Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Asia Brewery vs.

Tunay na Pagkakaisa Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Asia

DOCTRINE: In cases of compulsory arbitration before the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, the financial statements of the
employer must be properly audited by an external and independent auditor
in order to be admissible in evidence for purposes of determining the proper
wage award.
FACTS: Tunay Na Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia (TPMA) is a
legitimate labor organization, certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all regular rank and file employees of [petitioner corporation] Asia
Brewery, Incorporated (ABI), a company engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of beer, shandy, glass and bottled water products.
Respondent union and petitioner had been negotiating for a new CBA for the
years 2003-2006 for 18 sessions and negotiations but to no avail due to their
differences on their respective positions on most items, particularly on wages
and other economic benefits.
Respondent union subsequently declared a deadlock and conducted a strike
after filing a notice for one. Petitioner then petitioned the Secretary of Labor
to assume jurisdiction over the parties labor dispute, invoking Article 263 (g)
of the Labor Code. In answer, Respondent union opposed the assumption of
jurisdiction, reasoning therein that the business of petitioner corporation is
not in dispensable to the national interest.
In the meantime, the Secretary resolved the deadlock between the parties
concerning the dispute on the wages. The secretary granted wage increase
under the opposition of respondent contending that the ruling lacks
evidentiary proof to sufficiently justify the same.
CA: The computation of wage increase should be remanded to the Secretary
of Labor because the computation was based on petitioner corporations
unaudited financial statements, which have no probative value pursuant to
the ruling in Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, and was done in
contravention of DOLE Advisory No. 1, Series of 2004, which contained the
guidelines in resolving bargaining deadlocks
ISSUE: Whether or not the secretary of labor was correct in adjusting the
wage increase based on unaudited financial statements of the petitioner
HELD: NO. Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when she relied
on the unaudited financial statements of petitioner corporation in
determining the wage award because such evidence is self-serving and
inadmissible. Not only did this violate the December 19, 2003 Order of the

Secretary of Labor herself to petitioner corporation to submit its complete

audited financial statements, but this may have resulted to a wage award
that is based on an inaccurate and biased picture of petitioner corporation's
capacity to pay one of the more significant factors in making a wage
Petitioner corporation has offered no reason why it failed and/or refused to
submit its audited financial statements for the past five years relevant to this
case. This only further casts doubt as to the veracity and accuracy of the
unaudited financial statements it submitted to the Secretary of Labor. Verily,
we cannot countenance this procedure because this could unduly deprive
labor of its right to a just share in the fruits of production and provide
employers with a means to understate their profitability in order to defeat
the right of labor to a just wage.

Escario, et. al. vs NLRC and PInakamasarap Corporation

DOCTRINE: With respect to backwages, the principle of a fair days wage for
a fair days labor remains as the basic factor in determining the award
thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage
or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but
was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally
prevented from working.
FACTS: Petitioners(who were also members of the the Union Malayang
Samagan ng mga Manggagawa sa Balanced Foods) were regular employees
of respondent Pinakamasarap Corporation (PINA), a corporation engaged in
manufacturing and selling food seasoning.
On March 13, 1990, all officers and some 200 members of the said union
walked out of PINAs premises to support an officer charged with defamation
by PINA. As a result of the said walkout, PINA preventively suspended all
officers of the Union and terminated their employment after a month.
The Union subsequently held a strike filing a notice claiming that PINA was
guilty of union busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers.
PINA countered by charging petitioners with ULP and abandonment of work,
violating the CBA relating to strikes. The NLRC also granted their TRO
ordering the Union to cease and desist with their strike.
Labor Arbiter: LA declared the strike illegal
NLRC: The NLRC affirmed said decision but reversed LAs ruling that there
was abandonment. NLRC also added that petitioners were not entitled to
CA: The CA affirmed the NLRCs decision ruling that the only instance under
Article 264 when a dismissed employee would be reinstated with full
backwages was when he was dismissed by reason of an illegal lockout; that

Article 264 was silent on the award of backwages to employees participating

in a lawful strike; and that a reinstatement with full backwages would be
granted only when the dismissal of the petitioners was not done in
accordance with Article 282 (dismissals with just causes) and Article 283
(dismissals with authorized causes) of the Labor Code.
ISSUE: Are petitioners, as participants of a strike subsequently declared
illegal, entitled to backwages in addition to the grant of reinstatement.
SC: NO. Article 279 provides that: An employee who is unjustly dismissed
from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights
and other privileges and to his full backwages . By its use of the phrase
unjustly dismissed, Article 279 refers to a dismissal that is unjustly done, that
is, the employer dismisses the employee without observing due process,
either substantive or procedural.
Substantive due process requires the attendance of any of the just or
authorized causes for terminating an employee as provided under Article 278
(termination by employer), or Article 283 (closure of establishment and
reduction of personnel), or Article 284 (disease as ground for termination), all
of the Labor Code; while procedural due process demands compliance with
the twin-notice requirement.
Article 264 on the other hand contemplates two causes for the dismissal of
an employee, to wit: (a) unlawful lockout; and (b) participation in an illegal
strike, the third paragraph of Article 264(a) authorizes the award of
full backwages only when the termination of employment is a
consequence of an unlawful lockout.
On the consequences of an illegal strike, the provision distinguishes between
a union officer and a union member participating in an illegal strike. A union
officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike is deemed to have lost
his employment status, but a union member who is merely instigated
or induced to participate in the illegal strike is more benignly
treated. Part of the explanation for the benign consideration for the union
member is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who are misled into
supporting illegal strikes, absent any finding that such workers committed
illegal acts during the period of the illegal strikes.
The petitioners were terminated for joining a strike that was later declared to
be illegal. The NLRC ordered their reinstatement or, in lieu of reinstatement,
the payment of their separation pay, because they were mere rank-and-file
workers whom the Unions officers had misled into joining the illegal strike.
They were not unjustly dismissed from work. Based on the text and intent of
the two aforequoted provisions of the Labor Code, therefore, it is plain that
Article 264(a) is the applicable one.