G.R. No. 65786. July 16, 1984
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LOCAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AND CECILIA MATRIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated March 31, 1982,
dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and affirming in toto the Labor
Arbiter’s decision to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
“x x x Suffice it for us to state that the only provision in the
CBA granting maternity benefits is Article X of the said CBA. And it
only grants maternity leave benefits of 45 days. Really, if the
intention of the parties is for the company to undertake the expenses
incurred by way of ceasarian or even natural child birth, they could
have easily provided it so in Article X of the CBA. Complainants are
aware or should have been aware of this claimed benefit from the CBA
since they are participants to the contract. Yet, they did not do
anything about it during the negotiation and conclusion of the CBA. For
us therefore to interpret the provision of Article X beyond its simple
and precise meaning would certainly be sheer abuse of discretion on our
part.”
Singapore Airlines Limited is a foreign corporation duly licensed to
engage in the business of common carrier in the Philippines.
Petitioner, Cecilia E. Matriano, on the other hand, is employed by
Singapore Airlines Limited (hereinafter referred to as SIA) as a
telephone operator/receptionist.
On July 25, 1981, a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was concluded
between the complainant Singapore Airlines Local
Employees-NTUAI-TRANSPIL-TUPAS (of which petitioner Matriano is a
member) and respondent Singapore Airlines Limited. The CBA provides
among other things:
“ARTICLE XI – Hospitalization, Medical Care Benefits
“Section 1. The COMPANY will meet expenses up to P9,000.00 per
calendar year for ward charges and surgical fees in respect of each
employee except as provided in Section 3. x x x.xxx xxx xxx
“Section 3. The company shall not bear any expenses arising from any of the following:
“(a) illness or disablement arising from attempted suicide
the performance of any unlawful act, exposure to any unjustifiable
hazards except when endeavoring to save human life, provoked assault,
the use of drugs other than those prescribed by the COMPANY’s doctors or
other duly qualified and registered medical practitioner or any breach
of the peace or disorderly conduct;“(b) where hospitalization is necessary as a result of misconduct or negligence on the part of the employee.”
In June 1981, petitioner Matriano underwent a caesarian operation for
which expenses were incurred amounting to P6,393.70 representing
hospital, medical, and surgical fees. Thereafter, Matriano filed a
claim with SIA for reimburseÂment of said expenses pursuant to Article
XI of the CBA aforequoted. Respondent SIA refused, contending that
Matriano is not entitled to hospitalization and medical benefits under
Article XI as its liability in maternity cases is limited to the
maternity leave benefit provided in Article X of the CBA, which
provides”
“ARTICLE X – Maternity Leave Benefits
“The COMPANY will grant maternity leave benefits of forty-five (45) days pursuant to PD 1202.”
xxx xxx xxx
It is further contended that Article XI which, except for the amount of
benefit, has been lifted from Paragraph 13 of the “Conditions for
Employment for Locally Engaged Staff in the Philippines” which was
adopted in toto, should receive the same interpretation as the latter,
traditionally understood to exclude maternity cases, the benefits for
the same being specifically provided for under Article X of the CBA in
question.
On the other hand, petitioners are of the considered view that the
liability of SIA regarding maternity leaves, under Article X, is
separate and distinct from the hospiÂtalization benefits provided under
Article XI. As expressly agreed upon in Article XVIII of the CBA, “Each
article in this agreement is separate and independent from the others
and not to be construed as having to have restrictive effect upon the
meaning of the other.” (page 30 of the CBA). They also contend that
maternity cases, more specifically caesarian operations are not among
those mentioned as exceptions to Article X or these would have been so
provided, if such was the intent.
Hence, upon SIA’s refusal to grant the complainant’s claim, the
Singapore Airlines Employees’ Association, in behalf of individual
complainant Matriano, charged SIA before Labor Arbiter Sofronio Ona with
unfair labor practice for violation of the CBA.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, stating that pregnancy cannot be
considered as sickness per se to entitle an employee to the
hospitalization benefits under Article XI of the CBA.
On appeal, the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding no
basis for the charge of unfair labor practice. Hence, this petition.
Two main issues are to be resolved, to wit:
(a) Whether or not under the CBA petitioner Matriano is entitled to
reimbursement of her hospitalization expenses as a result of her
caesarian operation; and(b) Whether or not respondents are guilty of unfair labor practice.
We find no difficulty in disposing of the matter at hand. The
provisions of the CBA in question are clear and from them we gather the
intent of the contracting parties.
The very title of Article XI alone provides us with an answer to the
first issue raised. Borrowing a principle of statutory construction, it
is well-established that titles given to sections of an act or contract
are often resorted to for the purpose of determining the scope of the
provisions and their relation to other portions of the act (Francisco,
Statutory Construction, Second Edition, pp. 186-187). In very general
terms, Section I, Article XI provides hospitalization and medical care
benefits. From the language of the Article in question, no
qualification as to cause of confinement or need of medical care is
made. The contention that pregnancy or childbirth is not sickÂness per
se so as to be reimbursable under the CBA is untenable. Article XI
neither states nor implies that its provisions apply only to sickness.
In fact, it speaks of “illness or disablement”, for one may be
hospitalized not only for treatment of disease but also for injury,
disability or incapacity.
The disputed CBA provision states that the “Company will meet expenses
up to P9,000 per calendar year forward expenses and surgical fees in
respect of each employee x x x.” Undoubtedly, the hospitalization
expenses of petitioner for her caesarian operation are covered by the
very wordings of the provision, as it involves surgery. To adopt
respondent’s strained interpretation would be to create an absurd
situation whereby an employee may no longer avail of the benefits under
Article XI when one is on vacation, sick, or compassionate leave, which
are also separately granted in the same way that maternity leave
benefits are provided as distinct privileges. Such a construction
would, of course, be absurd, and yet the respondents would apply it to
another form of leave. Reasonable and practical interpretation must be
placed on contractual provisions. Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
Such interpretation is to be adopted, that the thing may continue to
have efficacy rather than fail. (Martin v. Sheppard, 102 S Co. 2nd p.
1036; Adamonski v. Bord, AC, Pa. 193F 2d p. 578; Shimonek v. Tillanan 1
P. 2d 154; Almeda v. Florentino, G.R. No. L-23800, Dec, 21, 1965).
Sick leave, maternity leave, and vacation leave benefits are intended to
be replacements for regular income which otherwise would not be earned
because an employee is not working during the period of said leaves. If
an employee is on leave for 100 days, he gets his salary for 100 days
without having to work during those days. There is absolutely no
connection between the expenditures for sickness, childbirth, or
vacation trips and the amount of sick leave, maternity leave, or
vacation leave benefits. Thus, if a company grants sick leave or full
pay during the period when an employee is sick and at the same time grants hospital
or medical expenses incurred as a result of the sickness, there is no
incongruity or conflict between the two types of privileges — one is
sick leave while the other is medical benefits. In the same manner,
there is no conflict between maternity leave benefits which are nothing
else but full salaries for 45 days in this case and the hospitalization
and surgical benefits for expenses incurred during the same period for
hospitalization and surgery.
By analogy, qualified workers in the private sector are given sickness
benefits under the Social Security Act, as amended, as well as medicare
benefits under the Medicare provisions of the Labor Code. Sickness
benefits are intended to replace, even if only partially, lost income during the period of sickness while medicare benefits partially defray the costs of hospitalization and surgical care. One benefit does not exclude the other.
The above conclusion is bolstered by the fact that under the CBA in this
case, exceptions are specifically provided. The disputed contingency
of surgery and hospitalization does not come under the exceptions
provided by Section 3 of Article XI which enumerates specific instances
to wit: “illness and disablement” arising from illegal, immoral,
wrongful, negligent, aggressive, or similar acts. None of these specify
nor even remotely imply pregnancy or childbirth. Had it been their
purpose to exclude, then SIA should have expressly excluded the two as
it did in the CBA with its employees in Singapore. Not being so
excepted, hospital and medical care benefits due to pregnancy or
childbirth are reimbursable under the general rule set by Article XI. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
(In re Estate of Enriquez, 29 Phil. 167; Gomez v. Ventura, 54 Phil.
726; Managat et al. v. Aquino, et al, 92 Phil. 1025). Anything that is
not included in an enumeration is excluded therefrom, and a meaning that
does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of
the statute cannot be placed therein.
Moreover, we cannot restrict the application of Article XI by
correlating it with another separate and independent Article on
Maternity Leave. The parties have provided for a separability clause
under Article XVIII of the CBA. They agreed that one article of the CBA
cannot have a restrictive effect upon the meaning of another article.
Respondents also advance the argument that since the CBA in question was
lifted, almost verbatim, from the “Conditions of Employment for Locally
Engaged Staff in the Philippines”, it should likewise be interpreted as
excludÂing maternity hospitalization and medical care benefits. We do
not agree. Petitioner’s reasons are well taken and we quote:
“We beg to disagree. Firstly, Article XI provided for
non-hospitalization medical care and dental benefits (Sections 4 and 5)
which were not in the ‘Conditions of Employment’. Secondly, since the
said policy was unilaterally promulgated by SIA, its implementation was
solely within the prerogative of SIA and the employees could not do
anything even if SIA did not fully implement it by refusing to extend
hospitalization and medical care benefits to its employees who were
hospitalized because of childbirth. However, once the policy was
incorporated in a collective bargaining agreement, the employees thru
their Union have as much right as the Company in its proper
implementation.”
As a bilateral act and a result of long deliberation and dialogue
between he parties, the CBA is law between the parties (Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa La Suerte-FOITAF v. Noriel, 77 SCRA 414; Batangas-Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company v. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 470; Philippine Apparel
Workers’ Union v. NLRC, 106 SCRA 444). Having the force of law between
the parties, obligations arising therefrom should be complied with in
good faith (De Cortes v. Venturanza, 79 SCRA 709).
Parenthetically, the Solicitor General, as counsel for the public
respondent agrees that this petition is impressed with merit and states:
“Whether child birth is an illness or not is immaterial. Article
XI of the CBA does not make a distinction. The only exceptions where
hospitalization benefits may not be availed of are those enumerated in
Section 3 of the same Article XI, relating to attempted suicide, use of
drugs and those arising from employees misconduct. Child birth not
being one of the excepted causes, it is therefore, included in its
coverage.”xxx xxx xxx
“Finally, to exclude hospitalization expenses for child delivery
from the coverage of the said CBA provision would be a strained
application that favors the employer, negates the labor protection
clause in the Constitution and runs counter to the pronouncement of this
Honorable Court that the construction of labor legislation and labor
contracts should be in favor of safety and decent living of the laborer
(PALEA v. PAL, 70 SCRA 214; Insular Lumber Co. v. C.A., 80 SCRA 28;
Phil. Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC, 106 SCRA 444).”
Despite a finding of petitioner’s entitlement to her claim for
reimbursement, we are not prepared to pronounce respondent SIA guilty of
unfair labor practice. SIA’s refusal to grant benefits was not a
willful evasion of its obligations under the CBA but was due to an
honest mistake in the belief that the same is not covered by the
aforementioned CBA provision. An error in interpretation without malice
or bad faith does not constitute unfair labor practice. We take
judicial notice of the fact that honest differences in construction may
arise in the actual application of contractual provisions.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Commission is hereby MODIFIED.
The petition is granted insofar as petitioners’ claim for
reimbursement is concerned. Private respondent Singapore Airlines
Limited is ordered to refund petitioner Cecilia Matriano the amount of
SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY THREE PESOS and SEVENTY CENTAVOS
(P6,393.70) representing hospital, medical and surgical expenses which
the latter had incurred during her pregnancy and childbirth. The
respondent Commission’s finding that no unfair labor practice was
committed is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., on official leave.