Case Digest (G.R. No. 161933)
Facts:
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU‑NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank and Annemarie Durbin, G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner SCBEU‑NUBE and respondent Standard Chartered Bank negotiated a successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in May 2000 after the 1998–2000 CBA expired. Negotiations reached a deadlock and petitioner filed a Notice of Strike, prompting the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and conciliation proceedings.
On May 31, 2001, Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas issued an Order directing the Bank and the Union to execute a CBA effective April 1, 2001 to March 30, 2003, dismissing petitioner’s unfair labor practice charges for bargaining in bad faith and damages for lack of merit, and dismissing the charge of unfair labor practice for gross violation of the economic provisions of the CBA for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner and the Bank filed motions for reconsideration, which the Secretary denied on August 30, 2001.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to assail the Secretary’s Orders. In its Decision dated October 9, 2002 and Resolution dated January 26, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the Secretary’s disposition. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s affirmation on two principal substantive points concerning: (1) the scope of enumerated exclusions from the appropriate bargaining unit under the CBA (managerial and confidential employees), and (2) the entitlement to additional remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for periods of one month or less.
Although the parties...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the case moot, and if so, does the exception "capable of repetition yet evading review" permit judicial resolution?
- Was the CA correct in upholding the Secretary’s refusal to revise the list of employees excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit (i.e., are the Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, Telex personnel and one HR staff confidential or managerial employees)?
- Was the CA correct in upholding the Secretary’s decision that additional remuneration for employees placed in an acti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)