Case Digest (G.R. No. 174912)
Facts:
BPI Employees Union‑Davao City‑FUBU v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is BPI Employees Union‑Davao City‑FUBU; respondents are Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and BPI officers Claro M. Reyes, Cecil Conanan and Gemma Velez.
The factual background is that BPI Operations Management Corporation (BOMC), a separate subsidiary created pursuant to CBP Circular No. 1388, Series of 1993, provided support services (e.g., check clearing, delivery of statements, fund transfers, card production, operations accounting and cash servicing) for BPI under a service agreement. The agreement was first implemented in Metro Manila without displacement of BPI employees; those performing the transferred functions were reassigned and a Metro Manila union’s ULP complaint was ultimately denied on certiorari.
On January 1, 1996, the service agreement was implemented in Davao. After the merger of BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) effective April 10, 2000, several cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping functions of the former FEBTC were handled by BOMC, and twelve former FEBTC employees were transferred to BOMC. The Union protested that these functions and personnel belonged to the BPI bargaining unit and that the transfers reduced the Union’s prospective membership under the CBA’s union‑shop clause.
The Union sought redress through grievance procedures, a Labor‑Management Conference and filed a notice of strike; the DOLE Secretary certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The NLRC, in resolutions dated December 21, 2001 and August 23, 2002, upheld the validity of the service agreement, dismissed the ULP charge, and found no evidence of termination, diminution of benefits, or bad faith. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 74595 affirmed the NLRC on April 5, 2006 (modified to delete certain enumerations), and denied the Union’s motion for reconsideration on August 17, 2006. The Union filed a petition for r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did BPI’s contracting out of cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping functions to BOMC and the transfer of twelve former FEBTC employees to BOMC violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement or constitute an unfair labor practice?
- Does D.O. No. 10, Series of 1997 apply to bar BPI’s outsourcing in this case, or must CBP Circular No. 1388, Series of 1993 and BSP regulation govern the p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)