Rivera vs. Espiritu

2/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 374
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 351

Rivera vs. Espiritu
*
G.R. No. 135547. January 23, 2002.
GERARDO F. RIVERA, ALFRED A. RAMISO,

AMBROCIO PALAD, DENNIS R. ARANAS, DAVID
SORIMA, JR., JORGE P. DELA ROSA, and ISAGANI
ALDEA, petitioners, vs. HON. EDGARDO ESPIRITU in
his capacity as Chairman of the PAL InterAgency Task
Force created under Administrative Order No. 16; HON.
BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary of
Labor and Employment; PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (PAL),
LUCIO TAN, HENRY SO UY, ANTONIO V. OCAMPO,
MANOLO E. AQUINO, JAIME J. BAUTISTA, and
ALEXANDER O. BARRIENTOS, respondents.
Actions; Certiorari; Prohibition; Requisites.Petitioners

allege grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure. The essential requisites for a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a
tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial
functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. For writs of prohibition, the requisites are: (1) the
impugned act must be that of a tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasijudicial or
ministerial functions; and (2) there is no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Same; Same; Same; Certiorari and Prohibition are not proper
where what exists is a contract between a private firm and one of
its labor unions, albeit entered into with the assistance of an Inter
Agency Task Force created to address the problems between the
contracting parties.The assailed agreement is clearly not the act
of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi
judicial, or ministerial functions. It is not the act of public
respondents Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu and Labor
Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma as functionaries of the Task
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a605007372bfa97f4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
Force. Neither is there a judgment, order, or resolution of either

public respondents involved. Instead, what exists is a contract
between a private firm and one of its labor unions, albeit entered
into with the assistance of the Task Force. The first and second
requisites for certiorari and prohibition are therefore not present
in this case.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
352
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rivera vs. Espiritu
Same; Same; Same; Contracts; Where the object of the action

is actually the nullification of a contract between an employer and
one of its labor unions, the proper remedy is an ordinary civil
action for annulment of contract, an action which properly falls
under the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts, not certiorari or
prohibition.Furthermore, there is available to petitioners a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
While the petition is denominated as one for certiorari and
prohibition, its object is actually the nullification of the PAL
PALEA agreement. As such, petitioners proper remedy is an
ordinary civil action for annulment of contract, an action which
properly falls under the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
Neither certiorari nor prohibition is the remedy in the present
case.
Labor Law; Words and Phrases; Collective Bargaining
Agreement, Defined; The primary purpose of a CBA is the
stabilization of labormanagement relations in order to create a
climate of a sound and stable industrial peace, and in construing
a CBA, the courts must be practical and realistic and give due
consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the
purpose which it is intended to serve.A CBA is a contract
executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive
bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached
after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work and all
other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for
adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such
agreement. The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of
labormanagement relations in order to create a climate of a
sound and stable industrial peace. In construing a CBA, the
courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration
to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is

intended to serve.
Same; Collective Bargaining; Article 253A of the Labor Code
has a twofold purposeone is to promote industrial stability and
predictability, and the other is to assign specific timetables
wherein negotiations become a matter of right and requirement;
Nothing in Article 253A prohibits the parties from waiving or
suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the
remedies to enforce the same.The assailed PALPALEA
agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial
situation faced by the employer, with the peculiar and unique
intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at PAL, but
preventing the latters closure. We find no conflict between said
agreement and Article 253A of the Labor Code. Article 253A has
a twofold purpose. One is to promote industrial stability and
predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote
industrial peace at PAL during its rehabilitation, said agreement
satisfies the first purpose of
353
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 353
Rivera vs. Espiritu
Article 253A. The other is to assign specific timetables wherein

negotiations become a matter of right and requirement. Nothing
in Article 253A, prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending
the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce
the same.
Same; Same; The right to free collective bargaining, after all,
includes the right to suspend it.In the instant case, it was
PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent of PALs ground
employees, that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It
was also PALEA that voluntarily opted for the 10year suspension
of the CBA. Either case was the unions exercise of its right to
collective bargaining. The right to free collective bargaining, after
all, includes the right to suspend it.
Same; Same; The acts of the public functionaries in
sanctioning the 10year suspension of the PALPALEA CBA did
not contravene the protection to labor policy of the Constitution.
The acts of public respondents in sanctioning the 10year
suspension of the PALPALEA CBA did not contravene the
protection to labor policy of the Constitution. The agreement
afforded full protection to labor; promoted the shared
responsibility between workers and employers; and the exercised

voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation to
foster industrial peace.
Same; Same; Union Security Clauses; Unfair Labor Practice;
The Court is unable to declare the objective of union security an
unfair labor practice.The questioned proviso of the agreement
reads: a. PAL shall continue recognizing PALEA as the duly
certified bargaining agent of the regular rankandfile ground
employees of the Company. Said proviso cannot be construed
alone. In construing an instrument with several provisions, a
construction must be adopted as will give effect to all. Under
Article 1374 of the Civil Code, contracts cannot be construed by
parts, but clauses must be interpreted in relation to one another
to give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a contract is not
determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from
all others, but from the whole read together. The aforesaid
provision must be read within the context of the next clause,
which provides: b. The union shop/maintenance of membership
provision under the PALPALEA CBA shall be respected. The
aforesaid provisions, taken together, clearly show the intent of the
parties to maintain union security during the period of the
suspension of the CBA. Its objective is to assure the continued
existence of PALEA during the said period. We are unable to
declare the objective of union security an unfair labor practice. It
is State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate
with management on an even playing field and with more
persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately
bargain with
354
Rivera vs. Espiritu
the employer. For this reason, the law has allowed stipulations
union shop and closed shop as means of encouraging workers
to join and support the union of their choice in the protection of
their rights and interests visvis the employer.
Same; Same; Under Article 253A of the Labor Code, the
representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only
when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect.We also do
not agree that the agreement violates the fiveyear representation
limit mandated by Article 253A. Under said article, the
representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies
only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. In the
instant case, the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in
abeyance the limit on the representation period.
Same; Same; The PALPALEA agreement dated 27 September
1998 is a valid exercise of the freedom to contract, and under the
principle of inviolability of contracts guaranteed by the
Constitution, the contract must be upheld.In sum, we are of the
view that the PALPALEA agreement dated September 27, 1998,
is a valid exercise of the freedom to contract. Under the principle
of inviolability of contracts guaranteed by the Constitution, the
contract must be upheld.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari and Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity &
Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) for petitioners.
Estelito P. Mendoza for private respondents Phil.
Airlines, et al.
Adolfo M. Guerzon for private respondent A.
Barrientos.
QUISUMBING, J.:
In this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition,

petitioners charge public respondents with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for
acts taken in regard to the enforcement of the agreement
dated September 27, 1998, between Philippine Airlines
(PAL) and its union, the PAL Employees Association
(PALEA).
355
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 355

Rivera vs. Espiritu
The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:

On June 5, 1998, PAL pilots affiliated with the Airline
Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) went on a
threeweek strike, causing serious losses to the financially
beleaguered flag carrier. As a result, PALs financial
situation went from bad to worse. Faced with bankruptcy,
PAL adopted a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor
force by more than onethird.
On July 22, 1998, PALEA went on strike to protest the
retrenchment measures adopted by the airline, which
affected 1,899 union members. The strike ended four days
later, when PAL and PALEA agreed to a more systematic

reduction in PALs work force and the payment of
separation benefits to all retrenched employees.
On August 28, 1998, then President Joseph E. Estrada
issued Administrative Order No. 16 creating an Inter
Agency Task Force (Task Force) to address the problems of
the ailing flag carrier. The Task Force was composed of the
Departments of Finance, Labor and Employment, Foreign
Affairs, Transportation and Communication, and Tourism,
together with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Public respondent Edgardo Espiritu, then the
Secretary of Finance, was designated chairman of the Task
Force. It was empowered to summon all parties concerned
for conciliation, mediation (for) the purpose of1 arriving at a
total and complete solution of the problem. Conciliation
meetings were then held between PAL management2 and
the three unions representing the airlines employees, with
the Task Force as mediator.
On September 4, 1998, PAL management submitted to
the Task Force an offer by private respondent Lucio Tan,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PAL, of a plan to
transfer shares of stock to its employees. The pertinent
portion of said plan reads:
1. From the issued shares of stock within the group of

Mr. Lucio Tans holdings, the ownership of 60,000
fully paid shares of stock of Philippine Airlines with
a par value of PHP5.00/share will be transferred in
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 68. Administrative Order No. 16, Sec. 2.

2 ALPAP, PALEA, and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association
of the Philippines or FASAP.
356

Rivera vs. Espiritu
favor of each employee of Philippine Airlines in the

active payroll as of September 15, 1998. Should any
shareowning employee leave PAL, he/she has the
option to keep the shares or sells (sic) his/her
shares to his/her union or other employees
currently employed by PAL.
2. The aggregate shares of stock transferred to PAL
employees will allow them three (3) members to
(sic) the PAL Board of Directors. We, thus, become

partners in the boardroom and together, we shall
address and find solutions to the wide range of
problems besetting PAL.
3. In order for PAL to attain (a) degree of normalcy
while we are tackling its problems, we would
request for a suspension of the Collective 3
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) for 10 years.
On September 10, 1998, the Board of Directors of PALEA

voted to accept Tans offer and requested the Task Forces
assistance in implementing the same. Union members,
however, rejected Tans offer. Under intense pressure from
PALEA members, the unions directors subsequently
resolved to reject Tans offer.
On September 17, 1998, PAL informed the Task Force
that it was shutting down its operations effective
September 23, 1998, preparatory to liquidating its assets
and paying off its creditors. The airline claimed that given
its labor problems, rehabilitation was no longer feasible,
and hence, the airline had no alternative but to close shop.
On September 18, 1998, PALEA sought the intervention
of the Office of the President in immediately convening the
parties, the PAL management, PALEA, ALPAP, and
FASAP, including the SEC under the direction of the Inter
Agency4
Task Force, to prevent the imminent closure of
PAL.
On September 19, 1998, PALEA informed the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) that it had
no objection to a referendum on the Tans offer. 2,799 out of
6,738 PALEA members cast their votes in the referendum
under DOLE supervision held on September 2122, 1998.
Of the votes cast, 1,055 voted in favor of Tans offer while
1,371 rejected it.
_______________
3 Supra, note 1 at p. 69.

4 Id., at p. 98.
357
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 357

Rivera vs. Espiritu
On September 23, 1998, PAL ceased its operations and sent

notices of termination to its employees.
Two days later, the PALEA board wrote President

Estrada anew, seeking his intervention. PALEA offered a
10year moratorium on strikes and similar actions and a
waiver
5
of some of the economic benefits in the existing
CBA. Tan, however, rejected this counteroffer.
On September 27, 1998, the PALEA board again wrote
the President proposing the following terms and conditions,
subject to ratification by the general membership:
1. Each PAL employee shall be granted 60,000 shares

of stock with a par value of P5.00, from Mr. Lucio
Tans shareholdings, with three (3) seats in the PAL
Board and an additional seat from government
shares as indicated by His Excellency;
2. Likewise, PALEA shall, as far as practicable, be
granted adequate representation in committees or
bodies which deal with matters affecting terms and
conditions of employment;
3. To enhance and strengthen labormanagement
relations, the existing LaborManagement
Coordinating Council shall be reorganized and
revitalized, with adequate representation from both
PAL management and PALEA;
4. To assure investors and creditors of industrial
peace, PALEA agrees, subject to the ratification by
the general membership, (to) the suspension of the
PALPALEA CBA for a period of ten (10) years,
provided the following safeguards are in place:
a. PAL shall continue recognizing PALEA as the duly

certified bargaining agent of the regular rankand
file ground employees of the Company;
b. The union shop/maintenance of membership
provision under the PALPALEA CBA shall be
respected.
c. No salary deduction, with full medical benefits.
5. PAL shall grant the benefits under the 26 July 1998

Memorandum of Agreement forged by and between
PAL and PALEA, to those employees who may opt
to retire or be separated from the company.
_______________
5 Id., at p. 101.
358

Rivera vs. Espiritu
6. PALEA members who have been retrenched but

have not received separation benefits shall be
granted priority in the hiring/rehiring of employees.
7. In the absence of applicable Company rule or
regulation,
6
the provisions of the Labor Code shall
apply.
Among the signatories to the letter were herein petitioners

Rivera, Ramiso, and Aranas, as officers and/or members of
the PALEA Board of Directors. PAL management accepted
the PALEA proposal and the necessary referendum was
scheduled.
On October 2, 1998, 5,324 PALEA members cast their
votes in a DOLEsupervised referendum. Of the votes cast,
61% were in favor of accepting the PALPALEA agreement,
while 34% rejected it.
On October 7, 1998, PAL resumed domestic operations.
On the same date, seven officers and members of PALEA
filed this instant petition to annul the September 27, 1998
agreement entered into between PAL and PALEA on the
following grounds:
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS GRAVELY ABUSED THEIR

DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED THEIR JURISDICTION IN
ACTIVELY PURSUING THE CONCLUSION OF THE PAL
PALEA AGREEMENT AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
SELFORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
BEING FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY, MAY NOT BE
WAIVED, NOR THE WAIVER, RATIFIED.
II
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS GRAVELY ABUSED THEIR

DISCRETION AND EXCEEDED THEIR JURISDICTION IN
PRESIDING OVER THE CONCLUSION OF THE PALPALEA
AGREEMENT UNDER THREAT OF ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF
PALS MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE TO CLOSE BUSINESS
USED AS SUBTERFUGE FOR UNIONBUSTING.
The issues now for our resolution are:
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 6566.
359
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 359

Rivera vs. Espiritu
(1) Is an original action for certiorari and prohibition

the proper remedy to annul the PALPALEA
agreement of September 27, 1998;
(2) Is the PALPALEA agreement of September 27,
1998, stipulating the suspension of the PALPALEA
CBA unconstitutional and contrary to public policy?
Anent the first issue, petitioners aver that public

respondents as functionaries of the Task Force, gravely
abused their discretion and exceeded their jurisdiction
when they actively pursued and presided over the PAL
PALEA agreement.
Respondents, in turn, argue that the public respondents
merely served as conciliators or mediators, consistent with
the mandate of A.O. No. 16 and merely supervised the
conduct of the October 3, 1998 referendum during which
the PALEA members ratified the agreement. Thus, public
respondents did not perform any judicial and quasijudicial
act pertaining to jurisdiction. Furthermore, respondents
pray for the dismissal of the petition for violating the
hierarchy 7 of courts doctrine enunciated
8
in People v.
Cuaresma and Enrile v. Salazar.
Petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion under Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The essential
requisites for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1)
the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer
exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions; (2) such
tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or
any plain, speedy,
9
and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. For writs of prohibition, the requisites are:
(1) the impugned act must be that of a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial func
_______________
7 G.R. No. 67787, 172 SCRA 415, 424425 (1989).

8 G.R. No. 9216364, 186 SCRA 217, 231 (1990).
9 Suntay v. CojuangcoSuntay, G.R. No. 132524, 300 SCRA 760, 766
(1998); Cuison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, 289 SCRA 159, 171
(1998).
360

Rivera vs. Espiritu
tions; and (2) there is no plain, speedy, 10

and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The assailed agreement is clearly not the act of a
tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi
judicial, or ministerial functions. It is not the act of public
respondents Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu and
Labor Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma as functionaries of
the Task Force. Neither is there a judgment, order, or
resolution of either public respondents involved. Instead,
what exists is a contract between a private firm and one of
its labor unions, albeit entered into with the assistance of
the Task Force. The first and second requisites for
certiorari and prohibition are therefore not present in this
case.
Furthermore, there is available to petitioners a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
While the petition is denominated as one for certiorari and
prohibition, its object is actually the nullification of the
PALPALEA agreement. As such, petitioners proper
remedy is an ordinary civil action for annulment of
contract, an action which properly11 falls under the
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts. Neither certiorari
nor prohibition is the remedy in the present case.
Petitioners further assert that public respondents were
partial towards PAL management. They allegedly
pressured the PALEA leaders into accepting the
agreement. Petitioners ask this Court to examine the
circumstances that led to the signing of said agreement.
This would involve review of the facts and factual issues
raised in a special civil12 action for certiorari which is not the
function of this Court.
Nevertheless, considering the prayer of the parties
principally we shall look into the substance of the petition,
in the higher inter
_______________
10 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,Rule 65, Sec. 2.

11 Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691, Sec. 19.
12 StoltNielsen Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 128395, 300
SCRA 713, 717718 (1998); Suarez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124723, 293 SCRA
496, 502 (1998).
361
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 361

Rivera vs. Espiritu
13
est of justice and in view of the public interest involved,
inasmuch as what is at stake here is industrial peace in the
nations premier airline and flag carrier, a national
concern.
On the second issue, petitioners contend that the
controverted PALPALEA agreement is void because 14
it
abrogated the right of workers to15selforganization and
their right to collective bargaining. Petitioners claim that
the agreement was not meant merely to suspend the
existing PALPALEA CBA, which expires on September 30,
2000, but also to foreclose any renegotiation or any
possibility to forge a new CBA for a decade
16
or up to 2008. It
violates the protection to labor policy laid down by the
Constitution.
Article 253A of the Labor Code reads:
ART. 253A. Terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.Any

Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into
shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a
term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status
of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no
certification election shall be conducted by the Department of
Labor and Employment outside of the sixtyday period
immediately before the date of expiry of such fiveyear term of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later
than three (3) years after its execution. Any agreement on such
other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered
into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of
such other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining
Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such
date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months,
the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.
In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective
bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under
this Code.
Under this provision, insofar as representation is

concerned, a CBA has a term of five years, while the other
provisions, except for
_______________
13 Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128954, 297 SCRA 574, 584 (1998);
Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, 289 SCRA 624, 645 (1998).
14 CONST.Art. III, sec. 8.
15 CONST.Art. XIII, sec. 3.
16 CONST.Art. II, sec. 18; Art. XIII, sec. 3.
362

Rivera vs. Espiritu
representation, may be negotiated

17
not later than three
years after the execution. Petitioners submit that a 10
year CBA suspension is inordinately long, way beyond the
maximum statutory life of a CBA, provided for in Article
253A. By agreeing to a 10year suspension, PALEA, in
effect, abdicated the workers constitutional right to
bargain for another CBA at the mandated time.
We find the argument devoid of merit.
A CBA is a contract executed upon request of either the
employer or the exclusive bargaining representative
incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations
with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms
and conditions of employment, including proposals for
adjusting any18
grievances or questions arising under such
agreement. The primary purpose of a CBA is the
stabilization of labormanagement relations in order19 to
create a climate of a sound and stable industrial peace. In
construing a CBA, the courts must be practical and
realistic and give due consideration to the context in which
it is negotiated
20
and the purpose which it is intended to
serve.
The assailed PALPALEA agreement was the result of
voluntary collective bargaining negotiations undertaken in
the light of the severe financial situation faced by the
employer, with the peculiar and unique intention of not
merely promoting industrial peace at PAL, but preventing
the latters closure. We find no conflict between said
agreement and Article 253A of the Labor Code. Article
253A has a twofold purpose. One is to promote industrial
stability and predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement
sought to promote industrial peace at PAL during its
rehabilitation, said agreement satisfies the first purpose of
Article 253A. The other is to assign specific timetables
wherein negotiations become a matter of right and
requirement. Nothing in Article 253A, prohibits the

parties
_______________
17 San Miguel Corporation Employees UnionPTGWO v. Confesor, G.R.

No. 111262, 330 Phil. 628, 638; 262 SCRA 81 (1996).
18 Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, G.R. No.
102132, 220 SCRA 197, 204 (1993).
19 Kiok Loy v. NLRC, G.R. No. L54334, 141 SCRA 179, 185 (1986).
20 Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, supra, note
19 at p. 204.
363
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 363

Rivera vs. Espiritu
from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and

agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same.
In the instant case, it was PALEA, as the exclusive
bargaining agent of PALs ground employees, that
voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It was also
PALEA that voluntarily opted for the 10year suspension of
the CBA. Either case was the unions exercise of its right to
collective bargaining. The right to free collective
bargaining, after all, includes the right to suspend it.
The acts of public respondents in sanctioning the 10
year suspension of the PALPALEA CBA did not
contravene the protection to labor policy of the
Constitution. The agreement afforded full protection to
labor; promoted the shared responsibility between workers
and employers; and the exercised voluntary modes in
settling
21
disputes, including conciliation to foster industrial
peace.
Petitioners further allege that the 10year suspension of
the CBA under the PALPALEA agreement virtually
installed PALEA as a company union for said period,
amounting to unfair labor practice, in violation of Article
253A of the Labor Code mandating that an exclusive
bargaining agent serves for five years only.
The questioned proviso of the agreement reads:
a. PAL shall continue recognizing PALEA as the duly certified

bargaining agent of the regular rankandfile ground employees of
the Company;
Said proviso cannot be construed alone. In construing an

instrument with several provisions, a construction must be
adopted as 22will give effect to all. Under Article 1374 of the
Civil Code, contracts cannot be construed by parts, but
clauses must be interpreted in relation to one another to
give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a contract is not
determined alone by any particular provision disconnected
from all others, but from the whole read
_______________
21 1987 CONST.Art. XIII sec. 3. Stress supplied.

22 Art. 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted
together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result
from all of them taken jointly.
364

Rivera vs. Espiritu
23
together. The aforesaid provision must be read within the
context of the next clause, which provides:
b. The union shop/maintenance of membership provision under

the PALPALEA CBA shall be respected.
The aforesaid provisions, taken together, clearly show the

intent of the parties to maintain union security during
the period of the suspension of the CBA. Its objective is to
assure the continued existence of PALEA during the said
period. We are unable to declare the objective of union
security an unfair labor practice. It is State policy to
promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate with
management on an even playing field and with more
persuasiveness than if they were to individually and
separately bargain with the employer. For this reason, the
law has allowed stipulations union shop and closed shop
as means of encouraging workers to join and support the
union of their choice in the protection
24
of their rights and
interests visvis the employer.
Petitioners contention that the agreement installs
PALEA as a virtual company union is also untenable.
Under Article 248 (d) of the Labor Code, a company union
exists when the employer acts [t]o initiate, dominate,
assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization, including the
giving of financial or other support to it or organizers or
supporters. The case records are bare of any showing of

such acts by PAL.
We also do not agree that the agreement violates the
fiveyear representation limit mandated by Article 253A.
Under said article, the representation limit for the
exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an
extant CBA in full force and effect. In the instant case, the
parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the
limit on the representation period.
In sum, we are of the view that the PALPALEA
agreement dated September 27, 1998, is a valid exercise of
the freedom to
_______________
23 Reparations Commission v. Northern Lines Inc., et al., G.R. No. L

24835, 145 Phil. 24, 33; 34 SCRA 203 (1970).
24 Liberty Flour Mills Employees v. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc., G.R. Nos.
5876870, 180 SCRA 668, 679680 (1989).
365
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 365

People vs. Daganio
contract. Under the principle of 25inviolability of contracts

guaranteed by the Constitution, the contract must be
upheld.
WHEREFORE, there being no grave abuse of discretion
shown, the instant petition is DISMISSED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De

Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Notes.The labor organization designated or selected

by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining. (Militante vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 246 SCRA 365 [1995])
Although union security clauses embodied in the
collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced
and that dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise be
valid, this does not erode the fundamental requirement of
due process. (Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa
M. Greenfield [MSMGUWP] vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428

[2000])
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Rivera vs. Espiritu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera vs. Espiritu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera vs. Espiritu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/21/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 374

VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 351

GERARDO F. RIVERA, ALFRED A. RAMISO,

Actions; Certiorari; Prohibition; Requisites.Petitioners

Force. Neither is there a judgment, order, or resolution of either

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED