Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 737 views

    De Leon - NUWHRAIN v. Philippine Plaza Holdings Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Jea Belinda
    The union representing rank-and-file employees of Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint for non-payment of service charges that were collected but not distributed to employees as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required a 10% service charge on sales of food, beverages, transportation, laundry and rooms, except for revenues from negotiated contracts or special rates. The company denied owing most of the claimed unpaid charges, arguing they fell under exceptions. The court ruled in favor of the company, finding the disputed transactions either fell under the exceptions for negotiated contracts or special rates, or did not involve the required sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Leon - NUWHRAIN v. Philippine Plaza Holdings Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Jea Belinda
    737 views2 pages
    The union representing rank-and-file employees of Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint for non-payment of service charges that were collected but not distributed to employees as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required a 10% service charge on sales of food, beverages, transportation, laundry and rooms, except for revenues from negotiated contracts or special rates. The company denied owing most of the claimed unpaid charges, arguing they fell under exceptions. The court ruled in favor of the company, finding the disputed transactions either fell under the exceptions for negotiated contracts or special rates, or did not involve the required sales.

    Original Title

    de Leon_NUWHRAIN v. Philippine Plaza Holdings Inc.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The union representing rank-and-file employees of Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint for non-payment of service charges that were collected but not distributed to employees as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required a 10% service charge on sales of food, beverages, transportation, laundry and rooms, except for revenues from negotiated contracts or special rates. The company denied owing most of the claimed unpaid charges, arguing they fell under exceptions. The court ruled in favor of the company, finding the disputed transactions either fell under the exceptions for negotiated contracts or special rates, or did not involve the required sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    737 views2 pages

    De Leon - NUWHRAIN v. Philippine Plaza Holdings Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Jea Belinda
    The union representing rank-and-file employees of Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint for non-payment of service charges that were collected but not distributed to employees as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required a 10% service charge on sales of food, beverages, transportation, laundry and rooms, except for revenues from negotiated contracts or special rates. The company denied owing most of the claimed unpaid charges, arguing they fell under exceptions. The court ruled in favor of the company, finding the disputed transactions either fell under the exceptions for negotiated contracts or special rates, or did not involve the required sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LABOR CASES

    National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant G.R. No. 177524


    and Allied Industries (NUHRAIN-APL-IUF) v. Date: July 23, 2014
    Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. Ponente: Brion, J:

    DOCTRINE
    As provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreements of the parties, 3 requisites must be present for the
    provisions on service charges to operate: (1.) the transaction from which service charge is ought to be collected
    is a sale; (2.) the sale transaction covers food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms; and (3.) the sale does
    not result from negotiated contracts and/or at special rates.

    FACTS
    The Union is the collective bargaining of the rank-and-file employees of respondent PPHI. The PPHI and
    the Union22 executed the “Third Rank-and-File Collective Bargaining Agreement as Amended” (CBA. It
    provided among others for the collection of 10% service charge on the sale of good, beverage,
    transportation, laundry and rooms. The provisions merely reiterated similar provisions found in PHHI-
    Union’s earlier collective bargaining agreement executed.
    The Union’s Service Charge Committee informed the Union President of the uncollected service charges
    for the last quarter of 1998 amounting to P2,952,467.61. The PPHI admitted the liability of P80,063.88
    only. It denied the rest of union’s claims because (1) they were exempted from the service charge being
    revenues from “special promotions” or “negotiated contracts”; (2) the revenues did not belong to them but
    to third-party suppliers; and (3) no revenue was realized from these transactions as they were actually
    expenses incurred for the benefit of executives or by way of good-will to clients and government officials.
    The parties agreed to refer the matter to third party for solution. They considered voluntary arbitration or
    court action and promised to get back to each other on their chosen option. When the parties failed to reach
    an agreement, the Union, filed before the LA a complaint for non-payment of specified charges and unfair
    labor practice.
    ISSUE/S,
    I. Whether or not service charges should have been collected and distributed among the covered
    employees for the specified entries/transactions.
    RULING
    The court ruled in the NEGATIVE. No service charges were due from the specified entries/transactions;
    they either fall within the CBA-excepted “Negotiated Contracts” and “Special Rates” or did not involve “a
    sale of food, beverage, etc.”
    The Union anchors its claim for services charges on Sec. 68 and Sec. 69 of the CBA, in relation with Art.
    96 of the Labor Code. Section 68 states that the sale of food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms
    are subject to service charge at the rate of 10%. Excepted from the coverage of 10% service charge are the
    so- called “negotiated contracts” and “special rates.” It can be shown that 3 requisites must be present for
    the provisions on service charges to operate; (1.) the transaction from which service charge is ought to be
    collected is a sale; (2.) the sale transaction covers food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms; and
    (3.) the sale does not result from negotiated contracts and/or at special rates.
    Notably, the CBA does not specifically define the terms “negotiated contracts” and “special rates”.
    Nonetheless, the CBA likewise does not explicitly limit the use of thses terms to specified transactions.
    With particular reference to negotiated contracts”, the CBA does not confine its application to “airline
    contracts” as argued by the Union. Thus, as correctly declared by the CBA, the term “negotiated contracts”
    should be read as applying to all types of negotiated contracts and not to airline contracts only. This is in
    line of basic construction that when the terms are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
    contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail. The Union completely failed to
    provide support for its constricted reading of the term “negotiated contracts”, either from the wordings
    of CBA or from the evidence.
    Therefore, the court found the specified entries/transactions as either falling under the excepted negotitated
    contracts and/or special rates or not involving a sale of food, beverage, etc. Specifically, it considered the
    entries “Westin Gold Cards Revenue” and “Maxi Media Barter” to be negotiated negiotiated contracts or
    contracts under special rates.

    You might also like