MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. QUISUMBING

 MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. QUISUMBING

G.R. No. 127598

January 27, 1999 and February 22, 2000

DOCTRINE:

1999 HELD

Art. 253-A: If no agreement is reached within six (6) months from the expiry date of the three (3) years that follow the CBA execution, the law expressly gives the parties the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. 

Principle of Hold Over: In the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached.

Another legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. 

2000 HELD

Collective Bargaining Agreement arbitral awards granted after six months from the expiration of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement shall retroact to such time 

agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their union 

in the absence of such an agreement as to retroactivity, to the first day after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the Collective Bargaining Agreement should there be one

in the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.

An arbitral award can be considered as an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been entered into by the parties.


FACTS:

MERALCO Workers Association (MEWA) is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of MERALCO. MEWA and MERALCO re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their existing 1992-1997 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering the remaining period of two years (December 1, 1995 - November 30, 1997). The parties failed to arrive at “terms and conditions acceptable to both of them.” MEWA filed a Notice of Strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices The Secretary of Labor (asssumed jurisdiction): granted several of MEWA’s economic and political demands. The effectivity of the new CBA shall retroact to December 1, 1995 (date of the commencement of the last two years of the effectivity of the existing CBA). MERALCO questioned the same grant. Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Roldan-Confesor: Effectivity should be on date the Secretary of Labor has resolved the labor dispute. MEWA argument

St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. vs. Torres: Secretary has plenary power and discretion to fix the date of effectivity of his arbitral award, otherwise an anomaly with Art. 253-A is created

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the arbitral award should be given retroactive effect. 

HELD: 

1999 HELD: 

NO.  CBA should be effective for a term of 2 years counted from December 28, 1996 (the date of the Secretary of Labor’s decision)  up to December 27, 1999. 

What the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re-negotiated within 3 years “after its execution.” It is in this re-negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock.

If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution, the law expressly gives the parties—not anybody else—the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. 

PRINCIPLE OF HOLD OVER- in the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached.51 

Remedy for lapse in Art. 253-A. the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining parties. 

in the absence of an agreement between the parties, then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. 


Consequently, we find no sufficient legal ground on the other justification for the retroactive application of the disputed CBA, and therefore hold that the CBA should be effective for a term of 2 years counted from December 28, 1996 (the date of the Secretary of Labor’s disputed order on the parties’ motion for reconsideration) up to December 27, 1999. 

2000 HELD: 

YES. The period is herein set at two (2) years from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997 (there was an agreement implied through MERALCO’s acts) 


Collective Bargaining Agreement arbitral awards granted after six months from the expiration of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement shall retroact to such time 

agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their union 

in the absence of such an agreement as to retroactivity, to the first day after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the Collective Bargaining Agreement should there be one

in the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.

The agreement of the parties need not be categorically stated for their acts may be considered in determining the duration of retroactivity.

By petitioner’s own actions, the Court sees no reason to retroact the subject CBA awards to a different date. The period is herein set at two (2) years from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. 

the petitioner did not dispute the allegation that in the past CBA arbitral awards, the Secretary granted retroactivity commencing from the period immediately following the last day of the expired CBA.

letter of petitioner’s Chairman of the Board and its President addressed to their stockholder: CBA covering the period December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997

The proposed CBA MERALCO gave MEWA covering the same period inclusive