Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28398)
Facts:
PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, G.R. No. 171231, February 17, 2010, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the union PSTMSDWO, represented by its president Rene Soriano; respondent is PNCC Skyway Corporation.On November 15, 2002 the parties executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that, among other things, governed vacation leave and security license requirements. Relevant CBA provisions included Article VIII, Section 1(b) providing that “The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the request of preference of the employees,” and Article XXI, Section 6 stating that expenses for securing/renewing security guard licenses “shall be for their personal account,” and that guards must apply for leave to renew licenses.
On December 29, 2003 and January 9, 2004 respondent published memoranda scheduling the 2004 vacation leave for Traffic Management and Security Department personnel and setting rules for swapping or rescheduling. Petitioner objected, claiming individual union members had the right to schedule their vacation leave and asserting respondent scheduled vacations unilaterally to avoid year-end monetization; petitioner also demanded that respondent shoulder expenses for in-service training required to renew security licenses. The parties attempted DOLE-NCMB preventive mediation but failed and agreed to voluntary arbitration.
The voluntary arbitrator issued a Decision dated July 12, 2004 holding that (a) scheduling of vacation leave shall be under the discretion of the union members and management must convert to cash all leaves it compelled them to use, and (b) respondent must pay in-service training expenses for license renewal. The arbitrator denied reconsideration in an August 11, 2004 Order.
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction in the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 22, 2004. The CA rendered a Decision dated October 4, 2005 annulling and setting aside the voluntary arbitrator’s Decision and Order on the ground that the CBA’s language was clear and that the voluntary arbitrator exceeded authority in reinterpreting it. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated January 23, 2006.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court on February 27, 2006 challenging (a) the CA’s holding that management has sole discretion to schedule vacation leave and is not liable for in-service training, and (b) the CA’s oversight of the conversion aspect of unused leave. Respondent raised a ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Rule 45 petition fatally defective for lack of authority by union president Rene Soriano to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping?
- Did the voluntary arbitrator err in ruling that union members had the unilateral discretion to schedule their vacation leave and in directing conversion to cash of leaves the management compelled them to use?
- Must respondent PNCC Skyway Corporation shoulder the expenses for in-service training required for security license renewal despite the C...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)