Case Digest (G.R. No. 103090)
Facts:
- The case is Kimberly Clark Philippines v. Lorredo, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 21, 1993, under G.R. No. 103090.
- The dispute arose from a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KCPI) and the United Kimberly Clark Employees Union.
- KCPI sought to overturn a resolution by Voluntary Arbitrator Danilo Lorredo, issued on October 15, 1991.
- The resolution mandated the hiring of Danilo L. Guerrero's nephew after Guerrero resigned on January 2, 1991, after over thirteen years of service.
- The CBA stipulated that in cases of resignation, retirement, disability, or death, the company would hire an immediate family member, including legitimate children and collateral relatives within the third civil degree.
- Guerrero had three legitimate children who were minors and recommended his nephew for employment.
- KCPI rejected the recommendation, arguing that Guerrero's children being minors disqualified the hiring of his nephew.
- After grievance procedures failed, the matter went to voluntary arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the union's interpretation of the CBA.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, upholding the Voluntary Arbitrator's decisions.
- The Court determined that KCPI was required to hire Danilo Guerrero's nephew as his replacement according to the CBA provisions. ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Court's decision focused on interpreting the CBA's provisions regarding the employment of relatives.
- It emphasized that a CBA is akin to a contract, and its terms should reflect the parties' intentions.
- The phrase "in default thereof" was interpreted as a guideline for priority, not a restrictive condition.
- T...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 103090)
Facts:
The case involves Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KCPI) as the petitioner and Voluntary Arbitrator Danilo Lorredo along with the United Kimberly Clark Employees Union-PTGWO as respondents. The events leading to the case began when Danilo L. Guerrero, an employee of KCPI, voluntarily resigned on January 2, 1991, after serving the company for over thirteen years. Following his resignation, Guerrero, through the Union, recommended his nephew for employment as his replacement, citing Section 1, Article XX of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This provision allows for the employment of an immediate family member or a collateral relative within the third civil degree upon the resignation, retirement, disability, or death of an employee. However, KCPI rejected the recommendation, arguing that Guerrero had legitimate children, thus disqualifying his nephew from being hired under the CBA. The Union contended that since Guerrero's children were minors, he could validly recommend his nephew. After failing to resolve the dispute through the grievance machinery, the parties agreed to submit the matter to voluntary arbitration. On October 15, 1991, Arbitrator Lorredo ruled in favor of the Union, stating that Guerrero's nephew should be employed as his replacement. KCPI's motion for reconsid...