Earl

Pag-asa Steel Works v. CA G.R.No. 166647.March 31, 2006 Facts: RTWPB issued a Wage Order providing for an increase of 13 pesos in the salaries of employees receiving the minimum wage and a consequent increase in the rate to 198. Subsequent to this, petitioner-company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement which granted an increase of 15 pesos for the first year, 25 for the second year and 30 for the third year. Months later, a wage order was issued by the NCR providing for a 25 pesos increase in the salary of employees receiving the minimum wage and increased the minimum wage to 223.50. Petitioner paid the 25 pesos increase to all its employees. A year after, the employees were granted the second year increase provided in the CBA. On that same year, a wage order was issued which provided for the setting of the new minimum wage at 250.00 or an increase of 26 pesos. The Union then requested the company to implement the latest wage order. Petitioner company rejected, claiming that since none of the employees were receiving a daily salary rate lower than 250 and there was no wage distortion, it was not obliged to grant the wage increase. Issue: Whether or not the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under the Wage Order issued as a matter of practice Ruling: No. It is not obliged to grant the wage increase. The wage order provides that only those in the

private sector in the NCR receiving the daily minimum wage rate of 223 per day would receive an increase, thereby setting the wage rate to 250 pesos. There is no dispute that when the wage order was issued, the lowest paid employee of the company was receiving a wage higher than 250 pesos. As such, employees had not right to demand for the increase.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW), petitioner, vs. ETHELWOLDO R. OVEJERA et. al., respondents G.R. No. L-59743 May 31, 1982 FACTS: NFSW struck against private respondent Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC) to compel the latter for the payment of the 13th month pay under PD 851 (13th Month Pay Law) in addition to the Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by CAC workers which amount to 1-½ months’ salary. Labor Arbiter Ovejera declared the strike as illegal and no pronouncement was made as to the demand on the 13th month pay. This caused petitioner to file an instant petition with SC. ISSUE: WON under PD 851, an employer is obliged to give its workers a 13th month salary in addition to Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses, the aggregate of which exceeds the 13th month pay. RULING: No. The intention was to grant some relief — not to all workers — but only to the unfortunate ones not actually paid a 13th month salary or what amounts to it, by whatever name called; but it was not envisioned that a double burden would be

imposed on the employer already paying his employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent — whether out of pure generosity or on the basis of a binding agreement and, in the latter ease, regardless of the conditional character of the grant, so long as there is actual payment. Otherwise, what was conceived to be a 13th month salary would in effect become a 14th or possibly 15th month pay.

Kamaya Point Hotel vs. NLRC GR 86200, Feb 25, 1992 Facts: Respondent Memia Quiambao with thirty others who are members of private respondent Federation of Free Workers (FFW) were employed by petitioner as hotel crew. On the basis of the profitability of the company's business operations, management granted a 14th month pay to its employees starting in 1979. In January 1982, operations ceased to give way to the hotel's conversion into a training center for Libyan scholars. . However, due to technical and financing problems, the Libyans pre-terminated the program on July 7, 1982, leaving petitioner without any business, aside from the fact that it was not paid for the use of the hotel premises and in addition had to undertake repairs of the premises damaged by the Libyan students. Although petitioner reopened the hotel premises to the public, it was not able to pick-up its lost patronage. In a couple of months it effected a retrenchment program until finally on January 7, 1984, it totally closed its business. On April 18, 1983, private respondent Federation of Free Workers (FFW); a legitimate labor organization, filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal suspension, violation of the CBA and non-payment of the 14th month pay. Executive Labor Arbiter ordered Kamaya Point Hotel to pay the 14th month pay for 1982 of all its rank and file employees and to pay the monetary equivalent of the benefits of then existing Collective Bargaining Agreement which will expire on 1 July 1984. NLRC set aside the award of monetary benefits under the CBA but affirmed the grant of the 14th month pay for the reason that it already ripened into a company practice which respondent company cannot withdraw unilaterally without violating article 100 of the Labor Code.

Issue: Whether or not respondents are entitled the 14th month pay in 1982?

Ruling: There is no law that mandates the payment of the 14th month pay neither is there stipulation as to such extra remuneration in the CBA. The granting of the 14th month pay is a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer. It is patently obvious that Article 100 is clearly without applicability. The date of effectivity of the Labor Code is May 1, 1974. In the case at bar, petitioner extended its 14th month pay beginning 1979 until 1981. What is demanded is payment of the 14th month pay for 1982. Indubitably from these facts alone, Article 100 of the Labor Code cannot apply.

UST Faculty Union vs. NLRC G.R. No. 89885 August 6, 1990 Facts: Professor Tranquilina Marino was a member of the Faculty of Pharmacy of UST, upon reaching the age of 65, UST allowed her to continue teaching for the school years 1986-1987 and 1987-1989. However, UST denied her extension of tenure for the school year 1988-1989. Several other professors from other colleges of UST were also denied extension of tenure upon reaching the age of 65. The UST Faculty Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and against UST with the NLRC, alleging that it violated Sec. 1, Article XII of the CBA, entered into in 1986, which provides among others: a) that upon reaching the age of 65 years they may be granted extension of tenure unless they are manifestly inefficient or incompetent or are otherwise removed for cause; and that b) they shall continue to enjoy the usual benefits and privileges until the extension of their tenure is validly denied by the university in consultation with the Union or until they are separated from service. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The Union filed an appeal which was also denied. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not UST committed unfair labor practice in denying the extension of service of Prof. Marino. Ruling:

No. It is important to state that upon the compulsory retirement of an employee of official in the public or private service his employment is deemed terminated. The matter of extension of service of such employee or official is addressed to the sound discretion of the employer. It is a privilege only the employer can grant. The required consultation with the Union as provided in the CBA should be interpreted to mean as one which is advisory in character and as such, the opinion of the Union is not binding on the UST authorities. The final say as to the denial of extension of a retiree still rests with the employer, UST.