TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNIONG.R No. 163419.

February 13,2008FACTS : TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreementwith the corporation Union for the increase of salary for the latters members for theyear 2000 to 2002 starting from January 2000. thus, theincreased in salary was materializedon January 1, 2000. However, onOctober 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage andproduction Boardraised daily minimum wage from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November1,2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary employees wereincreased to P250.00 andbecame regular employees therefore receivinganother 10% increase in salary. In January 2001,TSPIC implemented thenew wage rates as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nineemployeeswho were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees, received lesswages. On January 19, 2001, TSPICs HRD notified the 24 employees who are private respondents, thatdue to an error in the automated payrollsystem, they were overpaid and theoverpayment would be deductedfrom their salaries starting February 2001. TheUnion on the other hand,asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the allegedoverpaymentconstituted diminution of pay. ISSUE :Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay asalleged by the Union. RULING : Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreemententered into by unions andtheir employers are binding upon the partiesand be acted in strict compliance therewith. Thus,the CBA in this case isthe law between the employers and their employees. Therefore, there wasno overpayment when there was an increaseof salary for the members of the union simultaneouswith the increasingof minimum wage for workers in the National Capital Region. TheCBAshould be followed thus, the senior employees who were first promoted asregularemployees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries andthe same with lowerrank workers.

Cruz vs. CA

Leave a comment

GR 108738, 17 June 1994

FACTS Andrea Mayor is engaged in the business of granting interest-bearing loans and in rediscounting checks. Roberto Cruz, on the other hand, is engaged in selling ready to wear clothes at the Pasay Commercial Center. Cruz frequently borrows money from Mayor. In 1989, Cruz borrowed P176,000 from mayor, which Mayor delivered. In turn, Cruz issued a Premiere Bank check for the same amount. When the check matured, Mayor presented it to the bank but was dishonored and marked account closed. When notified of the dishonor, Cruz promised to pay in cash. No payment was made, and thus the criminal action for violation of BP 22 was instituted.

ISSUE Whether Cruz is liable for violating BP 22, even upon the claim that the check was issued to serve a mere evidence of indebtedness, and not for circulation or negotiation.

HELD A check issued as an evidence of debt, though not intended to be presented for payment has the same effect of an ordinary check, hence, it falls within the ambit of BP 22. When a check is presented for payment, the drawee bank will generally accept the same regardless of whether it was issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the term and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNIONG.R No. 163419. February 13, 2008FACTS : TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreementwith the corporation Union for the increase of salary for the lattersmembers for the year 2000 to 2002 starting from January 2000. thus, theincreased in salary was materialized on January 1, 2000. However, onOctober 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Boardraised daily minimum wage from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November1, 2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary employees wereincreased to P250.00 and became regular employees therefore receivinganother 10% increase in salary. In January 2001, TSPIC implemented thenew wage rates as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nine employeeswho were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees, received lesswages. On January 19, 2001, TSPICs HRD notified the 24 employees whoare private respondents, that due to an error in the automated payrollsystem, they were overpaid and the overpayment would be deductedfrom their salaries starting February 2001. The Union on the other hand,

asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the allegedoverpayment constituted diminution of pay. ISSUE :Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay asalleged by the Union. RULING : Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreemententered into by unions and their employers are binding upon the partiesand be acted in strict compliance therewith. Thus, the CBA in this case isthe law between the employers and their employees. Therefore, there was no overpayment when there was an increaseof salary for the members of the union simultaneous with the increasingof minimum wage for workers in the National Capital Region. The CBAshould be followed thus, the senior employees who were first promoted asregular employees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries andthe same with lower rank workers.