Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. JOSE S. BRILLANTES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 165407 2009-06-05	HERMINIGILDO INGUILLO v. FIRST PHILIPPINE SCALES PERALTA, J.
In Del Monte Philippines,[44] the stipulations in the CBA authorizing the dismissal of employees are of equal import as the statutory provisions on dismissal under the Labor Code, since a CBA is the law between the company and the Union, and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy to give protection to labor. In Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) v. Brillantes,[45] the Court expounded on the effectiveness of union security clause when it held that it is one intended to strengthen the contracting union and to protect it from the fickleness or perfidy of its own members. For without such safeguards, group solidarity becomes uncertain; the union becomes gradually weakened and increasingly vulnerable to company machinations. In this security clause lies the strength of the union during the enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement. It is this clause that provides labor with substantial power in collective bargaining.
	GR No. 124915 2008-02-18	RIZAL SECURITY v. DIRECTOR ALEX E. MARAAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has explained the role and function of Rule 65 as an extraordinary remedy in numerous pronouncements, among which is the case of Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Brillantes[11] citing Flores v. National Labor Relations Commission,[12] to wit:It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. An extraordinary remedy, its use is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases -- those wherein the action of an inferior court, board or officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial acts is challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It does not include correction of public respondent NLRC's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings based thereon, which are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 149434 2004-06-03	PHILIPPINE APPLIANCE CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner invokes the doctrine laid down in the case of Caltex v. Brillantes,[11] where it was held that the award of the signing bonus by the Secretary of Labor was erroneous. The said case involved similar facts concerning the CBA negotiations between Caltex (Philippines), Inc. and the Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA). Upon referral of the dispute to the DOLE, then Labor Secretary Brillantes ruled, inter alia:Fifth, specifically on the issue of whether the signing bonus is covered under the "maintenance of existing benefits" clause, we find that a clarification is indeed imperative. Despite the expressed provision for a signing bonus in the previous CBA, we uphold the principle that the award for a signing bonus should partake the nature of an incentive and premium for peaceful negotiations and amicable resolution of disputes which apparently are not present in the instant case. Thus, we are constrained to rule that the award of signing bonus is not covered by the "maintenance of existing benefits" clause.
	GR No. 127227 2001-02-28	PAZ S. LIM FOR HERSELF v. VICTORIA K. CHAN PARDO, J.
We have held repeatedly that judges and arbiters must draw up their decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately reflect their conclusions and final dispositions.[13] Decisions must faithfully comply with the Constitution. "No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."[14]
	GR No. 121439 2000-01-25	AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining employees' wages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed,[23] or otherwise illegally prevented from working,[24] a situation which we find is not present in the instant case. It would neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover something they have not earned and could not have earned because they did not render services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.