Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KIMBERLY CLARK PHILIPPINES v. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR DANILO LORREDO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 168716 2009-04-16	HFS PHILIPPINES v. RONALDO R. PILAR CORONA, J.
Just like any other contract, a CBA is the law between the contracting parties and compliance therewith in good faith is required by law.[22] Inasmuch as respondent was a registered member of the AMOSUP, the present controversy should be decided in accordance with the CBA.
	GR No. 162324 2009-02-04	RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION v. KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court held that if it was indeed petitioner's intent to pay the salaries of daily-paid employees during a special holiday, even if unworked, only if such special holiday fell on weekdays, then it should have been clearly and expressly stipulated in the CBAs. And it held inapplicable Kimberly Clark Philippines v. Lorredo[4] cited by petitioner which case held that whenever there is a conflict between the words in the CBA and the evident intention of the parties, the latter prevails. For, so the appellate court explained, there were no words or provisions in the CBAs which would result in an absurd interpretation vis a vis the parties' true intention.
	GR NO. 162957 2006-03-06	UNITED KIMBERLY-CLARK EMPLOYEES UNION — PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS' ORGANIZATION v. KIMBERLY — CLARK PHILIPPINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
Sometime in 1991, Danilo L. Guerrero retired and recommended his nephew as his replacement. KCPI rejected Guerrero's recommendation because his nephew was not a member of his (Guerrero's) immediate family. The matter was brought to Voluntary Arbitrator Danilo Lorredo who ruled that Guerrero's nephew should be employed as his replacement in accordance with the CBA. KCPI brought the matter to the Court. On September 21, 1993, the Court affirmed the ruling of the VA in Kimberly Clark Philippines v. Lorredo,[5] where it was held that:As we see it, the phrase "in default thereof" has not been intended or contemplated by the parties as having a preclusive effect within the group. It simply sets a priority on who can possibly be recommendees for employment. The employee, in fine, need not be childless at all for him to be allowed to nominate a third degree collateral relative; otherwise, his ability to designate such relative is all but suddenly lost by the birth of an only child and regained by the latter's demise. This situation could not have been intended.[6]