Case Digest (G.R. No. 162324)
Facts:
RFM Corporation‑Flour Division and SFI Feeds Division v. Kasapian ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa‑RFM (KAMPI‑NAFLU‑KMU) and Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa‑SFI (SUMAPI‑NAFLU‑KMU), G.R. No. 162324, February 04, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner RFM Corporation (Flour Division and SFI Feeds Division) and respondents the union KAMPI‑NAFLU‑KMU (for the Flour Division) and SUMAPI‑NAFLU‑KMU (for the Feeds Division) executed collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Each CBA contained a substantially identical Section 3, Article XVI providing that the company "agrees to make payment to all daily paid employees, in respect of any of the days enumerated hereunto if declared as special holidays by the national government" and listing December 31 among such special holidays; the provision specified that "The compensation rate shall be the regular rate."
When December 31, 2000 fell on a Sunday and was declared a special holiday by the national government, respondents claimed pay for their daily‑paid members under the CBA. Petitioner refused, contending December 31, 2000 was a rest day and not compensable. The parties submitted the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
Voluntary Arbitrator Bernardino M. Volante, by Decision dated October 11, 2001, found the CBA provision clear and ordered payment for December 31, 2000 and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the VA was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed by Decision dated October 30, 2003, rejecting petitioner’s reliance on Kimberly‑Clark Philippines v. Lorredo and upholding the award of attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied, and the present petition to the Supreme Court was thereafter filed.
Petitioner argued below that the CBA clause was meant only to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the CBA provision require petitioner to pay daily‑paid employees their regular rate for a special holiday (December 31, 2000) that fell on a rest day?
- Are respondents entitled to attorney’s fees as awarded by the arbitrator and affirmed by the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)