LABOR RELATIONS

CASE DIGESTS SET 4

Unfair Labor Practices

(Art 248-249)
45. REPUBLIC SAVINGS vs. CIR
G.R. No. L-20303 September
27, 1967
FACTS:
Republic Savings Bank (now Republic
Bank or RB) discharged/terminated
private respondents Resuello, Jola et
al, for having written and published "a
patently libelous letter, tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt not only of officers and
employees of this bank, but also of
your employer, the bank itself."
Respondents had written to the bank
president, Ramon Racelis, a lettercharge, demanding his resignation on
the grounds of immorality, nepotism
in the appointment and favoritism as
well as discrimination in the promotion
of RB employees.
CIR ruled that RBs act of dismissing
the
8
respondent
employees
constituted an unfair labor practice
within the meaning and intendment of
the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). RB
appealed. It still maintains that the
discharge was for cause.
RBs defense: CIR should have
dismissed the complaint because the
discharge of the respondents had
nothing to do with their union
activities as the latter in fact admitted
at the hearing that the writing of the
letter-charge was not a "union action"
but merely their "individual" act.
ISSUE:
WON the dismissal of the 8 employees
by RB constituted unfair labor practice

within the meaning and intendment of

the Industrial Peace Act

HELD:
YES. Even assuming that respondents
acted in their individual capacities
when they wrote the letter-charge
they were nonetheless protected for
they were engaged in concerted
activity, in the exercise of their right
of self-organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, interference with which
constitutes an unfair labor practice.
The joining in protestor demands,
even by a small group of employees, if
in furtherance of their interests, is a
concerted activity protected by the
Industrial Peace Act. It is not
necessary that union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining
be contemplated.
Re: Meaning of Duty to Bargain
What the RB should have done was to
refer
the
letter-charge
to
the
grievance committee. This was its
duty, failing which it committed an
unfair labor practice RA 875 which
makes it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "to dismiss, discharge or
otherwise prejudice or discriminate
against an employee for having filed
charges or for having given or being
about to give testimony under this
Act."
Collective bargaining does not end
with the execution of an agreement. It
is a continuous process. The duty to
bargain imposes on the parties during
the term of their agreement the
mutual obligation to meet and confer
promptly and expeditiously and in
good faith for the purpose of adjusting
any grievances or question arising
under such agreement and a

1 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

violation of this obligation is an unfair

labor practice.
Instead of stifling criticism, RB should
have allowed the respondents to air
their
grievances.
Good
faith
bargaining required of the Bank an
open mind and a sincere desire to
negotiate
over
grievances.
The
grievance committee, created in the
CBA, would have been an appropriate
forum for such negotiation. Indeed,
the grievance procedure is a part of
the continuous process of collective
bargaining. It is intended to promote a
friendly dialogue between labor and
management
as
a
means
of
maintaining industrial peace.
Disposition
AFFIRMED

Appealed

decision

is

46. WISE &CO. vs. WCEU-NATU

G.R. No. L-87672 October 13,
1989
FACTS:
The
management
issued
a
Memorandum Circular introducing a
profit-sharing
scheme
for
its
managers and supervisors.
Respondent Union wrote to petitioner
to ask that the union members be
allowed to participate in the profitsharing program. The management
denied the request on the ground that
such participation was not provided in
the CBA
When renegotiation of the CBA was
approaching, the management wrote
to the Union that it was willing to
consider including the union members
in the profit-sharing scheme provided
that the negotiations would be
concluded prior to December 1987

Sometime
later,
the
company
distributed the profit-sharing benefit
not only to the managers and
supervisors but also to all rank-andfile employees not covered by the CBA
because they were excluded from the
definition of bargaining unit.
This caused the respondent Union to
file a notice of strike alleging that
petitioner was guilty of unfair labor
practice because the union were
discriminated against in the grant of
the profit sharing benefits
ISSUE:
Whether the grant by management of
profit sharing benefits to its non-union
member employees is discriminatory
against its workers who are union
members and amounts to ULP?
HELD:
NO. Petition Granted. There can be no
discrimination
committed
by
petitioner as the situation of the union
employees are different and distinct
from
the
non-union
employees.
Discrimination per se is not unlawful.
There can be no discrimination where
the employees concerned are not
similarly situated.
The grant by petitioner of profit
sharing benefits to the employees
outside the "bargaining unit" falls
under the ambit of its managerial
prerogative. It appears to have been
done in good faith and without ulterior
motive. More so when as in this case
there is a clause in the CBA where the
employees are classified into those
who are members of the union and
those who are not. In the case of the
union members, they derive their
benefits
from
the
terms
and
conditions of the CBA contract which
constitute the law between the
contracting parties. Both the employer

2 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

and the union members are bound by

such agreement.
47. SHELL OIL WORKERS UNION
vs.
SHELL OIL CO. OF THE PHILS. &
CIR
G.R. No. L-28607 May 31, 1971
FACTS:
Shell Co. seek to dissolve its security
guard section in its Pandacan branch,
notwithstanding its being embraced in
the then existing CBA contract as
rank-and-file employees. So an action
for reinstatement and payment of full
backwages was filed by the union.
The union made a decision that should
there be a replacement of the
company guards by a private security
agency, there would be a strike.
However, the said 18 security guards
were transferred to the companys
other branch and were thereafter
terminated on the service.
The
company then hired a private security
agency to undertake the work of said
security guards. So a strike took in
place on 25 March 1967, when the
newly hired guards was about to start
their work.
The Department of Labor tried to
conciliate the parties but failed to
settle the issues raised. Until a
Presidential certification was issued
ordering them to return-to-work on 6
July 1967 by CIR by virtue of the
pending resolution of the case. CIR
rendered its decision in favor of the
company and held strike as illegal for
the dissolution was a valid exercise of
management prerogative and that no
ULP was committed by the company.
ISSUE:

WON the respondent court erred in

holding that the strike was illegal and
that the dissolution of 18 security
guards is a valid exercise of
management prerogatives?
HELD:
No. The court held that the strike
cannot be declared illegal, there being
a violation of the collective bargaining
agreement by Shell Company. Even if
it were otherwise, however, this Court
cannot lend sanction of its approval to
the outright dismissal of all union
officers, a move that certainly would
have the effect of considerably
weakening a labor organization, and
thus in effect frustrate the policy of
the Industrial Peace Act to encourage
unionization. To the extent, however,
that the serious acts of violence
occurring in the course of the strike
could be made the basis for holding
responsible a leader or a member of
the union guilty of their commission,
what was decided by respondent court
should not be disturbed.
The
plain
and
unqualified
constitutional demand of protection to
labor should not be lost weight of. The
state is thus under obligation to lend
its aid and its succor to the efforts of
its labor elements to improve their
economic
condition.
It
is
now
generally accepted that unionization is
a means to such an end. It should be
encouraged.
Thereby,
labors
strength, what there is of it, becomes
solidified. It can bargain as a
collectivity. Management then will not
always have the upper hand nor be in
a position to ignore its just demands.
That, at any rate, is the policy behind
the Industrial Peace Act.
The judiciary and administrative
agencies in construing it must ever be
conscious of its implications. Only thus

3 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

may there bee fidelity to what is

ordained by the fundamental law. For
if it were otherwise, instead of
protection, there would be neglect or
disregard. That is to negate the
fundamental
principle
that
the
Constitution is the supreme law.
48. H. ARONSON & CO., ET AL vs.
ALU
G.R. No. L-23010 July 9, 1971
FACTS:
Aronson, originally known as Moody
Aronson & Co., Inc., was incorporated
in 1920, with an authorized capital
stock
of
P5000,000.00
and
a
corporate life of 50 years expiring on
May 27, 1970. In the course of time it
became an Aronson family controlled
corporation.
In 1958, 13 of its 25 employees
became members of the respondent
Associated Labor Union. In the month
of September of that year, because of
the dismissal of Eugenia Solon, a
union member, her co-employees who
were union members declared a strike
which was soon settled as a result of
conciliation negotiations initiated by
the Cebu Regional Office of the
Department of Labor.
Sometime thereafter, the respondent
Union and its members made
demands for a collective bargaining
agreement with the Company to
obtain certain benefits in connection
with their working conditions. When
the Company refused to enter into a
collective bargaining agreement, the
employees who were union members
declared a second strike in December
of that year. The management
eventually acceded to their demands
and
entered
into
a
collective
bargaining agreement with them on

January 6, 1959, the same having

been renewed March 23, 1960. In this
manner the union members obtained
labor benefits.
On January 6, 1960, management sent
to the employees of the Company
letters of termination of employment
due to poor business. Then on
February 13, 1961 Aronson's original
Articles
of
Incorporation
were
amended so that, instead of its
corporate existence expiring on May
27, 1970, it was made to expire 9
years earlier.
On March 9, 1961, or less than a
month after such amendment had
been accomplished, then Assistant
Manager
Donato
Medel
was
incorporated with a capital stock of
P100,000.00, and on July 17 of the
same year, another new corporation,
Photo Materials was also incorporated
with an authorized capital stock of
P400,000.00. The total authorized
capital stock of the two new
corporations
amounting
to
P500,000.00 was exactly the same
authorized capital stock of Aronson.
It will thus be seen that the two new
corporations
were
organized
to
engage in exactly the same business
in which Aronson had been engaged;
in other words, to take over the
latter's business.
On July 15, 1961, all the employees of
Aronson who were members of the
respondent Union were required to
stop working in spite of the fact that,
according to the notice of termination
of employment served on them, their
services were to be terminated on the
31st of that month. On the other
hand, the employees of the Company
who were not members of the
respondent Union were allowed to
continue working up to that date, and

4 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

thereafter they continued working

because they were absorbed or reemployed by the newly organized
corporations: Photo Materials and
Medel.
The employees concerned filed a
complaint for unfair labor practices to
which
CIR
found
respondentpetitioners guilty and ordered them to
cease and desist from such acts, and
to reinstate the complainants to their
former positions under the same
terms and conditions of employment
with back wages from the time they
were illegally dismissed until they are
actually reinstated. Their motion for
reconsideration having been denied
subsequently by the court en banc,
they took the present appeal.
ISSUE:
1. WON CIR had jurisdiction over the
case, and
2. WON it erred in finding the
petitioners guilty of unfair labor
practice
HELD:
1. Yes. The Court held that CIR had
jurisdiction over the case and the
petitioners herein; that it correctly
found petitioners guilty of unfair labor
practice, and in granting to the
individual respondents the relief set
forth in the appealed order. The
appealed Order was affirmed.
2. No. The shortening of the corporate
life or dissolution of Aronson, and the
subsequent incorporation of the other
two petitioners were part and parcel
of a plan, or were intended to
accomplish the dismissal of the
individual respondents, the Court
concluded. Their contention that the
dissolution of Aronson was due to
"poor business" is, upon the record,
clearly without merit.

The true cause of the termination of

the services of the complainants is
their membership with the Associated
Labor Union and their union activities.
This finding is supported by the
antecedent facts that since its
establishment in 1920 the only
instance when the management of the
H. Aronson & Company began to find
interference in the conduct of its
business affairs was in 1958 when the
Associated Labor Union, to which the
complainants are affiliated, declared
two strikes wherein the union
decisively got what it wanted from the
reluctant management. Attempts were
made by the management to break
the majority then held by the Union
but it was not successful.
49. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES
FORCE
UNION (PTGWO) vs. HON. BLAS
F. OPLE
and SMC
G.R. No. L-53515 February 8,
1989
FACTS:
In April 1978, a CBA was entered into
by petitioner and the SMC with a
provision entitling employees to a
basic monthly compensation plus
commission based on their respective
sales.
In September 1979, the company
introduced
a
marketing
scheme
known
as
the
"Complementary
Distribution System" (CDS) whereby
its beer products were offered for sale
directly to wholesalers through San
Miguel's sales offices.
The labor union filed a complaint for
ULP in the Ministry of Labor, with a
notice of strike on the ground that the

5 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

CDS was contrary to the existing

marketing scheme whereby the Route
Salesmen were assigned specific
territories within which to sell their
stocks of beer, and wholesalers had to
buy beer products from them, not
from the company. It was alleged that
the new marketing scheme the CBA as
the CDS would reduce the take-home
pay of the salesmen and their truck
helpers for the company would be
unfairly competing with them.
The Minister of Labor approved the
private
respondent's
marketing
scheme and dismissed the labor
union's complaint for unfair labor
practice.
ISSUE:
WON the CDS
constituting ULP.

violates

the

CBA,

RULING:
No. The lower court correctly held that
the CDS is a valid exercise of
management prerogatives. So long as
a
company's
management
prerogatives are exercised in good
faith for the advancement of the
employer's interest and not for the
purpose of defeating or circumventing
the rights of the employees under
special
laws
or
under
valid
agreements.
SMC's offer to compensate the
members of its sales force who will be
adversely
affected
by
the
implementation of the CDS by paying
them a so- called "back adjustment
commission" to make up for the
commissions they might lose as a
result of the CDS proves the
company's good faith and lack of
intention to bust their union.

50. CARLOS CRUZ vs. PAFLU

G.R. No. L-26519 October 29,
1971
FACTS:
Quality Container Factory is a joint
business ventured by the Tan spouses,
employing
hired
hands
in
the
manufacture and sale of tin cans. In
January 1961, these workers formed a
union called PTGWO, elected its
officers and had it registered with the
Department of Labor.
A month later, the factory received a
notice of its existence with their
collective bargaining proposals. But
due to unions unreasonable delay in
discussing the CBA contract to the
factory, a complaint was filed by the
company
against
the
union.
Notwithstanding the protest lodged by
PTGWO, PAFLU, by a majority vote was
declared
as
the
winning
CB
representative
of
the
factorys
workers.
After the issue of certification was
decided by CIR, however, PAFLU
proposed to continue the negotiations
to possibly finalize a CBA contract
with the management but a month
later, the factory was sold to Carlos
Cruz.
PAFLU then instituted an action
against the Tan spouses for ULP. CIR
sustained the claim of PAFLU that the
sale of the factory was tainted by bad
faith and designed to avoid bargaining
collectively with it as the duly chosen
representative of such employee. And
an
order
was
given
for
the
reinstatement of union members with
full backwages.
ISSUE:

6 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

WON CIR erred in holding the failure of

the factory owners to bargain
collectively and the sale of the factory
as unfair labor practice, tainted with
bad faith.
RULING:
No. The Court held that the
assignment of error of petitioners as
to the absence of bad faith appears to
be without sufficient legal basis.
Clearly, the failure of the Tan spouses
to
bargain
collectively
with
respondent Union when they were
called to do so was unfair labor
practice, compounded by another
actuation amounting to discrimination
in regard to tenure or condition of
employment against a labor union.
Apparently in an effort to avoid the
legal consequences of such conduct
frowned upon by the law, connivance
of petitioner Cruz was elicited.
Necessary the sale was attended with
bad faith.
Respondent Judge Co was not blind to
such an attempt at evasion. It refused
to countenance the resulting dismissal
of the members respondent Union. It
ordered
the
reinstatement.
Its
decision far from being repugnant to
law is in conform with it. This certainly
cannot be one of those cases which
the judgment arrived at by respondent
Court is to ignored, much less set
aside.
The case was remanded to CIR for
further proceedings.

51. BATAAN SHIPYARD vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988

The National Federation of Labor

Unions (NAFLU) is a labor organization
in petitioner Bataan Shipyard &
Engineering Co., Inc. The Company
has thousand employees in its payroll
and more than a hundred of them
belong to the said labor organization.
Sometime before 1984, the Company
filed with the NLRC an application for
the retrenchment of 285 of its
employees on the ground that the firm
had been incurring heavy losses. In
the meantime, some employees who
had been on sick leave earlier were
considered retrenched. All of those so
retrenched happen to be officers and
members of the NAFLU.
ISSUE:
Whether the Company is guilty of
discriminatory acts in the selection of
employees to be retrenched
HELD:
YES. The retrenchment undertaken by
the Company is valid. However, the
manner in which this is exercised
should not be tainted with abuse of
discretion. Labor is a person's means
of livelihood. He cannot be deprived of
his labor or work without due process
of
law.
The
retrenchment
of
employees who belong to a particular
union, with no satisfactory justification
why said employees were singled out,
constitutes ULP.
In this case, the Company had indeed
been discriminatory in selecting the
employees
who
were
to
be
retrenched. All of the retrenched
employees are officers and members
of the NAFLU. It leads us to conclude
that the firm had been discriminating
against membership in the NAFLU, an
act which amounts to interference in
the employees' exercise of their right

FACTS:
7 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

of self-organization. This interference

is considered an act of ULP.
52. TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR
UNION
vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 75037 April 30, 1987
FACTS:
Tanduay Distillery, Inc. (TDI) and
Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU)
entered into a CBA which contained a
union
security
clause,
which
provided: All workers who are or may
during the effectivity of this Contract,
become members of the Union in
accordance with its Constitution and
By-Laws shall, as a condition of their
continued
employment,
maintain
membership in good standing in the
Union for the duration of the
agreement.
While the CBA was still in effect, a
number of the TDLU, joined another
union,
the
Kaisahan
Ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and
organized its local chapter in TDI.
The TDLU
required
those who
disaffiliated to explain why they
should
not
be
punished
for
disloyalty.
TDLU
created
a
committee to investigate its erring
members.
The
committee
recommended that the disaffiliating
members be expelled and that they
should be terminated from service in
pursuant to the union security clause.
Acting on said request, the company
terminated the employment of the
disaffiliating union members.
ISSUE:
Whether
the
dismissal
of
the
disaffiliating members pursuant to a
security clause constitutes ULP.
HELD:

NO. The private respondents cannot

escape the effects of the security
clause of their own applicable CBA.
Union Security Clauses in CBA, if
freely and voluntarily entered into, are
valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal
of an employee by the company
pursuant to a labor unions demand in
accordance with a union security
agreement does not constitute ULP.
The respondent employer did nothing
but to put in force their agreement
when
it
separated
the
herein
complainants
upon
the
recommendation of said union. Such a
stipulation is not only necessary to
maintain loyalty and preserve the
integrity of the union but is allowed by
the Magna Charta of Labor when it
provided that while it is recognized
that an employee shall have the right
to self-organization, it is at the same
time postulated that such right shall
not injure the right of the labor
organization to prescribe its own rules
with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership therein
In Villar v. Inciong, we held that
"petitioners, although entitled to
disaffiliation from their union and to
form a new organization of their own
must
however,
suffer
the
consequences of their separation from
the union under the security clause of
the CBA.
53. INSULAR LIFE EAU-NATU vs.
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
LTD.
G.R. No. L-25291 May 5, 1977
FACTS:
Unions Insular Life Assurance EA-NATU
and FGU Insurance Group Workers &
EA-NATU entered into separate CBAs
with Insular and FGU.

8 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

In 1957, the Unions jointly submitted

proposals to the Companies for a
modified renewal of their respective
collective bargaining contracts which
were
then
about
to
expire.
Negotiations were conducted on the
Union's proposals, but were snagged
by a deadlock on the issue of union
shop. As a result of which, the Unions
filed in January 1958 a notice of strike
for
"deadlock
on
collective
bargaining."
Following the failure of the Companies
to answer the demands of the Unions
with counter-proposals, the Unions
went on strike. An attempt of the
management to break thru the
Unions' picket lines during the strike
resulted to injuries. Alleging that some
non-strikers
were
injured,
the
Companies filed criminal charges
against the strikers, along with a
petition for injunction with damages,
which was granted.
Before readmission, the Companies
required of the employees clearances
from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila
and for them to undergo screening by
a management committee, which
adamantly refused 34 officials and
members of the Unions who were
most active in the strike, on the
ground that they committed "acts
inimical to the interest of the
respondents," without however stating
the specific acts allegedly committed.
On even date, the CIR prosecutor filed
a complaint for unfair labor practice
against the Companies, which filed
their answer denying all the material
allegations of the complaint and
asking for dismissal. After trial on the
merits, the CIR dismissed the Unions'
complaint for lack of merit. The Unions

seasonably filed their MFR, but was

denied, hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
WON CIR erred in not finding the
Companies guilty of unfair labor
practice:
a. in sending out individual ultimatum
letters,
b. for discriminating against the
striking members of the Unions in the
matter of readmission of employees
after the strike
c.
for
dismissing
officials
and
members of the Unions; and
d. in not ordering the reinstatement of
officials and members of the Unions,
with full back wages.
HELD:
a. Yes. The said letters were directed
to the striking employees individually
containing a promise of benefit,
threats and reprisal by registered
special delivery mail at that without
being coursed through the Unions
which
were
representing
the
employees
in
the
collective
bargaining.
b.
Yes.
Despite
securing
their
respective clearances, 34 officials and
union members were still refused
readmission on the alleged ground
that they committed acts inimical to
the
Companies.
This
was
discriminatory to the fact that nonstrikers who also had pending criminal
charges against them arising from the
same
incidents
were
readily
readmitted and were not required to
secure clearances. It is a violation of
the IPA.
c. Yes. Record shows that not a single
dismissed striker was given the
opportunity to defend himself against
the supposed charges against him.
And when the striking employees

9 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

reported
back
for
work,
the
Companies refused to readmit them
without the necessary clearances. And
when all, except three, were able to
secure and subsequently present the
required clearances, the respondents
still refused to take them back and
instead
they
received
letters
confirming the termination of their
employment
due
to
acts
of
misconduct while picketing during
the strike.
d. Yes. The lower court should have
ordered the reinstatement of the
officials and members of the Unions,
with full back wages as it is clear that
the Unions went on strike because of
the unfair labor practices committed
by the Companies. Where the strike
was induced and provoked by
improper conduct on the part of an
employer amounting to an 'unfair
labor practice,' the strikers are
entitled to reinstatement with back
pay.
Accordingly, the decision of the CIR
was reversed and set aside, and
another is entered, ordering the
respondents
to
reinstate
the
dismissed members of the petitioning
Unions
to
their
former
or
comparatively similar positions, with
backwages.
54. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs.
PINES
HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASS'N
G.R. No. L-30818
September 28, 1972
FACTS:
Three appeals by certiorari (L-30755,
L-30818 and L-30139) were filed on
various dates in 1969 involving the
same parties and various incidents
between them, commencing from an

unfair labor practice charge originally

filed by respondent union against
petitioner company and culminating in
supplemental proceedings to enjoin
the abrupt dismissal and termination
of employment of all eighty-six
employees at the Pines Hotel with its
sudden sale to a third party.
In the first case L-30755, an unfair
labor practice on 6 counts was filed
against Manila Hotel Company, which
was then engaged in the operation of
the Pines Hotel in Baguio City. After
due hearing, CIR dismissed 4 counts
and found the petitioner guilty of
unfair labor practice on 2 counts:
a. the charge of discrimination in the
granting of the 1965 Christmas
bonus,
and
b. the charge of discrimination in the
granting of salary adjustments
pursuant
to the then newly enacted
Minimum
Wage Law, Republic Act 4180;
and ordered petitioner to cease and
desist from further committing such
unfair labor practice acts.
During the pendency of the unfair
labor practice case, 86 employees of
Pines Hotel received written notices
that
the
National
Development
Company as owner of the Pines Hotel
had sold it to the Resort Hotels
Corporation and that since petitioner
Manila Hotel Company's operation of
the hotel would cease effective the
next
day,
their
services
were
terminated as of the close of business
hours of March 28, 1968.
On the same date, the respondent
union forthwith filed an "Urgent
Petition with prayer for a temporary
restraining order," and accordingly
prayed inter alia that the case be

10 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

consolidated with the first case, along

with a prayer for an ex-parte
restraining order be issued against
their abrupt dismissal or termination.
CIR took cognizance of the union's
petition and called the parties
immediately to a conference, where
Manila Hotel expressly manifested
that it was willing to grant retirement
gratuity to all the employees, who
have served for 20 years or more,
expressly referring to 16 out of 86
employees who were terminated.
Notwithstanding petitioner's having
deposited with respondent court
pursuant to its own offer the sum of
P100,000.00 through its check, it still
questioned the issuance of the order
on grounds of alleged lack of
jurisdiction and impropriety thereof.
With its appeal denied by CIR, it filed
another petition which was docketed
as L-30139.
In connection with the same sale on
March 28, 1968 of the Pines Hotel and
the abrupt termination of all its
employees,
Manila
Hotels
BoD
subsequently approved the payment
of retirement gratuity to the greater
remainder of 70 employees who had
not completed 20 years of service and
were
not
qualified
under
the
Retirement Law.
Citing the various manifestations in
the record of petitioner's willingness
to pay such gratuity, respondent court
issued its order of February 27, 1969
for the payment of such gratuity not
exceeding 12 months to the remaining
70 employees who have rendered one
year to nineteen years of service to
petitioner company. Petitioner once
again raised the same questions of
jurisdiction and propriety of the CIRs
issuance of said payment order and

with its MFR denied, it filed another

appeal, docketed as L-30818.

ISSUES:
1. WON the Petitioner's was correct in
claiming that the order of the court
(as regards L-30139) was prejudicial.
2. WON the Court acted out of its
jurisdiction (as regards L-30138) in
issuing the appealed payment order of
the 70 employees.
HELD:
1. No. What the union had actually
filed on March 28, 1968 was a
separate "Urgent petition with prayer
for a restraining order." No prejudice
could be said to have been caused to
petitioner thereby, for the very merit
of the union complaint is borne out by
the fact that the parties promptly
arrived at a satisfactory settlement
thereof upon petitioner's undertaking
to pay retirement gratuity to all 86
affected employees.
2. No. As the petitioner has in no
manner questioned or disputed the
factual bases and findings of CIR as to
its undertaking and agreement in the
record to pay the retirement gratuity
to the employees, by way of
settlement of their dispute arising
from the protested abrupt termination
of their employment with the sudden
sale of the Pines Hotel to a third party,
the court acted within its jurisdiction
when
it
properly
assumed
of
implementing the very agreement and
settlement for payment of retirement
gratuity arrived at by the parties in
the case before it.

11 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang