
Zebra Security Agency and Allied Services v. NLRC, 270 SCRA 476, 485 (1997), People v. Pinuila, et al., 103 Phil. 992, 999
(1958).
[42]
Simv.Ofiana,G.R.No.L54362,28February1985,135SCRA124,127,citingReyesv.CommissiononElections,129SCRA286,
290291.

[43]
Enriquezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.83720,4October1991,202SCRA487,492.
[44]
Record,CAG.R.SPNo.02226,VolumeI,p.96,ImposedCBA.
[45]
Art.253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. When there is a
collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall
terminatenormodifysuchagreementduringitslifetime.However,eitherpartycanserveawrittennoticeto
terminateormodifytheagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.Itshallbethedutyof
both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
existingagreementduringthe60dayperiodand/oruntilanewagreementisreachedbytheparties.
[46]
UnionofFiliproEmployeesv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.91025,19December1990,192SCRA414,427.
[47]
FacultyAssociationofMapuaInstituteofTechnology(FAMIT)v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.164060,15June2007,524SCRA709,
716.

[48]
Record,CAG.R.SPNo.02226,Volume1,p.46.
[49]
Id.at5657.
[50]
Id.at5259.
[51]
Id.at6174.
[52]
EquatorialRealtyDevelopment,Inc.v.MayfairTheater,Inc.,387Phil.885,895(2000)citingPhilippineBankofCommunicationsv.
CourtofAppeals,279SCRA364(1997).
[53]
SolidbankCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,428Phil.949,958(2002)citingGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystemv.CourtofAppeals,
218SCRA233,250,(1993).
[54]
Record,CAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226,VolumeI,pp.9193,ImposedCBA.
[55]
Id.at80.
[56]
Id.at98112.
[57]
Id.,VolumeII,pp.14211425.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 19/20
2/21/2017 G.R. No. 183122
[58]
Id.at10241027.
[59]
Id.at11211258.
[60]
Id.at10311121.
[61]
Rollo,G.R.No.183899,p.51.
[62]
PhilippineCarpetEmployeesAssociationv.PhilippineCarpetManufacturingCorporation,394Phil.716,726(2000).
[63]
Magsalinv.NationalOrganizationofWorkingMen,451Phil.254,263,(2003)citingAlcoserov.NLRC,288SCRA129(1998).
[64]
CoatsManilaBay,Inc.v.Ortega,G.R.No.172628,13February2009,579SCRA300,311312,citingBogoMedellinSugarcane
PlantersAsso.,Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,357Phil.110,126(1998).
[65]
AklanElectricCooperative,Inc.v.NLRC,380Phil.225,245(2000).
[66]
Salvadorv.PhilippineMiningServiceCorporation,443Phil.878,888889(2003).
[67]
Greenfieldv.Cardama,380Phil.246,256257,citingMoreno,ThePhilippineLawDictionary,1982Ed.,p.596.
[68]
Record,CAG.R.CEBSPNo.02226,pp.2930,NLRCDecisiondated20July2006.
[69]
Rollo,G.R.No.183889,pp.5152,CADecisiondated16November2007.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/183122.htm 20/20