Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TSPIC CORPORATION v. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 205575 2015-07-22	VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
True, it is a fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. If the provisions of the CBA seem clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning of their stipulations shall control. However, as in this case, when general and specific provisions of the CBA are inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount to and govern the general provision.[64]
	GR No. 192601 2013-06-03	PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS v. JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION BERSAMIN, J.
A collective bargaining agreement (or CBA) refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. Accordingly, the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions of the CBA, being the law between the parties, must be complied with by them.[21] The literal meaning of the stipulations of the CBA, as with every other contract, control if they are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties.[22]
	GR No. 170054 2013-01-21	GOYA v. GOYA PERALTA, J.
Moreover, if the terms of a contract, as in a CBA, are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of their stipulations shall control. x x x.[24]
	GR No. 174158 2011-06-27	WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA v. DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court agrees with the Labor Arbiter that there was no violation of the prohibition on diminution of benefits. Indeed, any benefit and perks being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced and discontinued, otherwise, the constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor shall be offended. [37] But the rule against diminution of benefits is applicable only if the grant or benefit is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period which is consistent and deliberate. [38]
	GR No. 185556 2011-03-28	SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NACHURA, J.
Petitioner gave a narrow construction to the wording of the CBA when it denied (a) reimbursement for the first-aid medicines taken by Rodrigo Solitario when he was injured during the company sportsfest and the transportation cost incurred by Alberto Guevara and Job Canizares in going to the hospital, (b) payment of the wages of certain employees during the time they spent at the grievance meetings, and (c) payment of the employees' wages during the brownout that occurred on July 25, 2002. As previously stated, the CBA must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically. It is the duty of the courts to place a practical and realistic construction upon the CBA, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. Absurd and illogical interpretations should be avoided.[59] A CBA, like any other contract, must be interpreted according to the intention of the parties.[60]
	GR No. 168970 2010-01-15	CELESTINO BALUS v. SATURNINO BALUS PERALTA, J.
On the contrary, a plain reading of the provisions of the Extrajudicial Settlement would not, in any way, support petitioner's contention that it was his and his sibling's intention to buy the subject property from the Bank and continue what they believed to be co-ownership thereof. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that the intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial consideration.[16] It is the duty of the courts to place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve.[17] Such intention is determined from the express terms of their agreement, as well as their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.[18] Absurd and illogical interpretations should also be avoided.[19]
	GR No. 177283 2009-04-07	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. VS.DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears noting that at the time petitioners' questioned moves were adopted, a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. It thus behooved petitioners to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law.[12]