CIRTEK

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

G.R. No. 190515.  June 6, 2011.*

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION


OF FREE WORKERS, petitioner, vs. CIRTEK
ELECTRONICS, INC., respondent.

Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Contracts; An


arbitral award can be considered as an approximation of a
collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been
entered into by the parties—hence, it has the force and effect of a
valid contract obligation between parties.—While an arbitral
award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily
entered into by the parties because it requires the interference
and imposing power of the State thru the Secretary of Labor when
he assumes jurisdiction, the award can be considered as an
approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which
would otherwise have been entered into by the parties.
Hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation
between the parties.
Same; Same; Evidence; In labor cases pending before the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing
in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure
and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in
labor cases.—The appellate court’s ruling that giving credence to
the “Pahayag” and the minutes of the meeting which were not
verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence is
erroneous. The parol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence,
should not be strictly applied in labor cases. Interphil
Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories,
Inc., 372 SCRA 658 (2001), teaches: [R]eliance on the parol
evidence rule is misplaced. In labor cases pending before the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling.
Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid
and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not
precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence other than,
and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

657

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 657

Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers vs.


Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

Same; Same; Intra-Union Disputes; Words and Phrases; An


intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among
union members, including grievances arising from any violation of
the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-
laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the
union.—At all events, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union
dispute which must be resolved in a different forum in an action
at the instance of either or both the FFW and the Union or a rival
labor organization, not the employer. An intra-union dispute
refers to any conflict between and among union members,
including grievances arising from any violation of the
rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the union’s
constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or disaffiliation of the union.
Same; Same; Same; A local union may disaffiliate at any time
from its mother federation, absent any showing that the same is
prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such, however, does not
result in it losing its legal personality altogether.—As respondent-
movant itself argues, a local union may disaffiliate at any
time from its mother federation, absent any showing that
the same is prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such,
however, does not result in it losing its legal personality
altogether. Verily, Anglo-KMU v. Samahan Ng Mga
Manggagawang Nagkakaisa Sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills At
J.P. Coats, 258 SCRA 371 (1996), enlightens: A local labor
union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to
secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the
employer and their employee-members. A local union does not
owe its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association
owing its creation to the will of its members. The mere act of
affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union. It only
gives rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in
representation of the latter.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the


Supreme Court.
658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.


  Jose Sonny G. Matula for petitioner.
  Herminio F. Valerio for respondent.
  Bernardo, Fuentes & Associates collaborating counsel
for respondent.

RESOLUTION

CARPIO-MORALES,  J.:
This resolves the motion for reconsideration and
supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by
respondent, Cirtek Electronics, Inc., of the Court’s Decision
dated November 15, 2010.
Respondent-movant avers that petitioner, in filing the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, availed of the wrong
remedy, hence, the Court should have dismissed the
petition outright.  It goes on to aver that the Court erred in
resolving a factual issue—whether the August 24, 2005
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was validly entered
into—, which is not the office of a petition for certiorari.
Respondent-movant further avers that the MOA1 signed
by the remaining officers of petitioner Union and allegedly
ratified by its members should have been given credence by
the Court.
Furthermore, respondent-movant maintains that the
Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties; and
that, as early as February 5, 2010, petitioner Union had
already filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a resolution of disaffiliation from the
Federation of Free Workers resulting in the latter’s lack of
personality to represent the workers in the present case.

_______________

1 DOLE records, pp. 251-289.

659

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 659


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

The motion is bereft of merit.


Respondent indeed availed of the wrong remedy of
certiorari under Rule 65. Due, however, to the nature of the
case, one involving workers’ wages and benefits, and the
fact that whether the petition was filed under Rule 65 or
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 it was filed within 15
days (the reglementary period under Rule 45) from
petitioner’s receipt of the resolution of the Court of Appeals’
Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration,   the
Court resolved to give it due course.  As Almelor v. RTC of
Las Piñas, et al.2 restates:

“Generally, an appeal taken either to the Supreme Court


or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be
dismissed. This is to prevent the party from benefiting from
one’s neglect and mistakes. However, like most rules, it
carries certain exceptions. After all, the ultimate purpose
of all rules of procedures is to achieve substantial justice
as expeditiously as possible.” (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Respecting the attribution of error to the Court in ruling


on a question of fact, it bears recalling that a QUESTION
OF FACT arises when the doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or falsehood of alleged facts,3 while a QUESTION
OF LAW exists when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain set of facts.  
The present case presents the primordial issue of
whether the Secretary of Labor is empowered to give
arbitral awards in the exercise of his authority to assume
jurisdiction over labor disputes.  
Ineluctably, the issue involves a determination and
application of existing law, the provisions of the Labor
Code, and prevailing jurisprudence. Intertwined with the
issue, however, is the question of validity of the MOA and
its ratification

_______________

2 G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 447.


3 Vide Philippine Veterans Bank v. Monillas, G.R. No. 167098, March
28, 2008, 550 SCRA 251.

660

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

which, as movant correctly points out, is a question of fact


and one which is not appropriate for a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45. The rule, however, is not
without exceptions, viz.:

“This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of
law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally,
we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence
introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When
supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of
the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are
not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under
any of the following recognized exceptions:
(1)  When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2)  When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;
(3)  Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4)  When the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts;
(5)  When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6)   When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7)  When the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(8)  When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9)   When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and
(10)   When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record.” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the present case, the findings of the Secretary of


Labor and the appellate court on whether the MOA is valid
and
661

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 661


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

binding are conflicting, the former giving scant


consideration thereon, and the latter affording it more
weight.
As found by the Secretary of Labor, the MOA came
about as a result of the constitution, at respondent’s
behest, of the Labor-Management Council (LMC) which, he
reminded the parties, should not be used  as an avenue for
bargaining but for the purpose of affording workers to
participate in policy and decision-making. Hence, the
agreements embodied in the MOA were not the   proper
subject of the LMC deliberation or procedure but of CBA
negotiations and, therefore, deserving little weight.
The appellate court, held, however, that the Secretary
did not have the authority to give an arbitral award higher
than what was stated in the MOA. The conflicting views
drew the Court to re-evaluate the facts as borne by the
records, an exception to the rule that only questions of law
may be dealt with in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
As discussed in the Decision under reconsideration, the
then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel G. Imson acted well
within his jurisdiction in ruling that the wage increases to
be given are P10 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P15
per day effective January 1, 2005, pursuant to his power to
assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g)4 of the Labor Code.

_______________

4  (g)   When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or


likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the
national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the
same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption
or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining
the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the
assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at
the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
employees shall immediately return-to-work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary
of Labor and Employment or the

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as


an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties
because it requires the interference and imposing power of
the State thru the Secretary of Labor when he assumes
jurisdiction, the award can be considered as an
approximation of a collective bargaining agreement
which would otherwise have been entered into by
the parties. Hence, it has the force and effect of a valid
contract obligation between the parties.5
In determining arbitral awards then, aside from the
MOA, courts considered other factors and documents
including, as in this case, the financial documents6
submitted by respondent as well as its previous bargaining
history and financial outlook and improvements as stated
in its own website.7
The appellate court’s ruling that giving credence to the
“Pahayag” and the minutes of the meeting which were not
verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol
evidence is erroneous. The parol evidence rule, like other
rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in labor
cases.   Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v.
Interphil Laboratories, Inc.8 teaches:

“[R]eliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. In


labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter,
the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity
are not controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence are not
applied in a

_______________

Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure


compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to
enforce the same.

xxx
5 Vide Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, February 22,
2000, 326 SCRA 172 citing Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v.
Confesor, 338 Phil. 671; 272 SCRA 161 (1997).
6 DOLE records, pp. 303-305; 129-250; 32-48.
7 DOLE records, pp. 306-307.
8 G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 658.

663

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 663


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers vs.
Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor
Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence
other than, and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.”
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On the contention that the MOA should have been given


credence because it was validly entered into by the parties,
the Court notes that even those who signed it expressed
reservations thereto. A CBA (assuming in this case that the
MOA can be treated as one) is a contract imbued with
public interest.   It must thus be given a liberal, practical
and realistic, rather than a narrow and technical
construction, with due consideration to the context in
which it is negotiated and the purpose for which it is
intended.9
As for the contention that the alleged disaffiliation of the
Union from the FFW during the pendency of the case
resulted in the FFW losing its personality to represent the
Union, the same does not affect the Court’s upholding of
the authority of the Secretary of Labor to impose arbitral
awards higher than what was supposedly agreed upon in
the MOA. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, the
“unavoidable issue of disaffiliation” bears no significant
legal repercussions to warrant the reversal of the Court’s
Decision.
En passant, whether there was a valid disaffiliation is a
factual issue.   Besides, the alleged disaffiliation of the
Union from the FFW was by virtue of a Resolution signed
on February 23, 2010 and submitted to the DOLE Laguna
Field Office on March 5, 2010—two months after the
present petition was filed on December 22, 2009—hence, it
did not affect FFW and its Legal Center’s standing to file
the petition nor this Court’s jurisdiction to resolve the
same.
At all events, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union
dispute which must be resolved in a different forum in an

_______________

9 Davao Integrated Port Services v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 102132, March


19, 1993, 220 SCRA 197.

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

action at the instance of either or both the FFW and the


Union or a rival labor organization, not the employer.

“An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and


among union members, including grievances arising from any
violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of
or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution
and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation
of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03,
Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the following circumstances as
inter/intra-union disputes, viz.:
RULE  XI
INTER/INTRA-UNION DISPUTES AND
OTHER RELATED LABOR RELATIONS DISPUTES
Section  1.  Coverage.—Inter/intra-union disputes shall include:
(a)  cancellation of registration of a labor organization filed by its
members or by another labor organization;
(b)  conduct of election of union and workers’ association
officers/nullification of election of union and workers’ association
officers;
(c)  audit/accounts examination of union or workers’ association
funds;
(d)  deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
(e)  validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
(f)  validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for union
membership;
(g)  validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union and
workers’ association officers and members;
(h)  validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition;
(i)  opposition to application for union and CBA registration;
(j)  violations of or disagreements over any provision in a union or
workers’ association constitution and by-laws;
(k)  disagreements over chartering or registration of labor
organizations and collective bargaining agreements;

665

VOL. 650, JUNE 6, 2011 665


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

(l)  violations of the rights and conditions of union or workers’


association membership;
(m)  violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements;
(n)  such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-
organization, union membership and collective bargaining –
(1)  between and among legitimate labor organizations;

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

(2)  between and among members of a union or workers’


association.
Section  2.  Coverage.—Other related labor relations disputes shall
include any conflict between a labor union and the employer or any
individual, entity or group that is not a labor organization or workers’
association. This includes: (1) cancellation of registration of unions and
workers’ associations; and (2) a petition for interpleader.”10   (emphasis
supplied)

Indeed, as respondent-movant itself argues, a local


union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother
federation, absent any showing that the same is
prohibited under its constitution or rule. Such,
however, does not result in it losing its legal
personality altogether. Verily, Anglo-KMU v. Samahan
Ng Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa Sa Manila Bay
Spinning Mills At J.P. Coats11 enlightens:

“A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit


primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of
bargaining power between the employer and their employee-
members. A local union does not owe its existence to the
federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and
distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its
members. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the
local union of its own personality, neither does it give the
mother federation the license to act inde-

_______________

10 Employee’s Union of Bayer Philippines, et. al. v. Bayer Philippines, et. al.,
G.R. No. 162943, December 6, 2010, 636 SCRA 472.
11 G.R. No. 118562 July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 371.

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers vs.
Cirtek Electronics, Inc.

pendently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract


of agency where the former acts in representation of the
latter.” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Whether then, as respondent claims, FFW “went against


the will and wishes of its principal” (the member-
employees) by pursuing the case despite the signing of the
MOA, is not for the Court, nor for respondent to determine,
but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own
pursuant to their principal-agent relationship.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of this


Court’s Decision of November 15, 2010 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and


Sereno, JJ., concur.

Motion for Reconsideration denied.

Note.—An “Internal Union Dispute” or intra-union


conflict refers to a conflict within or inside a labor union.
(Miranda, Jr. vs. Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI), 590 SCRA
588 [2009])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/11

You might also like