P.N.B. vs. Phil. National Bank Employees Asso. (PEMA)

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 37
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Categories
Published
law
   VOL. 115, JULY 30, 1982507  P.N.B. vs. Phil. National Bank Employees Asso. (PEMA) No. L-30279. July 30, 1982. * PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA) and COURT OF INDUSTRIALRELATIONS, respondents.  Labor Law; Courts Appeal; The Court of Industrial Relationsdid not decide the issues raised below in this certified dispute as anarbitration court, but on the basis of its interpretation of applicablelaw and jurisprudence. The decisionÊs correctness is appealable .·Relatedly, however, it is to be noted that it is clear from the holding of the Industrial CourtÊs decision We have earlier quoted, „the causeof action (here) is not on any decision of any court but on theprovisions of the law which have been in effect at the time of theoccurrence of the cause of action in relation to a labor dispute‰. Viewed from such perspective laid by the lower court itself, it canhardly be said that it indeed exercised purely its power of arbitration, which means laying down the terms and conditions thatshould govern the relationship between the employer andemployees of an enterprise following its own appreciation of therelevant circumstances rather _______________ *  EN BANC. 508 508SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  P.N.B. vs. Phil. National Bank Employees Asso. (PEMA)  empirically. More accurately understood, the court in fact indulgedin an interpretation of the applicable law, namely, CA 444, in thelight of its own impression of the opinion of this Court in NAWASA and based its decision thereon. Accordingly, upon the fact-situationof this case hereunder to be set forth, the fundamental question forUs to decide is whether or not the decision under appeal is inaccordance with that law and the cited jurisprudence. In brief, asPEMA posits, is NAWASA four-square with this case? And evenassuming, for a while, that in a sense what is before Us is anarbitration decision, private respondent itself admits in its above-mentioned memorandum that this Court is not without power andauthority to determine whether or not such arbitration decision isagainst the law or jurisprudence or constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. Same; Rationale for overtime pay.·  In Our considered opinion,the answer to such question lies in the basic rationale of overtimepay. Why is a laborer or employee who works beyond the regularhours of work entitled to extra compensation called in thisenlightened time, overtime pay? Verily, there can be no other reasonthan that he is made to work longer than what is commensuratewith his agreed compensation for the statutorily fixed or voluntarilyagreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When he thus spendsadditional time to his work, the effect upon him is multi-faceted: heputs in more effort, physical and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to his family to enjoy the comforts thereof; he might have notime for relaxation, amusement or sports; he might miss importantprearranged engagements; etc., etc. It is thus the additional work,labor or service employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in his place of work that justify and is the realreason for the extra compensation that he called overtime pay. Same; There is presently a consciousness towards helping our employees by giving of additional allowance in times of economicuncertainty .·In these times when humane and dignified treatmentof labor is steadily becoming universally an obsession of society, we,in our country, have reached a point in employer-employeerelationship wherein employers themselves realize theindispensability of at least making the compensation of workersequal to the worth of their efforts as much as this case can bestatistically determined. Thus, in order to meet the effects of uncertain economic conditions affecting adversely the living conditions of wage earners, employers, whenever the financialconditions of the enterprise permit, grant them what has beencalled as cost-of-living allowance. In other words, instead of leaving   the workers to assume the risks of or drift by themselves 509  VOL. 115, JULY 30, 1982509  P.N.B. vs. Phil. National Bank Employees Asso. (PEMA) amidst the cross-currents of country-wide economic dislocation,employers try their best to help them tide over the hardships anddifficulties of the situation. Sometimes, such allowances arevoluntarily agreed upon in collective bargaining agreements. Atother times, it is imposed by the government as in the instances of Presidential Decrees Nos. 525, 928, 1123, 1389, 1614, 1678, 1751and 1790; Letters of Instructions No. 1056 and Wage Order No. 1.Notably, Presidential Decree No. 1751 increased the statutoryminimum wage at all levels by P400 in addition to integrating themandatory emergency living allowances under Presidential DecreeNo. 525 and Presidential Decree No. 1123 into the basic pay of allcovered workers. Same; The industrial court cannot even in a certified labordispute impose upon the parties terms and conditions inconsistentwith existing law and jurisprudence .·On this point, the respondentcourt held that under its broad jurisdiction, it was within the ambitof its authority to provide for what the parties could not agree upon.We are not persuaded to view the matter that way. We are notconvinced that the government, thru the Industrial Court, then,could impose upon the parties in an employer-employee conflict,terms and conditions which are inconsistent with the existing lawand jurisprudence, particularly where the remedy is sought by theactors more on such legal basis and not purely on the courtÊsarbitration powers. Same; Longevity pay cannot be included in the computation of overtime pay when the Collective Bargaining Agreement sostipulates .·In regard to the first question, We have already pointedout to start with, that as far as longevity pay is concerned, it isbeyond question that the same cannot be included in thecomputation of overtime pay for the very simple reason that thecontrary is expressly stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement and, as should be the case, it is settled that the termsand conditions of a collective bargaining agreement constitute thelaw between the parties. (Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz, 45  SCRA 577. See also Shell Oil Workers Union et al. vs. ShellCompany of the Philippines, supra .) The contention of PEMA thatthe express provision in the collective bargaining agreement that„this benefit (longevity pay) shall not form part of the basic salariesof the officers so affected‰ cannot imply the same idea insofar as thecomputation of the overtime pay is concerned defies the rules of logic and mathematics. If the basic pay cannot be deemed increased,how could the overtime pay be based on any increased amount atall? 510 510SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  P.N.B. vs. Phil. National Bank Employees Asso. (PEMA)Same; The basis of computation of overtime pay beyond therequired by law must be the Collective Bargaining Agreementbetween the parties .·In any event, as stressed by Us in the Shellcases, the basis of computation of overtime pay beyond thatrequired by CA 4444 must be the collective bargaining agreement,for, to reiterate Our postulation therein and in Bisig ng Manggagawa, supra , it is not for the court to impose upon theparties anything beyond what they have agreed upon which is nottainted with illegality. On the other hand, where the parties fail tocome to an agreement, on a matter not legally required, the courtabuses its discretion when it obliges any of them to do more thanwhat is legally obliged. Same; Basis for computation of overtime pay where theCollective Bargaining Agreement does not contain any provisionthereon. Rule in NAWASA vs. NAWASA Consolidated Unions, L-18938, Aug. 31, 196 , 11 SCRA 766 is superseded by instant decision .·Doctrinally, We hold that, in the absence of any specific provisionon the matter in a collective bargaining agreement, what aredecisive in determining the basis for the computation of overtimepay are two very germane considerations, namely, (1) whether ornot the additional pay is for extra work done or service renderedand (2) whether or not the same is intended to be permanent andregular, not contingent nor temporary and given only to remedy asituation which can change any time. We reiterate, overtime pay isfor extra effort beyond that contemplated in the employmentcontract, hence when additional pay is given for any other purpose,it is illogical to include the same in the basis for the computation of 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks