Case Summary (G.R. No. 145848)
Factual Background
In September 1997, following the retirement of a shift warehouseman, Romeo Ardas, Geminiano Hortel, DASUCECO's product warehouseman, recommended Rosendo Eborda for the vacant position through a letter addressed to personnel manager Cesar de Ramos. This recommendation, supported by the approval of Rolando Cantila, identified Eborda as a qualified candidate due to his experience as a Sugar Checker. However, the personnel officer did not act on this recommendation.
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Provisions
The dispute is guided by the provisions of Article III, Section 4 of the CBA between DASUCECO and NAMADA-NFL, which emphasizes that preference in filling vacancies must be given to employees who possess the qualifications determined by the company, and that seniority should be considered when employees are equally qualified. This clause is central to the arguments made by the petitioners regarding Eborda's qualifications.
Subsequent Events and Grievance Procedures
In 1998, a second vacancy arose for a shift warehouseman position. DASUCECO promoted Wilfredo Vilbar instead of Eborda, who subsequently protested through the grievance procedure enshrined in the CBA due to a claimed violation of the provisions concerning employee qualifications. After an unsatisfactory response from management, Eborda and the union filed a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, which led to the involvement of Voluntary Arbitrator Conrado Macasa, Sr.
Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision
The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of Eborda, finding that the letter of recommendation constituted a valid indication of his qualification for promotion. He ordered DASUCECO to promote Eborda and pay salary differentials. This decision was subsequently appealed by DASUCECO.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator, reasoning that the recommendation was not binding as it required final approval from the personnel officer. The court underscored that management prerogatives regarding personnel decisions, such as hiring and promotions, are protected under labor law, provided they are exercised in good faith and without arbitrary or malicious intent.
Legal Reasoning: Management Prerogatives
The appellate court highlighted several factors in DASUCECO's decision not to promote Eborda. They cited his medical history of acute anxiety disorder, which could impact his performance, and that he failed to possess the minimum educational requirements for the position, which specified at least a college level education. The court reaffirmed that the employer retains the right to assess qualifications based on established criteria.
Petitioners' Arguments
In their petition for review, the petitioners argued against the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the supervisory recommendation was ineffective, asserting that recommendations made by supervisory employees should carry significant weight in personnel decisions. They contended that past cases cited in the appellate ruling were not directly applicable to labor-related matters.
Respondents' Coun
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 145848)
Case Citation
- 530 Phil. 35
- G.R. No. 145848
- Date of Decision: August 09, 2006
Parties Involved
- Petitioners:
- NAGKAHIUSANG NAMUMUO SA DASUCECO-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NAMADA-NFL)
- Rosendo Eborda
- Respondents:
- Davao Sugar Central Co. Inc. (DASUCECO)
- Mr. Constancio B. Galinato, General Manager
Background of the Case
- In 1997, Romeo Ardas, a shift warehouseman at DASUCECO, retired, creating a vacancy.
- Geminiano Hortel, a product warehouseman at DASUCECO, recommended Rosendo Eborda for the vacant position through a letter dated September 10, 1997.
- The recommendation noted Eborda's qualifications based on his experience as a Sugar Checker in the Product Warehouse.
- The letter was approved by Rolando Cantila, an ICO Supervisor, but no action was taken by Personnel Officer Cesar de Ramos on the recommendation.
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Provisions
- Article III, Section 4 of the CBA states the following regarding filling vacancies:
- Preference should be given to employees who possess necessary qualifications.
- The company determines who is best suited for the position based on established criteria (ability, efficiency, qualifications, and experience).
- In cases of equal qualifications, seniority is the deciding factor.
Subsequent Events Leading to the Dispute
- In 1998, another vacancy arose for a shift warehouseman, and Wilfredo Vilbar was promoted to that position on January 4, 1998.
- Eborda, through the union, filed a grievance claiming DASUCECO violated the CBA by not promoting him.
- When the grievance was unresolved, a complaint was lodged with the National Conci