Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COROS
G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010
Bersamin, J.
FACTS: Respondent Ricardo Coros was dismissed by Petitioner Matling as its VP for
Finance and Administratation. Coros then filed an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC,
Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case
on the ground that the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) due to the controversy being intra-corporate inasmuch as
the respondent was a member of Matlings Board of Directors aside from being its VicePresident for Finance and Administration prior to his termination. Coros opposed the
same insisting that his status as a member of Matlings Board of Directors was doubtful,
considering that he had not been formally elected as such; that he did not own a single
share of stock in Matling, considering that he had been made to sign in blank an
undated indorsement of the certificate of stock he had been given in 1992; that Matling
had taken back and retained the certificate of stock in its custody; and that even
assuming that he had been a Director of Matling, he had been removed as the Vice
President for Finance and Administration, not as a Director, a fact that the notice of his
termination dated April 10, 2000 showed.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case. On Appeal, the NLRC set aside the
decision of the LA, stating that such VP position was not listed in the Company's
Constitution and By-Laws; hence, Coros was not a corporate officer. The motion for
reconsideration by petitioners was denied.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, to which the latter dismissed:
Coros' position was not a corporate office but an ordinary office. Hence, this petition
ISSUE: Whether the LA or the RTC had jurisdiction over his complaint for illegal
dismissal.
HELD: Coros position was an ordinary office, not a corporate office. The Board of
Directors of Matling could not validly delegate the power to create a corporate office to
the President, in light of Section 25 of the Corporation Code requiring the Board of
Directors itself to elect the corporate officers. Verily, the power to elect the corporate
officers was a discretionary power that the law exclusively vested in the Board of
Directors, and could not be delegated to subordinate officers or agents. The office of
Vice President for Finance and Administration, created by Matlings President
pursuant to By Law No. V, was an ordinary, not a corporate, office.
Also, the LA has jurisdiction over the case. Even though he might have become a
stockholder of Matling in 1992, his promotion to the position of Vice President for
Finance and Administration in 1987 was by virtue of the length of quality service he had
rendered as an employee of Matling. His subsequent acquisition of the status of
Director/stockholder had no relation to his promotion. Besides, his status of
Director/stockholder was unaffected by his dismissal from employment as Vice
President for Finance and Administration. The criteria for distinguishing between
corporate officers who may be ousted from office at will, on one hand, and
ordinary corporate employees who may only be terminated for just cause, on the
other hand, do not depend on the nature of the services performed, but on the
manner of creation of the office. In the respondents case, he was supposedly at
once an employee, a stockholder, and a Director of Matling.
GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, based on Kiok Loy and Divine Word
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. Article 253 of the Labor Code,
as amended, mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they are still in
the process of working out their respective proposal and counter proposal. The
general rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to
govern the relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The
rule necessarily presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is
guilty of bad faith. However, when one of the parties abuses the grace period by
purposely delaying the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is
warranted.
was when she was the union president and during the period of tense and difficult
negotiations when her work schedule was altered from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays
to Saturdays. When she did not budge, although her schedule was changed, she was
outrightly dismissed for alleged insubordination.
Admittedly, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees for
insubordination. But when the exercise of such management right tends to
interfere with the employees' right to self-organization, it amounts to unionbusting and is therefore a prohibited act. The dismissal of Ms. Ambas was clearly
designed to frustrate the Union in its desire to forge a new CBA with the College that is
reflective of the true wishes and aspirations of the Union members. Her dismissal was
merely a subterfuge to get rid of her, which smacks of a pre-conceived plan to oust her
from the premises of the College. It has the effect of busting the Union, stripping it of its
strong-willed leadership. When management refused to treat the charge of
insubordination as a grievance within the scope of the Grievance Machinery, the action
of the College in finally dismissing her from the service became arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical, and therefore violated Ms. Ambas' right to due process."
correctly stated by public respondent in his assailed Order of April 12, 1991 dismissing
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
Anent the alleged lack of basis for the retroactivity provisions awarded, we
would stress that the provision of law invoked by the Hospital, Article 253A of the Labor Code, speak of agreements by and between the parties,
and not arbitral awards . . . (p. 818, Rollo.)
Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of
the effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article 263
(g) of the Labor Code, such as herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested
with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof.
and;
Art. 253-A.
Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Any Collective Bargaining
Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of
the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be
conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside the sixty-day period
immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such
other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6)
months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such
Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such
date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on
the duration of collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights
under this Code.
In Union of Filipino Employees v. NLRC, 192 SCRA 414 (1990), this court
interpreted the above law as follows:
In light of the foregoing, this Court upholds the pronouncement
of the NLRC holding the CBA to be signed by the parties effective
upon the promulgation of the assailed resolution. It is clear and
explicit from Article 253-A that any agreement on such other provisions of
the CBA shall be given retroactive effect only when it is entered into within
six (6) months from its expiry date. If the agreement was entered into
outside the six (6) month period, then the parties shall agree on the
duration of the retroactivity thereof.
The assailed resolution which incorporated the CBA to be signed by
the parties was promulgated June 5, 1989, the expiry date of the past
CBA. Based on the provision of Section 253-A, its retroactivity should be
agreed upon by the parties. But since no agreement to that effect was
made, public respondent did not abuse its discretion in giving the said
CBA a prospective effect. The action of the public respondent is within the
ambit of its authority vested by existing law.
In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 189
SCRA 179 (1991), this Court reiterated the rule that although a CBA has expired, it
continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has been
entered into. It is 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 freedom period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.
Applied to the case at bench, the legal effects of the immediate past CBA between
petitioner and private respondent terminated, and the effectivity of the new CBA
began, only on March 4, 1993 when public respondent resolved their dispute.
eventuality, we hold that any provision of law should then apply for the law abhors a
vacuum.
One such provision is the principle of hold over, i.e., that in the absence of a
new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full
force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new
agreement is reached. In this manner, the law prevents the existence of a gap in the
relationship between the collective bargaining parties. Another legal principle that
should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, then, an
arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award; it operates
and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its
retroactive application.
Consequently, we find no sufficient legal ground on the other justification
for the retroactive application of the disputed CBA, and therefore hold that the
CBA should be effective for a term of 2 years counted from December 28, 1996
(the date of the Secretary of Labors disputed order on the parties motion for
reconsideration) up to December 27, 1999.
HELD: (February 22, 2000)
Labor laws are silent as to when an arbitral award in a labor dispute where the
Secretary had assumed jurisdiction by virtue of Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code shall
retroact. In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the
existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed
thereafter, the effectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other
hand, the law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not
by virtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by intervention of the government.
Despite the silence of the law, the Court rules herein that CBA arbitral awards granted
after six months from the expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to such time
agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their union. Absent such an
agreement as to retroactivity, the award shall retroact to the first day after the sixmonth period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA should there be
one. In the absence of a CBA, the Secretarys determination of the date of
retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.
By petitioners own actions, the Court sees no reason to retroact the subject CBA
awards to a different date. The period is herein set at two (2) years from December 1,
1995 to November 30, 1997.
(August 1, 2000)
Upon a reconsideration of the Decision, this Court issued the assailed Resolution
which ruled that where an arbitral award granted beyond six months after the
expiration of the existing CBA, and there is no agreement between the parties as
to the date of effectivity thereof, the arbitral award shall retroact to the first day
after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA. In
the dispositive portion, however, the period to which the award shall retroact was
inadvertently stated as beginning on December 1, 1995 up to November 30, 1997.
This Court turned to the dictates of fairness and equitable justice and thus arrived
at a formula that would address the concerns of both sides. Hence, this Court held that
the arbitral award in this case be made to retroact to the first day after the six-month
period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA, i.e., from June 1, 1996 to May
31, 1998. This Court, therefore, maintains the foregoing rule in the assailed Resolution
pro hac vice. It must be clarified, however, that consonant with this rule, the two-year
effectivity period must start from June 1, 1996 up to May 31, 1998, not December 1,
1995 to November 30, 1997.
During the interregnum between the expiration of the economic provisions of the
CBA and the date of effectivity of the arbitral award, it is understood that the hold-over
principle shall govern, viz:
"[I]t 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 freedom period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties." Despite the lapse of the formal
effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in
force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed
Finally, to deprive respondent Secretary of such power and discretion would run
counter to the well-established rule that all doubts in the interpretation of labor laws
should be resolved in favor of labor. In upholding the assailed orders of respondent
Secretary, this Court is only giving meaning to this rule. Indeed, the Court should help
labor authorities in providing workers immediate benefits, without being hampered by
arbitration or litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking but financially
burdensome in the long run.
As we said in Maternity Childrens Hospital vs. Secretary of Labor:
Social Justice Legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our
workers, must not be hampered in its application by long winded-arbitration and
litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least
inconvenience. Labor laws are meant to promote, not to defeat, social justice.
Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as "any union or
association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment."
On the other hand, a bargaining unit has been defined as a "group of employees
of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees,
which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicated to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the law
The teaching and non-teaching personnel of petitioner school must form
separate bargaining units. Thus, the order for the conduct of two separate certification
elections, one involving teaching personnel and the other involving non-teaching
personnel. It should be stressed that in the subject petition, private respondent union
sought the conduct of a certification election among all the rank-and-file personnel of
petitioner school.
abandoned his work. the filing of such complaint is proof enough of his desire to return
to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonment.
Suffice it to say that, it is the employer who has the burden of proof to show a
deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without
any intention of returning. It is therefore incumbent upon petitioners to ascertain the
respondents interest or non-interest in the continuance of their employment. This,
petitioners failed to do so.
those contracts may be enforced by a separate civil action in the regular courts,
not in the NLRC.
(c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
A perusal of the provisions of the Receipt and Quitclaim shows that respondent
would be releasing and discharging petitioners from all claims, demands, causes of
action, and the like in an all-encompassing manner, including the fact that he had not
contracted or suffered any illness or injury in the course of his employment and that he
was discharged in good and perfect health. These stipulations clearly placed
respondent in a disadvantageous position vis--vis the petitioners.
In Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc., the Court held that the
employment contract did not commence when the petitioner therein, a hired seaman,
was not able to depart from the airport or seaport in the point of hire; thus, no employeremployee relationship was created between the parties.
Nevertheless, even before the start of any employer-employee relationship,
contemporaneous with the perfection of the employment contract was the birth of
certain rights and obligations, the breach of which may give rise to a cause of action
against the erring party. If the reverse happened, that is, the seafarer failed or refused to
be deployed as agreed upon, he would be liable for damages.
4. Failure to submit and update required modules (syllabi) of their subject despite
reminders (violating D, 1.5, p. 40 of our Faculty Manual).
5. Both spouses have a gross number of failure in their class.
HELD:
Employment on probationary status of teaching personnel is not
governed purely by the Labor Code. The Labor Code is supplemented with respect to
the period of probation by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools. On the matter of probationary period, Section 92 of these regulations provides:
Section 92. Probationary Period. - Subject in all instances to
compliance with the Department and school requirements, the
probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three
(3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary
and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive
trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where
collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis.
For the entire duration of this three-year period, the teacher remains under
probation. Upon the expiration of his contract of employment, being simply on
probation, he cannot automatically claim security of tenure and compel the
employer to renew his employment contract.
Section 91 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, states that:
Section 91. Employment Contract. Every contract of employment
shall specify the designation, qualification, salary rate, the period and
nature of service and its date of effectivity, and such other terms and
condition of employment as may be consistent with laws and rules,
regulations and standards of the school. A copy of the contract shall be
furnished the personnel concerned
It is important that the contract of probationary employment specify the period or
term of its effectivity. The failure to stipulate its precise duration could lead to the
inference that the contract is binding for the full three-year probationary period.
Therefore, the letters sent by petitioner Sr. Racadio, which were void of any specifics
cannot be considered as contracts. The closest they can resemble to are that of
informal correspondence among the said individuals. As such, petitioner school has
the right not to renew the contracts of the respondents, the old ones having been
expired at the end of their terms.
HELD:
1. In G.R. No. 110399, the Court explained that the employees of San
Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando, and
Otis constitute a single bargaining unit, which is not contrary to the one-company, oneunion policy. An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of
a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
There should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao, San
Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in dressed chicken
processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in live chicken operations. Certain
factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of
compensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality
of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the specific
tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of
interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining unit.
2. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a
confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and
effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are
cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential
employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and
his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to
labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the
normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to
labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential employee rule.
The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing
with confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his
functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and
regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded
from the subject bargaining unit.
3. It bears stressing that a certification election is the sole concern of the
workers; hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. The general
rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification
election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that
employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining
representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of
management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to
the employees alone and to no other. The only exception is where the employer
itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of
a request to bargain collectively.
HELD:
While it is undisputed that a submission agreement was signed by
respondent and IHEU-NFL, then represented by Joves and Cullo, this Court finds that
there are two circumstances which affect its validity: first, the Notice of Mediation was
filed by a party who had no authority to do so; second, that respondent had
persistently voiced out its objection questioning the authority of Joves, Cullo and
the individual members of the Union to file the complaint before the NCMB.
Procedurally, the first step to submit a case for mediation is to file a notice of
preventive mediation with the NCMB. It is only after this step that a submission
agreement may be entered into by the parties concerned.
Section 3, Rule IV of the NCMB Manual of Procedure provides who may file a
notice of preventive mediation, to wit:
Who may file a notice or declare a strike or lockout or request preventive
mediation. Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may file a
notice or declare a strike or request for preventive mediation in
cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practices. The
employer may file a notice or declare a lockout or request for preventive
mediation in the same cases. In the absence of a certified or duly
recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor organization in
the establishment may file a notice, request preventive mediation or
declare a strike, but only on grounds of unfair labor practice.
From the foregoing, it is clear that only a certified or duly recognized
bargaining agent may file a notice or request for preventive mediation. It is curious
that even Cullo himself admitted, in a number of pleadings, that the case was filed not
by the Union but by individual members thereof. Clearly, therefore, the NCMB had no
jurisdiction to entertain the notice filed before it.
HELD:
In this case, petitioner insisted that respondent was dismissed from employment
for cause and after the observance of the proper procedure for termination.
Consequently, petitioner cannot now deny that respondent is its employee. While
indeed, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acts or omission of the parties, petitioners
belated denial that it is the employer of respondent is obviously an afterthought, a
devise to defeat the law and evade its obligations. We agree with the appellate court
that DFPDCs conclusions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence to
warrant the dismissal of respondent. In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in
favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution.
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision is
AFFIRMED.
orientee Guillergan to do the same in her behalf and for influencing her staff to conceal
the incident. CA reversed and set aside the Decision of the NLRC and reinstated the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA ruled that while respondent De Castro's failure to
personally attend to patient Causeran amounted to misconduct, however, being her first
offense, such misconduct could not be categorized as serious or grave that would
warrant the extreme penalty of termination. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUE: Whether the deliberate refusal to attend to patient Causaren after the latter fell
from the bed justifies respondent De Castro's termination from employment due to
serious misconduct.
HELD: No. Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate
an employment for gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties.
Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and
habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties.
Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not
constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. Despite our finding of
culpability against respondent De Castro; however, we do not see any wrongful intent,
deliberate refusal, or bad faith on her part when, instead of personally attending to
patient Causaren, she requested Nursing Assistant Tatad and ward-clerk orientee
Guillergan to see the patient, as she was then attending to a newly-admitted patient at
Room 710. It was her judgment call, albeit an error of judgment, being the staff nurse
with presumably more work experience and better learning curve, to send Nursing
Assistant Tatad and ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to check on the health condition of
the patient, as she deemed it best, under the given situation, to attend to a newlyadmitted patient who had more concerns that needed to be addressed accordingly.
Being her first offense, respondent De Castro cannot be said to be grossly negligent so
as to justify her termination of employment.
The Court emphasizes that the nature of the business of a hospital requires a
higher degree of caution and exacting standard of diligence in patient management and
health care as what is involved are lives of patients who seek urgent medical
assistance. However, in some cases, the Court had ruled that sanctioning an erring
employee with suspension would suffice as the extreme penalty of dismissal would be
too harsh. Considering that this was the first offense of respondent De Castro in her
nine (9) years of employment with petitioner hospital as a staff nurse without any
previous derogatory record and, further, as her lapse was not characterized by any
wrongful motive or deceitful conduct, the Court deems it appropriate that, instead of the
harsh penalty of dismissal, she would be suspended for a period of six (6) months
without pay, inclusive of the suspension for a period of 14 days which she had earlier
served. Thereafter, petitioner hospital should reinstate respondent Edna R. De Castro to
her former position without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of
allowances and other benefits, or their monetary equivalent, computed from the
expiration of her suspension of six (6) months up to the time of actual reinstatement.
to pay respondent Gorgonio Mongcal (a) separation pay in the amount equivalent to
one (1) month pay for every year of service; and (b) backwages, computed from the
time compensation of respondent Mongcal was withheld from him when he was unjustly
terminated, up to the time of payment thereof. For this purpose, the records of this case
are hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of said awards.
Costs against petitioner.