Case Digest (G.R. No. 185665)
Facts:
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, G.R. No. 185665, February 08, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) is a telecommunications company employing about 400 persons; Eastern Telecoms Employees Union (ETEU) is the certified exclusive bargaining agent representing 147 regular members. The parties had Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) with Side Agreements (1998–2001 and 2001–2004) that included a provision on the grant of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses.
A dispute arose when ETPI deferred payment of the 2003 bonuses (14th–16th) and the 2004 14th month bonus, asserting deteriorating financial condition and that bonuses depended on availability of funds. ETEU filed a preventive mediation complaint with the NCMB on July 3, 2003; the parties initially agreed to an April 2004 payment which was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement, but ETPI later wrote (April 14, 2004) that the matter would be subject to compulsory arbitration and refused payment. ETEU filed a Notice of Strike (April 26, 2004); the Secretary of Labor certified the dispute for compulsory arbitration under Article 263(q) of the Labor Code (May 19, 2004). The case was heard and submitted for decision after the parties filed position papers.
The NLRC, in a Resolution dated April 28, 2005, dismissed ETEU’s complaint for lack of merit, ruling that the bonuses were management prerogative/acts of generosity contingent on profits and that ETPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP); a motion for reconsideration was denied on August 31, 2005. ETEU filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. In its June 25, 2008 Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 91974), the CA annulled the NLRC resolution, held that the Side Agreements created an unconditional contractual obligation to pay the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner ETPI is liable to pay the 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses for 2003 and the 14th month bonus for 2004 to the members of respondent ETEU.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing outright ETEU’s petition for certiorari (i.e., whether the CA improperly reviewed factual...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)