Case Digest (G.R. No. 166647)
Facts:
Pag-Asa Steel Works, Inc. v. Pag-Asa Steel Workers Union, G.R. No. 166647, March 31, 2006, First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Pag-Asa Steel Works, Inc. (petitioner) is a steel manufacturer and Pag-Asa Steel Workers Union (respondent/Union) is its certified bargaining agent. On January 8, 1998 the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (NCR) issued Wage Order No. NCR-06 (P13/day increase to P198/day), and the parties negotiated how to implement the adjustment. On September 23, 1999 the parties executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective July 1, 1999 to July 1, 2004 providing across-the-board annual increases (P15 on July 1, 1999; P25 on July 1, 2000; P30 on July 1, 2001) and stating that "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted to above," with a special alternative schedule if no wage order was issued within six months. The CBA also referenced reopening under Republic Act No. 6715.
Following issuance of Wage Order No. NCR-07 (Oct. 14, 1999; P25.50/day to P223.50) petitioner implemented that increase for its rank-and-file. On July 1, 2000 petitioner likewise implemented the CBA second-year increase. When Wage Order No. NCR-08 took effect on November 1, 2000 (P26.50/day increase for private-sector workers in NCR receiving the prescribed minimum of P223.50, raising the minimum to P250.00), the Union asked petitioner to implement the P26.50 increase across-the-board; petitioner refused, asserting none of its employees were entitled because their wages already exceeded P250.00 and there was no wage distortion.
The Union brought the dispute to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and the parties agreed to voluntary arbitration; the Submission Agreement limited the issue to whether petitioner was obliged to grant the wage increase under Wage Order No. NCR-08 “as a matter of practice,” and that the voluntary arbitrator’s (VA) award would be final and binding. The VA dismissed the Union’s complaint and ruled for petitioner on June 6, 2001, finding no company practice or contractual obligation to grant NCR‑08 across‑the‑board.
The Union petitioned the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. On September 23, 2004 the CA reversed the VA and ordered petitioner to pay the P26.50 daily increase to union members, reasoning that the CBA plainly intended wage orders to be “in addition” to CBA increases and that pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Union raise the alleged ambiguity of the CBA on appeal when the Submission Agreement to voluntary arbitration limited the issue to whether petitioner was obliged to grant the wage increase as a matter of practice?
- Did the CBA obligate petitioner to implement Wage Order No. NCR‑08 across‑the‑board regardless of whether employees were already receiving wages above the minimum?
- Did a company practice exist that entitled Union members to the wage‑order increase as a matter of r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)