samanah vs nlrc.doc

8/14/2019 Samanah vs nlrc.doc

1/8

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113856. September 7, 1998]

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANFA!TR"NG

N"T#$ WOR%#RS OF TH# PH"&"PP"N#S 'SMTFM(WP), *t+

o*-er+ /0 member+, petitioners, vs. NAT"ONA& &AOR

R#&AT"ONS !OMM"SS"ON, HON. 2OS# G. $# #RA /0 TOP

FORM MANFA!TR"NG PH"&., "N!., respondents.

$ # ! " S " O N

ROM#RO,J.4

The issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not an employer committed an unfairlabor practice by bargaining in bad faith and discriminating against its employees. The charge

arose from the employers refusal to grant across!the!board increases to its employees in

implementing "age Orders Nos. #$ and #% of the Regional Tripartite "ages and &roducti'ity

(oard of the National )apital Region *RT"&(!N)R+. Such refusal was aggra'ated by the factthat prior to the issuance of said wage orders, the employer allegedly promised at the collecti'e

bargaining conferences to implement any go'ernment!mandated wage increases on an across!

the!board basis.

&etitioner Samahang -anggagawa sa Top orm -anufacturing / 0nited "or1ers of the&hilippines *S-T-+ was the certified collecti'e bargaining representati'e of all regular ran1

and file employees of pri'ate respondent Top orm -anufacturing &hilippines, Inc. 2t thecollecti'e bargaining negotiation held at the -il1y "ay Restaurant in -a1ati, -etro -anila on

ebruary %3, $44#, the parties agreed to discuss unresol'ed economic issues. 2ccording to the

minutes of the meeting, 2rticle VII of the collecti'e bargaining agreement was discussed. The

following appear in said -inutes5

62RTI)78 VII. "ages

Section $. / Defer /

Section %. Status 9uo

Section :. 0nion proposed that any future wage increase gi'en by the go'ernment

should be implemented by the company across!the!board or non!conditional.

-anagement re9uested the union to retain this pro'ision since their sincerity was already pro'enwhen the &%;.## wage increase was granted across!the!board. The union ac1nowledges

managements sincerity but they are worried that in case there is a new set of management, they

can %?union members Sal'e 7. (arnes, 8ulisa-endoAa, 7ourdes (arbero and )oncesa IbaBeA affirmed that at the subse9uent collecti'e

bargaining negotiations, the union insisted on the incorporation in the collecti'e bargaining

agreement *)(2+ of the union proposal on 6automatic across!the!board wage increase.= Theyadded that5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn1


2/8

6$$. On the strength of the representation of the negotiating panel of the

company and the abo'e underta1ingCpromise made by its negotiating panel, our union

agreed to drop said proposal relying on the underta1ings made by the officials of the

company who negotiated with us, namely, -r. "illiam Reynolds, -r. Samuel "ong

and -rs. Remedios eliAardo. 2lso, in the past years, the company has granted to us

go'ernment mandated wage increases on across!the!board basis.=

On October $;, $44#, the RT"&(!N)R issued "age Order No. #$ granting an increase of

&$3.## per day in the salary of wor1ers. This was followed by "age Order No. #% datedDecember %#, $44# pro'iding for a &$%.## daily increase in salary.

2s epected, the union re9uested the implementation of said wage orders. Howe'er, they

demanded that the increase be on an across!the!board basis. &ri'ate respondent refused toaccede to that demand. Instead, it implemented a scheme of increases purportedly to a'oid wage

distortion. Thus, pri'ate respondent granted the &$3.## increase under "age Order No. #$ to

wor1ersCemployees recei'ing salary of &$%;.## per day and below. The &$%.## increase

mandated by "age Order No. #% was granted to those recei'ing the salary of &$E#.## per dayand below. or employees recei'ing salary higher than &$%;.## or &$E#.## per day, pri'ate

respondent granted an escalated increase ranging from &F.44 to &$E.:# and from &F.## to

&$#.##, respecti'ely.>:?

On October %E, $44$, the union, through its legal counsel, wrote pri'ate respondent a letter

demanding that it should 6fulfill its pledge of sincerity to the union by granting an across!the!

board wage increases *sic+ to all employees under the wage orders.= The union reiterated that ithad agreed to 6retain the old pro'ision of )(2= on the strength of pri'ate respondents 6promise

and assurance= of an across!the!board salary increase should the go'ernment mandate salary

increases.>E?Se'eral conferences between the parties notwithstanding, pri'ate respondent

adamantly maintained its position on the salary increases it had granted that were purportedlydesigned to a'oid wage distortion.

)onse9uently, the union filed a complaint with the N)R N7R) alleging that pri'ate

respondents act of 6reneging on its underta1ingCpromise clearly constitutes an act of unfair laborpractice through bargaining in bad faith.= It charged pri'ate respondent with acts of unfair labor

practices or 'iolation of 2rticle %E3 of the 7abor )ode, as amended, specifically 6bargaining in

bad faith,= and prayed that it be awarded actual, moral and eemplary damages. >;?In its positionpaper, the union added that it was charging pri'ate respondent with 6'iolation of 2rticle $## of

the 7abor )ode.=>F?

&ri'ate respondent, on the other hand, contended that in implementing "age Orders Nos. #$

and #%, it had a'oided 6the eistence of a wage distortion= that would arise from such

implementation. It emphasiAed that only 6after a reasonable length of time from theimplementation= of the wage orders 6that the union surprisingly raised the 9uestion that the

company should ha'e implemented said wage orders on an across!the!board basis.= It assertedthat there was no agreement to the effect that future wage increases mandated by the go'ernment

should be implemented on an across!the!board basis. Otherwise, that agreement would ha'e

been incorporated and epressly stipulated in the )(2. It 9uoted the pro'ision of the )(2 that

reflects the parties intention to 6fully set forth= therein all their agreements that had been arri'edat after negotiations that ga'e the parties 6unlimited right and opportunity to ma1e demands and

proposals with respect to any sub3?

On -arch $$, $44%, 7abor 2rbiter @ose G. de Vera rendered a decision dismissing the

complaint for lac1 of merit.>?He considered two main issues in the case5 *a+ whether or notrespondents are guilty of unfair labor practice, and *b+ whether or not the respondents are liable
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn8


3/8


4/8

TH8 &0(7I) R8S&OND8NTS GROSS7K 8RR8D IN NOT

D8)72RING TH8 &RIV2T8 R8S&OND8NTS G0I7TK O 2)TS

O 0N2IR 72(OR &R2)TI)8S "H8N, O(VIO0S7K, TH8

72TT8R H2S (2RG2IN8D IN (2D 2ITH "ITH TH8 0NION

2ND H2S VIO72T8D TH8 )(2 "HI)H IT 88)0T8D "ITH

TH8 H8R8IN &8TITION8R 0NION.

((

TH8 &0(7I) R8S&OND8NTS S8RIO0S7K 8RR8D IN NOT

D8)72RING TH8 &RIV2T8 R8S&OND8NTS G0I7TK O 2)TS

O DIS)RI-IN2TION IN TH8 I-&78-8NT2TION O N)R

"2G8 ORD8R NOS. #$ 2ND #%.

(!(

TH8 &0(7I) R8S&OND8NTS S8RIO0S7K 8RR8D IN NOT

INDING TH8 &RIV2T8 R8S&OND8NTS G0I7TK O H2VING

VIO72T8D S8)TION E, 2RTI)78 VII O TH8 8ISTING )(2.

($(

TH8 &0(7I) R8S&OND8NTS GR2V87K 8RR8D IN NOT

D8)72RING TH8 &RIV2T8 R8S&OND8NTS G0I7TK O

H2VING VIO72T8D 2RTI)78 $## O TH8 72(OR )OD8 O

TH8 &HI7I&&IN8S, 2S 2-8ND8D.

(#(

2SS0-ING, "ITHO0T 2D-ITTING TH2T TH8 &0(7I)

R8S&OND8NTS H2V8 )ORR8)T7K R078D TH2T TH8

&RIV2T8 R8S&OND8NTS 2R8 G0I7TK O 2)TS O 0N2IR

72(OR &R2)TI)8S, TH8K )O--ITT8D S8RIO0S 8RROR IN

NOT INDING TH2T TH8R8 IS 2 SIGNII)2NT DISTORTION IN

TH8 "2G8 STR0)T0R8 O TH8 R8S&OND8NT )O-&2NK.

(F(

TH8 &0(7I) R8S&OND8NTS 8RR8D IN NOT 2"2RDING TO

TH8 &8TITION8RS H8R8IN 2)T027, -OR27, 2ND

88-&72RK D2-2G8S 2ND 2TTORN8KS 88S.

2s the )ourt sees it, the pi'otal issues in this petition can be reduced into two, to wit5 *a+

whether or not pri'ate respondent committed an unfair labor practice in its refusal to grant

across!the!board wage increases in implementing "age Orders Nos. #$ and #%, and *b+ whetheror not there was a significant wage distortion of the wage structure in pri'ate respondent as a

result of the manner by which said wage orders were implemented.

"ith respect to the first issue, petitioner union anchors its arguments on the alleged

commitment of pri'ate respondent to grant an automatic across!the!board wage increase in thee'ent that a statutory or legislated wage increase is promulgated. It cites as basis therefor, the

afore9uoted portion of the -inutes of the collecti'e bargaining negotiation on ebruary %3, $44#

regarding wages, arguing additionally that said -inutes forms part of the entire agreementbetween the parties.


5/8

The basic premise of this argument is definitely untenable. To start with, if there was indeed

a promise or underta1ing on the part of pri'ate respondent to obligate itself to grant an automatic

across!the!board wage increase, petitioner union should ha'e re9uested or demanded that such6promise or underta1ing= be incorporated in the )(2. 2fter all, petitioner union has the means

under the law to compel pri'ate respondent to incorporate this specific economic proposal in the

)(2. It could ha'e in'o1ed 2rticle %;% of the 7abor )ode defining 6duty to bargain,= thus, theduty includes 6eecuting a contract incorporating such agreements if re9uested by either

party.= &etitioner unions assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the same proposal

may ha'e a factual basis considering the allegations in the aforementioned $#?/ the collecti'e bargaining

representati'e and the employer!company. )ompliance with a )(2 is mandated by the

epressed policy to gi'e protection to labor. >$$?In the same 'ein, )(2 pro'isions should be

6construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a practicaland realistic construction upon it, gi'ing due consideration to the contet in which it is

negotiated and purpose which it is intended to ser'e.L >$%?This is founded on the dictumthat a )(2is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. >$:?It goes without saying,

howe'er, that only pro'isions embodied in the )(2 should be so interpreted and complied

with. "here a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the )(2,>$E?it is not a

part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoe'er to its implementation.

Hence, petitioner unions contention that the -inutes of the collecti'e bargaining

negotiation meeting forms part of the entire agreement is pointless. The -inutes reflects the

proceedings and discussions underta1en in the process of bargaining for wor1er benefits in the

same way that the minutes of court proceedings show what transpired therein.

>$;?

2t thenegotiations, it is but natural for both management and labor to adopt positions or ma1e demands

and offer proposals and counter!proposals. Howe'er, nothing is considered final until the partiesha'e reached an agreement. In fact, one of managements usual negotiation strategies is to 6

agree tentati'ely as you go along with the understanding that nothing is binding until the entire

agreement is reached.=>$F?If indeed pri'ate respondentpromisedto continue with the practice of

granting across!the!board salary increases ordered by the go'ernment, suchpromisecould onlybe demandable in law if incorporated in the )(2.

-oreo'er, by ma1ing suchpromise,pri'ate respondent may not be considered in bad faith

or at the 'ery least, resorting to the scheme of feigning to underta1e the negotiation proceedingsthrough empty promises. 2s earlier stated, petitioner union had, under the law, the right and the

opportunity to insist on theforeseeable fulfillment of the pri'ate respondents promise bydemanding its incorporation in the )(2. (ecause the proposal was ne'er embodied in the )(2,

the promise has remained %#?Neither does petitioner union deny the fact that 6there is no pro'ision ofthe $44# )(2 containing a stipulation that the company will grant across!the!board to its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/113856.htm#_edn20


6/8


7/8

2rticle $## of the 7abor )ode on prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits

pro'ides that 6*n+othing in this (oo1 shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish

supplements, or other employee benefits being en%?Thus, inMetropolitan Bank and rust Company, !nc. v. NLRC, the )ourt said5

6The issue of whether or not a wage distortion eists as a conse9uence of the grant of a wage

increase to certain employees, we agree, is, by and large, a 9uestion of fact the determination ofwhich is the statutory function of the N7R). @udicial re'iew of labor cases, we may add, does

not go beyond the e'aluation of the sufficiency of the e'idence upon which the labor officials

findings rest. 2s such, the factual findings of the N7R) are generally accorded not only respectbut also finality pro'ided that its decisions are supported by substantial e'idence and de'oid of

any taint of unfairness or arbitrariness. "hen, howe'er, the members of the same labor tribunal

are not in accord on those aspects of a case, as in this case, this )ourt is well cautioned not to beas so conscious in passing upon the sufficiency of the e'idence, let alone the conclusions deri'ed

therefrom.=>%4?

0nli1e in abo'e!cited case where the Decision of the N7R) was not unanimous, the N7R)

Decision in this case which was penned by the dissenter in that case, &residing )ommissioner8dna (onto!&ereA, unanimously ruled that no wage distortions marred pri'ate respondents

implementation of the wage orders. The N7R) said5

6On the issue of wage distortion, we are satisfied that there was a meaningful implementation of

"age Orders Nos. #$ and #%. This debun1s the claim that there was wage distortion as could beshown by the itemiAed wages implementation 9uoted abo'e. It should be noted that this

itemiAation has not been successfully tra'ersed by the appellants. .=>:#?

The N7R) then 9uoted the labor arbiters ruling on wage distortion."e find no reason to depart from the conclusions of both the labor arbiter and the N7R). It

is apropos to note, moreo'er, that petitioners contention on the issue of wage distortion and the

resulting allegation of discrimination against the pri'ate respondents employees are anchored on

its dubious position that pri'ate respondents promise to grant an across!the!board increase ingo'ernment!mandated salary benefits reflected in the -inutes of the negotiation is an

enforceable part of the )(2.

In the resolution of labor cases, this )ourt has always been guided by the State policy

enshrined in the )onstitution that the rights of wor1ers and the promotion of their welfare shallbe protected.>:$?The )ourt is li1ewise guided by the goal of attaining industrial peace by the

proper application of the law. It cannot fa'or one party, be it labor or management, in arri'ing at

a


8/8

samanah vs nlrc.doc

Documents