Asia Brewery vs. Tunay na Pagkakaisa Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Asia (TPMA) 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 corporation’s 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 corporation. 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 award. 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 EMPLOYEES DISMISSED FOR JOINING AN ILLEGAL STRIKE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES FOR THE PERIOD OF THE STRIKE WHEN REINSTATED. 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 PINA’s 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 LA’s ruling that there was abandonment. NLRC also added that petitioners were not entitled to backwages. CA: The CA affirmed the NLRC’s 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.
