New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC

 New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 124224

March 17, 2000

DOCTRINE: It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.


The National Federation of Labor NFL was the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the rank and file employees of the petitioner. NFL started to negotiate for better terms and conditions of employment, which were met with resistance by the Petitioner Company.  The NFL filed a complaint for ULP on the ground of refusal to bargain collectively.  LA issued an order declaring the company guilty of ULP and ordering the CBA proposals submitted by the NFL as the CBA between parties. Later, 186 of private respondents claiming they were wrongfully excluded from the benefits under the CBA filed a petition for relief. Petitioner asserts that private respondents are not parties to the agreement and may not claim benefits thereunder. As for the CBA, petitioner maintains that the force and effect of the CBA’s terms are limited to only three years and cannot extend to terms and conditions which ceased to have force and effect.


1. Whether or not the terms of an existing CBA as to its economic provisions can be extended beyond the period stipulated therein, even beyond the three year period prescribed by law, in the absence of a new agreement.

2. Whether or not the rank and file employees hired after the term of the CBA, considering their subsequent membership in the bargaining unit, are parties to the agreement and may claim benefits thereunder.


1. Yes. It is clear from Art. 253 that until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties; they are duly bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. In the case at bar, no new agreement was entered between the parties pending appeal of the decision in the NLRC. Consequently, the employees from to the year 1985 (after expiration of the CBA) onwards would be deprived of a substantial amount of monetary benefits if the terms and conditions of the CBA were not to remain in force and effect which runs counter to the intent of the Labor Cod to curb labor unrest and promote industrial peace.=

2. Yes. When a CBA is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer, even the non-union members are entitled to the benefits of the contract. A laborer can claim benefits from a CBA entered into the company and the union of which he is a member at the time of the conclusion of the agreement even after he has resigned from said union. Therefore, the benefits under the CBA should be extended to those who only became such after it expired; to exclude them would constitute undue discrimination.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

No comments:

Post a Comment