PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES versus

NLRC & PRODUCERS BANK EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION

G.R. No. 118069

Facts:
Producers Bank of the Philippines (PBP) was placed under a conservator for the
purpose of protecting its assets. It appears that when Producers Bank Employee
Association sought the implementation of Section 1, Article 11 of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement pertaining to the retirement and Section 4, Article 10
pertaining to the uniform allowance, the conservator expressed her objection to
such plan, resulting to an impasse between the bank and the union. The deadlock
continued for at least 6 months before the union decided to file a case against PBP
for unfair labor practice and for flagrant violation of the CBA provisions.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint based on the premise:
Considering that the bank is under conservatorship program under which the
bank is under the rule of a conservator, the later is under no compulsion to
implement the resolutions issued by the LMRC. If he finds that the resolutions of the
LMRC would not redound the best interest of the bank in accordance with the
conservatorship program, he may not be faulted by such action or inaction.
The NLRC after reviewing the arguments of both parties reversed the findings of the
Labor Arbiter, thus:
Not only is the worker protected by the Labor Code, he is likewise protected
by other laws (Civil Laws) and other social legislations the source of which is no less
than the Constitution itself. To adhere first to the interest of the Company to the
prejudice of the workers cannot be allowed or tolerated as the interest of the
working masses is the paramount concern of the government.
The NLRC then ordered the implementation of the provisions of the CBA which were
disallowed by the conservator.

Issue:
Weather the bank shall implement the provisions of the CBA regardless of the
objections of the conservator?

Decision:
Prescinding from the rationalization that a conservator cannot rescind a valid and existing
contract and that the CBA is the law between the contracting parties,it is obvious
that the conservator had no authority whatsoever to disallow the implementation of
the provisions of the CBA, especially considering that the ideals of social justice and protection
of labor are guaranteed not only by the court, but more importantly by the
Constitution. It bears repeating that apart from the non-impairment clause, what is also well
settled is the principle that when the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the
scales of social justice, the dominant influence of -the latter must be counter
balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the under privileged worker.