G.R. No. 217121 - Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corp. vs. Municipal Government of Murcia

The controversy arose from the issuance of Wage Order No. ROVII-06 by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) of Region VII, which fixed a new minimum wage rate for private sector employees.
Prior to the issuance of the Wage Order, the parties had entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from August 1, 1994, to July 31, 1999, which provided for specific salary increases.

Under the original CBA, Section 1 provided for a P15.00-per-day increase, while Section 2 mandated that in the event a law increased the minimum wage, an across‐the‐board increase would be granted “according to the provisions of the law.”
On January 27, 1998, the parties negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement terminating the previous CBA provisions and agreeing to two successive P10.00-per-day increases: one effective August 1, 1997 and another effective August 1, 1998, thereby raising the employees’ wages first to P165.00 and then to P175.00.

On March 10, 1998, RTWPB issued the Wage Order, effective in stages (April 1 and October 1, 1998), mandating a P10.00 increase to adjust the minimum wage for workers in Region VII.
The Wage Order was titled “Establishing New Minimum Wage Rates,” indicating its primary purpose was the adjustment of the statutory minimum or “floor wage” rather than an unconditional wage hike.

The petitioner, Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union, argued that under Section 2 of Article XII in the CBA the company should implement an across-the-board increase based on the wage order, regardless of existing wage levels.
The respondent, Norkis Trading Company, Inc., contended that its employees were already receiving wages above the new minimum (P165.00), and therefore, it had complied with the requirements of Wage Order No. ROVII-06.
The dispute was initially subjected to preventive mediation and then referred to arbitration for resolution of the issue on whether the across‐the‐board increase was warranted.

A public respondent arbitrator initially ruled in favor of the petitioner by directing that an across-the-board increase be implemented, based on the interpretation of the CBA’s minimum wage clause.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the arbitrator’s decision, holding that the Wage Order, by its very nature and purpose, was intended only to establish a new minimum wage and exempted enterprises already paying above that rate from an automatic across-the-board increase.
Subsequently, a Petition for Review was filed under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s decision and the evidentiary rulings concerning supplemental pleadings.

Setting aside the decision and resolution rendered by the voluntary arbitrator.
Admitting supplementary evidence and the RTWPB’s letter-opinion that was submitted after the initially extended deadline.

Disregarding petitioner's contention that the CBA mandated an unconditional, across-the-board increase upon the issuance of a wage order.
Failing to give due weight to established jurisprudence on statutory construction regarding government-decreed wage increases.

Whether respondent, by refusing to grant an additional increase, violated its contractual obligation under the CBA in respect to the implementation of Wage Order No. ROVII-06.