Gretch Mary Blanca Acuario

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Labor quotes

a woman has the privilege of changing her mind but this is usually allowed only in affairs of the heart where the rules are permissibly inconstant.

-periquet vs NLRC
-J.Cruz

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Possession

1. Republic vs CA
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jul1996/108926.htm

2. Cuaycong vs Benedicto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/mar1918/gr_l-9989_1918.html

3. Calma vs Calma
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1931/sep1931/gr_34004_1931.html

4. Dizon vs Suntay
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/sep1972/gr_l_30817_1972.html

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC GR No. 91980. June 27, 1991

Facts:

The Union known as Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) said to represent 4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, presented to the company a demand for correction of the significant distortion in wages.

In that demand, the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 of RA 6727, “The Wage Rationalization Act”, which reads as follows:

Where the application of the increases in the wages rates under this section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the wage structure within an establishment and gives rise to dispute therein, such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the National Labor Relations Commission having jurisdiction over the workplace.

It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide any dispute arising under this section within twenty (20) calendar days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability of the increase in the wage rates prescribed under this section.

The Union claims that the demand was ignored. When the Company rejected the reduced proposal of the Union the members thereof, on their own accord, refused to render overtime services, most especially at the Beer Bottling Plants at Polo, starting October 16, 1989. In this connection, the workers involved issues a joint notice reading as follows:

Sama-samang pahayag: Kaming arawang manggagawa ng Polo Brewery pawang kasapi ng Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) ay nagkakaisang nagpasya na ipatupad muna ang eight hours work shift pansamantala habang hindi ipinapatupad ng SMC Management ang tamang Wage Distortion.

Issue:

Whether or not wage distortion shall be a ground for strike/lockout.

Ruling:

No.

It is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's members of the work time theretofore willingly and consistently observed by them, thereby causing financial losses to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union. The argument is correct and will be sustained.

Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, declares that in line with "the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining. Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally recognized in respect of employers.

The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are concerned are: strikes; picketing; and boycotts. On the other hand, the counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout. In this connection, the same Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed therefor.

It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract.

In the particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue.

The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or abitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the employees or management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout."

Tobias vs Abalos Gr No. L-114783. December 8, 1994

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7675, “An Act Converting the municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong”.

Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the Munnicipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent congressional representative of this legislative district, sponsored the bill which eventually became RA 7675, President Ramis signed it into law.

Pursuant to Local Government Code of 1991, a plebiscite was held. The people of Mandaluyong were asked whether they approved the conversion. The turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of the voting population. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes” whereas 7, 911 voted “no”. By virtue of these results, RA 7675 was deemed ratified in effect.

Petitioners contention were that RA 7675, specifically Article VIII, Section 46 thereof, is unconstitutional. They alleged that it contravenes the “one subject – one bill” rule. They also alleged that the subject law embraced two principal subjects, namely: 1. the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city; and 2. the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.

Petitioners argue that the division has resulted in an increase in the composition of the House of Representative beyond that provided in the Constitution. Furthermore, petitioners contend that said division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the subject municipalities have attained the minimum population requirements.

Issue:

1. Whether or not RA 7675 is unconstitutional.

2. Whether or not the number of the members of the House of Representative may increase.

3. Whether or not the subject law has resulted in gerrymandering.

Ruling:

1. No.

The conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city with a population of not less than 250, 000 indubitably ordains compliance with the “one city – one representative” as provided in Article VI, Section 5, par.3 of the Constitution.

The creation of separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural ang logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. It should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. It should be sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all provisions are germane to that general subject. It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators, the persons interested in the subject of the bill and the public, of the nature, scope and consequence of the proposed law and its operation.

2. Yes.

The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law. The present composition of the Congress may be increased, if Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.

3. No.

Gerrymandering is the practice of creating legislative districts to favor a particular candidate or party. It should be noted that Rep. Zamora, the author of the assailed law, is the incumbent representative of the former San Juan/Mandaluyong district, having consistently won in both localities. By dividing San Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora’s constituency has in fact been diminished, which development could hardly be considered as favorable to him.

Petition dismissed.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Labor Cases Part 4

Friday, August 9, 2013

Faith like potatoes

#Faith