G.R. No. 156668 - Kimberly-Clark , Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor

Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc., a Philippine-registered corporation engaged in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and exportation of paper products, had entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which expired on June 30, 1986.
During the freedom period following the expiry of the CBA, on April 21, 1986, KILUSAN-OLALIA (a newly-formed labor organization) challenged the incumbency of the United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (UKCEO-PTGWO) by filing a petition for a certification election with the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment (MOLE), Regional Office No. IV, Quezon City.
A certification election was subsequently held on July 1, 1986, in which UKCEO-PTGWO won by a margin of 20 votes over KILUSAN-OLALIA; however, 64 challenged ballots cast by casual workers (whose regularization was in question) remained uncounted.

On November 13, 1986, MOLE issued an Order clarifying that certain casual workers not engaged in janitorial or yard maintenance services attained regular status as of an even date, effectively declaring UKCEO-PTGWO as the exclusive bargaining representative of Kimberly-Clark’s employees.
On March 16, 1987, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certiorari with the Court in G.R. No. 77629, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to challenge the MOLE Order.
Amid this period, Kimberly dismissed several employees and ignored their grievances, prompting KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike on May 17, 1987.
Kimberly subsequently filed an injunctive case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), leading to the issuance of TROs which were later brought to this Court in G.R. No. 78791.
G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 were consolidated and decided on May 9, 1990. The decision ordered:

The opening and counting of the 64 challenged ballots by a designated med-arbiter.
The union securing the highest number of votes be declared the duly-elected certified bargaining representative.
Kimberly-Clark to pay differential wages and benefits (minimum wage differential, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, etc.) to the workers who had attained regular status.
The TRO previously issued be made permanent, and the petition in G.R. No. 78791 dismissed.

Following the May 9, 1990 decision, KILUSAN-OLALIA and 76 individual complainants filed a motion for execution with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On June 29, 2000, DOLE issued an Order, declaring that the opening and counting of the 64 challenged ballots was physically impossible (due to their unavailability) and moot, and ordered the payment of differential wages to 22 individual workers listed in Kimberly’s Comment/Reply from October 31, 1991.
The Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) was directed to submit within 20 days a list of workers who had been regularized along with the benefits they were owed.
On August 1, 2000, the BWC submitted its report, identifying 47 out of the 76 complainants as entitled to regularization.
Kimberly filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOLE Order and the BWC Report on the basis that the ruling in G.R. No. 77629 pertained only to casual employees who had rendered one year of service as of April 21, 1986. This motion was denied on December 6, 2000, with the DOLE holding firm to its Order.

Kimberly elevated the case before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62257, contending that employees dismissed due to the illegal strike (May 17, 1987) should not be awarded regularization differentials.
On June 27, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed Kimberly’s petition for lack of grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the DOLE Orders from June 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

Kimberly argued that the reckoning point for determining which casual employees were entitled to regularization should be April 21, 1986 (the date when KILUSAN-OLALIA filed its petition for a certification election) rather than their actual hiring dates.
It further contended that only employees who were parties in G.R. No. 77629 should be considered for the payment of differential wages and benefits, asserting that extending the benefit to non-parties amounted to an amendment of a final and executory decision of the Court.
Kimberly maintained that the legal standard set in the May 9, 1990 decision, which provided that only casual employees who had rendered at least one year’s service were to be considered regular, should be strictly followed.

Whether the reckoning point for determining the regularization of casual employees should be counted from the hiring date (upon completion of one year of service by operation of law) or from April 21, 1986, the filing date of KILUSAN-OLALIA’s certification petition.

Does the law mandate a specific counting date or is regularization automatically triggered by the completion of one year of service regardless of any petition?

Whether the benefit of regularization (differential wages and associated allowances) should be extended to employees who were not parties to the original G.R. No. 77629 proceedings.

To what extent does the inclusion of additional employees amend or depart from the final decision of the Court?

Whether the actions of DOLE and the Court of Appeals in upholding the issuance of execution orders and administrative directives were a grave abuse of discretion.

Can the appellate courts substitute their judgment for that of the labor tribunal’s findings when substantial evidence supports the latter?