Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORKIS FREE v. NORKIS TRADING COMPANY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 185556 2011-03-28	SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NACHURA, J.
The wording of the CBA on general wage increase cannot be interpreted any other way: The CBA increase should be given to all employees "over and above" the amount they are receiving, even if that amount already includes an anniversary increase. Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in isolation from one another.[57] Consideration of Article XIII, Section 2 (non-crediting provision), bolsters such interpretation. Section 2 states that "[a]ll salary increase granted by the company shall not be credited to any future contractual or legislated wage increases." Clearly then, even if petitioner had already awarded an anniversary increase to its employees, such increase cannot be credited to the "contractual" increase as provided in the CBA, which is considered "separate and distinct."
	GR No. 162411 2008-06-27	NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE VELASCO JR., J.
While it behooves the Court to accord protection to the working class, tilting the balance of justice in its favor whenever appropriate, it is not possible to resolve every dispute to further the cause of labor. In every case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of established facts and the applicable law and doctrine,[11] as here.
	GR No. 163419 2008-02-13	TSPIC CORPORATION v. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION VELASCO JR., J.
As a last word, it should be reiterated that though it is the state's responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as an instrument to oppress management and capital.[29] In resolving disputes between labor and capital, fairness and justice should always prevail. We ruled in Norkis Union v. Norkis Trading that in the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution: social justice and protection of the working class. Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.[30]
	GR No. 144322 2007-02-06	METROPOLITAN BANK v. NATIONAL WAGES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In ECOP,[46] the Court declared that there are two ways of fixing the minimum wage: the "floor-wage" method and the "salary-ceiling" method. The "floor-wage" method involves the fixing of a determinate amount to be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage rates. On the other hand, in the "salary-ceiling" method, the wage adjustment was to be applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling. In other words, workers already being paid more than the existing minimum wage (up to a certain amount stated in the Wage Order) are also to be given a wage increase.[47]