FIRST DIVISION
|
GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), Petitioner,
-
versus - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION,
Respondent. x----------------------------------------x GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION,
Petitioner, - versus - GENERAL MILLING
CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 183122 G.R. No. 183889 Present: VELASCO J.,* Acting Chairperson, LEONARDO DE-CASTRO, BERSAMIN,** PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: June
15, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in
these petitions for review on certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are the
Court of Appeals(CA) resolution of the separate petitions for certiorari questioning the 20 July 2006
Decision[1]
rendered and the 23 August 2006 Resolution[2]
issued by the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. V-000632-2005. In G.R. No. 183122, petitioner General
Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union (the Union) seeks the reversal of
the 10 October 2007 Decision rendered by the Special Twentieth Division of the
CA in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226,[3]
the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The July 20, 2006 Decision of respondent NLRC in NLRC Case No. V-000632-2005 is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as it affirmed the October 27, 2005 Order of Executive Labor Arbiter Ortiz in RAB Case No. VII-06-0475-1992 with the modification of: a) excluding the vacation leave salary rate differentials, sick leave salary rate differentials, b) excluding employees who have executed quitclaims which are hereby declared valid, and c) deducting salary increases and other employment benefits voluntarily given by respondent GMC in the computation of benefits.
Accordingly, the instant case is hereby REFERRED to the GRIEVANCE MACHINERY under the imposed CBA for the recomputation of benefits claimed by petitioner GMC-ILU under the said imposed CBA taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Court in this Decision as well as the validity of the subject quitclaims hereinbefore discussed.
SO ORDERED.[4]
In G.R. No.
183889, petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) prays for the setting
aside of the 16 November 2007 Decision rendered by the Eighteenth Division of
the CA in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232,[5]
the decretal portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 20, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 23, 2006 of public respondent NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO and the instant petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The Facts
On
28 April 1989, GMC and the
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 remaining two years duration of the original CBA which is from December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1993; and for the respondent to pay attorneys fees.
SO ORDERED.[9]
With
the reconsideration and setting aside of the foregoing decision in the NLRCs
resolution dated 6 October 1998,[10] the
Union filed the petitions for certiorari docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP
Nos. 50383 and 51763. In a decision
dated 19 July 2000, the then Fourteenth Division of the CA reversed and set
aside the NLRCs 6 October 1998 resolution and reinstated the aforesaid 30
January 1998 decision, except with respect to the undetermined award of
attorneys fees which was deleted for lack of statement of the basis therefor
in the assailed decision.[11] Aggrieved by the CAs 26 October 2000
resolution denying its motion for reconsideration, GMC elevated the case to
this Court via the petition for review on certiorari
docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 146728.
In a decision dated 11 February 2004 rendered by the Courts then Second
Division, the CAs 30 January 1998 decision and 26 October 2000 resolution were
affirmed,[12] upon
the following findings and conclusions, to wit:
GMCs failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the worker, was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless.
We hold that GMCs refusal to make a counter proposal to the unions proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.
Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the unions proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice. Perforce, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC is, under the circumstances, guilty of unfair labor practice.
x x x x
x x x (I)t would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on GMCs employees for the remaining two (2) years of the CBAs duration. We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, based on Kiok Loy and Divine World University of Tacloban, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union.
x x x x
Under ordinary circumstances, it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party should not be allowed with impunity to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. Thus, by imposing on GMC the provisions of the draft CBA proposed by the union, in our view, the interests of equity and fair play were properly served and both the parties regained equal footing, which was lost when GMC thwarted the negotiations for new economic terms of the CBA.[13]
With
the ensuing finality of the foregoing decision, the Union filed a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution dated 21 March 2005, to enforce the claims of
the covered employees which it computed in the sum of P433,786,786.36
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 work rendered on rest days, legal holidays and special holidays.[14] On 18 April 2005, however, GMC opposed said
motion on the ground, among other matters, that the bargaining unit no longer
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 claims; that the covered employees have
already received salary increases and benefits for the period 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 incorporating the Unions proposal, not the outright
computation of benefits thereunder.[15]
In a
Submission dated 27 May 2005, GMC further manifested that the Union
membership in the bargaining unit did not exceed 286 and that following
employees should be excluded from the coverage of the decision sought to be
enforced: (a) 47 employees who were hired after 1992; (b) 234 employees who had
been separated from the service; (c) 37 employees who, as daily paid rank and
file employees, were represented by another union and covered by a different
CBA; and, (d) 41 workers holding managerial/supervisory/confidential positions.[16] In its comment to the foregoing Submission,
however, the Union argued that the benefits derived from its proposed CBA
extended to both union members and non-members; that the newly hired employees
were entitled to the benefits accruing after their employment by GMC; that the
employees who had, in the meantime, been separated from service could not have
validly waived the benefits which were only determined with finality in the 11
February 2004 decision rendered in G.R. No. 146728; that the CBA benefits can
be extended the daily paid employees upon their re-classification as monthly
paid employees as well as to GMCs managerial and supervisory employees, prior
to their promotion; and, that the imposition of its CBA proposals necessarily
calls for the computation of the benefits therein provided.[17]
Acting on the
memoranda the parties filed in support of their respective positions,[18]
Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug issued the 27 October 2005 order,
limiting the computation of the benefits of the
Based on all the foregoing, computations have been made, details of which are prepared and reflected in separate pages but which still form part of this Order. By way of summary, the grand total consists of the following:
Salary Increase Differentials P17,575,000.00
Rest Day 4,320,148.50
Vacation Leave Differentials 920,013.42
Sick Leave Differentials 920,013.42
School Opening Bonus 5,094,044.69
13th Month Pay Differentials 1,468,999.98
Christmas Bonus 4,560,816.78
Signing Bonus 1,310,000.00
Total Money Claims P36,169,036.79
Sacks of Rice 6,372
Issue the appropriate writ of execution based on the foregoing computations.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Aggrieved,
the Union filed a partial appeal dated 2 November 2005, on the ground that the
Executive Labor Arbiter abused her discretion in: (a) confining the computation
of the benefits from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993 in favor of only 281
employees out of the 436 included in its list; (b) computing only 10 out of the
15 benefits provided under its CBA proposal; and (c) failing to direct the GMC
to produce the employees time cards and other pertinent documents essential
for the computation of the benefits due in the premises.[21] In turn, GMC filed its 17 November 2005
Objections to the aforesaid 22 October 2005 order, arguing that the Executive
Labor Arbiter not only varied the dispositive portion of the NLRC decision
dated 30 January 1998 but also ignored the quitclaims executed and the benefits
actually paid in the premises.[22] Reiterating the foregoing arguments in its 16
May 2006 opposition to the Unions partial appeal, GMC further maintained that
its not being duly heard on the computation of the award in the subject 27
October 2005 order rendered the Unions partial appeal premature; and, that its
CBA with the Union had expired on 30 November 1993, with the latter exerting no
effort at all for its renewal.[23]
On 20 July
2006, the NLRC rendered a decision in NLRC Case No. V-000632-2005, affirming
the aforesaid 27 October 2005 order of execution. Finding that the duty to maintain the status quo and to continue in full force
and effect the terms of the existing agreement under Article 253 of the Labor Code of the Philippines applies
only when the parties agreed to the terms and conditions of the CBA, the NLRC
upheld the Executive Labor Arbiters computation on the ground, among others,
that the decision sought to be enforced covered only the remaining two years of
the 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, 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 period of five years, GMC cannot possibly be
expected to preserve employees records for the period 1 December 1991 to 30
November 1993; and, that the claimant has the burden of proving entitlement to
holiday pay, premium for holiday and rest day as well night shift
differentials. 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 avoidance of multiplicity of suits.[24]
Dissatisfied
with the NLRCs 23 August 2006 denial of their motions for reconsideration of
the foregoing decision,[25]
GMC and the
Rejecting the
argument that the NLRC erred in upholding the Executive Labor Arbiters
computation of only 10 out of the 15 benefits provided under the imposed CBA,
the CA went on to take appropriate note of the fact that no proof was submitted
by the Union to justify the grant of said benefits. While ruling that the imposed CBA had the
same force and effect as a negotiated CBA, the CA, however, faulted the Union
for its hasty and premature filing of its motion for issuance of a writ of
execution, instead of first demanding the enforcement of the imposed CBA from
GMC and, failing the same, referring the matter to the grievance machinery or
voluntary arbitration provided under the imposed CBA, in accordance with Articles
260 and 261 of the Labor Code.
Acknowledging the difficulty of computing the benefits demanded by the Union in
the absence of evidence upon which to base the same, the CA referred the case
to the Grievance Machinery under the imposed CBA and directed the exclusion of
the following items from said computation: (a) the Unions claims for vacation
leave salary rate differentials and sick leave salary rate differentials; (b)
the benefits in favor of the employees who have already executed quitclaims in
favor of GMC; and (c) the salary increases and other employment benefits GMC
had, in the meantime, extended its employees.[28] Discontented with the CAs 14 May 2008
resolution denying its motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision,[29]
the
On the other
hand, GMCs petition for certiorari assailing
the NLRCs 20 July 2006 decision was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. CEB-SP No.
02232 before the CAs Eighteenth Division[31] which subsequently rendered the decision
dated on 16 November 2007, dismissing the same for lack of merit. Finding that both parties were given an
opportunity to present their respective positions during the pre-execution
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 argument that
the quitclaims executed by its employees were in the nature of a supervening
event which rendered execution proceedings impossible, the CA held that said
quitclaims did not extend to the benefits provided under the imposed CBA and
that the additional benefits supposedly received by GMCs employees should not
be deducted therefrom, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the same.[32] Aggrieved by the denial of its motion for
reconsideration of the foregoing decision in the CAs resolution dated 10 July,
2008,[33]
GMC filed the petition for review on certiorari
docketed before us as G.R. No. 183889.[34]
The Issues
In G.R. No.
183122, the
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, 2006
AND DISTORTING THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 253 OF THE LABOR CODE IN THE
EXECUTION OF THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN G.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 BENEFITS GIVEN BY [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 THE
BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE IMPOSED CBA.
IV. THE
DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF ANOTHER
DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES.[35]
In G.R. No.
183889, GMC prays for the setting aside of the CAs 16 November 2007 decision
in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232, on the following grounds, to wit:
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 WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT.
C. THE
DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED FACTS.
D. THE
DECISION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 10, 2008 OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS VIOLATE THE LAW OF THE CASE.
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 INVOLVING
THE SAME PARTIES.[36]
As may be
gleaned from the grounds GMC and the Union interpose in support of their
respective petitions, it is evident that we are called upon to determine the
following matters: (a) the period of effectivity of the imposed CBA; (b) the
employees covered by the imposed CBA; and, (c) the benefits to be included in
the execution of the 11 February 2004 decision rendered in G.R. No.
146728. Preliminary to the foregoing
considerations is the effect of the rendition of diametrically opposed
decisions in CA-G.R. CEB. SP Nos. 02226 and 02232 by the CAs Special Twentieth
and Eighteenth Divisions on the parties conflicting claims.
The Courts Ruling
We find the reversal of
the assailed decisions in order.
Both
GMC and the
The
conflicting decisions in CA-G.R. CEB-SP Nos. 02226 and 02232 would have been,
in the first place, avoided had the CA consolidated said cases pursuant to
Section 3, Rule III of its 2002 Internal Rules (IRCA).[39] Being intimately and substantially related
cases, their consolidation should have been ordered to avert the possibility of
conflicting decisions in the two cases.[40] Although rendered 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 legal rule or decision between the same
parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not,[41] so long as the facts on
which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before
the court.[42] Considering that a decision becomes the law
of the case once it attains finality,[43]
it is evident that, without having achieved said status, the herein assailed
decisions cannot be invoked as the law of the case by either GMC or the
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, provided that sixty
(60) days prior to the lapse of the third year of effectivity hereof, the
parties shall open negotiations on economic aspect for the fourth and fifth
years effectivity of this Agreement.[44] Considering that no new CBA had been, in the
meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, we find that the CAs Special
Twentieth Division correctly ruled in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226 that, pursuant
to Article 253 of the Labor Code,[45]
the provisions of the imposed CBA continues to 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 conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA
and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.[46]
In the same manner that it does not provide for any exception nor qualification
on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain its force
and effect,[47]
the law does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and
an imposed CBA like the one under consideration.
The foregoing disquisition notwithstanding, it
bears emphasizing, however, that the dispositive portion of the 30 January 1998 decision
rendered by the Fourth Division of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. V-0112-94
specifically ordered the imposition upon [GMC] of the [
Consequently,
insofar as the execution of the 30 January 1998 decision is concerned, the
Article XII
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Section
1. Whenever an employee covered by the terms of this Agreement believes that
the COMPANY has violated the express terms thereof, or is aggrieved on the
enforcement or application of the COMPANYs personnel policies, he/she shall be
required to follow the procedure hereinafter set forth in processing the
grievance. The COMPANY will not be
required to consider a grievance unless it is presented within 7 days from the
alleged breach of the express terms of this Agreement or the COMPANY personnel
policies,
STEP
I. The employee, through the
UNION Steward, shall present the alleged grievance in writing to the immediate
superior and they shall endeavor to settle the grievance within ten (10) days.
STEP
II. Failing the settlement in
Step I, the UNION President and the Personnel Officer shall meet and adjust the
grievance within fifteen (15) days.
STEP
III. Any
unresolved grievance shall be referred to the Arbitration Committee provided
hereunder.
Section
2. Procedure before the Grievance Committee.
A.
In the event a dispute
arises concerning the application or interpretation of the terms of this
Agreement or enforcement/application of the COMPANY personnel policies which
cannot be settled pursuant to Section I and II, Section 1 hereof, an
Arbitration Committee shall be formed for the purpose of settling that
particular dispute only. The Grievance
Committee shall be composed of three (3) members, one to be appointed by the
COMPANY as its representative, another to be appointed by the UNION, and the
third to be appointed by common agreement of the two representatives selected
from among the list of accredited voluntary arbitrators in the Province of
Cebu, or from government officials or civic leaders and responsible citizens in
the community.
B.
In all meetings of the
Grievance Committee organized for the purpose of resolving a 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 representatives of the COMPANY and the
C.
All decisions of the
Committee shall be final: provided, however, that all decisions of the
Committee shall be limited to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and in
no event may the terms and provisions of this Agreement be altered, amended or
modified by the Committee.[54]
Article II of the imposed CBA, relatedly, provides that
(t)he employees covered by this Agreement are those employed as regular
monthly paid employees at the [GMC] offices in Cebu City and Lapulapu City,
including cadet engineers, salesmen, veterinarians, field and laboratory
workers, with the exception of managerial employees, supervisory employees,
executive and confidential secretaries, probationary employees and the
employees covered by a separate Collective Bargaining Agreement at the
Companys Mill in Lapulapu City.[55] Gauged from the express language of the
foregoing provision, we find that Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug correctly
excluded the following employees from the list of 436
employees submitted by the Union[56]
and the computation of the benefits for the
period 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993, to wit: (a) 77 employees who
were hired or regularized after 30 November 1993; (b) 36 daily paid rank and file employees who
were covered by a separate CBA; (c) 41 managerial/supervisory employees; and,
(d) 1 employee for whom no salary-rate information was submitted in the
premises.[57] However, we find that the 234 employees who
had already been separated from GMCs employ by the time of the rendition of
the 11 February 2004 decision in G.R. No. 146728 should further be added to
these excluded employees.
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, termination for cause, voluntary
resignation, separation or dismissal from service as well as retirement.[58] Upon compliance with GMCs clearance
requirements[59] and in
consideration of sums ranging from P38,980.12 to P631,898.72, due
payment and receipt of which were duly acknowledged, it appears that said
employees executed deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim[60]
which uniformly stated as follows:
THAT, for and in consideration of the said payment, I have remised, released and do hereby discharge, and by these presents do for myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, remise, release and forever discharge said GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, its successors and assigns, and/or any of its officers or employees of and from any and all manner of actions, cause or causes of actions, sum or sums of money, account damages, claims and demands whatsoever by way of separation pay, benefits, bonuses, and all other rights to compensation, 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 connection with my former employment in and retirement from the said GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION.
THAT, I have signed this Deed of Waiver, Release and Quitclaim after I have read the contents thereof and understood the same and its legal effects.
In
its assailed 16 November 2007 decision in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232, the CAs
then Eighteenth Division brushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and
quitclaim on the ground, among other matters, that the same only covered the
employees separation pay and retirement benefits but did not 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 intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that
legally pertains to them.[61] 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 disfavor,[62] it
cannot be gainsaid that legitimate waivers that
represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims should be
so respected by the Court as the law between the parties.[63] It is only where there is clear proof that
the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of
settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul
the questionable transaction.[64] The absence of showing of these factors in
the case at bench impels us to uphold the validity of said deeds of waiver,
release and quitclaim and, to exclude the employees who executed the same from
those still entitled to the benefits under the imposed CBA both before and
after the remaining term of the original CBA.
The waiver was all inclusive.
There was not even a hint of a limitation of coverage.
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 proving the same[65]
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 evidence which is understood
to be more than just a scintilla or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[66] Since it does not mean just any
evidence in the record of the case for, otherwise, no finding of fact would be
wanting in basis, the test to be applied is whether a reasonable mind, after
considering all the relevant evidence in the record of a case, would accept the
findings of fact as adequate.[67]
Viewed in the light of Unions failure to prove the factual bases for the
computation of the same, we find that the NLRC correctly affirmed Executive Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantugs
exclusion of the following benefits from the order dated 27 October, 2005, to
wit: (a) vacation leave salary rate differentials; (b) sick leave salary rate
differentials; (c) dislocation allowance; (d) separation pay for voluntary
resignation; and (e) separation pay salary rate differentials.[68] For want of substantial evidence to prove the
same, the CAs Eighteenth Division also correctly brushed aside GMCs
insistence on the deduction of the additional benefits it purportedly extended
to its employees from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1993.[69]
As for the
benefits after the expiration of the term of the parties original CBA, we find
that the 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 decision sought to be enforced, these matters will not be accurately
ascertained from the summaries of claims the parties have been wont to submit
at the pre-execution 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
after the expiration of the remaining term of the original CBA, the identity of
the covered employees 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 likewise necessarily take into consideration the increases in
salaries and benefits that may have been given in the intervening period, both
GMC and the
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 issued by Labor Arbiter Violeta
Ortiz-Bantug is ordered REINSTATED and
MODIFIED to further exclude the 234
employees who have executed deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim from the
computation of the benefits for the remaining term of the original CBA.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
* Per
Special Order No. 1003, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., is designated as
Acting Chairperson of the First Division, in lieu of the official trip of Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona.
** Per Special Order No. 1000, Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin is designated additional member.
[1] Rollo, G. R. No. 183122, pp. 76-86, 20,
NLRCs July 2006 Decision in NLRC Case No. V-000632-2005.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Rollo, G.R. No. 183889, pp. 40-53, CAs 16
November 2007 Decision in
CA-G.R. CEB-SP No.
02232.
[6]
[7] Rollo, G.R. No. 183122, p. 117.
[8] Record,
CA-G.R. SP No. 02226, Volume 1, pp. 36-50, NLRCs 30 January 1998 Decision in
NLRC Case No. V-0112-94.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo,
G.R. No. 18322, pp. 124; 127-128.
[14] Records, CA-G.R. No. CEB SP No.
02226, Volume 1, pp. 75-77,
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Records, CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226,
Volume 1, pp. 21 to 31, NLRCs 20 July 2006 Decision in NLRC Case
No. V-000632-2005.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Rollo, G.R. No. 183122, pp. 3-27,
[31] Record,
CA-G.R. SP No. 02232, pp. 7-36, GMCs Petition for Certiorari.
[32]
[33]
[34] Rollo, G.R. No. 183889, pp. 3-37, GMCs
Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[35] Rollo,
G.R. No. 183122, p. 12.
[36] Rollo, G.R. No. 183889, pp. 12-13.
[37] Rollo,
G.R. No. 183122, pp. 19-23.
[38]
[39] Sec.
3. Consolidation of Cases. When
related cases are assigned to different Justices, they may be consolidated and
assigned to one Justice.
(a)
At
the instance of a party with notice to the other party; or at the instance of
the Justice to whom the case is assigned, and with the conformity of the
Justice to whom the cases shall be consolidated, upon notice to the parties,
consolidation may be allowed when the cases involve the same parties and/or
related questions of fact and/or law.
(b)
Consolidated
cases shall pertain to the Justice
(1) To
whom the case with the lowest docket number is assigned, if they are of the
same kind;
x
x x x
(c)
Notice of
consolidation and replacement shall be given to the raffle staff and the
Judicial Records Division.
[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. Court of Appeals 165 SCRA 265 (1988).
[41]
Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334, 351 (2001) citing Ducat v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 695,
706-707 (2000) citing further Zebra
Security Agency and Allied Services v. NLRC, 270 SCRA 476, 485 (1997), People v. Pinuila, et al., 103 Phil.
992, 999 (1958).
[42] Sim
v. Ofiana, G.R. No. L-54362, 28 February
1985, 135 SCRA 124, 127, citing Reyes v.
Commission on Elections, 129 SCRA 286, 290-291.
[43] Enriquez
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83720, 4 October 1991, 202 SCRA 487, 492.
[44] Record, CA-G.R. SP No. 02226, Volume I, p. 96,
Imposed CBA.
[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 terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either
party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date.
It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
the parties.
[46]
[47] Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of
Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
164060, 15 June 2007, 524 SCRA 709, 716.
[48] Record,
CA-G.R. SP No. 02226, Volume 1, p. 46.
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v.
Mayfair Theater, Inc., 387 Phil. 885, 895 (2000) citing Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court
of Appeals, 279 SCRA 364 (1997).
[53] Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
428 Phil. 949, 958 (2002) citing Government
Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 233, 250, (1993).
[54] Record, CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 02226,
Volume I, pp. 91-93, Imposed CBA.
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61] Rollo,
G.R. No. 183899, p. 51.
[62] Philippine Carpet Employees Association v.
Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation, 394 Phil. 716, 726 (2000).
[63] Magsalin v. National Organization of Working
Men, 451 Phil. 254, 263, (2003) citing Alcosero v. NLRC, 288 SCRA 129 (1998).
[64] Coats Manila Bay, Inc. v. Ortega, G.R. No. 172628, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 300, 311-312,
citing Bogo Medellin Sugarcane Planters
Asso., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 357 Phil. 110, 126
(1998).
[65] Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC,
380 Phil. 225, 245 (2000).
[66]
[67] Greenfield v. Cardama, 380 Phil.
246, 256-257, citing
[68] Record, CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226,
pp. 29-30, NLRC Decision dated 20 July 2006.
[69] Rollo,
G.R. No. 183889, pp. 51-52, CA Decision dated 16 November 2007.