Pesala Vs NLRC
Pesala Vs NLRC
Pesala Vs NLRC
L-30279
BARREDO, J.:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Q.
Do we understand from you, Mister Yuson, that it
was because of the management asking you for
authorities in allowing the integration of the cost of living
allowance with your basic salary and your failure to
produce at the time such authorities that the union then
did not bring any case to the Court?
A.
Well, in the first place, it is not really my Idea to
be bringing matters to the Court during my time but I
would much prefer that we agree on the issue. Well,
insofar as you said that the management was asking me,
welt I would say that they were invoking (on) authorities
that we can show in order to become as a basis for
granting or for agreeing with us although we were aware
of the existence of a pending case which is very closely
similar to our demand, yet we decided to wait until this
case should be decided by the Court so that we can avail
of the decision to present to management as what they
are asking for. (t.s.n., pp. 31-32, 35-36, Aug. 28,1965.)
Now, to complete proper understanding of the character
of the controversy before Us, and lest it be felt by those
concerned that We have overlooked a point precisely
related to the matter touched in the above immediately
preceding paragraph, it should be relevant to quote a
portion of the "Stipulation of Facts" of the parties hereto:
1.
This particular demand was among those
submitted by Petitioner-Union in the current collective
bargaining negotiations to the Respondent Bank.
However, since this case was already filed in court on May
22, 1965, the parties agreed not to include this particular
demand in the discussion, leaving the matter to the
discretion and final judicial determination of the courts of
justice." (Page 81, Rec.)
In fine, what the parties commonly desire is for this Court
to construe CA 444 in the light of NAWASA, considering
the fact- situation of the instant case.
In this respect, it is Our considered opinion, after mature
deliberation, that notwithstanding the portions of the
NAWASA's opinion relied upon by PEMA, there is nothing in
CA 444 that could justify its posture that cost-of-living