LABOR RELATIONS within the meaning and intendment of

CASE DIGESTS – SET 4 the Industrial Peace Act

Unfair Labor Practices

(Art 248-249)
HELD:
YES. Even assuming that respondents
45. REPUBLIC SAVINGS vs. CIR acted in their individual capacities
G.R. No. L-20303 September when they wrote the letter-charge
27, 1967 they were nonetheless protected for
they were engaged in concerted
FACTS: activity, in the exercise of their right
Republic Savings Bank (now Republic of self-organization that includes
Bank or RB) discharged/terminated concerted activity for mutual aid and
private respondents Resuello, Jola et protection, interference with which
al, for having written and published "a constitutes an unfair labor practice.
patently libelous letter, tending to The joining in protestor demands,
cause the dishonor, discredit or even by a small group of employees, if
contempt not only of officers and in furtherance of their interests, is a
employees of this bank, but also of concerted activity protected by the
your employer, the bank itself." Industrial Peace Act. It is not
Respondents had written to the bank necessary that union activity be
president, Ramon Racelis, a letter- involved or that collective bargaining
charge, demanding his resignation on be contemplated.
the grounds of immorality, nepotism
in the appointment and favoritism as Re: Meaning of Duty to Bargain
well as discrimination in the promotion What the RB should have done was to
of RB employees. refer the letter-charge to the
grievance committee. This was its
CIR ruled that RB’s act of dismissing duty, failing which it committed an
the 8 respondent employees unfair labor practice RA 875 which
constituted an unfair labor practice makes it an unfair labor practice for
within the meaning and intendment of an employer "to dismiss, discharge or
the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). RB otherwise prejudice or discriminate
appealed. It still maintains that the against an employee for having filed
discharge was for cause. charges or for having given or being
about to give testimony under this
RB’s defense: CIR should have Act."
dismissed the complaint because the
discharge of the respondents had Collective bargaining does not end
nothing to do with their union with the execution of an agreement. It
activities as the latter in fact admitted is a continuous process. The duty to
at the hearing that the writing of the bargain imposes on the parties during
letter-charge was not a "union action" the term of their agreement the
but merely their "individual" act. mutual obligation “to meet and confer
promptly and expeditiously and in
ISSUE: good faith for the purpose of adjusting
WON the dismissal of the 8 employees any grievances or question arising
by RB constituted unfair labor practice under such agreement” and a
1 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
violation of this obligation is an unfair Sometime later, the company
labor practice. distributed the profit-sharing benefit
not only to the managers and
Instead of stifling criticism, RB should supervisors but also to all rank-and-
have allowed the respondents to air file employees not covered by the CBA
their grievances. Good faith because they were excluded from the
bargaining required of the Bank an definition of bargaining unit.
open mind and a sincere desire to
negotiate over grievances. The This caused the respondent Union to
grievance committee, created in the file a notice of strike alleging that
CBA, would have been an appropriate petitioner was guilty of unfair labor
forum for such negotiation. Indeed, practice because the union were
the grievance procedure is a part of discriminated against in the grant of
the continuous process of collective the profit sharing benefits
bargaining. It is intended to promote a
friendly dialogue between labor and ISSUE:
management as a means of Whether the grant by management of
maintaining industrial peace. profit sharing benefits to its non-union
member employees is discriminatory
Disposition Appealed decision is against its workers who are union
AFFIRMED members and amounts to ULP?
HELD:
NO. Petition Granted. There can be no
46. WISE &CO. vs. WCEU-NATU discrimination committed by
G.R. No. L-87672 October 13, petitioner as the situation of the union
1989 employees are different and distinct
from the non-union employees.
FACTS: Discrimination per se is not unlawful.
The management issued a There can be no discrimination where
Memorandum Circular introducing a the employees concerned are not
profit-sharing scheme for its similarly situated.
managers and supervisors.
The grant by petitioner of profit
Respondent Union wrote to petitioner sharing benefits to the employees
to ask that the union members be outside the "bargaining unit" falls
allowed to participate in the profit- under the ambit of its managerial
sharing program. The management prerogative. It appears to have been
denied the request on the ground that done in good faith and without ulterior
such participation was not provided in motive. More so when as in this case
the CBA there is a clause in the CBA where the
employees are classified into those
When renegotiation of the CBA was who are members of the union and
approaching, the management wrote those who are not. In the case of the
to the Union that it was willing to union members, they derive their
consider including the union members benefits from the terms and
in the profit-sharing scheme provided conditions of the CBA contract which
that the negotiations would be constitute the law between the
concluded prior to December 1987 contracting parties. Both the employer

2 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

and the union members are bound by WON the respondent court erred in
such agreement. holding that the strike was illegal and
that the dissolution of 18 security
guards is a valid exercise of
47. SHELL OIL WORKER’S UNION management prerogatives?
vs.
SHELL OIL CO. OF THE PHILS. & HELD:
CIR No. The court held that the strike
G.R. No. L-28607 May 31, 1971 cannot be declared illegal, there being
a violation of the collective bargaining
FACTS: agreement by Shell Company. Even if
Shell Co. seek to dissolve its security it were otherwise, however, this Court
guard section in its Pandacan branch, cannot lend sanction of its approval to
notwithstanding its being embraced in the outright dismissal of all union
the then existing CBA contract as officers, a move that certainly would
rank-and-file employees. So an action have the effect of considerably
for reinstatement and payment of full weakening a labor organization, and
backwages was filed by the union. thus in effect frustrate the policy of
the Industrial Peace Act to encourage
The union made a decision that should unionization. To the extent, however,
there be a replacement of the that the serious acts of violence
company guards by a private security occurring in the course of the strike
agency, there would be a strike. could be made the basis for holding
However, the said 18 security guards responsible a leader or a member of
were transferred to the company’s the union guilty of their commission,
other branch and were thereafter what was decided by respondent court
terminated on the service. The should not be disturbed.
company then hired a private security
agency to undertake the work of said The plain and unqualified
security guards. So a strike took in constitutional demand of protection to
place on 25 March 1967, when the labor should not be lost weight of. The
newly hired guards was about to start state is thus under obligation to lend
their work. its aid and its succor to the efforts of
its labor elements to improve their
The Department of Labor tried to economic condition. It is now
conciliate the parties but failed to generally accepted that unionization is
settle the issues raised. Until a a means to such an end. It should be
Presidential certification was issued encouraged. Thereby, labor’s
ordering them to return-to-work on 6 strength, what there is of it, becomes
July 1967 by CIR by virtue of the solidified. It can bargain as a
pending resolution of the case. CIR collectivity. Management then will not
rendered its decision in favor of the always have the upper hand nor be in
company and held strike as illegal for a position to ignore its just demands.
the dissolution was a valid exercise of That, at any rate, is the policy behind
management prerogative and that no the Industrial Peace Act.
ULP was committed by the company.
The judiciary and administrative
ISSUE: agencies in construing it must ever be
conscious of its implications. Only thus
3 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
may there bee fidelity to what is January 6, 1959, the same having
ordained by the fundamental law. For been renewed March 23, 1960. In this
if it were otherwise, instead of manner the union members obtained
protection, there would be neglect or labor benefits.
disregard. That is to negate the
fundamental principle that the On January 6, 1960, management sent
Constitution is the supreme law. to the employees of the Company
letters of termination of employment
due to “poor business”. Then on
48. H. ARONSON & CO., ET AL vs. February 13, 1961 Aronson's original
ALU Articles of Incorporation were
G.R. No. L-23010 July 9, 1971 amended so that, instead of its
corporate existence expiring on May
FACTS: 27, 1970, it was made to expire 9
Aronson, originally known as Moody years earlier.
Aronson & Co., Inc., was incorporated On March 9, 1961, or less than a
in 1920, with an authorized capital month after such amendment had
stock of P5000,000.00 and a been accomplished, then Assistant
corporate life of 50 years expiring on Manager Donato Medel was
May 27, 1970. In the course of time it incorporated with a capital stock of
became an Aronson family controlled P100,000.00, and on July 17 of the
corporation. same year, another new corporation,
Photo Materials was also incorporated
In 1958, 13 of its 25 employees with an authorized capital stock of
became members of the respondent P400,000.00. The total authorized
Associated Labor Union. In the month capital stock of the two new
of September of that year, because of corporations amounting to
the dismissal of Eugenia Solon, a P500,000.00 was exactly the same
union member, her co-employees who authorized capital stock of Aronson.
were union members declared a strike
which was soon settled as a result of It will thus be seen that the two new
conciliation negotiations initiated by corporations were organized to
the Cebu Regional Office of the engage in exactly the same business
Department of Labor. in which Aronson had been engaged;
in other words, to take over the
Sometime thereafter, the respondent latter's business.
Union and its members made
demands for a collective bargaining On July 15, 1961, all the employees of
agreement with the Company to Aronson who were members of the
obtain certain benefits in connection respondent Union were required to
with their working conditions. When stop working in spite of the fact that,
the Company refused to enter into a according to the notice of termination
collective bargaining agreement, the of employment served on them, their
employees who were union members services were to be terminated on the
declared a second strike in December 31st of that month. On the other
of that year. The management hand, the employees of the Company
eventually acceded to their demands who were not members of the
and entered into a collective respondent Union were allowed to
bargaining agreement with them on continue working up to that date, and
4 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
thereafter they continued working
because they were absorbed or re- The true cause of the termination of
employed by the newly organized the services of the complainants is
corporations: Photo Materials and their membership with the Associated
Medel. Labor Union and their union activities.
This finding is supported by the
The employees concerned filed a antecedent facts that since its
complaint for unfair labor practices to establishment in 1920 the only
which CIR found respondent- instance when the management of the
petitioners guilty and ordered them to H. Aronson & Company began to find
cease and desist from such acts, and interference in the conduct of its
to reinstate the complainants to their business affairs was in 1958 when the
former positions under the same Associated Labor Union, to which the
terms and conditions of employment complainants are affiliated, declared
with back wages from the time they two strikes wherein the union
were illegally dismissed until they are decisively got what it wanted from the
actually reinstated. Their motion for reluctant management. Attempts were
reconsideration having been denied made by the management to break
subsequently by the court en banc, the majority then held by the Union
they took the present appeal. but it was not successful.

ISSUE:
1. WON CIR had jurisdiction over the 49. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES
case, and FORCE
2. WON it erred in finding the UNION (PTGWO) vs. HON. BLAS
petitioners guilty of unfair labor F. OPLE
practice and SMC
G.R. No. L-53515 February 8,
HELD: 1989
1. Yes. The Court held that CIR had
jurisdiction over the case and the FACTS:
petitioners herein; that it correctly In April 1978, a CBA was entered into
found petitioners guilty of unfair labor by petitioner and the SMC with a
practice, and in granting to the provision entitling employees to a
individual respondents the relief set basic monthly compensation plus
forth in the appealed order. The commission based on their respective
appealed Order was affirmed. sales.

2. No. The shortening of the corporate In September 1979, the company

life or dissolution of Aronson, and the introduced a marketing scheme
subsequent incorporation of the other known as the "Complementary
two petitioners were part and parcel Distribution System" (CDS) whereby
of a plan, or were intended to its beer products were offered for sale
accomplish the dismissal of the directly to wholesalers through San
individual respondents, the Court Miguel's sales offices.
concluded. Their contention that the
dissolution of Aronson was due to The labor union filed a complaint for
"poor business" is, upon the record, ULP in the Ministry of Labor, with a
clearly without merit. notice of strike on the ground that the
5 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
CDS was contrary to the existing
marketing scheme whereby the Route
Salesmen were assigned specific 50. CARLOS CRUZ vs. PAFLU
territories within which to sell their G.R. No. L-26519 October 29,
stocks of beer, and wholesalers had to 1971
buy beer products from them, not
from the company. It was alleged that FACTS:
the new marketing scheme the CBA as Quality Container Factory is a joint
the CDS would reduce the take-home business ventured by the Tan spouses,
pay of the salesmen and their truck employing hired hands in the
helpers for the company would be manufacture and sale of tin cans. In
unfairly competing with them. January 1961, these workers formed a
union called PTGWO, elected its
The Minister of Labor approved the officers and had it registered with the
private respondent's marketing Department of Labor.
scheme and dismissed the labor
union's complaint for unfair labor A month later, the factory received a
practice. notice of its existence with their
collective bargaining proposals. But
ISSUE: due to union’s unreasonable delay in
WON the CDS violates the CBA, discussing the CBA contract to the
constituting ULP. factory, a complaint was filed by the
company against the union.
Notwithstanding the protest lodged by
RULING: PTGWO, PAFLU, by a majority vote was
No. The lower court correctly held that declared as the winning CB
the CDS is a valid exercise of representative of the factory’s
management prerogatives. So long as workers.
a company's management
prerogatives are exercised in good After the issue of certification was
faith for the advancement of the decided by CIR, however, PAFLU
employer's interest and not for the proposed to continue the negotiations
purpose of defeating or circumventing to possibly finalize a CBA contract
the rights of the employees under with the management but a month
special laws or under valid later, the factory was sold to Carlos
agreements. Cruz.

SMC's offer to compensate the PAFLU then instituted an action

members of its sales force who will be against the Tan spouses for ULP. CIR
adversely affected by the sustained the claim of PAFLU that the
implementation of the CDS by paying sale of the factory was tainted by bad
them a so- called "back adjustment faith and designed to avoid bargaining
commission" to make up for the collectively with it as the duly chosen
commissions they might lose as a representative of such employee. And
result of the CDS proves the an order was given for the
company's good faith and lack of reinstatement of union members with
intention to bust their union. full backwages.

ISSUE:
6 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
WON CIR erred in holding the failure of The National Federation of Labor
the factory owners to bargain Unions (NAFLU) is a labor organization
collectively and the sale of the factory in petitioner Bataan Shipyard &
as unfair labor practice, tainted with Engineering Co., Inc. The Company
bad faith. has thousand employees in its payroll
and more than a hundred of them
RULING: belong to the said labor organization.
No. The Court held that the
assignment of error of petitioners as Sometime before 1984, the Company
to the absence of bad faith appears to filed with the NLRC an “application for
be without sufficient legal basis. the retrenchment” of 285 of its
Clearly, the failure of the Tan spouses employees on the ground that the firm
to bargain collectively with had been incurring heavy losses. In
respondent Union when they were the meantime, some employees who
called to do so was unfair labor had been on sick leave earlier were
practice, compounded by another considered retrenched. All of those so
actuation amounting to discrimination retrenched happen to be officers and
in regard to tenure or condition of members of the NAFLU.
employment against a labor union.
Apparently in an effort to avoid the ISSUE:
legal consequences of such conduct Whether the Company is guilty of
frowned upon by the law, connivance discriminatory acts in the selection of
of petitioner Cruz was elicited. employees to be retrenched
Necessary the sale was attended with
bad faith. HELD:
YES. The retrenchment undertaken by
Respondent Judge Co was not blind to the Company is valid. However, the
such an attempt at evasion. It refused manner in which this is exercised
to countenance the resulting dismissal should not be tainted with abuse of
of the members respondent Union. It discretion. Labor is a person's means
ordered the reinstatement. Its of livelihood. He cannot be deprived of
decision far from being repugnant to his labor or work without due process
law is in conform with it. This certainly of law. The retrenchment of
cannot be one of those cases which employees who belong to a particular
the judgment arrived at by respondent union, with no satisfactory justification
Court is to ignored, much less set why said employees were singled out,
aside. constitutes ULP.

The case was remanded to CIR for In this case, the Company had indeed
further proceedings. been discriminatory in selecting the
employees who were to be
retrenched. All of the retrenched
employees are officers and members
of the NAFLU. It leads us to conclude
that the firm had been discriminating
51. BATAAN SHIPYARD vs. NLRC against membership in the NAFLU, an
G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 act which amounts to interference in
the employees' exercise of their right
FACTS:
7 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
of self-organization. This interference NO. The private respondents cannot
is considered an act of ULP. escape the effects of the security
52. TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR clause of their own applicable CBA.
UNION Union Security Clauses in CBA, if
vs. NLRC freely and voluntarily entered into, are
G.R. No. 75037 April 30, 1987 valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal
of an employee by the company
FACTS: pursuant to a labor union’s demand in
Tanduay Distillery, Inc. (TDI) and accordance with a union security
Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU) agreement does not constitute ULP.
entered into a CBA which contained a
“union security clause,” which The respondent employer did nothing
provided: “All workers who are or may but to put in force their agreement
during the effectivity of this Contract, when it separated the herein
become members of the Union in complainants upon the
accordance with its Constitution and recommendation of said union. Such a
By-Laws shall, as a condition of their stipulation is not only necessary to
continued employment, maintain maintain loyalty and preserve the
membership in good standing in the integrity of the union but is allowed by
Union for the duration of the the Magna Charta of Labor when it
agreement.” provided that while it is recognized
that an employee shall have the right
While the CBA was still in effect, a to self-organization, it is at the same
number of the TDLU, joined another time postulated that such right shall
union, the Kaisahan Ng not injure the right of the labor
Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organization to prescribe its own rules
organized its local chapter in TDI. with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership therein
The TDLU required those who
disaffiliated to explain why they In Villar v. Inciong, we held that
should not be punished for "petitioners, although entitled to
“disloyalty.” TDLU created a disaffiliation from their union and to
committee to investigate its erring form a new organization of their own
members. The committee must however, suffer the
recommended that the disaffiliating consequences of their separation from
members be expelled and that they the union under the security clause of
should be terminated from service in the CBA.”
pursuant to the union security clause.
Acting on said request, the company
terminated the employment of the 53. INSULAR LIFE EAU-NATU vs.
disaffiliating union members. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
LTD.
ISSUE: G.R. No. L-25291 May 5, 1977
Whether the dismissal of the
disaffiliating members pursuant to a FACTS:
security clause constitutes ULP. Unions Insular Life Assurance EA-NATU
and FGU Insurance Group Workers &
HELD: EA-NATU entered into separate CBAs
with Insular and FGU.
8 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
 seasonably filed their MFR, but was
In 1957, the Unions jointly submitted denied, hence, this petition.
proposals to the Companies for a
modified renewal of their respective ISSUES:
collective bargaining contracts which WON CIR erred in not finding the
were then about to expire. Companies guilty of unfair labor
Negotiations were conducted on the practice:
Union's proposals, but were snagged a. in sending out individual ultimatum
by a deadlock on the issue of union letters,
shop. As a result of which, the Unions b. for discriminating against the
filed in January 1958 a notice of strike striking members of the Unions in the
for "deadlock on collective matter of readmission of employees
bargaining." after the strike
c. for dismissing officials and
Following the failure of the Companies members of the Unions; and
to answer the demands of the Unions d. in not ordering the reinstatement of
with counter-proposals, the Unions officials and members of the Unions,
went on strike. An attempt of the with full back wages.
management to break thru the
Unions' picket lines during the strike HELD:
resulted to injuries. Alleging that some a. Yes. The said letters were directed
non-strikers were injured, the to the striking employees individually
Companies filed criminal charges containing a promise of benefit,
against the strikers, along with a threats and reprisal — by registered
petition for injunction with damages, special delivery mail at that — without
which was granted. being coursed through the Unions
which were representing the
Before readmission, the Companies employees in the collective
required of the employees clearances bargaining.
from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila
and for them to undergo screening by b. Yes. Despite securing their
a management committee, which respective clearances, 34 officials and
adamantly refused 34 officials and union members were still refused
members of the Unions who were readmission on the alleged ground
most active in the strike, on the that they committed acts inimical to
ground that they committed "acts the Companies. This was
inimical to the interest of the discriminatory to the fact that non-
respondents," without however stating strikers who also had pending criminal
the specific acts allegedly committed. charges against them arising from the
same incidents were readily
On even date, the CIR prosecutor filed readmitted and were not required to
a complaint for unfair labor practice secure clearances. It is a violation of
against the Companies, which filed the IPA.
their answer denying all the material
allegations of the complaint and c. Yes. Record shows that not a single
asking for dismissal. After trial on the dismissed striker was given the
merits, the CIR dismissed the Unions' opportunity to defend himself against
complaint for lack of merit. The Unions the supposed charges against him.
And when the striking employees
9 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
reported back for work, the unfair labor practice charge originally
Companies refused to readmit them filed by respondent union against
without the necessary clearances. And petitioner company and culminating in
when all, except three, were able to supplemental proceedings to enjoin
secure and subsequently present the the abrupt dismissal and termination
required clearances, the respondents of employment of all eighty-six
still refused to take them back and employees at the Pines Hotel with its
instead they received letters sudden sale to a third party.
confirming the termination of their
employment due to “acts of In the first case L-30755, an unfair
misconduct” while picketing during labor practice on 6 counts was filed
the strike. against Manila Hotel Company, which
was then engaged in the operation of
d. Yes. The lower court should have the Pines Hotel in Baguio City. After
ordered the reinstatement of the due hearing, CIR dismissed 4 counts
officials and members of the Unions, and found the petitioner guilty of
with full back wages as it is clear that unfair labor practice on 2 counts:
the Unions went on strike because of a. the charge of discrimination in the
the unfair labor practices committed granting of the 1965 Christmas
by the Companies. Where the strike bonus,
was induced and provoked by and
improper conduct on the part of an b. the charge of discrimination in the
employer amounting to an 'unfair granting of salary adjustments
labor practice,' the strikers are pursuant
entitled to reinstatement with back to the then newly enacted
pay. Minimum
Wage Law, Republic Act 4180;
Accordingly, the decision of the CIR and ordered petitioner to cease and
was reversed and set aside, and desist from further committing such
another is entered, ordering the unfair labor practice acts.
respondents to reinstate the
dismissed members of the petitioning During the pendency of the unfair
Unions to their former or labor practice case, 86 employees of
comparatively similar positions, with Pines Hotel received written notices
backwages. that the National Development
Company as owner of the Pines Hotel
had sold it to the Resort Hotels
54. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs. Corporation and that since petitioner
PINES Manila Hotel Company's operation of
HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASS'N the hotel would cease effective the
G.R. No. L-30818 next day, their services were
September 28, 1972 terminated as of the close of business
hours of March 28, 1968.
FACTS:
Three appeals by certiorari (L-30755, On the same date, the respondent
L-30818 and L-30139) were filed on union forthwith filed an "Urgent
various dates in 1969 involving the Petition with prayer for a temporary
same parties and various incidents restraining order," and accordingly
between them, commencing from an prayed inter alia that the case be
10 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
consolidated with the first case, along with its MFR denied, it filed another
with a prayer for an ex-parte appeal, docketed as L-30818.
restraining order be issued against
their abrupt dismissal or termination.
CIR took cognizance of the union's
petition and called the parties
immediately to a conference, where ISSUES:
Manila Hotel expressly manifested 1. WON the Petitioner's was correct in
that it was willing to grant retirement claiming that the order of the court
gratuity to all the employees, who (as regards L-30139) was prejudicial.
have served for 20 years or more, 2. WON the Court acted out of its
expressly referring to 16 out of 86 jurisdiction (as regards L-30138) in
employees who were terminated. issuing the appealed payment order of
the 70 employees.
Notwithstanding petitioner's having
deposited with respondent court HELD:
pursuant to its own offer the sum of 1. No. What the union had actually
P100,000.00 through its check, it still filed on March 28, 1968 was a
questioned the issuance of the order separate "Urgent petition with prayer
on grounds of alleged lack of for a restraining order." No prejudice
jurisdiction and impropriety thereof. could be said to have been caused to
With its appeal denied by CIR, it filed petitioner thereby, for the very merit
another petition which was docketed of the union complaint is borne out by
as L-30139. the fact that the parties promptly
arrived at a satisfactory settlement
In connection with the same sale on thereof upon petitioner's undertaking
March 28, 1968 of the Pines Hotel and to pay retirement gratuity to all 86
the abrupt termination of all its affected employees.
employees, Manila Hotel’s BoD
subsequently approved the payment 2. No. As the petitioner has in no
of retirement gratuity to the greater manner questioned or disputed the
remainder of 70 employees who had factual bases and findings of CIR as to
not completed 20 years of service and its undertaking and agreement in the
were not qualified under the record to pay the retirement gratuity
Retirement Law. to the employees, by way of
settlement of their dispute arising
Citing the various manifestations in from the protested abrupt termination
the record of petitioner's willingness of their employment with the sudden
to pay such gratuity, respondent court sale of the Pines Hotel to a third party,
issued its order of February 27, 1969 the court acted within its jurisdiction
for the payment of such gratuity not when it properly assumed of
exceeding 12 months to the remaining implementing the very agreement and
70 employees who have rendered one settlement for payment of retirement
year to nineteen years of service to gratuity arrived at by the parties in
petitioner company. Petitioner once the case before it.
again raised the same questions of
jurisdiction and propriety of the CIR’s
issuance of said payment order and

11 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang