G.R. No. 103090 - Kimberly Clark Philippines vs. Lorredo

The petition is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging a Voluntary Arbitrator's decision.
The decision in question is deemed final and unappealable, which is a standard rule in such cases.
The petitioner, Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KCPI), seeks to annul the resolutions issued by Voluntary Arbitrator Danilo Lorredo regarding the employment of a nephew of a retired employee.

The relevant provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) states that the company agrees to employ an immediate family member of an employee upon the employee's resignation, retirement, disability, or death.
The definition of "immediate member of the family" includes legitimate children and, in their absence, collateral relatives within the third civil degree.
The provision also stipulates that the recommendee must be qualified and will be hired on a probationary status.

Danilo L. Guerrero, an employee of KCPI, resigned after over thirteen years of service.
Guerrero recommended his nephew for employment as his replacement, citing the CBA provisions.
KCPI denied the recommendation, arguing that Guerrero had legitimate children, thus disqualifying the nephew from consideration.

After failing to resolve the dispute through the grievance machinery, the parties submitted the matter to voluntary arbitration.
Arbitrator Danilo Lorredo was assigned to interpret the CBA provision in question.
Following hearings and the submission of various documents, the arbitrator issued a resolution favoring the Union's interpretation of the CBA.

The arbitrator emphasized that the core issue was the implementation of the CBA provision in the spirit of the agreement.
He noted that the company had previously hired relatives of retired employees under similar circumstances, which established a precedent.
The arbitrator found no legal or moral grounds for treating Guerrero's nephew differently and ordered KCPI to employ him as a replacement.

KCPI contended that Guerrero's legitimate children precluded the hiring of his nephew under the CBA.
The private respondent argued that since Guerrero's children were minors, he could validly recommend his nephew for employment.
The court recognized that a collective bargaining agreement is akin to a contract and must be interpreted in good faith, with the intention of the parties being paramount.

The court analyzed the language of the CBA, particularly the phrase "in default thereof," concluding that it does not preclude the employee from recommending a collateral relative if they have legitimate children.
The interp...continue reading