Philec vs. Ca

11.
PHILEC vs. CA
Facts:
Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) is a domestic corporation "engaged in the

manufacture and repairs of high voltage transformers." Among its rank-and-file employees
were Lipio and Ignacio, Sr., former members of the PHILEC Workers’ Union (PWU). PWU is a
legitimate labor organization (LLO) and the exclusive bargaining representative of PHILEC’s
rank-and-file employees.
From 1989-1997, PHILEC and its rank-and-file employees were governed by CBA
providing step increases in an employee’s basic salary in case of promotion. The previous
CBA already expired, PHILEC selected Lipio for promotion. PHILEC served Lipio a
memorandum, instructing him to undergo training for the position. PHILEC undertook to pay
Lipio training allowance. Same case with Ignacio, Sr as he was also promoted.
Later, PHILEC and PWU entered into a new CBA, effective retroactively on June 1, 1997
and expiring on May 31, 1999. To be promoted, a rank-and-file employee shall undergo
training or observation and shall receive training allowance. For the first month of training,
the allowance should be equivalent to one step increase of the next higher grade. Every
month thereafter the corresponding increase shall be equivalent to the next higher grade
until the allowance for the grade applied for is attained.
Claiming that the schedule of training allowance, stated in the memoranda served
did not conform to Article X, Section 4 of the June 1, 1997 CBA, PWU submitted the
grievance to the grievance machinery. PWU and PHILEC failed to amicably settle their
grievance. Thus, parties filed a submission agreement with the NCMB.
The petitioner contends that they applied Modified SGV pay grades to avoid
distortion. VA held that Philec violated the CBA with the union. The Philec filed a petition for
certiorari on CA, but it affirmed VA’s decision, hence this petition.
Issue:
WON Philec must pay training allowance based on the step increases provided on 1997 CBA
Held: (petition was denied)
Yes. A CBA is "a contract executed upon the request of either the employer or the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the agreement reached
after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of
employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under
such agreement." A CBA being a contract, its provisions "constitute the law between the
parties"and must be complied with in good faith.
PHILEC, as employer, and PWU, as the exclusive bargaining representative of PHILEC’s
rank-and-file employees, entered into a collective bargaining agreement, which the parties
agreed to make effective. Being the law between the parties, the June 1, 1997 collective
bargaining agreement must govern PHILEC and its rank-and-file employees within the
agreed period.
Contrary to PHILEC’s claim, Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. were not transferred out of the
bargaining unit when they were selected for training. They remained rank-and-file
employees while they trained for their new position. Thus, training is a condition precedent
for promotion. Selection for training does not mean automatic transfer out of the bargaining
unit of rank and-file employees.
PHILEC allegedly applied the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale to prevent any salary
distortion within PHILEC’s enterprise. This, however, does not justify PHILEC’s non-compliance
with the June 1, 1997 collective bargaining agreement. This pay grade scale is not provided
in the CBA; this court ruled that "only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so
interpreted and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not
find print in the CBA, it is not part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its
implementation."
Had PHILEC wanted the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale applied within its enterprise, it
could have requested or demanded that the ‘Modified SGV’ scale be incorporated in the
CBA. PHILEC had the means under the law to compel PWU to incorporate this specific
economic proposal in the CBA. It could have invoked Article 252 of the Labor Code to
incorporate the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale in its CBA with PWU. But it did not. Since this
"Modified SGV" pay grade scale does not appear in PHILEC’s collective bargaining
agreement with PWU, PHILEC cannot insist on the "Modified SGV" pay grade scale’s
application.
PHILEC allowed the provisions of Art. X, Sec. 4 of the CBA to remain the way it is and is
now suffering the consequences of its laches. PHILEC cannot choose when and to whom to
apply the provisions of its collective bargaining agreement. The provisions of a collective
bargaining agreement must be applied uniformly and complied with in good faith.
12.
Arriola vs Pilipino Star Ngayon
Facts:
Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. employed George A. Arriola as correspondent, he wrote

"Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" until his column was removed from publication and since then,
Arriola never returned for work. Arriola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
salaries/wages, moral and exemplary damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and full
backwages with the NLRC.
The respondent argued that they never removed Arriola, that it was Arriola who
abandoned his work. The LA ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the case was filed
out of time as it was filed 3 years and 1 day. The LA cited Art.291 of Labor Code which
requires that all money claims arising from employer-employee relations be filed three years
from the time the cause of action accrued. Since Arriola filed his complaint on November 15,
2002, which was three years and one day from his alleged illegal dismissal on November 15,
1999, the LA ruled that his money claims were already barred.
On Arriola’s appeal, the NLRC sustained the LA’s findings and affirmed in toto the
decision. The Commission likewise denied Arriola’s MR. A petition for certiorari with CA, that it
ruled that Arriola was not illegally dismissed. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. had the management
prerogative to determine which columns to maintain in its newspaper. Its removal of "Tinig ng
Pamilyang OFWs" from publication did not mean that it illegally dismissed Arriola. His
employment, according to the appellate court, did not depend on the existence of the
column. Arriola moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its resolution,
hence this petition.
Issue:
WON Arriola’s suit involves a money claim contemplated by Art.291 of the Labor Code
WON Arriola’s claim for backwages is still filed within the prescriptive year
WON Arriola was illegally dismissed
Held:
No. Art.291 only covers the following: overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay, bonuses, salary differentials, and illegal deductions by an employer. It also covers
money claims arising from seafarer contracts. The provision, however, does not cover
"money claims" consequent to an illegal dismissal such as backwages. It also does not cover
claims for damages due to illegal dismissal. These claims are governed by Article 1146 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff
This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for backwages, not the three-year
prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. A claim for backwages, according
to this court, may be a money claim "by reason of its practical effect." Legally, however, an
award of backwages "is merely one of the reliefs which anillegally dismissed employee prays
the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render in his favor as a consequence of the unlawful act
committed by the employer." Though it results "in the enrichment of the individual [illegally
dismissed], the award of backwages is not in redress of a private right, but, rather, is in the
nature of a command upon the employer to make public reparation for his violation of the
Labor Code." As such, Arriola’s claim for backwages is still filed within the prescriptive period
of four years.
Arriola’s case must still be dismissed because it was established that he in fact
abandoned his work. In the first place, it is a newspaper’s prerogative WON to remove a
particular column from publication. The removal of a certain column does not ipso facto
mean the removal of the columnist. That being, Arriola should have reported to work even if
his column was removed.

Philec vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philec vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philec vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11.

Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) is a domestic corporation "engaged in the

Held: (petition was denied)

Arriola vs Pilipino Star Ngayon

Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. employed George A. Arriola as correspondent, he wrote

WON Arriola was illegally dismissed

You might also like