Case Digest (G.R. No. 80593)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. Teresita Cruz, Jose Agripino, Bernardo Bauzon, Lucrecia Bilbao, Ma. Luisa Cabrera, Francis Baaclo, Guadalupe Camacho, Luz De Leon, Mike Villaverde, Nepomuceno Medina, Edgardo Mendoza, Jennifer Velez, Amelia Medina, Eduardo Espejo and Ricardo Batto, G.R. No. 80593, December 18, 1989, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.In about 1980 Aggregate Mining Exponents (AMEX) laid off roughly 70% of its workforce because of business reverses; the remaining employees (about 30%) were not paid their wages. Nonpayment continued until July 1982 when AMEX ceased operations and entered an operating agreement with T.M. San Andres Development Corporation, under which the latter would lease AMEX’s equipment and machinery. Many employees pursued labor claims for unpaid wages and separation (termination) pay.
The unpaid employees filed charges before Labor Arbiter Raymundo R. Valenzuela. On August 27, 1986 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the workers’ claims valid and awarding unpaid wages and separation pay in specified amounts against AMEX and its president; the decision further directed arrangements among AMEX, T.M. San Andres, and Philippine National Bank (PNB) — a mortgagee-creditor of AMEX — for satisfaction of the awards, stating that if AMEX could not pay, the awards could be satisfied from proceeds or fruits of its machinery and equipment operated by T.M. San Andres or through lease from PNB.
AMEX and its president did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision. PNB, however, appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), principally contending that the workers’ lien covered unpaid wages but not termination/separation pay and challenging the asserted priority vis‑à‑vis mortgage creditors and other claims. In a resolution dated October 27, 1987, the NLRC (Commissioner Oscar N. Abella, concurred in by Commissioners Daniel M. Lucas, Jr. and Domingo Zapanta) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s award.
PNB then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 80593), challenging the NLRC’s affirmation. PNB argued (1) that Article 110 of the Labor Code must be read in relation to Articles 2241–2245 of the Civil Code regarding classification and preference of credits, and (2) that Article 110 does not create a lien on employer property and, in any event, the workers’ lien should excl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Is petitioner PNB barred from contesting the Labor Arbiter’s award insofar as it failed to appeal that award?
- Substantive: Does Article 110 of the Labor Code (RA 6715) give workers preference over other creditors (including mortgagees and the Government) with respect to unpaid wages and other monetary claims, notwithstanding Articles 2241–2245 of the Civil Code?
- Substantive: Does the workers’ preference under Article 110 cover termination/separation pay (and other monetary claims) or is it limit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)