15

RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION and SFI FEEDS DIVISION

vs.
KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and SANDIGAN AT
UGNAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU)

(G.R. No. 162324; February 4, 2009)

FACTS:

RFM Corporation (RFM) is a domestic corporation entered into collective bargaining

agreements with the Kasapian ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) for the
Flour Division, and Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-
KMU). It has been stated under the CBA:

Art. XVI, Section 3: Special Holidays with Pay – The COMPANY agrees to make payment to all daily
paid employees, in respect of any of the days enumerated hereunto if declared as special
holidays by the national government:

a) Black Saturday

b) November 1

c) December 31

The compensation rate shall be the regular rate. Any work beyond eight (8) hours shall be paid
the standard ordinary premium.

During the first year of the effectivity of the CBAs in 2000, December 31 which fell on a
Sunday was declared by the national government as a special holiday.Respondents thus claimed
payment of their members’ salaries, invoking the above-stated CBA provision.

Petitioner refused the claims for payment, averring that December 31, 2000 was not
compensable as it was a rest day. The controversy resulted in a deadlock, drawing the parties to
submit the same for voluntary arbitration.

The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Bernardino M. Volante declared that the above-quoted
provision of the CBA is clear, ruling in favor of KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU and SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU- and
ordered RFM to pay their salaries and attorney’s fees. The COURT of Appeals affirmed the decision

ISSUE:

Whether the employees are entitled to the salaries contemplated in CBA?

RULING:

Yes. They are entitled for the salaries contemplated in the CBA.
 If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, as in the herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That is
settled.5 As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays
which are so declared by the national government, regardless of whether they fall on rest days.

Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that
the State shall afford protection to labor. Although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns
what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay.

The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its provisions.

DOCTRINES:

1. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, as in the herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That
is settled. As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the
holidays which are so declared by the national government, regardless of whether they
fall on rest days.
2. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law
or provision affecting labor, it should be interpreted in favor of labor.
 16

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-

IUF), PHILIPPINE PLAZA CHAPTER
vs.
PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS, INC.

(G.R. No. 177524; July 23, 2014)

FACTS:

On November 24, 1998, the PPHI and the Union executed the "Third Rank-and-File
Collective Bargaining Agreement as Amended"6 (CBA). The CBA provided, among others, for the
collection, by the PPHI, of a ten percent (10%) service charge on the saleof food, beverage,
transportation, laundry and rooms. The pertinent CBA provisions read:

SECTION 68. COLLECTION. The HOTEL shall continue to collect ten percent (10%) service
charge on the sale of food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms except on negotiated
contracts and special rates. [Emphasis supplied]

SECTION 69. DISTRIBUTION. The service charge to be distributed shall consist of the
following:

Effective Food & Beverage Room, Transportation & valet

1998 95% 100%
1997 95% 100%

The distributable amount will beshared equally by all HOTEL employees, including
managerial employees but excluding expatriates, with three shares to be given to PPHI Staff and
three shares to the UNION (one for the national and two for the local funds) that may be utilized
by them for purposes for which the UNION may decide.

The LA dismissed the Union’s complaint for lack of merit. The LA declared that the
Union failed to show, by law, contract and practice, its entitlement to the payment of
service charges from the entries specified in its audit reports (specified
entries/transactions).

NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and considered the specified entries/transactions as
"service chargeable. The CA affirmed the LA’s decision but ordered the PPHI to pay the Union the
amount of ₱80,0613.88 as service charges that it found was due under the circumstances

1st audit
 On February 25, 1999, the Union’s Service Charge Committee informed the Union
President, through an audit report (1st audit report),8 of uncollected service charges for the last
quarter of 1998 amounting to ₱2,952,467.61.

ISSUE:

RULING:

DOCTRINE:
 17

PEDRO CHAVEZ
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUPREME PACKAGING, INC. and ALVIN LEE, Plant
Manager

(G.R. No. 146530; January 17, 2005)

FACTS:

Supreme Packaging, Inc., is in the business of manufacturing cartons and other packaging
materials for export and distribution.

Pedro Chavez, as truck driver on October 25, 1984, tasked to deliver the respondent company’s
products from its factory in Mariveles, Bataan, to its various customers

Respondent company furnished the petitioner with a truck. Most of the petitioner’s delivery
trips were made at nighttime, commencing at 6:00 p.m. from Mariveles, and returning thereto in
the afternoon two or three days after. The deliveries were made in accordance with the routing
slips issued by respondent company indicating the order, time and urgency of delivery.

On February 20, 1995, the petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. III of the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Before the case could be
heard, respondent company terminated the services of the petitioner.

HENCE, the petitioner filed an amendment complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practices and non-payment of overtime pay, nightshift differential, and 13 th month pay, among
others. The respondents denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the
respondent company and the petitioner. They averred that the petitioner was an independent
contractor as evidenced by the contract of service which he and the respondent company
entered into.

ISSUE:

Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship?

RULING:

Yes, an employer-employee relationship do exist. The elements to determine the existence

of an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the
employee’s conduct. The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s
conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods
to accomplish it.

First. Undeniably, it was the respondents who engaged the services of the petitioner
without the intervention of a third party. Second. That the petitioner was paid on a per trip basis is
not significant. This is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis for
determining the existence or absence of employer-employee relationship. Third. The respondents’
power to dismiss the petitioner was inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of the
petitioner as truck driver. Lastly, although the respondents denied that they exercised control over
the manner and methods by which the petitioner accomplished his work, a careful review of the
records shows that the latter performed his work as truck driver under the respondents’ supervision
and control. Hence, there existed an employer-employee relationship between the respondent
company and the petitioner.

DOCTRINE: