You are on page 1of 5

and 3, Article VIII thereof, provide for sick leave with pay benefits each year to its

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION Case Digest employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of service with the company, thus:
TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R No. 163419. February 13, 2008 Section 1. Sick Leaves — The Company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave with pay each
year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already rendered at least one year
FACTS: TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the of service with the company. However, such sick leave can only be enjoyed upon
corporation Union for the increase of salary for the latter’s members for the year 2000 to
certification by a company designated physician, and if the same is not enjoyed within
2002 starting from January 2000. thus, the increased in salary was materialized on January
one year period of the current year, any unenjoyed portion thereof, shall be converted
1, 2000. However, on October 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Board
raised daily minimum wage from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November 1, 2000.
to cash and shall be paid at the end of the said one year period. And provided however,
Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary employees were increased to P250.00 and that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not intermittent, are
became regular employees therefore receiving another 10% increase in salary. In January entitled to the herein sick leave privilege.
2001, TSPIC implemented the new wage rates as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nine
employees who were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees, received less wages. Section 3. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the
On January 19, 2001, TSPIC’s HRD notified the 24 employees who are private respondents, Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with
that due to an error in the automated payroll system, they were overpaid and the pay under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including
overpayment would be deducted from their salaries starting February 2001. The Union on overtime.
the other hand, asserted that there was no error and the deduction of the alleged
overpayment constituted diminution of pay. Upon its renewal, the coverage of the said benefits was expanded to include the
"present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this Agreement." Section 3, Article
ISSUE: Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay as alleged by the VIII, as revised, provides, thus:
Union.
"Section 3. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the
RULING: Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by Regular Labor Pool and present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this
unions and their employers are binding upon the parties and be acted in strict compliance agreement shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay
therewith. Thus, the CBA in this case is the law between the employers and their employees. under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including
overtime.
Therefore, there was no overpayment when there was an increase of salary for the members
of the union simultaneous with the increasing of minimum wage for workers in the National
Also, all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor pool and
Capital Region. The CBA should be followed thus, the senior employees who were first
the present regular extra labor pool hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits.
promoted as regular employees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries and the
same with lower rank workers.
Any unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current year was converted to cash and
paid at the end of the said one-year period pursuant to Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII of
the CBA.
DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, in his capacity as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator and The commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of the
THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU-TUCP), respondents. intermittent workers or its conversion to cash was, however, discontinued or
withdrawn when petitioner-company under a new assistant manager, Mr. Benjamin
Facts: Marzo (who replaced Mr. Cecilio Beltran, Jr. upon the latter's resignation), stopped the
payment of its cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said
Petitioner and private respondent and the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of the 1989 CBA.
rank and file workers entered into collective bargaining agreement under Sections 1
The Union objected said discontinuance because it would violate the principle in labor PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS
laws that benefits already extended shall not be taken away and that it would result in ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), represented by its President, RENE SORIANO,
discrimination between the non-intermittent and the intermittent workers of the Petitioner, v. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, Respondent.
petitioner-company. The Union brought it before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board and said public respondent issued an award in favour of the Union. SUMMARY: CBA included a provision saying that the company shall schedule the
Hence, this instant petition. vacation leave of employees during the year, taking into consideration the request of
preference of the employees. Union objected saying that they have the right to schedule
Issue:
their own vacation and the scheduling of vacation leave was done to avoid the
Whether or not the intermittent field workers are entitled to conversion to cash of any monetization of the same. SC: The management has the sole discretion to schedule the
unused sick leave. vacation leave of the union members. The terms of the CBA are clear and needs no
interpretation – the scheduling of vacation leave SHALL be under the option of the
Held: employer. The preference requested by the employees is not controlling because the
corporation retains its power and prerogative to consider or to ignore said request
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It was said that CBA is not an ordinary
contract but impressed with public interest, thus it must yield to the common good. DOCTRINE: In the grant of vacation leave privileges to an employee, the employer is
given the leeway to impose conditions on the entitlement to and commutation of the
It must be noted that the 1989 CBA has two (2) sections on sick leave with pay benefits
which apply to two (2) distinct classes of workers in petitioner's company, namely: (1) same, as the grant of vacation leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of
the regular non-intermittent workers or those workers who render a daily eight-hour management. It is a mere concession or act of grace of the employer and not a matter of
service to the company and are governed by Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA; and right on the part of the employee. Thus, it is well within the power and authority of an
(2) intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the employer to impose certain conditions, as it deems fit, on the grant of vacation leaves,
present regular extra labor pool as of the signing of the agreement on April 15, 1989 or such as having the option to schedule the same
those workers who have irregular working days and are governed by Section 3, Article
VIII of the 1989 CBA. The purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer a chance to get a much-needed rest
to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new vitality to enable him to efficiently
It is thus erroneous for petitioner to isolate Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA from
perform his duties, and not merely to give him additional salary and bounty.
the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits, specifically Section 3 thereof, in
its attempt to justify the discontinuance or withdrawal of the privilege of commutation
or conversion to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefit to regular
FACTS:
intermittent workers because well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or
conversion to cash, being an existing benefit, the petitioner-company may not
• PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security Division Workers'
unilaterally withdraw, or diminish such benefits.
Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a labor union duly registered with the DOLE
It is a fact that petitioner-company had, on several instances in the past, granted and
• PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under
paid the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits of some
intermittent workers. Under the circumstances, these may be deemed to have ripened and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines.
into company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn.
• November 15, 2002: The union and the corporation entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement
which included vacation leave and expenses for security license provisions.
o ARTICLE VIII. VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE Please consider the leave credit they earned each month [1-2-0], one day and
two hours in anticipation of the later schedule. As we are targeting the zero conversion
Section 1. Vacation Leave comes December 2004, it is suggested that the leave balances as of to date be given
[b] The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking preferential scheduling.
into consideration the request of preference of the employees. • Due to the disagreement between the parties, the union elevated the matter to
• In a Memorandum dated December 29, 2003, the corporations Head of the the DOLE-NCMB for preventive mediation.
Traffic Management and Security Department (TMSD) published the scheduled vacation • For failure to settle the issue amicably, the parties agreed to submit the issue
leave of its TMSD personnel for the year 2004. before the voluntary arbitrator.
• Thereafter, the Head of the TMSD issued a Memorandum dated January 9, 2004 • VA July 12, 2004: The scheduling of all vacation leaves under Article VIII, Section
to all TMSD personnel. 6, thereof, shall be under the discretion of the union members entitled thereto, and the
o SCHEDULED VACATION LEAVE WITH PAY. management to convert them into cash all the leaves which the management compelled
them to use.
o The 17 days (15 days SVL plus 2-day-off) scheduled vacation leave (SVL) with
pay for the year 2004 had been published for everyone to take a vacation with pay o August 11, 2004 order: MR denied
which will be our opportunity to enjoy quality time with our families and perform our • October 22, 2004: The corporation filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
other activities requiring our personal attention and supervision. Swapping of SVL Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the CA
schedule is allowed on a one-on-one basis by submitting a written request at least 30
days before the actual schedule of SVL duly signed by the concerned parties. However, • CA (October 4, 2005): annulled and set aside the decision and order of the
the undersigned may consider the re-scheduling of the SVL upon the written request of voluntary arbitrator.
concerned TMSD personnel at least 30 days before the scheduled SVL. Re-scheduling
will be evaluated taking into consideration the TMSDs operational requirement. o Since the provisions of the CBA were clear, the voluntary arbitrator has no
authority to interpret the same beyond what was expressly written.
• The union objected to the implementation of the said memorandum.
o January 23, 2006 resoltion: MR denied
o Its individual members have the right to schedule their vacation leave.
• Hence, instant petition
o The unilateral scheduling of the employees' vacation leave was done to avoid
the monetization of their vacation leave in December 2004. ISSUE: W/M the management has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leave of
the union members? YES
o This was allegedly apparent in the memorandum issued by the Head HRD,
addressed to all department heads, which provides: RATIO:

We are furnishing all the departments the leave balances of their respective staff
as of January 01, 2004, so as to have them monitor and program the schedule of such • Union: Their union members have the preference in scheduling their vacation
leave. leave.
• Corporation: Article VIII, Section 1 (b) gives the management the final say the vacation leaves in accordance with what had been agreed and stipulated upon in the
regarding the vacation leave schedule of its employees. The corporation may take into CBA.
consideration the employees' preferred schedule, but the same is not controlling.
• There is, thus, no basis for the Voluntary Arbitrator to interpret the subject
• The rule is that where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, its provision relating to the schedule of vacation leaves as being subject to the discretion of
meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. The the union members. There is simply nothing in the CBA which grants the union
intention of the parties must be gathered from that language, and from that language members this right.
alone. Stated differently, where the language of a written contract is clear and
unambiguous, the contract must be taken to mean that which, on its face, it purports to • The grant to management of the right to schedule vacation leaves is not without
mean, unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words used should be good reason. Indeed, if union members were given the unilateral discretion to schedule
understood in a different sense. their vacation leaves, the same may result in significantly crippling the number of key
employees of the petitioner manning the toll ways on holidays and other peak seasons,
• CAB: the contested provision of the CBA is clear and unequivocal. where union members may wittingly or unwittingly choose to have a vacation. Put
another way, the grant to management of the right to schedule vacation leaves ensures
• Article VIII, Section 1 (b) of the CBA categorically provides that the scheduling of that there would always be enough people manning and servicing the toll ways, which
vacation leave shall be under the option of the employer. in turn assures the public plying the same orderly and efficient toll way service.
• The preference requested by the employees is not controlling because the • Indeed, the multitude or scarcity of personnel manning the tollways should not
corporation retains its power and prerogative to consider or to ignore said request. rest upon the option of the employees, as the public using the skyway system should be
• If the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the assured of its safety, security and convenience.
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. • Although the preferred vacation leave schedule of petitioner's members should
• In fine, the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be be given priority, they cannot demand, as a matter of right, that their request be
achieved, being the law between the parties. automatically granted by the corporation.

• Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of • If the union members were given the exclusive right to schedule their vacation
Appeals: The CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the CBA leave then said right should have been incorporated in the CBA.
must be respected since its terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. • In the absence of such right and in view of the mandatory provision in the CBA
The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on the ground that giving the corporation the right to schedule the vacation leave of its employees,
the same are not favorable to them. compliance therewith is mandated by law.
• The words of the CBA were unequivocal when it provided that The company • In the grant of vacation leave privileges to an employee, the employer is given
shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the leeway to impose conditions on the entitlement to and commutation of the same, as
the request of preference of the employees. The word shall in this instance connotes an the grant of vacation leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of management. It
imperative command, there being nothing to show a different intention. The only is a mere concession or act of grace of the employer and not a matter of right on the part
concession given under the subject clause was that the company should take into of the employee. Thus, it is well within the power and authority of an employer to
consideration the preferences of the employees in scheduling the vacations; but
certainly, the concession never diminished the positive right of management to schedule
impose certain conditions, as it deems fit, on the grant of vacation leaves, such as having conditions. Sugue, for one, complained that the conditions imposed upon her by the
the option to schedule the same. company before granting her leaves (e.g. a medical certificate in the case of her
applications for sick leave and the submission of the company’s marketing plan in the
• Along that line, since the grant of vacation leave is a prerogative of the employer, case of her applications for vacation leave) constituted harassment and discrimination
the latter can compel its employees to exhaust all their vacation leave credits. Of course, making her work unbearable and, thus, prompting her to file a complaint with the NLRC
any vacation leave credits left unscheduled by the employer, or any scheduled vacation for constructive dismissal against Triumph International. Valderrama’s case is similar to
leave that was not enjoyed by the employee upon the employer's directive, due to that of Sugue’s. The cited complaints for constructive dismissal was premised on their
exigencies of the service, must be converted to cash, as provided in the CBA. argument that they were being singled out by the company because of their earlier filing
• However, it is incorrect to award payment of the cash equivalent of vacation of money claims before the NLRC against the company. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their
leaves that were already used and enjoyed by the employees. By directing the favor. The NLRC reversed the LA. The CA reinstated the decision of the LA but deleted
conversion to cash of all utilized and paid vacation leaves, the voluntary arbitrator has the awards for attorney’s fees and the reduced the amounts of damages awarded to
licensed unjust enrichment in favor of the the union members and caused undue Sugue and Valderrama.
financial burden on the corporation. Evidently, the Court cannot tolerate this. ISSUE: Whether or not the conditions imposed by the company for the granting of leave
• Cuajo v. Chua Lo Ta: the purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer a credits amounted to discrimination or harassment, supporting the claim of constructive
chance to get a much-needed rest to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new dismissal.
vitality to enable him to efficiently perform his duties, and not merely to give him HELD: No, the conditions set by the company do not amount to discrimination. In the
additional salary and bounty. grant of vacation and sick leave privileges to an employee, the employer is given leeway
• Accordingly, the vacation leave privilege was not intended to serve as additional to impose conditions on the entitlement to the same as the grant of vacation and sick
salary, but as a non-monetary benefit. To give the employees the option not to consume leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of management. It is a mere concession
it with the aim of converting it to cash at the end of the year would defeat the very or act of grace of the employer and not a matter of right on the part of the employee.
purpose of vacation leave. Thus, it is well within the power and authority of an employer to deny an employee’s
application for leave and the same cannot be perceived as discriminatory or
• The union’s contention that labor contracts should be construed in favor of the harassment. Triumph did not act with discrimination, insensibility or disdain towards
laborer is without basis and, therefore, inapplicable to the present case. This rule of Sugue and Valderrama, which foreclosed any choice on their part except to forego their
construction does not benefit the union because, as stated, there is here no room for continued employment. Purely conjectural are their assertions that the disapproval of
interpretation. Since the CBA is clear and unambiguous, its terms should be their leave applications, the denial of their request for executive check-up and the
implemented as they are written. alleged demotion, were carried out by Triumph in retaliation to their filing of a
complaint for unpaid money claims against the company (e.g. the submission of the
XII-II-D-6. Sugue vs. Triumph International marketing plan before the granting the application for vacation leave credits was
important because Triumph International was experiencing a decline in their sales,
FACTS: In 2000, in a separate case, Virginia Sugue and Renato Valderrama (substituted
by heirs during the pendency of the case in the CA), filed a complaint with the NLRC for according to the SC).
payment of money claims arising from allegedly unpaid vacation and sick leave credits,
birthday leave and 14th month pay for the period 1999-2000. Thereafter, the
applications of both Sugue and Valderrama for leave credits were subjected to various

You might also like