Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    DECENA Case Digest MARCOPPER V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Eli Decena
    1. Marcopper Mining Corporation entered into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees' union to implement a 5% wage increase in 1986 and another 5% increase in 1987. However, an executive order was passed in 1987 integrating the cost of living allowance into basic wages with retroactive effect from the date of the scheduled 1987 wage increase. 2. The issues were whether the executive order impinges on the collective bargaining agreement obligations and if the cost of living allowance should be included in the second wage increase computation. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive order did not impinge on the agreement because labor laws and policies aim to promote social justice for workers. It also ruled that the cost of living allowance must

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DECENA Case Digest MARCOPPER V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Eli Decena
    47 views2 pages
    1. Marcopper Mining Corporation entered into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees' union to implement a 5% wage increase in 1986 and another 5% increase in 1987. However, an executive order was passed in 1987 integrating the cost of living allowance into basic wages with retroactive effect from the date of the scheduled 1987 wage increase. 2. The issues were whether the executive order impinges on the collective bargaining agreement obligations and if the cost of living allowance should be included in the second wage increase computation. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive order did not impinge on the agreement because labor laws and policies aim to promote social justice for workers. It also ruled that the cost of living allowance must

    Original Title

    DECENA Case Digest MARCOPPER v NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Marcopper Mining Corporation entered into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees' union to implement a 5% wage increase in 1986 and another 5% increase in 1987. However, an executive order was passed in 1987 integrating the cost of living allowance into basic wages with retroactive effect from the date of the scheduled 1987 wage increase. 2. The issues were whether the executive order impinges on the collective bargaining agreement obligations and if the cost of living allowance should be included in the second wage increase computation. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive order did not impinge on the agreement because labor laws and policies aim to promote social justice for workers. It also ruled that the cost of living allowance must

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    DECENA Case Digest MARCOPPER V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Eli Decena
    1. Marcopper Mining Corporation entered into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees' union to implement a 5% wage increase in 1986 and another 5% increase in 1987. However, an executive order was passed in 1987 integrating the cost of living allowance into basic wages with retroactive effect from the date of the scheduled 1987 wage increase. 2. The issues were whether the executive order impinges on the collective bargaining agreement obligations and if the cost of living allowance should be included in the second wage increase computation. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive order did not impinge on the agreement because labor laws and policies aim to promote social justice for workers. It also ruled that the cost of living allowance must

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DECENA, Elias Rafael L.

    Arbiter Melchisedek Guan


    L2A, Juris Doctor Labor Law 1

    MARCOPPER v NLRC
    G.R. No. 103525

    Facts:
    Marcopper Mining Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Marcopper
    Employees Union covering the general wage increase of the employees in two waves: 5% increase
    effective May 1, 1986 and the other 5% increase effective May 1, 1987.

    In compliance with the CBA, Marcopper implemented the initial 5% wage increase on May 1, 1986.
    However, On June 1987, EO 178 was implemented integrating the cost of living allowance into the basic
    wage of workers; notably, the EO had a retroactive effect which coincided to the date of the
    implementation of the second wave of wage increase that Marcopper was supposed to implement.

    Marcopper implemented the second 5% wage increase and added the COLA only thereafter. This
    prompted the labor union to file a complaint for underpayment which the Labor Arbiter favored as well as
    the NLRC upon appeal by Marcopper.

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not
    1. The EO impinges, through retroactive effect, the obligations between the parties stipulated in the
    collective bargaining agreement

    2. The cost of living allowance should be computed within the second wave of the wage increase

    HELD:

    1. NO. As put by the NLRC and as reiterated by the Supreme Court “Increments to the laborers'
    financial gratification, be they in the form of salary increases or changes in the salary scale are
    aimed at one thing — improvement of the economic predicament of the laborers. As such, they
    should be viewed in the light of the State's avowed policy to protect labor.” As a compelling state
    interest, to retroact the effects of the EO is to promote social justice for laborers as envisioned by
    the Constitution. As put by the court in Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v
    Abarquez: “While the terms and conditions of the CBA constitute the law between the parties, it
    is not, however, an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing
    ordinary contracts. A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of the
    Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not
    merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest, thus, it must yield to the common
    good. As such it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts
    must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context
    in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve.”

    2. YES. Compliance with the law is mandatory and beyond contractual stipulation by and between
    the parties; consequently, whether or not Marcopper intended the basic wage to include the
    COLA becomes immaterial. There is evidently nothing to construe and interpret because the law
    is clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately for Marcopper, said law, by some uncanny coincidence,
    retroactively took effect on the same date the CBA increase became effective. Therefore, there
    cannot be any doubt that the computation of the CBA increase on the basis of the "integrated"
    wage does not constitute a violation of the CBA. As also put by the Court in Philippine
    Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v NLRC: “When conflicting interests of labor and
    capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter should
    be counter-balanced by sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged
    worker.”

    You might also like