G.R. No. 113856 September 7, 1998 SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTUR NG UN T!" WOR#!RS OF TH! PH $ PP N!

S %SMTFM& UWP', (t) o**(+er) ,-. member), petitioners, vs. NAT ONA$ $A/OR R!$AT ONS COMM SS ON, HON. 0OS! G. "! 1!RA ,-. TOP FORM MANUFACTUR NG PH $., NC., respondents. FACTS - Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing United Workers of the Phi ippines !SM" was the certified co ective #argaining representative of a regu ar rank and fi e emp o$ees of private respondent Top Form Manufacturing Phi ippines, %nc. - &mp o$er Top Form Manufacturing !TFM" refused to grant across-the-#oard increases to its emp o$ees in imp ementing Wage 'rder (o. )* !granting an increase of P*+ per da$ in the sa ar$ of workers" and Wage 'rder (o. ), !providing for a P*, dai $ increase in sa ar$" of the -egiona Tripartite Wages and Productivit$ .oard of the (ationa /apita -egion !-TWP.-(/-". Such refusa was aggravated #$ the fact that prior to the issuance of said wage orders, the emp o$er a eged $ promised at the co ective #argaining conferences to imp ement an$ government-mandated wage increases on an across-the-#oard #asis. - The union SM re0uested the imp ementation of said wage orders. .ut the$ demanded that the increase #e on an across-the#oard #asis. -espondent TFM refused to accede to that demand. %nstead, it imp emented a scheme of increases purported $ to avoid wage distortion. TFM granted the P*+ increase under W'1)* to workers2emp o$ees receiving sa ar$ of P*,32da$ and #e ow. The P*, increase under #$ W'1), was granted to those receiving the sa ar$ of P*4)2da$ and #e ow. For emp o$ees receiving sa ar$ higher than P*,3 or P*4).))2da$, TFM granted an esca ated increase ranging from P5.66 to P*4.7) and from P5.)) to P*).)), respective $. - SM fi ed a comp aint with the (/- (8-/. - Petitioners contention: TFM9s act of :reneging on its undertaking2promise c ear $ constitutes act of unfair a#or practice through #argaining in #ad faith.: %t charged TFM with acts of unfair a#or practices or vio ation of ;,4+ of the 8a#or /ode, as amended, specifica $ :#argaining in #ad faith,: and pra$ed that it #e awarded actua , mora and e<emp ar$ damages. %n its position paper, the union added that it was charging private respondent with :vio ation of ;*)) of the 8a#or /ode.: - Respondents contention: %n imp ementing Wage 'rders (os. )* and ),, it had avoided :the e<istence of a wage distortion: that wou d arise from such imp ementation. - There was no agreement to the effect that future wage increases mandated #$ the government shou d #e imp emented on an across-the-#oard #asis. 'therwise, that agreement wou d have #een incorporated and e<press $ stipu ated in the /.;. %t 0uoted the provision of the /.; that ref ects the parties9 intention to :fu $ set forth: therein a their agreements that had #een arrived at after negotiations that gave the parties :un imited right and opportunit$ to make demands and proposa s with respect to an$ su#=ect or matter not removed #$ aw from the area of co ective #argaining.: - 8a#or ;r#iter dismissed the comp aint for ack of merit. 'n appea at the (8-/, same was dismissed for ack of merit. MFdenied. >ence, this petition. SSU!S *. Whether private respondent Top Form Manufacturing committed an unfair a#or practice in its refusa to grant across-the#oard wage increases in imp ementing Wage 'rders (os. )* and ), ,. Whether there was a significant wage distortion of the wage structure in private respondent as a resu t of the manner #$ which said wage orders were imp emented H!$" *. (' The /.; is the aw #etween the contracting parties. Thus, on $ provisions em#odied in the /.; shou d #e so interpreted and comp ied with. Where a proposa or a promise raised #$ a contracting part$ does not find print in the /.; it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no c aim whatsoever to its imp ementation. - %f there was indeed a promise or undertaking on the part of TFM to o# igate itse f to grant an automatic across-the-#oard wage increase, union SM shou d have re0uested or demanded that such :promise or undertaking: #e incorporated in the /.;. ;fter a , petitioner has the means under the aw to compe private respondent to incorporate this specific economic proposa in the /.;. %t cou d have invoked ;,3, of the 8a#or /ode defining :dut$ to #argain,: thus, the dut$ inc udes :e<ecuting a contract incorporating such agreements if re0uested #$ either part$.: - ;,3, a so states that the dut$ to #argain :does not compe an$ part$ to agree to a proposa or make an$ concession.: Thus, petitioner ma$ not va id $ c aim that the proposa em#odied in the Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the /.; that it fina $ entered into with private respondent.

- SM?s contention that the Minutes of the co ective #argaining negotiation meeting forms part of the entire agreement is point ess. %f indeed private respondent promised to continue with the practice of granting across-the-#oard sa ar$ increases ordered #$ the government, such promise cou d on $ #e demanda# e in aw if incorporated in the /.;. @Aranted that private respondent TFM had granted an across-the-#oard increase pursuant to -epu# ic ;ct (o. 5+,+, that single instance ma$ not #e considered an esta# ished compan$ practice. ,. (' The issue of whether or not a wage distortion e<ists is a 0uestion of fact that is within the =urisdiction of the 0uasi-=udicia tri#una s #e ow. Factua findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and even fina it$ in this /ourt if the$ are supported #$ su#stantia evidence. Thus, in Metropo itan .ank and Trust /ompan$, %nc. v. (8-/, the /ourt saidB The issue of whether or not a wage distortion e<ists as a conse0uence of the grant of a wage increase to certain emp o$ees, we agree, is, #$ and arge, a 0uestion of fact the determination of which is the statutor$ function of the (8-/. Cudicia review of a#or cases, we ma$ add, does not go #e$ond the eva uation of the sufficienc$ of the evidence upon which the a#or officia s9 findings rest. ;s such, the factua findings of the (8-/ are genera $ accorded not on $ respect #ut a so fina it$ provided that its decisions are supported #$ su#stantia evidence and devoid of an$ taint of unfairness or ar#itrariness. When, however, the mem#ers of the same a#or tri#una are not in accord on those aspects of a case, as in this case, this /ourt is we cautioned not to #e as so conscious in passing upon the sufficienc$ of the evidence, et a one the conc usions derived therefrom. Un ike in a#ove-cited case where the Decision of the (8-/ was not unanimous, the (8-/ Decision in this case which was penned #$ the dissenter in that case, Presiding /ommissioner &dna .onto-PereE unanimous $ ru ed that no wage distortions marred private respondent9s imp ementation of the wage orders. The (8-/ saidB 'n the issue of wage distortion, we are satisfied that there was a meaningfu imp ementation of Wage 'rders (os. )* and ),. This de#unks the c aim that there was wage distortion as cou d #e shown #$ the itemiEed wages imp ementation 0uoted a#ove. %t shou d #e noted that this itemiEation has not #een successfu $ traversed #$ the appe ants. . . . . - %n this case, (8-/ unanimous $ ru ed that no wage distortions marred private respondent9s imp ementation of the wage orders. There was a meaningfu imp ementation of W'1)* and 1),. SM?s contention on the issue of wage distortion and the resu ting a egation of discrimination against the TFM9s emp o$ees are anchored on its du#ious position that TFM9s promise to grant an across-the-#oard increase in government-mandated sa ar$ #enefits ref ected in the Minutes of the negotiation is an enforcea# e part of the /.;.