G.R. No. 220605 - Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs. Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent Organization-ALU

Petitioner, Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages.
In 2001, Cosmos Bottling Corporation ceded its sales functions to the petitioner, resulting in the integration of Cosmos’s salesmen into the petitioner’s workforce.
The integrated employees, referred to as Cosmos integrees, were initially positioned as route salesmen and received salary adjustments to match those within the petitioner’s existing workforce.

The petitioner shifted its product distribution system from direct selling to a route-to-market (RTM) approach, which led to the abolition of the route salesman position.
The role was then re-designated as the account developer (AD) position.
Through an internal selection process, Cosmos integrees were converted into ADs.

While Cosmos integrees were promoted to the AD position via internal selection, petitioner concurrently hired new ADs with a different set of qualifications.
Newly hired ADs received a higher basic monthly pay compared to the Cosmos integrees, despite performing essentially the same job functions and holding the same job description.
Additionally, upon union membership, the newly hired ADs were provided a monthly 45-kilogram rice provision, with a corresponding deduction of P550.00 from their salaries.

Aggrieved by the disparity in treatment, respondent Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent Organization-ALU, the recognized collective bargaining agent, submitted its concerns through the grievance machinery provided under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The union demanded:

A readjustment of the Cosmos integrees’ salary rates to align with those of the newly hired ADs.
A declaration that the conversion of the P550.00 monthly salary deduction into a 45-kg. rice provision violated the non-diminution rule under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Reimbursement of the amounts deducted unlawfully.

After the grievance process failed to yield a resolution, both parties agreed to submit their unresolved issues to voluntary arbitration pursuant to Article 5 of the CBA and subsequently filed a preventive mediation case before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).

Declared the wage disparity between the Cosmos integrees and the newly hired ADs discriminatory.
Directed petitioner to realign or readjust the Cosmos integrees’ basic salaries to match those of the newly hired ADs.
Found that the P550.00 deduction from union members’ salaries (in lieu of providing a free 45-kg. rice sack) violated both Article X of the CBA and Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Ordered petitioner to provide the rice ration free of charge and cease the salary deduction, effective February 2012.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the VA decision was subsequently deemed final and executory.
Petitioner initiated a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the VA decision and the alleged discriminatory practices.
The CA denied the petition on the ground that the VA decision had already attained finality pursuant to Section 5, Article 5 of the CBA.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was also denied, which led to the present petition for review.

Whether the VA decision, having attained finality and executory status pursuant to the applicable provisions of the CBA and the Labor Code, can nonetheless be subjected to judicial review.

Whether the wage disparity between the Cosmos integrees and the newly hired ADs constitutes unlawful discrimination under the “equal pay for equal work” principle.
Whether the differences in the selection processes and the requisite qualifications for the two groups justify the differential treatment in salary.

Whether the conversion of the P550.00 monthly deduction from the salaries of union members into a free 45-kg. rice ration constitutes a violation of the non-diminution rule under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Whether such conversion also amounts to non-compliance with Article X of the CBA.

Whether the petition for review filed by the petitioner is timely, given that the VA decision was argued to have become final and executory.