Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 294 views

    Manila Electric Company Vs Quisumbing 1999

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    This case involves a dispute between Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and its employees union MEWA over renewing their collective bargaining agreement. MEWA demanded higher wages and other benefits, but negotiations failed. The Secretary of Labor intervened and issued an order incorporating higher wages and certain union demands. MERALCO appealed, arguing the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion that would imperil its financial viability as a public utility. The Supreme Court ruled the Secretary disregarded evidence and acted arbitrarily in considering legal points. While affordability is a factor, it cannot be the sole consideration for wage increases, especially for a public utility. The decision maker must consider the public interest and how higher costs may impact consumer rates.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Electric Company Vs Quisumbing 1999

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    294 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute between Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and its employees union MEWA over renewing their collective bargaining agreement. MEWA demanded higher wages and other benefits, but negotiations failed. The Secretary of Labor intervened and issued an order incorporating higher wages and certain union demands. MERALCO appealed, arguing the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion that would imperil its financial viability as a public utility. The Supreme Court ruled the Secretary disregarded evidence and acted arbitrarily in considering legal points. While affordability is a factor, it cannot be the sole consideration for wage increases, especially for a public utility. The decision maker must consider the public interest and how higher costs may impact consumer rates.

    Original Description:

    Labor

    Original Title

    Manila Electric Company vs Quisumbing 1999

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and its employees union MEWA over renewing their collective bargaining agreement. MEWA demanded higher wages and other benefits, but negotiations failed. The Secretary of Labor intervened and issued an order incorporating higher wages and certain union demands. MERALCO appealed, arguing the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion that would imperil its financial viability as a public utility. The Supreme Court ruled the Secretary disregarded evidence and acted arbitrarily in considering legal points. While affordability is a factor, it cannot be the sole consideration for wage increases, especially for a public utility. The decision maker must consider the public interest and how higher costs may impact consumer rates.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    294 views1 page

    Manila Electric Company Vs Quisumbing 1999

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
    This case involves a dispute between Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and its employees union MEWA over renewing their collective bargaining agreement. MEWA demanded higher wages and other benefits, but negotiations failed. The Secretary of Labor intervened and issued an order incorporating higher wages and certain union demands. MERALCO appealed, arguing the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion that would imperil its financial viability as a public utility. The Supreme Court ruled the Secretary disregarded evidence and acted arbitrarily in considering legal points. While affordability is a factor, it cannot be the sole consideration for wage increases, especially for a public utility. The decision maker must consider the public interest and how higher costs may impact consumer rates.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Manila Electric Company vs.

    Quisumbing
    GR No. 127598

    Plaintiff: Manila Electric Company


    Defendant: Hon. SOLE Quisumbing and Meralco Employees and Workers Association (MEWA)
    Date: January 27, 1999
    Ponente: Martinez
    Topic: CBA

    Facts:

     This is a case where in MERALCO sought ot annul the order of Secretary Quisumbing wherein petitioner is
    required and its’s Rank and File (RnF) union – MEWA to execute a CBA for the remainder of the parties
    1992-1997 CBA cycle, and to incorporate in this new CBA the Secretary’s dispositions on the disputed
    economic and non-economic issues.
     MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to re-negotiate the terms of the 1992-97 CBA covering the
    remaining period of 2 years. MERALCO was willing and entered to negotiations, however, both parties failed
    arrive in terms acceptable to both parties. MERALCO petitioned with DOLE praying that the Secretary
    assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and to enjoin the striking employees to go back to work.
     Secretary granted the petition where the cause of his decision is pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor
    Code and deputizing USEC. Espanol, Jr. to conduct conciliation conferences between the parties.
    o Thereafter, both parties submitted their memoranda in which Economic Demands (such as wages,
    Red Circle Rate (RCR) Allowances etc. were generally granted except for resignation benefits,
    night work) and Political Demands (such as scope of the collective bargaining unit, union
    recognition and security, transfer of assignment and job security) were granted.
     MERALCO filed MR alleging that the Sec. of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
    or excess of jurisdiction in: (1) awarding MEWA P1.142B that would imperil MERALCO’s viability as a public
    utility; (2) granting wage increase; (3) incorporation into the CBA of all existing employee benefits; (4)
    granting certain political demands presented by the union; and (5) in ordering the CBA to be effect of Dec
    1995 instead of Aug 19, 1996 when he resolved the dispute.
    Issue: W/N there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor.

    Ruling: The Secretary of Labor disregarded and misappreciated evidence, particularly with respect to the wage
    award. The Secretary apparently also acted arbitrarily and even whimsically in considering several legal points; even
    the Solicitor General himself considered that the Secretary gravely abused his discretion on at least three major
    points: (a) on the signing bonus issue; (b) on the inclusion of confidential employees in the rank and file bargaining
    unit, and (c) in mandating a union security closed-shop regime in the bargaining unit.
    Doctrine: While We do not seek to enumerate in this decision the factors that should affect wage determination, we
    must emphasize that a collective bargaining dispute such as this one requires consideration and proper balancing
    of the interests of the parties to the dispute and of those who might be affected by the dispute. To our mind,
    the best way in approaching this task holistically is to consider the available objective facts, including, where
    applicable, factors such as the bargaining history of the company, the trends and amounts of arbitrated and agreed
    wage awards and the companies previous CBAs, and industry trends in general. As a rule, affordability, or capacity to
    pay should be considered but cannot be the sole yardstick in determining the wage award, especially in a public utility
    like MERALCO. In considering a public utility, the decision maker must always consider the public interest aspects of
    the case; MERALCOs income and the amount of money available for operating expenses - including labor costs - are
    subject to State regulation. We must also keep in mind that high operating costs will certainly and eventually be
    passed on to the consuming public as MERALCO has bluntly warned in its pleadings.

    You might also like