CMC MONTHLY EMPLOYEES UNION TUPAS LOCAL CHAPTER NO. 992, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF RENATO SERAFIN, MELANO VILLANUEVA, ROGELIO FRANCISCO, FORTEVILLAR LACERNA, CRISPIN MATEO, JOSE CRUZ…

This is a special civil action for certiorari which seeks to annul the decision of the
public respondent in Case No. AB-4-10741-81.^[1]

On March 24, 1981,
the petitioners filed a complaint against the private respondent with the Ministry of
Labor and Employment (MOLE).  The case
was docketed as Case No. AB-4-10741-81 and was assigned to the sala of Labor Arbiter
Porfirio E. Villanueva of the Arbitration
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).  Eventually, the parties agreed to dispense with
a hearing of the case on the merits, and instead opted to submit the same for
decision on the basis of position papers, affidavits and other documentary
evidence.

The petitioners claimed
that the private respondent violated Article 118 of the Labor Code and thereby committed
an Unfair Labor Practice.^[2]
Allegedly, the eight individual petitioners, being monthly paid employees, were
reverted in status by the private respondent to daily paid employees, and thus
they suffered a dimunition in pay.  This act was apparently done by the private
respondent because the individual petitioners were about to testify in a certification election case filed
by the petitioner union (comprised of monthly paid rank-and-file employees).

On the other hand, the
private respondent contended that prior to the filing of the case at bar, there
was a decision rendered by Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla in Case No. AB-8-7930-80.  The private respondent averred that in that
case, the complaining union (NAMAWU Local 180), a union composed of
daily rank-and-file employees, claimed that the individual petitioners are its
members and the private respondent erroneously converted them to monthly paid
employees status.  Arbiter Sevilla allegedly ordered in his decision that the
individual petitioners be reverted back to daily paid workers status.  Therefore, the private respondent maintained
that the act complained of by the herein petitioners was a mere act of
compliance with the decision of Arbiter Sevilla and
was thus justified.

In his decision dated January
27, 1983, Arbiter
Villanueva disposed of the preceding contention of the private respondent by
stating that:

“With deference to the above-mentioned Decision [of Arbiter Sevilla] this Office believes that the issue and/or issues
involved in the two cases are entirely
distinct and different from one another. 
The issue raised by complainants in this case is the conversion of their
monthly salaries to daily basis which they have enjoyed long before the signing
of the CBA between NAMAWU and the company. 
This case was filed subsequent to the promulgation of the Decision dated
January 28, 1981.”^[3]

He
later found the private respondent to be guilty of violating Article 118 of the
Labor Code so he thus held in the dispositive portion
of the decision that:

“WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered:

1.       to restore
complainants to their former status as regular employees receiving monthly
salaries; and

2.       to pay complainants
the difference of their salaries from daily salaried workers to monthly
salaried workers.”^[4]

The private respondent
immediately filed its appeal with the public respondent.

On November 17, 1983,
the public respondent promulgated its decision in favor of the private
respondent.  Its ruling is as follows:

“The record shows that the parties in the instant case and
those in the case decided by Labor Arbiter Apolinar
L. Sevilla are the same, albeit in the latter case
the complainants appear to be NAMAWU LOCAL 180 AND MARINO PICONES.

Obviously, we cannot now modify the terms and conditions of
employment as set by the terms of the Decision of Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla for the
reason that the said Decision having attained finality has become the law of
the case, and for the peace and harmony in the bargaining unit as well as for
all legal intents and purposes, it has to be respected.  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x

“WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision should be, as it is hereby,
Reversed and the complaint dismissed
for lack of merit.”^[5]

The petitioners’ Motion For Reconsideration was denied by the
public respondent in an order dated February
29, 1984.  Hence, they filed
this instant petition for certiorari.

To rule upon the correctness of the public respondent’s decision,
We carefully examined the decision of Arbiter Sevilla
in Case No. AB-8-7930-80.

Quoted hereunder are the portions in the decision of Arbiter Sevilla that are pertinent for the adjudication of the case
at bar.  They are as follows:

“x   x  x  x  They [complainants NAMAWU Local 180 and its
president, Marino Picones] allege that respondents
circumvent the ‘union shop’ clause as provided in Section 2, Article II of the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by converting the daily wage workers who
are about to become permanent to monthly paid employees so that they are
excluded from the bargaining unit;

x   x   x   x   x   x   x   x   x

Respondents denied all the allegations of complainants.  They claim that the conversion from the daily
to monthly status of ten (not eleven) workers were effected before the signing
of the CBA on December 11, 1979.  They are Jose Cruz, Israel Sarmiento, Eugene Llanera, Jess Camacho, Renato Serafin, Melanio Villanueva, Rogelio Francisco,
Fortivillar Lacerna,
Crispin Mateo, and Ernesto Abella.  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x

On the issue of whether unfair labor practice was committed by
respondents in converting the daily wage workers to monthly basis it is noted
that the 25 names mentioned by complainants who were excluded from the
bargaining unit (Annex “B-3”) and thus deprived of the benefits under
the CBA have been acknowledged by Marcel Vantomme,
Plant Administrative Services Manager of respondent as included in the bargaining unit as per his sworn affidavit and are therefore included in the
salary increase under the CBA of 11 December 1979 granting an adjustment of
1.00 per day effective December 1, 1979 as per Section 1, Article VI of the
CBA.  These workers are:

1.     
Abad, Eduardo

2.     
Anievas, Rolando

3.     
Alvarez, Edgardo

4.     
Corpuz, Tirso

5.     
Caponpon, Menandro

6.     
Duetas, Pedro

7.     
Deus, Cayetano

8.     
Dilig, Guillermo

9.     
Damian, Florentino

10.     
Estacio, Dionisio

11.     
Fuertes, Joseph

12.     
Feliciano, Jaime

13.      Francisco,
Ricardo

14.     
Guillermo, Saturnino

15.     
Gabriel, Romeo

16.     
Lao, Juanito

17.     
Mamuyak, Geronimo

18.     
Patag, Roberto

19.     
Taneza, Danilo

20.     
Valbarez, Antero

21.     
Vargas, Enrico

22.     
Abuda, Norberto

23.     
Casinao, Ireneo

24.     
Ditablan, Hernando

25.     
Eborde, Antonio

Because they belong to the bargaining unit
at the time the CBA was executed they should not be excluded from the benefits
therein granted.

Respondents’ contention that the ten
(10) workers mentioned in its position papers
became permanent prior to the execution
of the CBA is not disputed by the
complainant.  What the
latter is contesting is the exclusion of
the 25 workers mentioned in the union
letter of August 12, 1980 (Annex “B-2“) to the company.  Considering that the 25 individuals are members of complainant union and belong to the bargaining unit, there is no valid reason why they should
be subsequently excluded therefrom by converting
their salaries from daily to monthly basis. 
These conversions amount to interference with the rights of the workers
to self-organization as defined under Article
248, pars. (a) and (e) of the Labor Code. 
They can not be stripped of their union membership without their
consent.

x        x          x          x          x          x          x

x        x          x          x          x          x          x

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered:

1.       To cease and desist
from further converting the employees from daily wage to monthly basis; and

2.       To consider the
twenty five (25) employees mentioned herein as belonging to the bargaining unit
and extend to them all benefits under the October 11, 1979 CBA.”(Emphasis
supplied)^[6]

Petitioner Teofilo Duran’s name is not
at all mentioned in the decision of Arbiter Sevilla.  Therefore, the said decision cannot affect
him and the “law of the case” doctrine which the public respondent
invoked in its decision cannot be applied to him.  As to petitioner Duran, the decision of the
public respondent must be annulled and set aside.

The names of petitioners Jose Cruz, Renato
Serafin, Melanio
Villanueva, Rogelio Francisco, Fortivillar Lacerna, and Crispin Mateo appear in the second paragraph
of the above-quoted decision of Arbiter Sevilla.  However, a thorough perusal of the said
decision will reveal that these six petitioners are not covered or to be
affected by it.  The private respondent
itself merely used them as part of its defense by alleging that these six
petitioners were promoted to monthly status before the signing of the CBA from
which the controversy arose.  Anyway, it
is clear from the underscored portion of the fourth paragraph of the above-quoted decision that the status of
these six petitioners was not
disputed by the complainants therein. 
What was being contested in that case was the status
of the twenty-five workers listed in the third paragraph.  In fact, number one in the dispositive portion of Arbiter Sevilla’s
decision orders the private respondent “to cease and desist from further
converting the employees x x x x“^[7], meaning that this order seeks
to prevent any possible
conversion of the employees’ status after the promulgation of the decision. 
Said order cannot be applied to employees who had been previously
promoted to monthly status. 
Consequently, in the case of these six petitioners, the public
respondent’s decision must also be annulled and set aside.

It is different in the case of petitioner Saturnino
Guillermo.  His name is included in the
list of twenty-five workers directly affected by the decision of Arbiter Sevilla.  In
fact, number two of the dispositive portion of that
decision specifically orders the private respondent to consider the twenty-five
employees mentioned as belonging to the bargaining unit of the complainant
union.  Being a part of the said
bargaining unit, these twenty-five workers must necessarily assume the status
of daily paid employees.  Thus, the
public respondent’s decision must be affirmed in the case of petitioner Saturnino Guillermo.

Accordingly, the decision of the public respondent in Case No.
AB-4-10741-81 is hereby AFFIRMED only as to petitioner Saturnino
Guillermo.  The said decision is hereby
annulled and set aside as to the rest of the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the subject decision is AFFIRMED as to petitioner Saturnino
Guillermo but it is hereby annulled and set
aside as to the rest of the petitioners without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Paras,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rendered by the Second Division of the NLRC which was composed of Commissioners Ricardo C.
Castro, presiding, Cecilio T. Seno, and Federico O. Borromeo.

^[2]
ART. 118.  Retaliatory measures.- It shall be unlawful
for an employer to refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or
in any manner discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint or
instituted any proceeding under this Title or has testified or is about to
testify in such proceedings.  (Labor
Code)

^[3]
Decision of Labor Arbiter Porfirio E. Villanueva,  
p. 21, Rollo.

^[4]
Ibid., p. 22, Rollo.

^[5]
Decision of the NLRC, pp. 23-24, Rollo.

^[6]
Decision of Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla, pp. 15-18, Rollo.

^[7]
Ibid., p. 18, Rollo.