Regional Conference for Judges and Arbitrators on Employment
Dispute Resolution Systems in Asia and the Pacific
Melbourne, June 2012
COUNTRY PAPER
EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN
THE PHILIPPINES
Presented by:
Raul B. Villanueva, Deputy Court Administrator, Office of the Court
Administrator - Supreme Court of the Philippines
EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN THE
PHILIPPINES
1.
Introduction
In order to better understand how employment disputes are being resolved in the Philippines,
there is a need to at least be familiar with the laws that principally govern the same in our
country. Likewise, the government agencies that handle labor or personnel issues will be
identified. Further, recent jurisprudence from the Highest Court in the land will be discussed
to have a firmer grasp on the mind-set that is presently obtaining with respect to labor policies
in the Philippines.
2
2.
The Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended)
2.1
The Labor Code of the Philippines, it is often said, is the “primary legislation” or law
concerning the private sector labor force in the Philippines. The Code was enacted
into law in 1974 and has been amended for not less than 40 times by different
decrees, executive orders and laws passed by the Philippine Congress. It must be
noted that no labor rights can become effective and be exercised by the labor force
unless it passes through the legislative mill.
2.2
As provided for in Article 3 thereof, and which remains very true to this day more 38
years from its enactment, the passage of the Labor Code of the Philippines is
pursuant to the policy of the Philippine government or the State to “afford protection
to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of
sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between worker and employers.” In
addition, and as stated in the same Article, “(t)he State shall assure the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just
humane conditions of work.”
2.3
To be clear, the Labor Code of the Philippines is divided into SEVEN (7) main
Books involving the following: Book One – Pre-Employment; Book Two – Human
Resources Development Program; Book Three – Conditions of Employment; Book
Four – Health, Safety and Social Welfare Benefits; Book Five – Labor Relations;
Book Six – Post-Employment; and, Book Seven – Transitory and Final Provisions.
There are about 302 articles in the Labor Code of the Philippines spread out to the
said 7 books.
2.4
Without going much into the details of the same, it is evident therefrom that the
Labor Code of the Philippines contains many provisions which are beneficial to
labor. To name a few, it prohibits termination from employment except for just or
authorized causes. Thus, security of tenure is held as primordial. Also, the right to
join and establish unions is expressly recognized, as is the right of a union to insist
on a closed shop. Workers can go on strikes for as long they comply with the strict
requirements under the Code for the said purpose, but workers who organize or
participate in illegal strikes may be subject to dismissal or sanctions.
2.5
A striking provision in the Labor Code of the Philippines may explain such apparent
bias for the labor force. Under Article 4 thereof, and when interpreting what is due to
labor or the workers, it has been decreed that “(a)ll doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.”
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
2.6
Be that as it may, not all decisions of the principal agency that deals with complaints
involving laborers in the private sector have been decided in their favor. Again,
employers are not left defenseless with respect to their relations with the labor force.
3.
Civil Services Rules (Executive Order No. 292)
3.1
With respect to employees in the government or civil service, their rights and
privileges are governed by the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO No. 292),
particularly Book V thereof on the Civil Service Commission. On account thereof,
and pursuant to the mandate given to the Commission, the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations were promulgated “to carry out the provisions of the
Administrative Code of 1987 on the civil service and other pertinent civil service
laws.”
3.2
The said Book V consists of TEN (10) Chapters that involve the following: Chapter
1 – General Provisions; Chapter 2 – Coverage of the Civil Service; Chapter 3 –
Organization and Functions of the Civil Service Commission; Chapter 4 –
Interdepartment Relations; Chapter 5 – Personnel Policies and Standards; Chapter 6
– Right to Self-Organization; Chapter 7 – Discipline; Chapter 8 – Prohibitions;
Chapter 9 – Leave of Absence; and Chapter 10 – Miscellaneous Provisions. There
are about 67 sections covering the said chapters. As to the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of EO 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, there are
NINETEEN (19) Rules that have been passed to amplify the chapters in the said
book.
3.3
In adopting the Code for civil servants, it has been declared that “(t)he State shall
insure and promote the Constitutional mandate that appointments in the Civil Service
shall be made only according to merit and fitness; that the Civil Service Commission,
as the central personnel agency of the Government shall establish a career service,
adopt measures to promote moral, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, and courtesy
in the civil service, strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human
resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
management climate conducive to public accountability; that public office is a public
trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people; and that personnel functions shall be decentralized, delegating the
corresponding authority to the departments, offices and agencies where such
functions can be effectively delegated.” (Sec. 1, Chapter 1, Subtitle A, Title I, Book
V, EO No. 292)
3.4
As can be gleaned there from, the right of government employees to join or assist
employees’ organization of their own choosing for the furtherance and protection of
their interests is recognized. However, this does not apply to the members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, including police officers, policemen, firemen and
jail guards. (Sec. 38 [2], supra) Also, high-level employees whose functions are
normally considered as policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of highly
confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the organization of rank-and-file
government employees. (Sec. 39, supra)
3.5
There are prohibitions as well in the appointment of government personnel, such as:
(1) no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure; (2) no candidate who has
lost in any election shall, within one year after election, be appointed to any office in
the Government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of its
subsidiaries; and, (3) unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of
his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
3
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. (Sec. 54, supra)
3.6
Unlike in the private sector, public sector or government employees are subject to the
supervision and control of their respective departments or agencies. Thus, in the case
of appellate justices, judges and court personnel involved in adjudicating cases in the
Philippines, it is the Supreme Court that largely deals with matters relating to their
employment.
4.
National Labor Relations Commission
4.1
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), as long been recognized in the
Philippines, is the quasi-judicial body tasked to promote and maintain industrial
peace by resolving labor and management disputes involving both local and overseas
workers through compulsory arbitration and alternative modes of dispute resolution.
In the bureaucracy, the NLRC is attached to the Department of Labor and
Employment for purposes of program and policy coordination. With respect to the
discharge of its functions and the exercise of its jurisdiction, the NLRC is considered
independent from the Department of Labor and Employment.
4.2
In the discharge of its powers and duties, the NLRC divides the work through the
labor arbiters and its chairman and commissioners. Under Article 217 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiters
and the Commission proper involves hearing and deciding the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
4.3
4
(a)
Unfair labor practice cases;
(b)
Termination disputes;
(c)
If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may
file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
(d)
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from
the employer-employee relations;
(e)
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and,
(f)
Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and
maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations,
including those persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
Also, their jurisdiction includes the following:
(a)
Original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims arising out of employeremployee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment, including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages (Sec. 10, RA No. 8042 [Migrant
Workers Act], as amended by RA No. 10022 [Amendment to RA 8042]).
(b)
Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled
by the parties pursuant to RA No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act).
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
(c)
Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by any
of the parties or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was
obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion (Art. 227, Labor Code of
the Philippines).
(d)
Other cases as may be provided by law. (Sec. 1, Rule V, 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure)
4.4
It must be stressed that when it comes to decisions, awards or orders of labor arbiters,
the NLRC “shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Labor Arbiters” through its Divisions, with the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth
and Sixth handling cases from the National Capital Region and other parts of Luzon;
the Seventh and Eighth, handling cases from Visayas and Mindanao, respectively
(Art. 217, Labor Code of the Philippines). Further, cases certified to it by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, as well as petitions which seek to enjoin or
restrain any actual or threatened commission of prohibited or unlawful acts in any
labor disputes shall be handled by the Commission (Art. 218, Labor Code of the
Philippines). Decisions of Regional Directors or hearing officers of the Department
of Labor and Employment on simple money claims appealed to the Commission are
within the latter’s jurisdiction (Art. 129, Labor Code of the Philippines).
5.
Civil Service Commission
5.1
Under Sec. 47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of EO No. 292, the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission is as follows:
(a)
The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days,
or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly
with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or
employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any
department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the
investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the
Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other
action to be taken.
(b)
The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities
and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters
involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their
jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is
suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding
thirty days’ salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is
appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the
department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall
be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall
be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned.
(c)
An investigation may be entrusted to regional directors or similar officials who
shall make the necessary report and recommendation to the chief of bureau or
office or department within the period specified in (Sec. 48 – Investigation to
be done not earlier than 5 days nor later than 10 day from the date of receipt of
respondent’s answer by the disciplining authority, and shall be finished within
30 days).
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
5
(d)
6
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the
penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having
been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the
event he wins an appeal.
5.2
To be clear, the Civil Service Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
of their appointments, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for
public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in
the elections immediately preceding their appointment. (Sec. 10, Chapter 3, supra)
5.3
It is provided in Sec. 46 [a], Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of EO No. 292
that “(n)o officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed
except for cause as provided by law and after due process.” The grounds for
disciplinary action include dishonesty, oppression, neglect of duty, misconduct,
disgraceful and immoral conduct, being notoriously undesirable, discourtesy in the
course of official duties, habitual drunkenness, gambling prohibited by law, lending
money at usurious rates, insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, and nepotism, to name a few.
5.4
In addition, it has been decreed that “(e)xcept when initiated by the disciplining
authority, no complaint against a civil service official or employee shall be given due
course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the
complainant.” (Sec. 46, Chapter 7, supra)
5.5
Under Sec. 50, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of EO No 292, “(n)o formal
investigation is necessary and the respondent may be immediately removed or
dismissed if any of the following circumstances is present:
(a)
When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong;
(b)
When the respondent is a recidivist or has been repeatedly charged and there is
reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of the present charge; and
(c)
When the respondent is notoriously undesirable.
5.6
Resort to summary proceedings by the disciplining authority shall be done with
utmost objectivity and impartiality to the end that no injustice is committed:
Provided, That the removal or dismissal, except those by the President himself or
upon his order, may be appealed to the Commission.”
6.
Survey of Supreme Court Decisions
6.1
Collective Bargaining Agreement
(a)
A CBA refers to a negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization
and the employer, concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. As in all other contracts, the
parties to a CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
as may be convenient, provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.
(b)
It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law
between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. This
principle stands strong and true in the case at bar.
(c)
All given, business losses are a feeble ground for petitioner to repudiate its
obligation under the CBA. The rule is settled that any benefit and supplement
being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
or eliminated by the employer. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is
founded on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to
promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection.” (Lepanto Ceramics,
Inc. v. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association, G.R. No. 180866, 02 March
2010)
(d)
6.2
6.3
Thus, if the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of
the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. In
fine, the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be
achieved, being the law between the parties. In Faculty Association of Mapua
Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the
CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the CBA must
be respected since its terms and conditions constitute the law between the
parties. The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on
the that the same are not favorable to them.” (PNCC Skyway Traffic
Management and Security Division Workers Organization v. PNCC Skyway
Corporation, G.R. No. 171231, 17 February 2010)
Labor rights
(a)
Time and again, we have ruled that we adhere to the policy of enhancing the
welfare of the workers. Their freedom to choose who should be their
bargaining representative is of paramount importance. The fact that there
already exists a bargaining representative in the unit concerned is of no
moment as long as the petition for certification election was filed within the
freedom period. What is imperative is that by such a petition for certification
election the employees are given the opportunity to make known of who shall
have the right to represent them thereafter. Not only some, but all of them
should have the right to do so. What is equally important is that everyone be
given a democratic space in the bargaining unit concerned.
(b)
We will emphasize anew that the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of
the employer. This, however, is not without limitations. The employer is bound
to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so
when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. Due
process must be observed in dismissing an employee, because it affects not
only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore,
respect and protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to
labor.” (PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Anacleto L. Taneca, et al., G.R. No. 160828,
09 August 2010)
Jurisdiction of the NLRC
(a)
Indeed, in Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission, we explained the
correlations of Article 248 (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code to mean that
for a ULP (unfair labor practice) case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter,
and for the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in
the complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely:
(1) gross violation of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic
provisions of the CBA.
(b)
“This pronouncement in Silva, however, should not be construed to apply to
violations of the CBA which can be considered as gross violations per se, such
as utter disregard of the very existence of the CBA itself, similar to what
happened in this case. When an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
7
union despite the existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and
exclusive bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its recognition of
the latter and terminates the entire CBA.” (Employees Union of Bayer, Phils.
FFW, et al. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 162943, 06 December
2010)
(c)
6.4
8
“The NLRC acquires jurisdiction over parties in cases before it either by
summons served on them or by their voluntary appearance before its Labor
Arbiter. Here, while the Union insists that summons were not properly served
on the impleaded Union members with respect to the Company’s amended
petition that sought to declare the strike illegal, the records show that they were
so served. The Return of Service of Summons indicated that 74 out of the 81
impleaded Union members were served with summons. But they refused either
to accept the summons or to acknowledge receipt of the same. Such refusal
cannot of course frustrate the NLRC’s acquisition of jurisdiction over them.
Besides, the affected Union members voluntarily entered their appearance in
the case when they sought affirmative relief in the course of the proceedings
like an award of damages in their favor.” (Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa AlsonsSPFL, et al. v. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 155109, 29 September
2010)
Labor Union
(a)
“In Association of Court of Appeals Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja, this Court
was tasked to resolve the issue of whether ‘the certification proceedings should
be suspended pending (the petitioner’s) petition for the cancellation of union
registration of the UCECA.’ The Court resolved the issue in the negative
holding that ‘an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the
pendency of the petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the
respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union
filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an
order directing a cancellation.’ We reiterated this view in Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Pacific Plastic v. Hon. Laguesma where we declared ‘a
certification election can be conducted despite pendency of a petition to cancel
the union registration certificate. For the fact is that at the time the respondent
union filed its petition for certification, it still had the legal personality to
perform such act absent an order directing its cancellation.’
(b)
Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that a certification election
may be conducted during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. This is
because at the time the petition for certification was filed, the petitioning union
is presumed to possess the legal personality to file the same.” (Legend
International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legend [KMLIndependent], G.R. No. 169754, 23 February 2011)
(c)
“Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int’l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO in which the core issue was whether mingling
affects the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for
certification election. This time, given the altered legal milieu, the Court
abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in
Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not
provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that after a labor
organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of
a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and rankEmployment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not
among the grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling
was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under Article
239 of the Labor Code.
6.5
(d)
In San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corp.
Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW, the Court explained that since the 1997
Amended Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide a list of
its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to deny recognition to said
local or chapter on account of any question pertaining to its individual
members.
(e)
More to the point is Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Labor Relations,
which involved a petition for cancellation of union registration filed by the
employer in 1999 against a rank-and-file labor organization on the ground of
mixed membership: the Court therein reiterated its ruling in Tagaytay
Highlands that the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among
the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation,
false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a)
and (c) of Article 239 of the Labor Code.” (Samahang Manggagawa sa
Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment
and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER), et al. v. Charter Chemical and Coating
Corporation, G.R. No. 169717, 16 March 2011)
Illegal dismissal
(a)
“Dismissals have two facets: the legality of the act of dismissal, which
constitutes substantive due process, and the legality of the manner of dismissal,
which constitutes procedural due process.
(b)
As to substantive due process, the Court finds that respondent company’s loss
of trust and confidence arising from petitioner’s smuggling out of the scrap
iron, compounded by his past acts of unauthorized selling cartons belonging to
respondent company, constituted just cause for terminating his services.
(c)
Loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal of employees covers
employees occupying a position of trust who are proven to have breached the
trust and confidence reposed on them. Apropos is Cruz v. Court of Appeals
which explains the basis and quantum of evidence of loss of trust and
confidence, viz:
(d)
In addition, the language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the
loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the trust
reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. Moreover, it must be based on substantial evidence and not on
the employer’s whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would
eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be
indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that the
dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause
for dismissal, the act complained of must be work related and shows that the
employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer. In addition,
loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised
on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
9
and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with confidence
with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or care and protection of
the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence
of the offense for which an employee is penalized.” (Quirico Lopez v. Alturas
Group of Companies, et al., G.R. No. 191008, 11 April 2011)
(e)
“In illegal dismissal cases, it is incumbent upon the employees to first establish
the fact of their dismissal before the burden is shifted to the employer to prove
that the dismissal was legal.
(f)
(T)his Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, the
employer bears the burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a
valid or authorized cause. But (b)efore the (petitioners) must bear the burden of
proving that the dismissal was legal, (the respondents) must first establish by
substantial evidence that indeed they were dismissed. (I)f there is no dismissal,
then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.
(g)
Hence, as between respondents’ general allegations of having been orally
dismissed from the service vis-à-vis those of petitioners which were found to
be substantiated by the sworn statement of foreman Wenifredo, we are
persuaded by the latter. Absent any showing of an overt or positive act proving
that petitioners had dismissed respondents, the latters’ claim of illegal dismissal
cannot be sustained. Indeed, a cursory examination of the records reveals no
illegal dismissal to speak of.
(h)
On the issue of abandonment by the respondents (as charged by petitioners),
(i)t is a settled rule that ‘(m)ere absence or failure to report for work xxx is not
enough to amount to abandonment of work.’ Abandonment is the deliberate
and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment.
(i)
In Northwest Tourism Corporation vs. Former Special 3rd Division of the Court
of Appeals, this Court held that ‘(t)o constitute abandonment of work, two
elements must concur, (namely):
(j)
6.6
the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been
absent without valid or justifiable reason; and
(ii)
there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to
sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.
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. However, petitioners failed to do so.” (Exodus International
Construction Corporation, et al. v. Guillermo Biscocho, et al., G.R. No.
166109, 23 February 2011)
Illegal strike
(a)
10
(i)
“First. The law is explicit: no strike shall be declared after the Secretary of
Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A strike conducted after
such assumption is illegal and any union officer who knowingly participates in
the same may be declared as having lost his employment. Here, what is
involved is a slowdown strike. Unlike other forms of strike, the employees
involved in a slowdown do not walk out of their jobs to hurt the company.
They need only to stop work or reduce the rate of their work while generally
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
remaining in their assigned post.
6.7
(b)
The Court finds that the union officers and members in this case held a
slowdown strike at the company’s farms despite the fact that the DOLE
Secretary had on May 12, 2003 already assumed jurisdiction over their labor
dispute. The evidence sufficiently shows that union officers and members
simultaneously stopped work at the company’s Batangas and Cavite farms at
7:00 am on May 26, 2003.
(c)
The union argues that it merely held assemblies to inform members of the
developments in the CBA negotiation, not protest demonstrations over it. But
as the CA correctly observed, if the meetings had really been for the stated
reason, why did the union officers and members from separate company farms
choose to start and end their meetings at the same time and on the same day?
And if they did not intend a slowdown, why did they not hold their meetings
after work. There is no allegation that the company prevented the union from
holding meetings after working hours.
(d)
Second. A distinction exists, however, between the ordinary workers’ liability
for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated in it. The
ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike.
There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct. On the
other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he
knowingly participated in the illegal strike.” (Yolito Fadriquelan, et al. v.
Monterey Foods Corporation, G.R. No. 178409, 08 June 2011)
(e)
“There is no question that the May 6, 2002 strike was illegal, first, because
when KMLMS filed the notice on March 5 or 14, 2002, it had not yet acquired
legal personality and, thus, could not legally represent the eventual union and
its members. And second, similarly when KMLMS only acquired legal
personality as an independent LLO (legitimate labor organization) only on
April 9, 2002 or the day after it conducted the strike vote. These factual
findings are undisputed and borne out by the records.
(f)
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike-vote
report were ineffective for having been filed and conducted before KMLMS
acquired legal personality as an LLO, violating Art. 263(c), (d) and (f) of the
Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code.” (Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Cooperative, et al. v.
Kilusang Manggagawa ng LGS, et al., G.R. Nos. 191138-39, 19 October 2011)
Labor standards-wages
(a)
“Article 100 of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the Non-Diminution Rule,
mandates that benefits given to employees cannot be taken back or reduced
unilaterally by the employer because the benefit has become part of the
employment contract, written or unwritten. The rule against diminution of
benefits applies if it is shown that the grant of the benefit is based on an
express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time and that
the practice is consistent and deliberate. Nevertheless, the rule will not apply if
the practice is due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or
difficult question of law. But even in cases of error, it should be shown that the
correction is done soon after discovery of the error.
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
11
(b)
6.8
12
The argument of petitioner that the grant of the benefit was not voluntary and
was due to error in the interpretation of what is included in the basic salary
deserves scant consideration. No doubtful or difficult question of law is
involved in this case. The guidelines set by the law are not difficult to decipher.
The voluntariness of the grant of the benefit was manifested by the number of
years the employer had paid the benefit to its employees. Petitioner only
changed the formula in the computation of the 13th month pay after almost 30
years and only after the dispute between the management and employees
erupted. This act of petitioner in changing the formula at this time cannot be
sanctioned, as it indicates a badge of bad faith.” (Central Azucarera de Tarlac
v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union-NLU, G.R. No. 188949, 26 July
2010)
Right to join a labor union
(a)
“It is unsurprising that significant provisions on labor protection of the 1987
Constitution are found in Article XIII on Social Justice. The constitutional
guarantee given the right to form unions and the State policy to promote
unionism has social justice considerations. In People’s Industrial and
Commercial Employees and Workers Organization v. People’s Industrial and
Commercial Corporation, we recognized that ‘(l)abor, being the weaker in
economic power and resources than capital, deserve protection that is actually
substantial and material.
(b)
The rationale for upholding the validity of union shop clauses in a CBA, even
if they impinge upon the individual employee’s right or freedom of association,
is not to protect the union for the union’s sake. Laws and jurisprudence
promote unionism and afford certain protections to the certified bargaining
agent in a unionized company because a strong and effective union presumably
benefits all employees in the bargaining unit since such a union would be in a
better position to demand improved benefits and conditions of work from the
employer. This is the rationale behind the State policy to promote unionism
declared in the Constitution, which was elucidated in the above-cited case of
Liberty Flour Mills Employees v. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc.
(c)
In the case at bar, since the former FEBTC employees are deemed covered by
the Union Shop Clause, they are required to join the certified bargaining agent,
which supposedly has gathered the support of the majority of workers within
the bargaining unit in the appropriate certification proceeding. Their joining the
certified union would, in fact, be in the best interests of the former FEBTC
employees for it units their interests with the majority of employees in the
bargaining unit. It encourages employee solidarity and affords sufficient
protection to the majority status of the union during the life of the CBA which
are precisely the objectives of union security clauses, such as the Union Shop
Clause involved herein. We are indeed not being called to balance the interests
of individual employees as against the State policy of promoting unionism,
since the employees, who were parties in the court below, no longer contested
the adverse Court of Appeals’ decision. Nonetheless, settled jurisprudence has
already swung the balance in favor of unionism, in recognition that ultimately
the individual employee will be benefited by that policy. In the hierarchy of
constitutional values, this Court has repeatedly held that the right to abstain
from joining a labor organization is subordinate to the policy of encouraging
unionism as an instrument of social justice.
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
(d)
7.
In sum, this Court finds it reasonable and just to conclude that the Union Shop
Clause of the CBA covers the former FEBTVC employees who were
hired/employed by BPI during the effectivity of the CBA in a manner which
petitioner describes as “absorption”. A contrary appreciation of the facts of this
case would, undoubtedly, lead to an inequitable and very volatile labor
situation which this Court has consistently ruled against.” (Bank of the
Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of
Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, 10 August 2010)
Concluding Remarks
Much can still be presented regarding the prevailing labor situation in the Philippines. However, for now,
further discussions thereon will be deferred as it would be difficult to cover all the areas of labor protection,
policies and legislation affecting millions of Filipinos. It is submitted, though, that what may have been
presented right now would be sufficient to give a glimpse on how the different branches of the government
has been affording its labor force the protection due to it, as well as the employment and human resources
development opportunities it richly deserves, not to mention the guarantee for industrial peace being
promoted or provided to achieve the same.
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines
13
‘Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines’ presented by:
Raul B. Villanueva, Deputy Court Administrator, Office of the Court Administrator Supreme Court of the Philippines
8.
14
Biographical Information
Employment Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines