MALAYAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FFW and RODOLFO MANGALINO vs.

MALAYAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC.
GR No.: 181357
February 2, 2010
Brion, J.:
TOPIC: BARGAINING AGENT; UNION LEAVES; RULE 45 as compared to RULE 65 OF RULES OF COURT
Definition of Terms: N/A
A. Facts:
 Malayan Employees Association-FFW (Federation of Free Workers) is the exclusive bargaining
agent of the rank-and-file employees of Malayan Insurance Company. It had a provision in the
union’s CBA allowing union officials to avail union leaves with pay for a total of “ninety” man days
per year for the purpose of attending grievance meetings, labor-management committee
meetings, annual National Labor Management Conferences, labor education programs and
seminars, and other union activities.
 In November 2002, the company issued a rule requiring not only the prior notice that the CBA
expressly requires, but also prior APPROVAL by the department head before the union and its
members can avail union leaves. It was placed in effect in the same month WITHOUT ANY
OBJECTIONS from the union, until a union officer, Mangalino, filed union leaves application in
January and February 2004. His department head disapproved the applications because the
department was undermanned at that time.
 Despite disapproval, Mangalino proceeded to take union leaves and claimed that he believed in
good faith that he had complied with the procedure set forth in the CBA with regard to taking union
leaves. Because of this, the company suspended him for one week, and thereafter for a month,
for his second offense in February 2004.
 Union raised the suspensions as a grievance issue and went through all the grievance processes.
The union then went to the NCMB for preventive mediation and then to voluntary arbitration.
Voluntary Arbitrators ruling: Suspension on the first availment of Mangalino’s union leave is invalid
while the second suspension is valid but illicit in terms of penalty of 30 days suspension. Thus,
suspension of 37 days should be reduced to 27 days with backwages.
- Voluntary Arbitrator dela Fuente dissented as Mangalino’s acts were an open and utter display
of arrogance and unconcern for the welfare of the company. Hence, the two suspensions were
valid and he is not entitled to any backwages.
CA: In its decision on June 26, 2007, it held the validity of Mangalino’s suspension on the basis of
company’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules to regulate union leaves.

A.1 Arguments/Contentions
PETITIONER (MEA-FFW and Mangalino)
CA committed grave abuse of discretion when despite
the clear terms of CBA’s grant of union leaves, it
disregarded the evidence on record and recognized
that the company’s use of its management
prerogative as justification was proper.
RESPONDENT (Malayan Insurance Co. Inc.,)
Procedural objections:
-Appropriate remedy is petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45, instead of Rule 65.
-Violation of Sec. 2, Rule 45 when petitioner failed to
attach company’s pleadings and entirety of
company’s evidence.
-Petition is barred by time limitation as the CA’s
decision had lapsed to finality after it was filed for 62
days after the union’s receipt of the CA’s decision.
 Substantive aspect:
-Regulation of use of union leaves is within the
company’s management prerogative, and it was
merely exercising its right when it required the
employees to obtain approval for union leaves. Thus,
Mangalino committed acts of insubordination.

B. Issue/s
1. WON Mangalino’s suspension were valid.
2. WON Mangalino is entitled for backwages for the duration of the suspensions.

C. Ruling:
Petition is denied.
Laws applicable:
Sec. 1, Rule 45 of the ROC states that “A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or
resolution of the CA, the Sandiganbayan the RTC or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the
SC a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctively set forth.
While, Sec. 1, Rule 65 provides that special civil action for certiorari lies only when “there is no appeal, nor plain,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Hence, a petition for certiorari cannot be allowed when a
party fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, as certiorari is not a substitute for a lost
appeal.
In this case, under Rule 45, a petition for certiorari should be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment,
extendible in meritorious cases for a total of another 30 days. Given that Rule 45 petition is appropriate in the
present case, the period of 60 days after the notice of judgement is way past the deadline allowed to file the
petition. This reason alone amply supports the denial of the petition.
The court see nothing in the wordings of the union leave provision and CBA that remove from the company the
right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations to govern the manner of availing union leaves, particularly
the prerogative to require prior approval. Precisely, prior notice is expressly required under the CBA so that the
company can appropriately respond to the request for leave. In this sense, the rule requiring approval only made
express what is implied in the terms of the CBA.
In any event, Mangalino cannot contend that the provision of approval is oppressive nor violative of the CBA as
it had been established by the company since November 2002 and the union accepted this regulation without
any objection since its promulgation. No letter of complaint from the union or any request for a meeting to discuss
the policy were made. In fact, even Mangalino had complied with this requirement in the past by filing applications
for union leave with his department manager and willingly complied with the disapproval without any protest.
Thus, the requirement for prior approval was already in place and established and could no longer be removed
except with the company’s consent or by negotiation and express agreement in the future CBAs.
Therefore, Mangalino had openly disregarded his superior’s orders and rendered him open to the charge of
insubordination.