2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1
8
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
G.R. No. 123782. September 16, 1997. *

CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CREA),

petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE S. BRILLANTES, in his capacity as Acting
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, and CALTEX
(PHILIPPINES), Inc., respondents.
Labor Law; Administrative Law; Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies,
when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court and
entitled to great respect, considering the expertise of these agencies in their
respective fields.—The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies (such as the
Department of Labor and Employment), when supported by substantial evidence,
are binding on this Court and entitled to great respect, considering the expertise of
these agencies in their respective fields. It is well-established that findings of these
administrative agencies are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Substantial Evidence,” Explained.—
Substantial evidence in labor cases is such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind will accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Same; Certiorari; The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.—In Flores vs. National Labor
Relations Commission we explained the role and function of Rule 65 as an
extraordinary remedy: “It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant
petition is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court. An extraordinary remedy, its use is available only and restrictively in truly
exceptional cases—those wherein the action of an inferior court, board or officer
performing judicial or quasi-judicial acts is challenged for being wholly void on
grounds of jurisdiction. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It does not include correction of public
respondent NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings based thereon,
which are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
219
 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 219
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Same; Collective Bargaining; The age-old general rule governing relations
between labor and capital, or management and employee, is “a fair day’s wage
for a fair day’s work.”—The alleged “similarity” in the situation of Caltex and
Shell cannot be considered a valid ground for a demand of wage increase, in the
absence of a showing that the two companies are also similar in “substantial
aspects,” as discussed above. Private respondent is merely asking that an employee
should be paid on the basis of work done. If such employee is absent on a certain
day, he should not, as a rule, be paid wages for that day. And if the employee has
worked only for a portion of a day, he is not entitled to the pay corresponding to a
full day. A contrary precept would ultimately result in the financial ruin of the
employer. The age-old general rule governing relations between labor and capital,
or management and employee, is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.” If no
work is performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay unless, of course,
the laborer was ready, willing and able to work but was locked out, dismissed,
suspended or otherwise illegally prevented from working.
Same; Same; While union members have the right to demand wage increases
through their collective force, it is equally cogent that they should also be able to
justify an appreciable increase in wages.—True, union members have the right to
demand wage increases through their collective force; but it is equally cogent that
they should also be able to justify an appreciable increase in wages. We observe
that private respondent’s detailed allegations on productivity are unrebutted. It is
noteworthy that petitioner ignored this argument of private respondent and based
its demand for wage increase not on the ground that they were as productive as the
Shell employees. Thus, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to public
respondent.
Same; Same; Assumption of Jurisdiction; The labor secretary should take
cognizance of an issue which is not merely incidental to but essentially involved in
the labor dispute itself, or which is otherwise submitted to him for resolution, and
if he does not perform his duty, he commits a grave abuse of discretion.—The
disagreement between petitioner and private respondent on the union security
clause should have been definitively resolved by public respondent. The labor
secretary should take cognizance of an issue which is not merely incidental to but
essentially involved in the labor dispute itself, or which is otherwise submitted to
him for resolution. In this case, the parties have submitted the issue of the union
security
220
 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
20 ANNOTATED
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
clause for public respondent’s disposition. But the secretary of labor has
given no valid reason for avoiding the said issue; he merely points out that this
issue is a procedural matter. Such vacillation clearly sidesteps the nature of the
union security clause as one intended to strengthen the contracting union and to
protect it from the fickleness or perfidy of its own members. Without such
safeguard, group solidarity becomes uncertain; the union becomes gradually
weakened and increasingly vulnerable to company machinations. In this security
clause lies the strength of the union during the enforcement of the collective
bargaining agreement. It is this clause that provides labor with substantial power in
collective bargaining. The secretary of labor assumed jurisdiction over this labor
dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest, precisely to settle once and
for all the disputes over which he has jurisdiction at his level. In not performing his
duty, the secretary of labor committed a grave abuse of discretion.
Same; Same; Unions; Although the union has every right to represent its
members in the negotiation regarding the terms and conditions of their
employment, it cannot negate their wishes on matters which are purely personal
and individual to them.—We hold that public respondent did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in respecting the free and voluntary decision of the employees
in regard to the Provident Plan and the irrevocable one-time option provided for in
the New Retirement Plan. Although the union has every right to represent its
members in the negotiation regarding the terms and conditions of their
employment, it cannot negate their wishes on matters which are purely personal
and individual to them. In this case, the forty employees freely opted to be covered
by the Old Plan; their decision should be respected. The company gave them every
opportunity to choose, and they voluntarily exercised their choice. The union
cannot pretend to know better; it cannot impose its will on them.
Same; Same; Grievance Machinery; No particular setup for a grievance
machinery is mandated by law.—No particular setup for a grievance machinery is
mandated by law. Rather, Article 260 of the Labor Code, as incorporated by RA
6715, provides for only a single grievance machinery in the company to settle
problems arising from “interpretation or implementation of their collective
bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies.”
221
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 221
 Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Same; Same; Signing Bonus; A signing bonus may not be demanded as a
matter of right—if it is not agreed upon by the parties or unilaterally offered as an
additional incentive by the employer, the condition for awarding it must be duly
satisfied.—Although proposed by petitioner, the signing bonus was not accepted
by private respondent. Besides, a signing bonus is not a benefit which may be
demanded under the law. Rather, it is now claimed by petitioner under the
principle of “maintenance of existing benefits” of the old CBA. However, as
clearly explained by private respondent, a signing bonus may not be demanded as a
matter of right. If it is not agreed upon by the parties or unilaterally offered as an
additional incentive by private respondent, the condition for awarding it must be
duly satisfied. In the present case, the condition sine qua non for its grant—a
nonstrike—was not complied with.
Same; Same; It should be understood that bargaining is not equivalent to an
adversarial litigation where rights and obligations are delineated and remedies
applied—it is simply a process of finding a reasonable solution to a conflict and
harmonizing opposite positions into a fair and reasonable compromise.—In the
present case, the foregoing requirement has been sufficiently met. Petitioner’s
claim of grave abuse of discretion is anchored on the simple fact that public
respondent adopted largely the proposals of private respondent. It should be
understood that bargaining is not equivalent to an adversarial litigation where
rights and obligations are delineated and remedies applied. It is simply a process of
finding a reasonable solution to a conflict and harmonizing opposite positions into
a fair and reasonable compromise. When parties agree to submit unresolved issues
to the secretary of labor for his resolution, they should not expect their positions to
be adopted in toto. It is understood that they defer to his wisdom and objectivity in
insuring industrial peace. And unless they can clearly demonstrate bias,
arbitrariness, capriciousness or personal hostility on the part of such public officer,
the Court will not interfere or substitute the said officer’s judgment with its own. In
this case, it is possible that this Court, or some its members at least, may even
agree with the wisdom of petitioner’s claims. But unless grave abuse of discretion
is cogently shown, this Court will refrain from using its extraordinary power of
certiorari to strike down decisions and orders of quasi-judicial officers specially
tasked by law to settle administrative questions and disputes. This is particularly
true in the resolution of controversies in collective bargaining agreements where
the question is rarely one of legal right or wrong—nay, of black and white—but
one of wisdom, cogency and
222
 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
22 ANNOTATED
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
compromise as to what is possible, fair and reasonable under the
circumstances.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Diego P. Atienza for petitioner.
     Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for private
respondent.
RESOLUTION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Unless shown to be clearly whimsical, capricious or arbitrary, the orders

or resolutions of the secretary of labor and employment resolving
conflicts on what should be the contents of a collective bargaining
agreement will be respected by this Court. We realize that, oftentimes,
such orders and resolutions are based neither on definitive shades of
black or white, nor on what is legally right or wrong. Rather, they are
grounded largely on what is possible, fair and reasonable under the
peculiar circumstances of each case.
Statement of the Case
Petitioner Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) seeks
through Rule 65 of the Rules of Court “reversal or modification” of
three orders of public respondent, then Acting Secretary of Labor and
Employment Jose S. Brillantes, in Case No. OS-AJ-0044-95  entitled “In
1

re: Labor Dispute at Caltex (Phils.), Inc.” The disposition of the first
assailed Order  of public respondent dated October 9, 1995 reads:
2 3

_______________

1 With National Conciliation and Mediation Board case number NCMB-RBIV-NS-07-

088-95.
2 Rollo, pp. 164-178.
3 Ibid., p. 178.
223
 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 223
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
“WHEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, the Caltex Refinery
Employees Association and Caltex Philippines, Inc. are hereby directed to execute
a new collective bargaining agreement embodying therein the appropriate
dispositions above spelled out including those subject of previous agreements.
Provisions in the old CBA, or existing benefits subject of Company policy or
practice not otherwise modified or improved herein are deemed maintained.
New demands not otherwise touched upon or disposed of are hereby denied.”
The motions for reconsideration and
clarification of theabove Order filed by
both petitioner and private
respondentwere denied in the second
assailed Order dated November
21,1995, which disposed: 4

