This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| When the obligation to pay separation benefits, however, is not sourced from law (particularly, Article 297 of the Labor Code), but from contract,[23] such as an existing collective bargaining agreement between the employer and its employees, an examination of the latter's provisions becomes necessary in order to determine the governing parameters for the said obligation. To reiterate, an employer which closes shop due to serious business losses is exempt from paying separation benefits under Article 297 of the Labor Code for the reason that the said provision explicitly requires the same only when the closure is not due to serious business losses; conversely, the obligation is maintained when the employer's closure is not due to serious business losses. For a similar exemption to obtain against a contract, such as a CBA, the tenor of the parties' agreement ought to be similar to the law's tenor. When the parties, however, agree to deviate therefrom, and unqualifiedly covenant the payment of separation benefits irrespective of the employer's financial position, then the obligatory force of that contract prevails and its terms should be carried out to its full effect. Verily, it is fundamental that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and thus should be complied with in good faith;[24] and parties are bound by the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions they have agreed to, the only limitation being that these stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy.[25] Hence, if the terms of a CBA are clear and there is no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail.[26] As enunciated in Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda:[27] | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| While the adoption and enforcement by petitioner corporation of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer, such exercise is not absolute and unbridled. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and the general principles of fair play and justice.[46] In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.[47] The Anti-Drugs Policy of Mirant fell short of these requirements. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In closing, it may not be amiss to mention that when the provision of the CBA is clear, leaving no doubt on the intention of the parties, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall govern.[47] However, if there is doubt in its interpretation, it should be resolved in favor of labor,[48] as this is mandated by no less than the Constitution.[49] | |||||
|
2013-04-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There is diminution of benefits when the following requisites are present: (1) the grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time; (2) the practice is consistent and deliberate; (3) the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law; and (4) the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.[18] | |||||