laborrev bpi union - eastern union case

7/25/2019 LaborRev BPI UNION - Eastern Union Case

1/23

THIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 175678, August 22, 2012BANK OF THE PHIIPPINE ISANDS, PETITIONER, VS. BANK OF THE PHIIPPINE ISANDSE!PO"EES #NION$ !ETRO !ANIA, 22 A#G#ST 2012 RESPONDENT.

D E % I S I O NPERATA, &.'

For resolution of this Court is the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, datedJanuary 20, 2007, of petitioner Bank of the Philippine slands !BP" whi#h seeks to reverse and set aside theCourt of $ppeals% !C$" &e#ision'() and Resolution,'2) dated June *, 200+ and ove-.er 2/, 200+respe#tively, in C$1R 3P o **7

he ante#edent fa#ts follow

Respondent Bank of the Philippine slands 6-ployees nion8etro 8anila !BP688", a le9iti-ate la.oror9ani:ation and the sole and e;#lusive .ar9ainin9 representative of all the re9ular rankand

( f the loan is a##epted for #overa9e .y the Eo-e nsuran#e and 1uaranty Corporation !E1C"2 he E1C pre-iu- shall .e paid .y the .orrower he .orrower pro#ures a 8ort9a9e Rede-ption nsuran#e #overa9e fro- an insuran#e #o-panysele#ted .y the B$H4 he B$H -ay in#rease the si; per#ent !+" interest if the E1C or the 1overn-ent i-poses new#onditions or restri#tions ne#essitatin9 a hi9her interest in order to -aintain the B$H%3 position .eforesu#h #onditions or restri#tions were i-posed5 3u#h other ter-s or #onditions i-posed or whi#h -ay .e i-posed .y the E1C+ t is distin#tly understood that the rate of interest shall auto-ati#ally revert to nine per#ent !/" perannu- upon #an#ellation of the E1C #overa9e for any #ause

he B$H shall -ake stron9 representations with the Ban9ko 3entral n9 Pilipinas for a se#ond up9radeandIor avail-ent under the Eousin9 oan Pro9ra-!#" Car oan he B$H shall su.-it a revised plan for the approval of the Ban9ko 3entral n9 Pilipinaswhi#h shall in#orporate a #ar loan pro9ra- in its e;istin9 Eousin9 oan Pro9ra- he said #ar loan shall .ea su.li-it under the pro9ra- su#h that any avail-ent thereof shall operate to de#rease the availa.lehousin9 loan li-it herefore, the #o-.ined a-ount of .oth housin9 and #ar loans that -ay .e availed ofshall not e;#eed FR E&R6& FFD E3$& P633 !P450,00000" his supple-ental revision ofthe loan pro9ra- shall .e su.Ae#t to the rules and re9ulations e9, a-ount of su.li-it, #redit ratio, typeand a9e of vehi#le, interest rate, et#" whi#h the B$H -ay pro-ul9ate, and to the ter-s of the approvalof the Ban9ko 3entral n9 Pilipinas

he -ultipurpose and housin9 loans stated in the ne;t pre#edin9 para9raphs, as well as the #ar loan


2/23

whi#h shall .e in#orporated in the housin9 loan pro9ra-, shall .e su.Ae#t further to the appli#a.leprovisions, 9uidelines and restri#tions set forth in the Central Bank Cir#ular o 5+(, as a-ended .yCentral Bank Cir#ular o +*/, and to the rules, re9ulations and poli#ies of the B$H on su#h loans insofaras they do not violate the provisions, 9uidelines and restri#tions set forth in said Central Bank Cir#ular o5+(, as a-ended

3e#tion (5 Emergency Loans. he B$H a9rees to in#rease the a-ount of e-er9en#y loans assistan#e,upon approval .y the Central Bank of the Philippines, fro- a -a;i-u- a-ount of en housand Pesos !P0,00000" to a -a;i-u- a-ount of Fifteen housand Pesos !P(5,00000" to @uali


3/23

a##ordan#e with law and Aurispruden#e'(0)

n its Reply'(()dated 3epte-.er 2(, 2007, petitioner reiterates the issues it presented in its petition t alsoar9ues that the present petition -ust not .e dis-issed .ased on -ere te#hni#ality3u.se@uently, the parties su.-itted their respe#tive -e-orandaPetitioner%s ar9u-ents are -ere rehash of those it raised in the C$ t insists that the rationale .ehind theuse of the Gno ne9ative data .ank poli#yG ai-s to en#oura9e e-ployees of a .ankin9 institution to e;er#isethe hi9hest standards of #ondu#t, #onsiderin9 the .ank%s


