Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW vs. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., et.al.

Case- Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA affirming the decision of the Secretary of Labor. (Leonardo A. Quisumbing.) Facts- Sometime in February 1993, the President and Director of Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW inquired with VP-HRD of Interphil Laboratories, Inc. about the stand of the company regarding the duration of the CBA which was set to expire on 31 July 1993. The union was sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the company. They were told the matter could be best discussed during the formal negotiations. Allesandro G. Salazar - Vice-President-Human Resources Department Nestor Ocampo- union president Hernando Clemente -union director On the succeeding month (or on March 1993), the union officers were told with same reply when they inquired of the status of the CBA. Came another next month (or on April 1993), a meeting was held at their request. The union would like the new CBA to be effective for two years after the expiration of then existing CBA. The VP said it would be premature to discuss because the company could not readily make a decision at the moment. The next day, all the rank-and-file employees refused to follow 6 AM to 6 PM and 6 PM to 6 AM regular work shift schedules and the even stopped and left their workstations at 2 PM and 2 AM respectively. To minimize damage due to work boycott, the VP asked for a meeting. One other director told the VP that workers would only return to work if the company would agree with their demands in the new CBA. VP repeated that the matter would be better discussed during the formal negotiations. Unsatisfied with answer given, the boycott continued and started work slowdown campaign even while working. In the next month (or on 14 May 1993), petitioner union submitted with respondent company its CBA proposal, and the latter filed its counter-proposal. On 03 September 1993, the company filed with the NLRC praying that it declare the "overtime boycott" and "work slowdown" as illegal strike. The company likewise filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board an urgent request for preventive mediation aimed to help the parties in their CBA negotiations but to no avail. Thereafter, the company went to the Secretary of Labor and Employment a petition for assumption of jurisdiction. Before the Secretary of Labor had took cognizance of the petition by the company, petitioner had filed a notice with National Conciliation and Mediation Board and thereafter staged a strike, Acting on the petition, the Secretary directed company to "immediately accept all striking workers, including the fifty-three (53) terminated union officers, shop stewards and union members back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike, and to pay all the unpaid accrued year end benefits of its employees in 1993" while the petitioner union was directed to "strictly and immediately comply with the return-to-work orders. In another development, while the case was pending before the Labor Arbiter, the union filed a motion to consolidate the case with that with Secretary of Labor. The hearing of the cases were heard, the report and recommendations for which were submitted to the Secretary. The Secretary adopted the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring

Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. Nardo Dayao, et.al. Case- petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CIR granting payment of Facts- Nardo Dayao and 70 others were employees of Mercury Drug Co., Inc. According to the tenor of the standard employment contract, they shall receive annual compensation in the amount of Php 2,400 only, inclusive of compensation for work rendered during Sundays and holidays. Under such contract they were required to work 8 hours on regular and special holidays and 4 hours during every other Sundays. Although, there was no stipulation as regards work to be rendered at nighttime. They filed a petition against the company, among others, and Mariano Que, President & General Manager, and Mercury Drug Co., Inc., Employees Association praying, with respect to respondent corporation and its
president and general manager: 1) payment of their unpaid back wages for work done on Sundays and legal holidays plus 25c/c additional compensation from date of their employment up to June 30, 1962;

2) payment of extra compensation on work done at night from date of their employment up to June 30, 1962
1) 2) reinstatement of Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar to their former positions with back salaries; and, as against the respondent union, for its disestablishment and the refund of all monies it had collected from petitioners

Motion to dismiss: by Mercury o no cause of action o has no jurisdiction over the subject of the claims of petitioners Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar. o another action pending between the same parties by union o Court has no jurisdiction over the acts complained against Decision of the CIR on motion to dismiss o Ground No. 1 of management's motion to dismiss was denied for lack of merit. o second ground was found meritorious and, accordingly Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar were dropped as party petitioners in this case o denied, holding that there still exists the employer- employee relationship between Nardo Dayao and the management o three (3) year prescriptive period from the date of the filing of the instant petition - March 20, 1964 - all-of petitioners' claims have not yet prescribed o to the union be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the same as an unfair labor practice case

Court of Industrial Relations decided

1. The claim of the petitioners for payment of back wages corresponding to the first four hours work rendered on every other Sunday and first four hours on legal holidays should be denied for lack of merit.

2. Respondent Mercury Drug Company, Inc.. is hereby ordered to pay the sixty- nine (69) petitioners, 2 petitioners (Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar) were being dropped:
a. An additional sum equivalent to 25% of their respective basic or regular salaries for services rendered on Sundays and legal holidays during the period from March 20. 1961 up to June 30, 1962; and

b. Another additional sum or premium equivalent to 25% of their respective basic or regular salaries for nighttime services rendered from March 20, 1961 up to June 30, 1962.
3. 4. Petitioners' petition to convert them to monthly employees should be, as it is hereby, denied for lack of merit. Respondent Mariano Que, being an officer and acted only as an agent in behalf of the respondent corporation, should be absolved from the money claims of herein petitioners whose employer, according to the pleadings and evidence, is the Mercury Drug Company,, Inc.

Motion for recon dismissed en banc

Hence, the instant petition. Issue- Whether or not respondents night differential can be waived. Ruling- No. It cannot be waived. The respondent court's ruling on additional compensation for work done at night is, therefore, not without evidence. Moreover, the petitioner-company did not deny that the private respondents rendered nighttime work. In fact, no additional evidence was necessary to

prove that the private respondents were entitled to additional compensation for whether or not they were entitled to the same is a question of law which the respondent court answered correctly. The "waiver rule" is not applicable in the case at bar. Additional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy, hence the same cannot be waived. (Article 6, Civil Code). On this matter, We believe that the respondent court acted according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and should be sustained.

Pampanga Sugar Devt. Co., Inc. vs. CIR, et.al. Case-