Case Digest (G.R. No. 190187) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union vs. Unocal Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 190187, decided on September 28, 2016 under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the petitioner Union represents rank-and-file employees of Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now Chevron Geothermal Philippines Holdings, Inc.), a wholly owned subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California. On April 4, 2005, Unocal Corporation executed a merger agreement with Chevron Texaco Corporation and its subsidiary, Blue Merger Sub, Inc. After the merger, Blue Merger Sub, Inc. (the surviving corporation) assumed the name Unocal Corporation. The Union claimed that this merger impliedly terminated its members’ employment and wrote Unocal Philippines on October 20, 2006 seeking separation pay under their January 31, 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Unocal Philippines refused, asserting no closure, cessation of operations, nor termination occurred. The Union filed for voluntary arbitration before the Departme Case Digest (G.R. No. 190187) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and corporate structure
- Petitioner Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union is the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Unocal Philippines, Inc.
- Respondent Unocal Philippines, Inc. (formerly Philippine Geothermal, Inc.) is a wholly-owned Philippine subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California, which in turn is a subsidiary of Union Oil Corporation; it operates geothermal steam fields in Tiwi, Albay and Makiling-Banahaw, Laguna under lease from the National Power Corporation.
- Merger transaction and labor dispute
- On April 4, 2005, Unocal Corporation executed a Merger Agreement with Chevron Texaco Corporation and its subsidiary Blue Merger Sub, Inc.; Blue Merger survived and was renamed Unocal Corporation, making Chevron the ultimate parent.
- On January 31, 2006, Unocal Philippines and the Union executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). On October 20, 2006, the Union demanded separation benefits under the CBA, claiming that the parent-company merger impliedly terminated its members’ employment; Unocal Philippines refused.
- Procedural history
- The parties submitted to DOLE voluntary arbitration. On January 15, 2008, the Secretary of Labor ruled that the merger impliedly terminated the employees and awarded separation pay under the CBA.
- Unocal Philippines appealed to the Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2009, the CA reversed the Secretary of Labor’s decision, holding that Unocal Philippines was not dissolved and its employees were unaffected. The CA denied the Union’s motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2009. The Union then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether respondent changed the theory of its case on appeal by first claiming it was not a party to the Merger Agreement.
- Whether the Merger Agreement of Unocal Corporation, Blue Merger, and Chevron impliedly terminated the employment of the Union’s members.
- Whether the Union’s members are entitled to separation benefits under the CBA as a result of the merger.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)