4/23

SO ORDERED.Velasco, Jr., (Cairperson!, "#ad, Mendo$a, andPerlas-%erna#e, JJ., #on#ur

PHI &O#RNAIST ) &O#RNAS E!PO"EE #NIONhe #overa9e of the ter- le9al dependent as used in a stipulation in a #olle#tive .ar9ainin9 a9ree-ent!CB$" 9rantin9 funeral or .ereave-ent .ene36R6, CJ, 6$R&&6 C$3R, B6R3$8, ?$R$8$, JR, and R6D63,JJPro-ul9ated>&e#ision 2 1R o (/2+0(a letter fro- respondent Fundador 3oriano, nternational 6dition -ana9in9 editor, re9ardin9 #o-plainantNsattendan#e re#ordL that #o-plainant su.-itted her reply to said -e-o on 02 June 200L that on 0+ June200, #o-plainant re#eived a -e-orandu- of repri-andL that on 04 July 200, #o-plainant re#eivedanother -e-o fro- 8r 3oriano, for not wearin9 her #o-pany &, whi#h she replied the ne;t day 05 July200L that on 04 $u9ust 200, #o-plainant a9ain re#eived a -e-o re9ardin9 #o-plainantNs tardinessLthat on 05 $u9ust 200, #o-plainant re#eived another -e-orandu- askin9 her to e;plain why she shouldnot .e a##used of fraud, whi#h she replied to on 07 $u9ust 200L and that on the sa-e day .etween >00to 4>00 P8, 8r 6rnesto O6ston9 3an $9ustin, a sta= of ER& handed her ter-ination paperCo-plainant added that in her thirteen !(" years with the #o-pany and after so -any #han9es in its-ana9e-ent and e;e#utives, she had never done anythin9 that will #ause the- to issue a -e-orandu-

a9ainst her or her work attitude, -ore so, reasons to ter-inate her servi#esL that she 9ot dis-issed.e#ause she was the nion President who was very a#tive in defendin9 and pursuin9 the ri9hts of herunion -e-.ers, and in


5/23

a9ain, in a -e-orandu-, dated 04 $u9ust 200, #o-plainant Pulido was re@uired to e;plain why nodis#iplinary a#tion should .e taken a9ainst her for ha.itual tardiness (* ti-es out of the 2

&e#ision 1R o (/2+0(reportin9 days durin9 the period fro- 27 June 27 July 200 and on 05 $u9ust 200, #o-plainant wasdire#ted to e;plain in writin9 why #o-plainant should not .e ad-inistratively san#tioned for #o--ittin9fraud or atte-ptin9 to #o--it fraud a9ainst respondents Respondents found #o-plainantNs e;planationsunsatisfa#tory n 07 $u9ust 200, respondents dis-issed #o-plainant Pulido for ha.itual tardiness, 9rossinsu.ordination, utter disrespe#t for superiors, and #o--ittin9 fraud or atte-ptin9 to #o--it fraud whi#h

led to the respondentsN loss of #on


6/23

Both parties -oved for re#onsideration, .ut the C$ denied theirrespe#tive -otions for re#onsideration on June 2, 20(0*

J6 and $lfante appealed to the Court !1R o (/247*" to #hallen9e the C$Ns dispositions re9ardin9 thele9ality of> !a" $lfanteNs dis-issalL !." the non#o-plian#e with 8ini-u- Ka9e rder o /L and !#" thenonpay-ent of the rest day/n $u9ust (*, 20(0, the Court denied due #ourse to the petition in 1R o (/247* for failure ofpetitioners to suM#iently show that the C$ had #o--itted any reversi.le error to warrant the CourtNse;er#ise of its dis#retionary appellate Aurisdi#tion(0

he Court denied with


7/23

# &eath of le9al dependent of a re9ular e-ployee P(5,000 !6-phasis supplied"Petitioner insists that notwithstandin9 the silen#e of the CB$, the ter- le9al dependent should follow thede !a" the le9al spouse entitled .y law to re#eive support fro- the -e-.erL !." thele9iti-ate, le9iti-ated, or le9ally adopted, and ille9iti-ate #hild who is un-arried, not 9ainfully e-ployedand has not rea#hed 2( of a9e, or, if over 2( years of a9e, is #on9enitally or while still a -inor has .eenper-anently in#apa#itated and in#apa.le of selfsupport, physi#ally or -entallyL and !#" the parent who isre#eivin9 re9ular support fro- the -e-.er 3e#ondly, 3e#tion 4!f" of R$ o 7*75, as a-ended .y R$o /24(,25 enu-erates who are the le9al dependents, to wit> !a" the le9iti-ate spouse who is not a-e-.erL !." the un-arried and une-ployed le9iti-ate, le9iti-ated, ille9iti-ate, a#knowled9ed #hildrenas appearin9 in the .irth #erti


8/23

with other -en, was not dependent on her hus.and for support,


9/23

death of their le9al dependents has undou.tedly ripened into a #o-pany poli#y Kith that, the denial of$lfante%s @uali


10/23

of the nionNs #lai-s .e#ause> !(" they were e;e-pted fro- the servi#e #har9e .ein9 revenuesfro- Ospe#ial pro-otions !revenue fro- the Kestin 1old Card sales" or One9otiated #ontra#ts!alle9ed revenue fro- the 8a;i8edia #ontra#t"L !2" the revenues did not .elon9 to the PPE .utto thirdparty suppliersL and !" no revenue was reali:ed fro- these transa#tions as they werea#tually e;penses in#urred for the .ene


11/23

sale of servi#es .y PPE for whi#h #olle#tion of the (0 servi#e #har9e was warranted

Lastly, the $ e@ually .rushed aside the nionNs #lai- of P de#larin9 that the PPE was wellwithin its le9al and #ontra#tual ri9ht to refuse pay-ent of servi#e #har9es for entries fro- whi#hit did not #olle#t any servi#e #har9e pursuant to the provision of their CB$

The NLRCs rulingn its de#ision(+of July 4, 2005, the RC reversed the $Ns de#ision and#onsidered the spe#i


12/23

Pro-otions entry should likewise had .een su.Ae#ted to the (0 servi#e #har9eL !+" the sale ofO1ift Certi


13/23

Bevera9e other Revenue entry refers to the PPENs transa#tions with e;ternal servi#e providersthe pay-ent for whose servi#es #ould not .e #onsidered as the PPENs revenue 0i3t, the saleper se of the O1ift Certi


14/23

that falls well within the CourtNs power in a Rule 45 petition

Resolution of this @uestion of law, however, is ine;tri#a.ly linked with the lar9ely fa#tual issue ofwhether the spe#i


15/23

#lear and leave no dou.t on the intention of the #ontra#tin9 parties, the literal -eanin9 of itsstipulations, as they appear on the fa#e of the #ontra#t, shall prevail0 nly when the wordsused are a-.i9uous and dou.tful or leadin9 to several interpretations of the partiesN a9ree-entthat a resort to interpretation and #onstru#tion is #alled for(

No ser!ice charges "ere due from the s(eci+edentries,transactions% they either fall "ithin theC*A'e-ce(ted Negotiated Contracts/ and0(ecial Rates/ or did not in!ol!e a saleof food) $e!erage) etc./

he nion an#hors its #lai- for servi#es #har9es on 3e#tions +* and +/ of the CB$, in relationwith $rti#le /+ of the a.or Code 3e#tion +* states that the sale of food, .evera9e,transportation, laundry and roo-s are su.Ae#t to servi#e #har9e at the rate of ten per#ent !(0"6;#epted fro- the #overa9e of the (0 servi#e #har9e are the so#alled One9otiated #ontra#tsand Ospe#ial rates

Followin9 the wordin9s of 3e#tion +* of the CB$, three re@uisites -ust .e present for theprovisions on servi#e #har9es to operate> !(" the transa#tion fro- whi#h servi#e #har9e is sou9htto .e #olle#ted is a s*4L !2" the sale transa#tion #overs oo, 4)4:g4, t:s9o:tt+o,*u: :oo=sand !" the sale does not :4su*t :o= 4got+t4 ot:ts o: ts94+* :t4s.

n plain ter-s, all transa#tions involvin9 a Osale of food, .evera9e, transportation, laundry androo-s are 9enerally #overed 6;#epted fro- the #overa9e are, rst, nonsale transa#tions ortransa#tions that do not involve any sale even thou9h they involve Ofood, .evera9e, et#Second, transa#tions that involve a sale .ut do not involve Ofood, .evera9e, et# $nd third,transa#tions involvin9 One9otiated #ontra#ts and Ospe#ial rates i.e, a Osale of food, .evera9e,et# resultin9 fro- One9otiated #ontra#ts or at Ospe#ial ratesL nonsale transa#tions involvin9Ofood, .evera9e, et# resultin9 fro- One9otiated #ontra#ts andIor Ospe#ial ratesL and saletransa#tions, .ut not involvin9 Ofood, .evera9e, et#, resultin9 fro- One9otiated #ontra#ts andOspe#ial rates

ota.ly, the CB$ does not spe#i


16/23

s(eci+ed entries,transactions

$rti#le /+ of the a.or Code provides for the -ini-u- per#enta9e distri.ution .etween thee-ployer and the e-ployees of the #olle#ted servi#e #har9es, and its inte9ration in the #overede-ployeesN wa9es in the event the e-ployer ter-inates its poli#y of providin9 for its #olle#tiont pertinently reads>$rt /+ 3ervi#e Char9es

; ; ; n #ase the servi#e #har9e is a.olished, the share of the #overed e-ployees shall .e#onsidered inte9rated in their wa9es his last para9raph of $rti#le /+ of the a.or Codepresu-es the pra#ti#e of #olle#tin9 servi#e #har9es and the e-ployerNs ter-ination of thispra#ti#e Khen this happens, $rti#le /+ re@uires the e-ployer to in#orporate the a-ount thatthe e-ployees had .een re#eivin9 as share of the #olle#ted servi#e #har9es into their wa9es n#ases where no servi#e #har9es had previously .een #olle#ted !as where the e-ployer never hadany poli#y providin9 for #olle#tion of servi#e #har9es or had never i-posed the #olle#tion ofservi#e #har9es on #ertain spe#i


17/23

eviden#e warranted, without dou.t, the denial of the nionNs a#tion

n su-, we 25p-GBest Kear denied havin9 ter-inated the e-ploy-ent of Respondents &e e-os et al whosupposedly #o--itted nu-erousa.sen#es without leave !$K" hey #lai-ed that so-eti-e inFe.ruary 2004, Respondents &e e-os infor-ed 3itosta that due to personal pro.le-, sheintends to resi9n fro- the #o-pany 3he then de-anded the pay-ent of separation pay n8ar#h2004, #u.illo likewise inti-ated her intention to resi9n and de-anded separation pay 3itostae;plained to .othRespondents &e e-os and #u.illo that the #o-pany had no e;istin9 poli#y on

9rantin9 separation pay, and hen#e he #ouldnot a#t on their re@uest Respondents &e e-osnever reported .a#k to work sin#e 8ar#h 2004, while #u.illo failed to report for work fro-#to.er 2004 to the present$s to the alle9ation that the reason for their transfer was theirrefusal to render overti-e work until 7>00 p-, Best Kear asserted that Respondents &e e-oset al are pie#erate workers and hen#e they are not paid a##ordin9 to the nu-.erof hoursworkedhe a.or $r.iter ruled in favor of Respondents &e e-os et al, holdin9 that they wereille9ally dis-issed and9rantin9 the- separation pay and .a#kwa9eshe RC reversed thede#ision, holdin9 that there was no #onstru#tive dis-issal and that the transfer of Respondents&e e-os et al was a valid e;er#ise of -ana9e-ent prero9ative t also ordered Respondents &ee-os et al toreport .a#k to work sin#e there was no dis-issalhe C$ reversed the de#ision ofRC, and reinstated the de#ision of the a.or $r.iter

ISS#E' Khether Respondents &e e-os, et al were #onstru#tively dis-issed .y petitioner

R#ING' 3C held that the C$ erred in reversin9 the RCNs rulin9 that respondents were not#onstru#tively dis-issedRespondents &e e-os et al were not dis-issed

he ri9ht of e-ployees to se#urity of tenure does not 9ive the- vested ri9hts to their positions tothe e;tent of deprivin9 -ana9e-ent of its prero9ative to #han9e their assi9n-ents or to transferthe- hus, it has .een held that thee-ployer -ust .e a.le to show that the transfer is notunreasona.le, in#onvenient or preAudi#ial to the e-ployeeL nor does it involve a de-otion in rankor a di-inution of his salaries, privile9es and other .ene


18/23

@uittin9 .e#ause #ontinued e-ploy-ent is rendered i-possi.le, unreasona.le or unlikelyL as ano=er involvin9 a de-otion inrank and di-inution in pay ikewise, #onstru#tive dis-issal e;istswhen an a#t of #lear dis#ri-ination, insensi.ility or disdain.y an e-ployer has .e#o-e soun.eara.le to the e-ployee leavin9 hi- with no option .ut to fore9o with his#ontinuede-ploy-entBein9 pie#e rate workers assi9ned to individual sewin9 -a#hines,respondentsN earnin9s depended on the @uality and @uantity of


19/23

Des he alle9ed protest rallies in front of the oM#es of BR and &6 3e#retary and at the oyota plants#onstituted ille9al strikes 6ven if the nion #lai-s that the said a#ts were not strikes, there was a la#k ofper-it fro- the City of 8anila to hold Orallies, nor were there any

n 25 January 2005, 8oya


20/23

+ &espite his e;planation of what transpired, he was ter-inated .y the #o-pany throu9h a letter datedove-.er /, 2004

Fro- the fore9oin9, he prayed that pay-ent of .a#kwa9es, separation pay, -oral da-a9es and e;e-plaryda-a9es .e adAud9ed in his favor due to the ille9al dis-issal he su=ered fro- the #o-pany

8oya, throu9h his Reply,5 added that his ter-ination fell short of any of the Aust #auses of serious-is#ondu#t, 9ross and ha.itual ne9le#t of duties and willful .rea#h of trust Ee pointed out that the#o-pany failed to prove that his a#t fell within the purview of i-proper or wron9 -is#ondu#t, and that asin9le a#t of ne9li9en#e as #o-pared to eleven !((" years of servi#e of 9ood re#ord with the #o-pany willnot Austify his dis-issal

First 3olid, in its Position Paper,+ Reply7 and 8e-orandu-,* ad-itted that 8oya was a for-er e-ployee ofthe #o-pany and was holdin9 the position of M#erinChar9e of the ire Curin9 &epart-ent until his validdis-issal Eowever, it denied that it ille9ally dis-issed 8oya and -aintained that his severan#e fro- the#o-pany was due to a valid e;er#ise of -ana9e-ent prero9ative/ he #o-pany insisted on its ri9ht tovalidly dis-iss an e-ployee in 9ood faith if it has a reasona.le 9round to .elieve that its e-ployee isresponsi.le of -is#ondu#t, and the nature of his parti#ipation therein renders hi- a.solutely unworthy ofthe trust and #on


21/23

n Austifyin9 his de#ision, the a.or $r.iter e;plained that the len9th of ti-e durin9 whi#h the #o-plainantwas deprived of e-ploy-ent was suM#ient penalty for the a#t he had #o--itted a9ainst the #o-pany $sa result, his reinstate-ent without .a#kwa9es to his for-er position was in order Eowever, sin#e thee-ploy-ent was already strained and 8oya was no lon9er seekin9 to .e reinstated, he de#ided that it wasfor the .est interest of .oth parties to award instead a separation pay of one !(" -onth salary for everyyear of #redited servi#e less the total of #ash advan#es of the #o-plainant a-ountin9 to P(/,0000020

ot in total a##ord with the out#o-e of the de#ision, First 3olid


22/23

its -istake n su-, the appellate #ourt a9reed that First 3olid presented su.stantial proof to #onsider 8oyaas dishonest and disloyal to the #o-pany

t took the position that instead of .ein9 a .asis for the award of separation pay, 8oyaNs len9th of servi#eshould have .een taken a9ainst hi- he reason for his dis-issal was his la#k of inte9rity and loyalty tothe #o-pany reTe#tin9 upon his -oral #hara#ter

he appellate #ourt e-phasi:ed that while the law is #onsiderate to the welfare of the e-ployeeswhenever there is a la.or #onTi#t, it also prote#ts the ri9ht of an e-ployer to e;er#ise its -ana9e-entprero9ative in 9ood faith

he CourtNs Rulin9

hat there is a valid 9round for the dis-issal of 8oya .ased on .rea#h and loss of trust and #on


23/23

Eowever, this Court also provides e;#eptions to the rule .ased on Gso#ial Austi#eG or on [email protected] 9roundsGfollowin9 the rulin9 in Philippine on9 &istan#e elephone Co v RC,42 statin9 that separation pay shal.e allowed as a -easure of so#ial Austi#e only in those instan#es where the e-ployee is validly dis-issedfor #auses other than serious -is#ondu#t or those reTe#tin9 on his -oral #hara#ter Khere the reason forthe valid dis-issal is, for e;a-ple, ha.itual into;i#ation or an o=ense involvin9 -oral turpitude, like theftor illi#it se;ual relations with a fellow worker, the e-ployer -ay not .e re@uired to 9ive the dis-issede-ployee separation pay, or

laborrev bpi union - eastern union case

Documents