Title
American Wire and Cable Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-53337
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1984
A union contested a company’s exemption from paying a P60.00 Emergency Allowance under P.D. 1123, claiming entitlement to both the allowance and a 10% wage increase under their CBA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, voiding the exemption rule and affirming entitlement to both benefits.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-53337)

Case Overview

This document pertains to a petition for certiorari by the American Wire & Cable Workers Union against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and American Wire & Cable Co., Inc. The petition seeks to annul the NLRC’s resolution which upheld a Labor Arbiter's decision exempting the company from the coverage of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1123.

Background Facts

  • A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was executed on June 2, 1976, retroactive to May 1, 1976, providing for a three-stage wage increase.
  • The CBA specified an across-the-board increase of:
    • 20% for the first year
    • 10% for the second year
    • 10% for the third year
  • On April 21, 1977, P.D. 1123 was enacted, mandating an additional P60.00 increase in Emergency Allowance effective May 1, 1977.
  • The company claimed exemption from this decree based on the implementing rules which included a provision (paragraph k) allowing exemptions for employers who had granted wage increases.

Legal Principles and Provisions

Exemption Under P.D. 1123

  • Legal Principle: Employers may be exempt from additional wage increases if they have already provided a wage increase of at least P60.00 on or after January 1, 1977.
  • Key Definition: Emergency Allowance - a mandated increase in wages to assist workers, particularly during economic distress.
  • Important Requirement: Employers who provided less than the mandated amount must pay the difference.
  • Timeframe: The provisions of P.D. 1123 took effect on May 1, 1977.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

  • Outcome: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the union's complaint, affirming the company's claimed exemption.
  • Consequences: The dismissal meant that the company was not required to pay the additional Emergency Allowance.

NLRC's Affirmation

  • Legal Principle: The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision, reinforcing the exemption based on the implementing rules.
  • Petitioner's Claims: The union argued that the NLRC acted beyond its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by failing to consider relevant opinions from the Department of Labor.

Court Ruling

  • Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, asserting that paragraph (k) of the implementing rules is void as it exceeds the authority granted to the Secretary of Labor.
  • Key Takeaways:
    • The inclusion of the exemption in the rules was found to contravene the statutory framework of P.D. 1123.
    • The decision emphasized that all doubts in labor law should favor employees.

Conclusion

  • Final Orders:
    • The NLRC’s decision was set aside.
    • The company is mandated to pay the 10% across-the-board increase plus the Emergency Cost of Living Allowance as required by P.D. 1123.
  • Costs: The costs were ordered against the private respondent.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of workers to receive mandated wage increases, reject
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.