Title
Manila Central Line Corp. vs. Manila Central Line Free Workers Union-NFL
Case
G.R. No. 109383
Decision Date
Jun 15, 1998
CBA deadlock between Manila Central Line Corp. and union led to compulsory arbitration; SC upheld labor arbiter's retroactive CBA terms, signing bonus, and jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188066)

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to contest the resolution dated October 10, 1991, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the subsequent resolution on March 11, 1993, which denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The case originated from NLRC NCR Case No. 000977-90 initiated by the union on February 9, 1990, due to the impasse in collective bargaining, leading to compulsory arbitration.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On September 28, 1990, after hearings and deliberations, the labor arbiter issued a decision directing the parties to formalize a new five-year CBA retroactive to the expiration of the old CBA. The labor arbiter’s decision included provisions increasing commission rates, salaries, and wages, as well as the awarding of a signing bonus. This decision was contested by the petitioner, leading to its appeal before the NLRC.

Issues Presented

The petitioner raised multiple issues on appeal: the NLRC's alleged error in affirming the labor arbiter’s decision concerning salary increases, the grant of a signing bonus, the retroactivity of the new CBA to the old CBA's expiration, and questioning the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter, among others.

Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Despite initially consenting to the arbitration process, the petitioner later contested the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. The Supreme Court ruled that by agreeing to submit the matter for arbitration, the arbitration was effectively voluntary, despite initial framing as compulsory arbitration. The new provisions of the Labor Code, per R.A. No. 6715, emphasized voluntary arbitration when parties reach a stalemate in negotiations.

Factual Findings

The Court affirmed the labor arbiter's and NLRC's factual findings, emphasizing the substantial evidence standard required in administrative proceedings. The argument by the petitioner that the NLRC failed to adequately consider evidence presented was rejected. The arbitral findings concerning the financial stability of the company and the reasonableness of wage increases suggested adequate assessment of the economic positions of both parties.

Retroactivity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The petitioner claimed that the new CBA could not retroactively apply to March 15, 1989, due to provisions outlined in Article 253-A of the Labor Code regarding post-expiration agreements. The Court clarified that the CBA in question emerged as part of an arbitral award rather than a mutual agreement, thus permitting retroactive effect as stipu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.