Case Digest (G.R. No. 164301)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union‑Davao Chapter‑Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) merged with Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) pursuant to an Article and Plan of Merger executed January 20, 2000; the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the merger on March 23, 2000 and the Securities and Exchange Commission approved the Articles of Merger on April 7, 2000. By the merger FEBTC ceased to exist and BPI became the surviving corporation; FEBTC employees were thereafter treated by BPI as its employees with recognition of their prior status, tenure, salaries and benefits.
Respondent BPI Employees Union‑Davao Chapter (the Union) was the certified bargaining agent for rank‑and‑file employees at BPI’s Davao offices. The FEBTC rank‑and‑file employees absorbed by BPI were not union members at the time of the merger. The existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between BPI and the Union contained a Maintenance of Membership clause and a Union Shop clause requiring that “new employees” who become regular must join the Union within thirty days as a condition of continued employment.
After the merger some absorbed FEBTC employees refused to join or later withdrew from the Union. The Union pursued grievance hearings and then voluntary arbitration. Voluntary Arbitrator Rosalina Letrondo‑Montejo, in a Decision dated November 23, 2001, ruled for BPI that the absorbed FEBTC employees were not “new employees” covered by the union shop clause because they were absorbed “by operation of law” and could not be compelled to join the Union; the Arbitrator denied the Union’s motion for reconsideration on March 25, 2002.
The Union appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a Decision dated September 30, 2003 reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator and held that absorbed employees who enter the employ of BPI during the life of the CBA are “new employees” for purposes of the union s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in ruling that former FEBTC employees absorbed by BPI are “new” employees of BPI for purposes of applying the Union Shop clause of the CBA?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in finding that the Voluntary Arbitrator’s interpretation of the Union Shop clause is “at war with the spirit and the rationale” of the Labor Code such that the absorbed employees...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)