labor relations_cases_1

8/10/2019 labor relations_cases_1

1/29

G.R. No. 182836 October 13, 2009

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,Petitioner,vs.ON. ACCRE!ITE! "OLUNTAR# AR$ITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTA%O &'( NAG)A)AISANGMANGGAGA*A NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION+SOLI!ARIT# OF UNIONS IN TEPILIPPINES FOR EMPO*ERMENT AN! REFORMS NMCSC+SUPER-,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CICO+NAARIO,J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of te Rules of Court, assailin! te De"ision#

dated $% &e'ruar( $))* and te Resolution$dated + a( $))* of te Court of -ppeals in C-/.R. SP No.

#)#0+%, affir1in! te Resolution2dated $) Nove1'er $))% of respondent -""redited 3oluntar( -r'itrator-tt(. -llan S. ontao ontao6 !rantin! 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits to Rolando P.

7ortillano 7ortillano6, !rounded on te deat of is un'orn "ild.

8e ante"edent fa"ts of te "ase are as follows9

7ortillano, an e1plo(ee of petitioner Continental Steel anufa"turin! Corporation Continental Steel6 and a1e1'er of respondent Na!:a:aisan! an!!a!awa n! Centro Steel CorporationSolidarit( of 8rade Unions

in te Pilippines for E1power1ent and Refor1s Union6 filed on + ;anuar( $))0, a "lai1 for Paternit(

> > >

-R8IC > > >

Se"tion 4. DE-87 -ND -CCIDEN8 INSUR-NCE?8e Co1pan( sall !rant deat and a""identalinsuran"e to te e1plo(ee or is fa1il( in te followin! 1anner9

> > > >
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt3


2/29

4.2 DEPENDEN8S?Eleven 8ousand &ive 7undred &ift( Pesos Pp##,55).))6 in "ase of deat of te

e1plo(ees le!iti1ate dependents parents, spouse, and "ildren6. In "ase te e1plo(ee is sin!le, tis 'enefit"overs te le!iti1ate parents, 'roters and sisters onl( wit proper le!al do"u1ent to 'e presented e.!. deat

"ertifi"ate6.4

8e "lai1 was 'ased on te deat of 7ortillano@s un'orn "ild. 7ortillano@s wife, arife 3. 7ortillano, ad a

pre1ature deliver( on 5 ;anuar( $))0 wile se was in te 2*t wee: of pre!nan"(.5-""ordin! to te

Certifi"ate of &etal Deat dated % ;anuar( $))0, te fe1ale fetus died durin! la'or due to fetal -no>iase"ondar( to uteropla"ental insuffi"ien"(.0

Continental Steel i11ediatel( !ranted 7ortillano@s "lai1 for paternit( leave 'ut denied is "lai1s for

'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits, "onsistin! of te deat and a""ident insuran"e.%

See:in! te reversal of te denial '( Continental Steel of 7ortillano@s "lai1s for 'ereave1ent and oter

deat 'enefits, te Union resorted to te !rievan"e 1a"iner( provided in te CB-. Despite te series of

"onferen"es eld, te parties still failed to settle teir dispute,*pro1ptin! te Union to file a Noti"e to

-r'itrate 'efore te National Con"iliation and ediation Board NCB6 of te Depart1ent of istin! CB- wit te Union.

&inall(, te Union invo:ed -rti"le #%)$ of te Civil Code, wi" provides tat all dou'ts in la'or le!islations

and la'or "ontra"ts sall 'e "onstrued in favor of te safet( of and de"ent livin! for te la'orer.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt15


3/29

On te oter and, Continental Steel posited tat te e>press provision of te CB- did not "onte1plate te

deat of an un'orn "ild, a fetus, witout le!al personalit(. It "lai1ed tat tere are two ele1ents for teentitle1ent to te 'enefits, na1el(9 #6 deat and $6 status as le!iti1ate dependent, none of wi" e>isted in

7ortillano@s "ase. Continental Steel, rel(in! on -rti"les 4), 4# and 4$#0of te Civil Code, "ontended tat

onl( one wit "ivil personalit( "ould die. 7en"e, te un'orn "ild never died 'e"ause it never a"uireduridi"al personalit(. Pro"eedin! fro1 te sa1e line of tou!t, Continental Steel reasoned tat a fetus tat

was dead fro1 te 1o1ent of deliver( was not a person at all. 7en"e, te ter1 dependent "ould not 'e

applied to a fetus tat never a"uired uridi"al personalit(. - fetus tat was delivered dead "ould not 'e"onsidered a dependent, sin"e it never needed an( support, nor did it ever a"uire te ri!t to 'e supported.

Continental Steel 1aintained tat te wordin! of te CB- was "lear and una1'i!uous. Sin"e neiter of te

parties ualified te ter1s used in te CB-, te le!all( a""epted definitions tereof were dee1ed

auto1ati"all( a""epted '( 'ot parties. 8e failure of te Union to ave un'orn "ild in"luded in tedefinition of dependent, as used in te CB- G te deat of wo1 would ave ualified te parente1plo(ee

for 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits G 'ound te Union to te le!all( a""epted definition of te

latter ter1.

Continental Steel, lastl(, averred tat si1ilar "ases involvin! te e1plo(ees of its sister "o1panies,

Steel and a(er Steel, referred to '( te Union, were irrelevant and in"o1petent eviden"e, !iven teseparate and distin"t personalities of te "o1panies. Neiter "ould te Union sustain its "lai1 tat te !rant

of 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits to te parente1plo(ee for te loss of an un'orn "ild

"onstituted H"o1pan( pra"ti"e.H

On $) Nove1'er $))%, -tt(. ontao, te appointed -""redited 3oluntar( -r'itrator, issued a Resolution#%

rulin! tat 7ortillano was entitled to 'ereave1ent leave wit pa( and deat 'enefits.

-tt(. ontao identified te ele1ents for entitle1ent to said 'enefits, tus9

8is Offi"e de"lares tat for te entitle1ent of te 'enefit of 'ereave1ent leave wit pa( '( te "overed

e1plo(ees as provided under -rti"le =, Se"tion $ of te parties@ CB-, tree 26 indispensa'le ele1ents 1ust'e present9 #6 tere is HdeatHF $6 su" deat 1ust 'e of e1plo(ee@s HdependentHF and 26 su" dependent

1ust 'e Hle!iti1ateH.

On te oterand, for te entitle1ent to 'enefit for deat and a""ident insuran"e as provided under -rti"le=3III, Se"tion 4, para!rap 4.26 of te parties@ CB-, four 46 indispensa'le ele1ents 1ust 'e present9 a6

tere is HdeatHF '6 su" deat 1ust 'e of e1plo(ee@s HdependentHF "6 su" dependent 1ust 'e Hle!iti1ateHF

and d6 proper le!al do"u1ent to 'e presented.#*

-tt(. ontao found tat tere was no dispute tat te deat of an e1plo(ee@s le!iti1ate dependento""urred. 8e fetus ad te ri!t to 'e supported '( te parents fro1 te ver( 1o1ent ese was "on"eived.

8e fetus ad to rel( on anoter for supportF ese "ould not ave e>isted or sustained i1selferself

witout te power or aid of so1eone else, spe"ifi"all(, iser 1oter. 8erefore, te fetus was alread( adependent, altou! ese died durin! te la'or or deliver(. 8ere was also no uestion tat 7ortillano and

is wife were lawfull( 1arried, 1a:in! teir dependent, un'orn "ild, le!iti1ate.

In te end, -tt(. ontao de"reed9

A7ERE&ORE, pre1ises "onsidered, a resolution is ere'( rendered ORDERIN/ erein petitioner

Continental SteelJ to pa( Rolando P. 7ortillano te a1ount of &our 8ousand Nine 7undred 8irt(NinePesos P4,+2+.))6, representin! is 'ereave1ent leave pa( and te a1ount of Eleven 8ousand &ive

7undred &ift( Pesos P##,55).))6 representin! deat 'enefits, or a total a1ount of P#0,4*+.))
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_182836_2009.html#fnt18


4/29

8e "o1plaint a!ainst anuel S(, owever, is ORDERED DISISSED for la": of 1erit.

-ll oter "lai1s are DISISSED for la": of 1erit.

&urter, parties are ere'( ORDERED to faitfull( a'ide wit te erein dispositions.

-!!rieved, Continental Steel filed wit te Court of -ppeals a Petition for Review on Certiorari,#+under

Se"tion #, Rule 42 of te Rules of Court, do":eted as C-/.R. SP No. #)#0+%.

Continental Steel "lai1ed tat -tt(. ontao erred in !rantin! 7ortillano@s "lai1s for 'ereave1ent leave

wit pa( and oter deat 'enefits 'e"ause no deat of an e1plo(ee@s dependent ad o""urred. 8e deat of afetus, at watever sta!e of pre!nan"(, was e>"luded fro1 te "overa!e of te CB- sin"e wat was

"onte1plated '( te CB- was te deat of a le!al person, and not tat of a fetus, wi" did not a"uire an(

uridi"al personalit(. Continental Steel pointed out tat its "ontention was 'olstered '( te fa"t tat te ter1

deat was ualified '( te prase le!iti1ate dependent. It asserted tat te status of a "ild "ould onl( 'edeter1ined upon said "ild@s 'irt, oterwise, no su" appellation "an 'e ad. 7en"e, te "onditions sine ua

non for 7ortillano@s entitle1ent to 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits under te CB- were la":in!.

8e Court of -ppeals, in its De"ision dated $% &e'ruar( $))*, affir1ed -tt(. ontao@s Resolution dated $)Nove1'er $))%. 8e appellate "ourt interpreted deat to 1ean as follows9

7erein petitioner Continental Steel@sJ e>position on te le!al sense in wi" te ter1 HdeatH is used in te

CB- fails to i1press te Court, and te sa1e is irrelevant for as"ertainin! te purpose, wi" te !rant of

'ereave1ent leave and deat 'enefits tereunder, is intended to serve. Aile tere is no ar!uin! witContinental SteelJ tat te a"uisition of "ivil personalit( of a "ild or fetus is "onditioned on 'ein! 'orn

alive upon deliver(, it does not follow tat su" event of pre1ature deliver( of a fetus "ould never 'e

"onte1plated as a HdeatH as to 'e "overed '( te CB- provision, undou'tedl( an event "ausin! loss and

!rief to te affe"ted e1plo(ee, wit wo1 te dead fetus stands in a le!iti1ate relation. Continental SteelJas proposed a narrow and te"ni"al si!nifi"an"e to te ter1 Hdeat of a le!iti1ate dependentH as "ondition

for !rantin! 'ereave1ent leave and deat 'enefits under te CB-. &ollowin! Continental Steel@sJ teor(,

tere "an 'e no e>perien"e of HdeatH to spea: of. 8e Court, owever, does not sare tis view. - dead fetussi1pl( "annot 'e euated wit an(tin! less tan Hloss of u1an lifeH, espe"iall( for te e>pe"tant parents.

In tis li!t, 'ereave1ent leave and deat 'enefits are 1eant to assua!e te e1plo(ee and te latter@s

i11ediate fa1il(, e>tend to te1 sola"e and support, rater tan an a"t "onferrin! le!al status or personalit(upon te un'orn "ild. Continental Steel@sJ insisten"e tat te "ertifi"ate of fetal deat is for statisti"al

purposes onl( sadl( 1isses tis "ru"ial point.$)

-""ordin!l(, te fallo of te $% &e'ruar( $))* De"ision of te Court of -ppeals reads9

A7ERE&ORE, pre1ises "onsidered, te present petition is ere'( DENIED for la": of 1erit. 8e assailed

Resolution dated Nove1'er $), $))% of -""redited 3oluntar( -r'itrator -tt(. -llan S. ontao is ere'(-&&IRED and UP7E


5/29

7en"e, tis Petition, in wi" Continental Steel persistentl( ar!ues tat te CB- is "lear and una1'i!uous,

so tat te literal and le!al 1eanin! of deat sould 'e applied. Onl( one wit uridi"al personalit( "an dieand a dead fetus never a"uired a uridi"al personalit(.

Ae are not persuaded.

-s -tt(. ontao identified, te ele1ents for 'ereave1ent leave under -rti"le =, Se"tion $ of te CB- are9

#6 deatF $6 te deat 1ust 'e of a dependent, i.e., parent, spouse, "ild, 'roter, or sister, of an e1plo(eeFand 26 le!iti1ate relations of te dependent to te e1plo(ee. 8e reuisites for deat and a""ident insuran"e

under -rti"le =3III, Se"tion 426 of te CB- are9 #6 deatF $6 te deat 1ust 'e of a dependent, wo "ould

'e a parent, spouse, or "ild of a 1arried e1plo(eeF or a parent, 'roter, or sister of a sin!le e1plo(eeF and

46 presentation of te proper le!al do"u1ent to prove su" deat, e.!., deat "ertifi"ate.

It is wort( to note tat despite te repeated assertion of Continental Steel tat te provisions of te CB- are

"lear and una1'i!uous, its funda1ental ar!u1ent for den(in! 7ortillano@s "lai1 for 'ereave1ent leave and

oter deat 'enefits rests on te purportedl( proper interpretation of te ter1s HdeatH and HdependentH as

used in te CB-. If te provisions of te CB- are indeed "lear and una1'i!uous, ten tere is no need toresort to te interpretation or "onstru"tion of te sa1e. oreover, Continental Steel itself ad1itted tat

neiter 1ana!e1ent nor te Union sou!t to define te pertinent ter1s for 'ereave1ent leave and oterdeat 'enefits durin! te ne!otiation of te CB-.

8e relian"e of Continental Steel on -rti"les 4), 4# and 4$ of te Civil Code for te le!al definition of deat

is 1ispla"ed. -rti"le 4) provides tat a "on"eived "ild a"uires personalit( onl( wen it is 'orn, and -rti"le

4# defines wen a "ild is "onsidered 'orn. -rti"le 4$ plainl( states tat "ivil personalit( is e>tin!uised '(

deat.

&irst, te issue of "ivil personalit( is not relevant erein. -rti"les 4), 4# and 4$ of te Civil Code on natural

persons, 1ust 'e applied in relation to -rti"le 2% of te sa1e Code, te ver( first of te !eneral provisions on

"ivil personalit(, wi" reads9

-rt. 2%. ;uridi"al "apa"it(, wi" is te fitness to 'e te su'e"t of le!al relations, is inerent in ever( naturalperson and is lost onl( trou! deat. Capa"it( to a"t, wi" is te power to do a"ts wit le!al effe"t, is

a"uired and 1a( 'e lost.

Ae need not esta'lis "ivil personalit( of te un'orn "ild erein sin"e iser uridi"al "apa"it( and "apa"it(

to a"t as a person are not in issue. It is not a uestion 'efore us weter te un'orn "ild a"uired an( ri!tsor in"urred an( o'li!ations prior to iser deat tat were passed on to or assu1ed '( te "ild@s parents.

8e ri!ts to 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits in te instant "ase pertain dire"tl( to te parents of

te un'orn "ild upon te latter@s deat.

Se"ond, Se"tions 4), 4# and 4$ of te Civil Code do not provide at all a definition of deat. oreover, wilete Civil Code e>pressl( provides tat "ivil personalit( 1a( 'e e>tin!uised '( deat, it does not e>pli"itl(

state tat onl( tose wo ave a"uired uridi"al personalit( "ould die.

-nd tird, deat as 'een defined as te "essation of life.$4


6/29

pli"it in te CB-provisions in uestion tat te dependent1a( 'e te parent, spouse, or childof a 1arried e1plo(eeF or te

parent, 'roter, or sister of a sin!le e1plo(ee. 8e CB- did not provide a ualifi"ation for te child

dependent, su" tat te "ild 1ust ave 'een 'orn or 1ust ave a"uired "ivil personalit(, as ContinentalSteel avers. Aitout su" ualifi"ation, ten childsall 'e understood in its 1ore !eneral sense, wi"in"ludes te un'orn fetus in te 1oter@s wo1'.

8e ter1 legitimate1erel( addresses te dependent "ild@s status in relation to iser parents. InAngeles v.

Maglaya,$%we ave e>pounded on wo is a le!iti1ate "ild, viz9

- le!iti1ate "ild is a produ"t of, and, terefore, i1plies a valid and lawful 1arria!e. Re1ove te ele1ent oflawful union and tere is stri"tl( no le!iti1ate filiation 'etween parents and "ild. -rti"le #04 of te &a1il(

Code "annot 'e 1ore e1pati" on te 1atter9 HCildren co'ce/e(or 'orn durin! te 1arria!e of teparents are le!iti1ate.H E1pasis ours.6

Conversel(, inBriones v. Miguel,$*we identified an ille!iti1ate "ild to 'e as follows9

8e fine distin"tions a1on! te various t(pes of ille!iti1ate "ildren ave 'een eli1inated in te &a1il(

Code. Now, tere are onl( two "lasses of "ildren le!iti1ate and tose wo, li:e te le!all( adopted, ave

te ri!ts of le!iti1ate "ildren6 and ille!iti1ate. -ll "ildren co'ce/e(and 'orn outside a valid 1arria!eare ille!iti1ate, unless te law itself !ives te1 le!iti1ate status. E1pasis ours.6

It is apparent tat a""ordin! to te &a1il( Code and te afore"ited urispruden"e, te le!iti1a"( or

ille!iti1a"( of a "ild atta"es upon iser "on"eption. In te present "ase, it was not disputed tat

7ortillano and is wife were validl( 1arried and tat teir "ild was "on"eived durin! said 1arria!e, en"e,

1a:in! said "ild legitimateupon er "on"eption.1avvphi1

-lso in"ontesta'le is te fa"t tat 7ortillano was a'le to "o1pl( wit te fourt ele1ent entitlin! i1 to

deat and a""ident insuran"e under te CB-, i.e., presentation of te deat "ertifi"ate of is un'orn "ild.

/iven te e>isten"e of all te reuisites for 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits under te CB-,

7ortillano@s "lai1s for te sa1e sould ave 'een !ranted '( Continental Steel.

Ae e1pasiKe tat 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits are !ranted to an e1plo(ee to !ive aid to, and

if possi'le, lessen te !rief of, te said e1plo(ee and is fa1il( wo suffered te loss of a loved one. It

"annot 'e said tat te parents@ !rief and sense of loss arisin! fro1 te deat of teir un'orn "ild, wo, in

tis "ase, ad a !estational life of 2*2+ wee:s 'ut died durin! deliver(, is an( less tan tat of parentswose "ild was 'orn alive 'ut died su'seuentl(.

Bein! for te 'enefit of te e1plo(ee, CB- provisions on 'ereave1ent leave and oter deat 'enefits sould

'e interpreted li'erall( to !ive life to te intentions tereof. 8i1e and a!ain, te


7/29


8/29

G.R. No. 16 Ar/4 12, 2006

STAR PAPER CORPORATION, 5OSEPINE ONGSITCO SE$ASTIAN CUA,Petitioners,vs.RONAL!O !. SIM$OL, *ILFRE!A N. COMIA LORNA E. ESTRELLA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO,J.:

Ae are "alled to de"ide an issue of first i1pression9 weter te poli"( of te e1plo(er 'annin! spouses

fro1 wor:in! in te sa1e "o1pan( violates te ri!ts of te e1plo(ee under te Constitution and te


9/29

8e respondents ea" si!ned a Release and Confir1ation -!ree1ent. 8e( stated terein tat te( ave no

1one( and propert( a""ounta'ilities in te "o1pan( and tat te( release te latter of an( "lai1 or de1andof watever nature.%

Respondents offer a different version of teir dis1issal. Si1'ol and Co1ia alle!e tat te( did not resi!n

voluntaril(F te( were "o1pelled to resi!n in view of an ille!al "o1pan( poli"(. -s to respondent Estrella,

se alle!es tat se ad a relationsip wit "owor:er Lui!a wo 1isrepresented i1self as a 1arried 'ut

separated 1an. -fter e !ot er pre!nant, se dis"overed tat e was not separated. 8us, se severed errelationsip wit i1 to avoid dis1issal due to te "o1pan( poli"(. On Nove1'er 2), #+++, se 1et an

a""ident and was advised '( te do"tor at te Ortopedi" 7ospital to re"uperate for twent(one $#6 da(s.Se returned to wor: on De"e1'er $#, #+++ 'ut se found out tat er na1e was onold at te !ate. Se

was denied entr(. Se was dire"ted to pro"eed to te personnel offi"e were one of te staff anded er a

1e1orandu1. 8e 1e1orandu1 stated tat se was 'ein! dis1issed for i11oral "ondu"t. Se refused tosi!n te 1e1orandu1 'e"ause se was on leave for twent(one $#6 da(s and as not 'een !iven a "an"e to

e>plain. 8e 1ana!e1ent as:ed er to write an e>planation. 7owever, after su'1ission of te e>planation,

se was noneteless dis1issed '( te "o1pan(. Due to er ur!ent need for 1one(, se later su'1itted a

letter of resi!nation in e>"an!e for er tirteent 1ont pa(.*

Respondents later filed a "o1plaint for unfair la'or pra"ti"e, "onstru"tive dis1issal, separation pa( andattorne(@s fees. 8e( averred tat te afore1entioned "o1pan( poli"( is ille!al and "ontravenes -rti"le #20

of te "ept as provided for or li1ited '( spe"ial law, an e1plo(er

is free to re!ulate, a""ordin! to is own dis"retion and ud!1ent all te aspe"ts of e1plo(1ent.+Citations

omitted.6

On appeal to te N


10/29

#. > > > te su'e"t #++5 poli"(re!ulation is violative of te "onstitutional ri!ts towards 1arria!e

and te fa1il( of e1plo(ees and of -rti"le #20 of te


11/29

dis"ri1inated. It is onl( intended to "arr( out its noe1plo(1entforrelativeswitintetirdde!reepoli"(

wi" is witin te a1'it of te prero!atives of 1ana!e1ent.#0

It is true tat te poli"( of petitioners proi'itin! "lose relatives fro1 wor:in! in te sa1e "o1pan( ta:es tenature of an antinepotis1 e1plo(1ent poli"(. Co1panies adopt tese poli"ies to prevent te irin! of

unualified persons 'ased on teir status as a relative, rater tan upon teir a'ilit(.#%8ese poli"ies fo"us

upon te potential e1plo(1ent pro'le1s arisin! fro1 te per"eption of favoritis1 e>i'ited towards

relatives.

Ait 1ore wo1en enterin! te wor:for"e, e1plo(ers are also ena"tin! e1plo(1ent poli"ies spe"ifi"all(

proi'itin! spouses fro1 wor:in! for te sa1e "o1pan(. Ae note tat two t(pes of e1plo(1ent poli"ies

involve spouses9 poli"ies 'annin! onl( spouses fro1 wor:in! in te sa1e "o1pan( 'o+7o7e e4o:e'to4/c/e7-, and tose 'annin! all i11ediate fa1il( 1e1'ers, in"ludin! spouses, fro1 wor:in! in te sa1e"o1pan( &'t/+'eot/7 e4o:e't o4/c/e7-.#*

Unli:e in our urisdi"tion were tere is no e>press proi'ition on 1arital dis"ri1ination,#+tere are twent(

state statutes$)in te United States proi'itin! 1arital dis"ri1ination. So1e state "ourts$#ave 'een"onfronted wit te issue of weter nospouse poli"ies violate teir laws proi'itin! 'ot 1arital status and

se> dis"ri1ination.

In "allen!in! te antinepotis1 e1plo(1ent poli"ies in te United States, "o1plainants utiliKe two teoriesof e1plo(1ent dis"ri1ination9 te (/7&r&tetre&te'tand te (/7&r&te /&ct. Under te (/7&r&tetre&te't &'&4:7/7, te plaintiff 1ust prove tat an e1plo(1ent poli"( is dis"ri1inator( on its fa"e. Nospouse e1plo(1ent poli"ies reuirin! an e1plo(ee of a &rt/c4&r 7e; to eiter uit, transfer, or 'e fired arefa"iall( dis"ri1inator(. &or e>a1ple, an e1plo(1ent poli"( proi'itin! te e1plo(er fro1 irin! wives of1ale e1plo(ees, 'ut not us'ands of fe1ale e1plo(ees, is dis"ri1inator( on its fa"e.$$

On te oter and, to esta'lis (/7&r&te /&ct, te "o1plainants 1ust prove tat a fa"iall( neutral poli"(as a disproportionate effe"t on a parti"ular "lass. &or e>a1ple, altou! 1ost e1plo(1ent poli"ies do not

e>pressl( indi"ate wi" spouse will 'e reuired to transfer or leave te "o1pan(, te poli"( oftendisproportionatel( affe"ts one se>.$2

8e state "ourts@ rulin!s on te issue depend on teir interpretation of te s"ope of 1arital status

dis"ri1ination witin te 1eanin! of teir respe"tive "ivil ri!ts a"ts. 8ou! te( a!ree tat te ter1H1arital statusH en"o1passes dis"ri1ination 'ased on a persons status as eiter 1arried, sin!le, divor"ed, or

widowed, te( are divided on weter te ter1 as a bro&(er1eanin!. 8us, teir de"isions var(.$4

8e "ourts '&rro


12/29

'ece77/t:oter tan te !eneral per"eption tat spouses in te sa1e wor:pla"e 1i!t adversel( affe"t te'usiness.$*8e( old tat te a'sen"e of su" a bo'& =/(e occ&t/o'&4 >&4/=/c&t/o'$+invalidates a ruleden(in! e1plo(1ent to one spouse due to te "urrent e1plo(1ent of te oter spouse in te sa1e offi"e.2)

8us, te( rule tat unless te e1plo(er "an prove tat te reasona'le de1ands of te 'usiness reuire a

distin"tion 'ased on 1arital status and tere is no 'etter availa'le or a""epta'le poli"( wi" would 'ettera""o1plis te 'usiness purpose, an e1plo(er 1a( not dis"ri1inate a!ainst an e1plo(ee 'ased on te

identit( of te e1plo(ee@s spouse.2#8is is :nown as te bo'& =/(e occ&t/o'&4 >&4/=/c&t/o' e;cet/o'.

Ae note tat sin"e te findin! of a 'ona fide o""upational ualifi"ation ustifies an e1plo(er@s nospouse

rule, te e>"eption is interpreted stri"tl( and narrowl( '( tese state "ourts. 8ere 1ust 'e a "o1pellin!'usiness ne"essit( for wi" no alternative e>ists oter tan te dis"ri1inator( pra"ti"e.2$8o ustif( a 'ona

fide o""upational ualifi"ation, te e1plo(er 1ust prove two fa"tors9 #6 tat te e1plo(1ent ualifi"ation is

reasona'l( related to te essential operation of te o' involvedF and, $6 tat tere is a fa"tual 'asis for'elievin! tat all or su'stantiall( all persons 1eetin! te ualifi"ation would 'e una'le to properl( perfor1

te duties of te o'.22

8e "on"ept of a 'ona fide o""upational ualifi"ation is not forei!n in our urisdi"tion. Ae e1plo( te

standard of re&7o'&b4e'e77 of te "o1pan( poli"( wi" is parallel to te 'ona fide o""upational

ualifi"ation reuire1ent. In te re"ent "ase of !'c&' A77oc/&t/o' o= !et&/4&'+PTG*O &'( Pe(roTec7o' . G4&;o *e44coe P?/4//'e7, I'c.,24we passed on te validit( of te poli"( of a par1a"euti"al"o1pan( proi'itin! its e1plo(ees fro1 1arr(in! e1plo(ees of an( "o1petitor "o1pan(. Ae eld tat

/la>o as a ri!t to !uard its trade se"rets, 1anufa"turin! for1ulas, 1ar:etin! strate!ies and oter"onfidential pro!ra1s and infor1ation fro1 "o1petitors. Ae "onsidered te proi'ition a!ainst personal or

1arital relationsips wit e1plo(ees of "o1petitor "o1panies upon /la>o@s e1plo(ees re&7o'&b4eunderte "ir"u1stan"es 'e"ause relationsips of tat nature 1i!t "o1pro1ise te interests of /la>o. In la(in!down te assailed "o1pan( poli"(, we re"o!niKed tat /la>o onl( ai1s to prote"t its interests a!ainst te

possi'ilit( tat a "o1petitor "o1pan( will !ain a""ess to its se"rets and pro"edures.25

8e reuire1ent tat a "o1pan( poli"( 1ust 'e re&7o'&b4eunder te "ir"u1stan"es to ualif( as a valide>er"ise of 1ana!e1ent prero!ative was also at issue in te #++% "ase of P?/4//'e Te4e@r&? &'(Te4e?o'e Co&': . NLRC.20In said "ase, te e1plo(ee was dis1issed in violation of petitioner@spoli"( of disualif(in! fro1 wor: an( wo1an wor:er wo "ontra"ts 1arria!e. Ae eld tat te "o1pan(

poli"( violates te ri!t a!ainst dis"ri1ination afforded all wo1en wor:ers under -rti"le #20 of te "eption, viz.9

-J reuire1ent tat a wo1an e1plo(ee 1ust re1ain un1arried "ould 'e ustified as a Hbo'& =/(eocc&t/o'&4 >&4/=/c&t/o',H or B&O, were te parti"ular reuire1ents of te o' would ustif( te sa1e,'ut not on te !round of a !eneral prin"iple, su" as te desira'ilit( of spreadin! wor: in te wor:pla"e. -reuire1ent of tat nature would 'e valid provided it refle"ts an inerent ualit( re&7o'&b4: 'ece77&r:forsatisfa"tor( o' perfor1an"e.2%$mphases supplied.6

8e "ases of !'c&'and PTTinstru"t us tat te reuire1ent of reasona'leness 1ust 'e c4e&r4:esta'lised to upold te uestioned e1plo(1ent poli"(. 8e e1plo(er as te 'urden to prove te e>isten"eof a reasona'le 'usiness ne"essit(. 8e 'urden was su""essfull( dis"ar!ed in Dun"an 'ut not in P88.

Ae do not find a reasona'le 'usiness ne"essit( in te "ase at 'ar.

Petitioners@ sole "ontention tat Hte "o1pan( did not ust want to ave two $6 or 1ore of its e1plo(ees

related 'etween te tird de!ree '( affinit( andor "onsan!uinit(H2*is la1e. 8at te se"ond para!rap was1eant to !ive teet to te first para!rap of te uestioned rule2+is evidentl( not te valid reasona'le

'usiness ne"essit( reuired '( te law.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt39


13/29

It is si!nifi"ant to note tat in te "ase at 'ar, respondents were ired after te( were found fit for te o', 'ut

were as:ed to resi!n wen te( 1arried a "oe1plo(ee. Petitioners failed to sow ow te 1arria!e ofSi1'ol, ten a Seetin! a"ine Operator, to -l1a Da(rit, ten an e1plo(ee of te Repa":in! Se"tion,

"ould 'e detri1ental to its 'usiness operations. Neiter did petitioners e>plain ow tis detri1ent will

appen in te "ase of Ailfreda Co1ia, ten a Produ"tion 7elper in te Sele"tin! Depart1ent, wo 1arried7oward Co1ia, ten a elper in te "utter1a"ine. 8e poli"( is pre1ised on te 1ere fear tat e1plo(ees

1arried to ea" oter will 'e less effi"ient. If we upold te uestioned rule witout valid ustifi"ation, te

e1plo(er "an "reate poli"ies 'ased on an unproven presu1ption of a per"eived dan!er at te e>pense of ane1plo(ee@s ri!t to se"urit( of tenure.

Petitioners "ontend tat teir poli"( will appl( onl( wen one e1plo(ee 1arries a "oe1plo(ee, 'ut te( are

free to 1arr( persons oter tan "oe1plo(ees. 8e uestioned poli"( 1a( not fa"iall( violate -rti"le #20 of

te "eptions,4$as in te "ase at 'ar.

Estrella avers tat se went 'a": to wor: on De"e1'er $#, #+++ 'ut was dis1issed due to er alle!ed

i11oral "ondu"t. -t first, se did not want to si!n te ter1ination papers 'ut se was for"ed to tender er

resi!nation letter in e>"an!e for er tirteent 1ont pa(.

8e "ontention of petitioners tat Estrella was pressured to resi!n 'e"ause se !ot i1pre!nated '( a 1arried1an and se "ould not stand 'ein! loo:ed upon or tal:ed a'out as i11oral42is in"redulous. If se reall(

wanted to avoid e1'arrass1ent and u1iliation, se would not ave !one 'a": to wor: at all. Nor would se

ave filed a suit for ille!al dis1issal and pleaded for reinstate1ent. Ae ave eld tat in voluntar(resi!nation, te e1plo(ee is "o1pelled '( personal reasons6 to disso"iate i1self fro1 e1plo(1ent. It is

done wit te intention of relinuisin! an offi"e, a""o1panied '( te a"t of a'andon1ent.448us, it isillo!i"al for Estrella to resi!n and ten file a "o1plaint for ille!al dis1issal. /iven te la": of suffi"ient

eviden"e on te part of petitioners tat te resi!nation was voluntar(, Estrella@s dis1issal is de"lared ille!al.

IN "IE* *EREOF, te De"ision of te Court of -ppeals in C-/.R. SP No. %24%% dated -u!ust 2,$))4 is AFFIRME!.1avvphil.net
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_164774_2006.html#fnt44


14/29

SO ORDERED.


15/29

G.R. No. 11110 5'e 2, 199

ROLAN!O RE"I!A!, PA$LITO LALUNA, RAFAEL ANGELES, TEO!ORO ROSARIO, ROMEORE"I!A!, 5ACINTO GRUTA, 5OSE ESPA%OL, FLORENTINO LOCSIN, ROGELIOPARA!ERO, MARCELINO !EROTA, ARMAN!O CA$ALES, $EN5AMIN MONTESA &'(

RA#MON! "I!AL,petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LA$OR RELATIONS COMMISSION &'( ATLANTIC, GULF AN! PACIFICCOMPAN# OF MANILA, INC., respondents.

REGALA!O,J.:

8is ori!inal a"tion for certiorarisee:s to nullif( te de"ision rendered '( pu'li" respondent National "ept ;ose Espaol6 wit pu'li" respondent and do":eted in its -r'itration

Bran" as Ner"ise its 1ana!e1ent prero!ative to te1poraril( la( off its e1plo(ees owin! to te

unfavora'le 'usiness "li1ate 'ein! e>perien"ed '( te "o1pan( "onseuent to te finan"ial reverses it

suffered fro1 #+*% to #++#.

In te 1eanti1e, as found '( pu'li" respondent in its de"ision, te tree la'or unions ten e>istin! at -/ P 1et on Septe1'er %, #++# wit te "orporations 1ana!e1ent offi"ials at its Batan!as plant in a "onferen"e

presided '( Con!ress1an 7ernando B. PereK and werein te Parties arrived at te followin! a!ree1ent9


16/29

#. 8e Co1pan( a!rees to e>tend finan"ial assistan"e to all te1poraril( laid off or to 'e laid off e1plo(ees

te euivalent of two $6 1onts pa( to 'e paid as follows9 8e first one 1ont pa( on Septe1'er #5, #++#and te se"ond one 1ont pa( on or 'efore De"e1'er #), #++#. 8e said finan"ial assistan"e sall 'e

dedu"ti'le fro1 te e1plo(ees separation pa( sould te( not 'e resolved '( te "o1pan( witin te si>

1ont la( off period or fro1 "oo: 'enefit due te1 sould te( not 'e re"alled.

$. 8e supervisors "lai1 tat, te separation pa( of supervisors sould 'e "o1puted on te 'asis of one

1ont pa( for ever( (ear of servi"e in a""ordan"e wit pre"edent adopted '( te Co1pan( for supervisorswo were ter1inated in te post. 8e Co1pan( a!rees to "onsider tis "lai1 favora'l( sould te

supervisors 'e a'le to esta'lis wit "onvin"in! proof tat tere is reall( su" pre"edent in te Co1pan(.

2. 8ere sould 'e "onsultations 'etween te Unions in B&Q and te Co1pan( 'efore an( te1porar( la(off of e1plo(ees in B&Q sould 'e effe"ted and te parties a!ree tat a dialo!ue to dis"uss su" 1atters 'e

underta:en '( te1.

4. 8e t of wi" reads

as follows9

Pursuant to te a!ree1ent dated Septe1'er %, #++# a1on! Unions and -/ P, represented '( -tt(. Pedro

&. PereK, we re!ret to advis6e (ou tat (ou are part of te e1plo(ees6 to 'e pla"ed on 8e1porar( austion6 of (our 3a"ation


17/29

7en"efort, (ou will 'e i11ediatel( pla"ed on priorit( reserve list for 'ot overseas and do1esti"

assi!n1ents and sould te Co1pan( need (our servi"e, we will advise (ou a""ordin!l(.

indl( present tis letter to &inan"e Depart1ent to r. Sa11( O. De /uK1an to "olle"t (our te1porar(finan"ial assistan"e euivalent to two 1onts 'asi" pa( as follows, one 1ont on #5 Septe1'er #++# and

one 1ont on #) De"e1'er #++#. If (ou will 'e re"alled witin te 0 1ont la(off period, ten te finan"ial

assistan"e sall 'e dedu"ti'le fro1 (our salar( in si> 06 eual install1ents se1i1ontl(.

8ereafter, petitioners re"eived teir respe"tive finan"ial assistan"e and te( si!ned apro %orma

autoriKation in favor of -/ P to dedu"t fro1 te separation pa( due te1 te a1ount of finan"ial

assistan"e re"eived pursuant to te aforesaid a!ree1ent of Septe1'er %, #++#.

-s earlier stated, it was on ;anuar( %, #++$ wen te voluntar( ar'itrator rendered a de"ision findin!ustifi"ation for te 1ass la(off of te -/ P e1plo(ees "aused '( finan"ial reverses suffered '( te

"o1pan(.

On &e'ruar( ##, #++$, "onsiderin! tat petitioners were not 'ein! re"alled '( te -/ P 1ana!e1ent, te(

filed a "o1plaint for ille!al dis1issal and unfair la'or pra"ti"e a!ainst -/ P 'efore respondent

"o11ission were it was do":eted as Nistin! tereat,

te sa1e 1a( onl( 'e !iven an i1pri1atur if and wen te parties tereto ave ustifia'le reasons terefor,and provided furter tat it will not adversel( affe"t te ri!ts and interests of oters.

Respondent "annot forever 1a:e use of te losses in"urred in a spe"ifi" period of ti1e and wi" was te

'asis of a previous la(off as a !round for6 anoter la(off ever( ti1e or an(ti1e it tou!t of ter1inatin!,an e1plo(ee or a 'at" of e1plo(ees.9

On appeal, pu'li" respondent N


18/29

dis1issal is a!ainst te do"trine laid down inRCP& v. NLRC and endero, /.R. Nos. #)##*#*4, ;une $$,

#++$.

$. It as no 1ore 'asis to affir1 te la'or ar'iters de"ision for te reason tat petitioners ad re"eived1onetar( "onsideration for teir dis1issal wen said "onsideration is sort of wat te parties CB- or te

law a""ords to petitioners. 10

Petitioners "ontend tat teir la(off on Septe1'er #%, #++# "annot 'e ustified '( te losses suffered '( -/ P fro1 #+*+ to #++) sin"e it ad not 'een sown tat su" losses "ontinued up to #++#F tat teir la(off

was 1erel( in retaliation to an adverse de"ision a!ainst -/ P rendered '( te N


19/29

#++#, Hte la(off pro!ra1 as "ontinued even as te parties a!reed to su'1it its le!alit( or ille!alit( to

voluntar( ar'itration.H 8e unions position paper 1erel( e"oed te senti1ent e>pressed '( its president,Ni"anor elano, in a letter addressed to te -/ P 7ead of E1plo(ee Relations, ;ud!e Pedro Re(es, dated

-u!ust #%, #++#, 12in effe"t "onde1nin! 1ana!e1ent for "ontinuousl( la(in! off e1plo(ees despite te

penden"( of te la'or dispute 'efore te voluntar( ar'itrator, and de1andin! tat te "o1pan( "ease fro1pursuin! its retren"1ent s"e1e.

Suppletoril(, tere was te a!ree1ent

13

of Septe1'er %, #++# e>e"uted '( and 'etween -/ P, on te oneand, and te tree unions, on te oter, wi" as 'een repeatedl( adverted to. Said a!ree1ent was a"tuall(

an offsoot of te stri:e sta!ed '( te e1plo(ees wi" was tri!!ered '( te i1ple1entation of te 1assla(offs. - "ursor( perusal tereof indeed 1a:es it uite "lear tat te "ru> of te ne!otiations 'etween

1ana!e1ent and its e1plo(ees "on"erns te 1anner wit wi" future possi'le la(offs would 'e

i1ple1ented and te finan"ial assistan"e to 'e e>tended to tose e1plo(ees alread( laid off or wo 1a( 'elaid off. 8us, para!rap 2 of te a!ree1ent states tat Ht6ere sould 'e "onsultations 'etween te Unions

in B&Q and te Co1pan( 'efore an( te1porar( la(off of e1plo(ees in B&Q sould 'e effe"ted and te

parties a!ree tat a dialo!ue to dis"uss su" 1atters 'e underta:en '( te1.H It is tere'( un1ista:a'le, fro1

te plain and si1ple wordin!s of te a!ree1ent, tat te "o1pan( would "ontinue to e>er"ise its1ana!e1ent prero!ative to la( off e1plo(ees as te need arises, 'ut su'e"t to te "onditions i1posed

terein.

8e fa"t tat te tree unions wi" ne!otiated wit 1ana!e1ent a"uies"ed to te aforeuoted tird

stipulation sould 'e dee1ed an ad1ission and re"o!nition on teir part tat tere would 'e a "ontinuin!need to la( off e1plo(ees as a "onseuen"e of te dwindlin! finan"ial "apa"it( of te "o1pan( to 1aintain

its e>istin! wor: for"e. It would ave 'een uite a'surd and unnatural for te union to ave a!reed to

additional la(offs in te future if it did not unualifiedl( 'elieve tat tere trul( e>isted a persistin! andirreversi'le finan"ial insta'ilit( in te 'usiness "on"erns of -/ P.

Petitioners were te1poraril( laid off pursuant to tis a!ree1ent wi", not 'ein! "ontrar( to law, 1orals and

pu'li" poli"(, is valid and 'indin! 'etween te parties. ore i1portantl(, it will 'e noted tat te -/ P

UR&- did not as 1u" as raise an o'e"tion nor file a protest a!ainst su" la(offs, as it would ave 'eenwont to do ad petitioners assertions reall( 'een true. -nd, "onfir1ator( tereof, erein petitioners never

raised te issue tat te "onsultation reuire1ent "ontained in te a!ree1ent was not resorted to or followed

'efore teir la(off was effe"ted. It would, terefore, 'e safe to assure tat su" pro"edure ad 'eenfollowed, tere'( lendin! "reden"e to te o'vious fa"t tat te servi"es of petitioners were le!all(

ter1inated.

8e 'are alle!ation tat te dis1issal of petitioners was a retaliator( 1ove '( te "o1pan( after te for1er

won in an earlier ille!al ter1ination "ase and '( reason of wi" te( were reinstated '( te latter, witoutan( supportin! eviden"e to prove 'ad fait or ill 1otive on te part of te "o1pan(, "annot stand a!ainst and

is dia1etri"all( opposed to te findin!s in te voluntar( ar'itration pro"eedin!s. 3oluntar( -r'itrator Batino

de"lared in no un"ertain ter1s, after an assiduous and painsta:in! evaluation of te do"u1entar( eviden"eand position papers su'1itted '( te parties, tat te e>er"ise of -/ Ps 1ana!e1ent prero!ative to la( off

e1plo(ees was fair, reasona'le and ust and tat it was neiter oppressive, 1ali"ious, ars, nor vindi"tive.

Aorse, it was tere stated tat te union, to wi" erein petitioners 'elon!ed, never i1puted 'ad fait or ill1otives in te sele"tion of te e1plo(ees to 'e te1poraril( laid off. 8is findin! is totall( "ontradi"tor( to

te indefensi'le (potesis invo:ed '( petitioners wi", fro1 te ver( stare, was 'ound to fail "onsiderin!

te "ir"u1stan"es o'tainin! in tis "ase.

Ae are a""ordin!l( "onvin"ed, and so old, tat 'ot te retren"1ent pro!ra1 of private respondent and tedis1issal of petitioners were valid and le!al.


20/29

"irst, it as 'een suffi"ientl( and "onvin"in!l( esta'lised '( -/ P 'efore te voluntar( ar'itrator tat it

was sufferin! finan"ial reverses. Even te ran: and file union at -/ P did not "ontest te fa"t tat1ana!e1ent ad 'een under!oin! finan"ial diffi"ulties for te past several (ears. 7en"e, te voluntar(

ar'itrator "onsidered tis as an ad1ission tat indeed -/ P was a"tuall( e>perien"in! adverse 'usiness

"onditions wi" would ustif( te e>er"ise of its 1ana!e1ent prero!ative to retren" in order to avoid tenot so re1ote possi'ilit( of te "losure of te entire 'usiness wi", in te opinion of te voluntar(

ar'itrator, would in te last anal(sis 'e adverse to 'ot te 1ana!e1ent and te union.

#econd, te voluntar( ar'itrators "on"lusions were pre1ised upon and su'stantiated '( te audited finan"ial

state1ents and te auditors reports of -/ P for te (ears #+*% to #++#. 18ese, finan"ial state1entsaudited '( independent e>ternal auditors "onstitute te nor1al and relia'le 1etod of proof of te profit and

loss perfor1an"e of a "o1pan(. 1

hird, "ontrar( to petitioners asseverations, proof of a"tual finan"ial losses in"urred '( te "o1pan( is not a

"onditionsine (ua non, for retren"1ent. Retren"1ent is one of te e"ono1i" !rounds to dis1isse1plo(ees, wi" is resorted to '( an e1plo(er pri1aril( to avoid or 1ini1iKe 'usiness losses. 168e law

re"o!niKes tis under -rti"le $*2 of te 06 1onts sall 'e "onsidered one #6

wole (ear.

In its ordinar( "onnotation, te prase Hto prevent lossesH 1eans tat retren"1ent or ter1ination of te

servi"es of so1e e1plo(ees is autoriKed to 'e underta:en '( te e1plo(er so1eti1e 'efore te anti"ipated

losses are a"tuall( sustained or realiKed. It is not, in oter words, te intention of te law1a:er to "o1pel te

e1plo(er to sta( is and and :eep all is e1plo(ees until after losses sall ave in fa"t 1aterialiKed. If su"an intent were e>pressl( written into te law, tat law 1a( well 'e vulnera'le to "onstitutional atta": as

undul( ta:in! propert( fro1 one 1an to 'e !iven to anoter.

-t te oter end of te spe"tru1, it see1s euall( "lear tat not ever( asserted possi'ilit( of loss is suffi"ientle!al warrant for te redu"tion of personnel. In te nature of tin!s, te possi'ilit( of in"urrin! losses is

"onstantl( present, in !reater or lesser de!ree, in te "arr(in! on of 'usiness operations, sin"e so1e, indeed

1an(, of te fa"tors wi" i1pa"t upon te profita'ilit( or via'ilit( of su" operations 1a( 'e su'stantiall(

outside te "ontrol of te e1plo(er. 1

On te 'ases of tese "onsiderations, it follows tat te e1plo(er 'ears te 'urden to prove is alle!ation of

e"ono1i" or 'usiness reverses wit "lear and satisfa"tor( eviden"e, it 'ein! in te nature of an affir1ative

defense. 18-s earlier dis"ussed, we are full( persuaded tat te private respondent as 'een and is 'esie!ed

'( a "ontinuin! downtrend in 'ot its 'usiness operations and finan"ial resour"es, tus a1pl( ustif(in! itsresort to drasti" "uts in personnel and "osts.


21/29

8o te point of 'ein! pletori", te e>planation advan"ed '( private respondent in its position paper

su'1itted to te voluntar( ar'itrator is i!l( enli!tenin! and is ere uoted in full9

&i!ure # sows, in 'ar !rap for1, te "o1parative Net In"o1e or Net "ept for #+**, 1ore wor:in!

"apital was used tan was !enerated for te period under stud( and te sa1e is "roni"all( 'ein! depleted.8is 1eans tat te Co1pan( is runnin! out of 1one( to pa( for its 'ills.

>>> >>> >>>

&i!ure 4 plots te Current Ratio of te Co1pan( over ti1e. HCurrent RatioH is te ratio of a fir1s Current

-ssets to its Current


22/29

"ir"ular is 1ore tan suffi"ient noti"e to -/ P e1plo(ees, as well as erein petitioners, of te ten

i1pendin! de"ision of te "o1pan( to "arr( out its retren"1ent pro!ra1 for te reasons terein stated.

-nent te 1andator( written noti"e to 'e filed wit te la'or depart1ent one 1ont 'efore retren"1ent, 21we are of te "onsidered opinion tat te pro"eedin!s ad 'efore te voluntar( ar'itrator, were 'ot parties

were !iven te opportunit( to 'e eard and present eviden"e in teir favor, "onstitute su'stantial "o1plian"e

wit te reuire1ent of te law. 8e purpose of tis noti"e reuire1ent is to ena'le te proper autorities to

as"ertain weter te "losure of te 'usiness is 'ein! done in !ood fait and is not ust a prete>t for evadin!"o1plian"e wit te ust o'li!ations of te e1plo(er to te affe"ted e1plo(ees. 22In fa"t, te voluntar(

ar'itration pro"eedin!s 1ore tan satisfied te intend1ent of te law "onsiderin! tat te parties werea""orded te 'enefit of a earin!, 23in addition to te ri!t to present teir respe"tive position papers and

do"u1entar( eviden"e.

&or tat 1atter, earin! and investi!ation '( te e1plo(er, were te reason for ter1ination is retren"1ent

due to finan"ial reverses and not to an a"t attri'uta'le to te e1plo(ee, is not even reuired 'e"ause it is"onsidered a surplusa!e under e>istin! urispruden"e. 7en"e, it as 'een eld tat9

. . . Aere, as in te instant "ase, te !round for dis1issal or ter1ination of servi"es does not relate to a

'la1ewort( a"t or o1ission on te part of te e1plo(ee, tere appears to us no need for an investi!ationand earin! to 'e "ondu"ted '( te e1plo(er wo does not, to 'e!in wit, alle!e an( 1alfeasan"e or nonfeasan"e on te part of te e1plo(ee. In su" "ase, tere are no alle!ations wi" te e1plo(ee sould refute

and defend i1self fro1. 8us, to reuire petitioner Ailtsire to old a earin!, at wi" private respondent

would ave ad te ri!t to 'e present, on te 'usiness and finan"ial "ir"u1stan"es "o1pellin! retren"1entand resultin! in redundan"(, would 'e to i1pose upon te e1plo(er an unne"essar( and inutile earin! as a

"ondition for le!alit( of ter1ination.

8is is not to sa( tat te e1plo(ee 1a( not "ontest te realit( or !ood fait "ara"ter of te retren"1ent or

redundan"( asserted as !rounds for ter1ination of servi"es. 8e appropriate foru1 for su" "ontroversionwould, owever, 'e te Depart1ent of pe"ted losses. 8e e1plo(er sould ave


23/29

ta:en oter 1easures prior or parallel to retren"1ent to forestall losses, i.e., "ut oter "osts tan la'or

"osts. . . .

a"tin! standard of proof would render too eas( te

a'use of tis !round for ter1ination or servi"es of e1plo(ees. . . .

It is o'vious fro1 te pre"edin! dis"ussions tat te aforeuoted !uidelines ave 'een faitfull( 1et '( te

"o1pan(.

-s a final word, let it 'e reiterated erein wat we ave eretofore said, tat te law in prote"tin! te ri!ts

of te la'orer autoriKes neiter oppression nor selfdestru"tion of te e1plo(er. Aile te Constitution is"o11itted to te poli"( of so"ial usti"e and te prote"tion of te wor:in! "lass, it sould not 'e supposed

tat ever( la'or dispute will 'e auto1ati"all( de"ided in favor of la'or. ana!e1ent also as its own ri!ts,

wi" as su" are entitled to respe"t and enfor"e1ent in te interest of si1ple fair pla(. Out of its "on"ern for

tose wit less privile!es in life, te Supre1e Court as in"lined 1ore often tan not toward te wor:er andupeld is "ause wit is "onfli"ts wit te e1plo(er. Su" favoritis1, owever, as not 'linded te Court to

rule tat usti"e is in ever( "ase for te deservin!, to 'e dispensed in te li!t of te esta'lised fa"ts andappli"a'le law and do"trine. 2

A7ERE&ORE, te de"ision appealed fro1 is ere'( -&&IRED, wit te 1odifi"ation tat private

respondent -tlanti", /ulf and Pa"ifi" Co1pan( of anila, In". is ORDERED to pa( erein petitioners teir

separation pa( euivalent to one 1ont pa( or at least onealf #$6 1ont pa( for ever( (ear of servi"e,wi"ever is i!er. 8e finan"ial assistan"e wi" erein petitioners 1a( ave re"eived sall 'e dedu"ted

fro1 te separation pa( to wi" te( are entitled.

SO ORDERED.


24/29

G.R. No. 662 Seteber 1, 1989

MERCUR# !RUG CORPORATION,petitionervs.NATIONAL LA$OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NLRC SERIFF &'( CESAR E. LA!ISLA,

respondents.

,eronica -. de ,era %or petitioner.

avid B. Agoncillo %or private respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.:

Petitioner assails in tis petition for review on certiorarite Resolution dated ;ul( $4, #+*0 of te National

e"uted a andwritten ad1ission. Said ad1ission was repeated

ver'all( at te poli"e station 'efore te arrestin! offi"er as sown in te Boo:in! Seet and -rrest Reportwi" was si!ned and autenti"ated '( plain is side 'efore e was su11aril( suspended.

8e parties were ten reuired '( te -r'itration Bran" of te Depart1ent of


25/29

Pendin! resolution of te appeal, erein petitioner filed a anifestation wit said Co11ission notif(in! te

latter of te on!oin! trial in Cri1inal Case No. 42)+0 a!ainst private respondent. On Septe1'er #5, #+*2,ud!1ent was rendered in Cri1inal Case No. 42)+0, findin! private respondent a""used !uilt( of te "ri1e

of si1ple teft. 3No appeal was ta:en fro1 te de"ision in te su'e"t "ri1inal "ase, private respondentavin! availed i1self of te 'enefits of te Pro'ation


26/29

tat te e1plo(ee is responsi'le for te 1is"ondu"t and is parti"ipation terein renders i1 unwort( of te

trust and "onfiden"e de1anded of is position. 8

Private respondents ad1ission of is !uilt as earlier stated, is su'seuent "onvi"tion in Cri1inal Case No.42)+0 and is a""eptan"e of te sa1e as i1plied in te a'sen"e of an appeal terefro1 and is su'seuent

appli"ation for pro'ation esta'lised 'e(ond reasona'le dou't is !uilt for te "ri1e of si1ple teft. It was

tis sa1e a"t wi" !ave rise to is "onvi"tion '( te trial "ourt tat was te 'asis for te ter1ination of is

e1plo(1ent '( petitioner.

Ae ave eld tat te eventual "onvi"tion of te e1plo(ee wo is prose"uted for is 1is"ondu"t is not

indispensa'le to warrant is dis1issal '( is e1plo(er. 9ore spe"ifi"all(, an e1plo(ee wo as 'eene>onerated fro1 a "ri1inal "ar!e of teft of !asoline on te 'asis of te"ni"alit( 1a( still 'e dis1issedfro1 e1plo(1ent if te e1plo(er as a1ple reason to 1istrust i1. 10If a"uittal fro1 te "ri1inal "ar!e

does not ne!ate te e>isten"e of a !round for loss of trust and "onfiden"e, wit 1ore reason sould

"onvi"tion for su" "ri1inal "ar!e fortif( said 1istrust.

-nent private respondents "lai1 of su11ar( suspension witout 'ein! !iven te opportunit( to 'e eard,te Court ta:es note tat, in addition to te fa"t tat is suspension was 1erel( preventive pendin! approval

'( te Depart1ent of


27/29

C&4te; 7. P?/4//'e L&bor Or@&'/B&t/o'M&: 2, 199 No. L+991U'reorte( C&7e7Po'e'te P&r&7, C.5.

F&ct7

7ipdion del Rosario was ired '( Calte> as la'ourer in its Panda"an 8er1inal. -fter two 1onts e was

suspended for insu'ordination. Calte> filed a petition wit te Industrial Court for autorit( to dis1iss i1.-fter earin!, te "ourt found del Rosario !uilt( of te a"ts "o1plained of 'ut 'elievin! tat a per1anent

dis1issal was to severe a punis1ent, te "ourt ordered is reinstate1ent wit pa(1ent of 'a":wa!es.

Calte> "lai1s tat te "ourt "o11itted a serious 1ista:e of law and !rave a'use of dis"retion in "o1pellin!it to retain del Rosario in its e1plo( and in su'stitutin! its ud!1ent in deter1inin! te fitness and

ualifi"ation of a te1porar( e1plo(ee to 'e"o1e per1anent or re!ular.

I77e7

Aeter or not del Rosario@s dis"ar!e was proper.

Aeter or not te "ourt as a ri!t to su'stitute Calte>@s ud!1ent in d

eter1inin! te fitness and ualifi"ation of a te1porar( e1plo(ee.

e4(9

Del Rosario@s dis"ar!e was proper. 8e a"ts of insu'ordination for wi" del Rosario was

found !uilt( "onsist of disorderl( "ondu"t and wilful diso'edien"e wi" to note was "o11itted in a ver(sort period of two 1onts fro1 te ti1e of is irin!. Ailful diso'edien"e is a

ustifia'le !round for an e1plo(ee@s dis"ar!e.

Considerin! te period of ti1e tat del Rosario ad 'een wor:in! for petitioner Calte>6 'efore is

suspension, it "an 'e said tat e was on te1porar( or trial 'asis. Calte> as te ri!t to pla"e i1 under tis

"ondition to deter1ine is fitness and "o1peten"(.


28/29

G.R. No. L+31 Febr&r: 8, 1989

SAN MIGUEL $RE*ER# SALES FORCE UNION PTG*O-,petitioner,vs.ON. $LAS F. OPLE, &7 M/'/7ter o= L&bor &'( SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

Lorenzo ". Miravite %or petitioner.

&sidro . Amoroso %or Ne/ #an Miguel Corp. #ales "orce 0nion.

#iguion Reyna+ Montecillo ! ngsia*o %or private respondent.

GRI%O+ADUINO,J.:

8is is a petition for review of te Order dated &e'ruar( $*, #+*) of te inister of


29/29

new sales plan so1ewat distur'ed te present setup, te "an!e owever was too insi!nifi"ant as to

"onvin"e tis Offi"e to interpret tat te innovation interferred wit te wor:ers ri!t to selfor!aniKation.

Petitioners "one"ture tat te new plan will sow dissatisfa"tion fro1 its ran:s is alread( a preud!1ent ofte plans via'ilit( and effe"tiveness. It is li:e sa(in! tat te plan will not wor: out to te wor:ers 'enefitJ

and terefore 1ana!e1ent 1ust adopt a new s(ste1 of 1ar:etin!. But wat te petitioner failed to "onsider

is te fa"t tat "orollar( to te adoption of te assailed 1ar:etin! te"niue is te effort of te "o1pan( to

"o1pensate watever loss te wor:ers 1a( suffer 'e"ause of te new plan over and a'ove tan wat as'een provided in te "olle"tive 'ar!ainin! a!ree1ent. 8o us, tis is one indi"ation tat te a"tion of te

1ana!e1ent is devoid of an( antiunion ues. pp. $4$5, Rollo.6

8e dispositive part of te inisters Order reads9

A7ERE&ORE, pre1ises "onsidered, te noti"e of stri:e filed '( te petitioner, San i!uel Brewer( Sales

&or"e UnionP8/AO is ere'( dis1issed. ana!e1ent owever is ere'( ordered to pa( an additional

tree 26 1onts 'a": adust1ent "o11issions over and a'ove te adusted "o11ission under te

"o1ple1entar( distri'ution s(ste1. p. $0, Rollo.6

8e petition as no 1erit.

Pu'li" respondent was "orre"t in oldin! tat te CDS is a valid e>er"ise of 1ana!e1ent prero!atives9

$2cept as limited by special la/s+ an employer is %ree to regulate+ according to his o/n discretion and

'udgment+ all aspects o% employment+in"ludin! irin!, wor: assi!n1ents, wor:in! 1etods, ti1e, pla"e and1anner of wor:, tools to 'e used,processes to be %ollo/ed+supervision of wor:ers, wor:in! re!ulations,

transfer of e1plo(ees, wor: supervision, la(off of wor:ers and te dis"ipline, dis1issal and re"all of

wor:. ... N

labor relations_cases_1

Documents

Transcript of labor relations_cases_1