“WHEREFORE, except the modifications hereinabove set forth, the Order dated 9
October 1995 is hereby affirmed.
Moreover, pursuant to the Agreement reached by the parties on 13 September
1995 for this Office to commence the proceedings concerning the legality of strike
and the termination of the union officers, after the resolution of the CBA issues,
both parties are hereby directed to submit their position papers and evidence within
ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this Order. For this purpose, Atty. Tito F.
Genilo is hereby designated as Hearing Officer and authorized as such, to
immediately conduct hearings and receive evidence and, thereafter, submit his
report and recommendations thereon.”
Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration of the above Order was
likewise denied by the third assailed Order dated January 9, 1996, as
follows: 5

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, our Order of 21 November 1995 is

hereby affirmed en toto, subject to the aforementioned clarification on the issue of
Sunday work.
No further motions of this nature shall be entertained by this Office.
_______________

4 Ibid., p. 204.
5 Ibid., p. 242.
224
 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs. Brillantes
The parties are given another ten (10) days from receipt hereof to submit their
respective position papers and evidences (sic) relative to the issue of the legality of
strike and termination of the union officers.”
The Facts
Anticipating the expiration of their Collective Bargaining Agreement on
July 31, 1995, petitioner and private respondent negotiated the terms and
conditions of employment to be contained in a new CBA. The
negotiation between the two parties was participated in by the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and the Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment. Some items in the new CBA were
amicably arrived at and agreed upon, but others were unresolved.
To settle the unresolved issues, eight meetings between the parties
were conducted. Because the parties failed to reach any significant
progress in these meetings, petitioner declared a deadlock. On July 24,
1995, petitioner filed a notice of strike. Six (6) conciliation meetings
conducted by the NCMB failed to settle the parties’ differences. Then,
the parties held marathon meetings at the plant level, but this remedy
proved also unavailing.
During a strike vote on August 16, 1995, the members of petitioner
opted for a walkout. Private respondent then filed with the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a petition for assumption of
jurisdiction in accordance with Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code.
In an Order dated August 22, 1995, public respondent assumed
jurisdiction “over the entire labor dispute at Caltex (Philippines), Inc.,”
with the following disposition: 6

“WHEREFORE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office hereby assumes

jurisdiction over the entire labor dispute at Caltex (Philippines), Inc. pursuant to
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended.
_______________

6 Ibid., pp. 47-48.

225
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 225
 Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Accordingly, any strike or lockout, whether actual or intended, is hereby enjoined.
The parties are further directed to cease and desist from committing any and all
acts which might exacerbate the situation.
To expedite the resolution of the instant dispute, the parties are further directed
to submit their respective position papers and evidence within ten (10) days from
receipt hereof.”
In defiance of the above Order expressly restraining any strike or
lockout, petitioner began a strike and set up a picket in the premises of
private respondent on August 25, 1995. Thereafter, several company
notices directing the striking employees to return to work were issued,
but the members of petitioner defied them and continued their mass
action.
In the course of the strike, DOLE Undersecretary Bienvenido
Laguesma interceded and conducted several conciliation meetings
between the contending parties. He was able to convince the members of
the union to return to work and to enter into a memorandum of
agreement with private respondent. On September 9, 1995, the picket
lines were finally lifted. Thereafter, the contending parties filed their
position papers pertaining to unresolved issues. 7

Because of the strike, private respondent terminated the employment

of some officers of petitioner union. The legality of these dismissals
brought additional contentious issues. 8

Again, the parties tried to resolve their differences through

conciliation. Failing to come to any substantial agreement, the parties
stopped further negotiation and, on September 13, 1995, decided to refer
the problem to the secretary of labor and employment: 9

“It appearing that the possibility of an amicable settlement appears remote, the
parties agreed to submit their respective position paper and evidence
simultaneously on 27 September 1995 at the Office of the Secretary. The parties
further agreed that there will
_______________

7 Ibid., p. 285.
8 Ibid., p. 165.
9 Ibid., p. 166.
226
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2
6
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
be no extension of time for filing and no further pleading will be filed.
The decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment will be rendered on or
before October 9, 1995.
The proceedings concerning the legal issues involving the legality of strike and
the termination of the Union officers will be commenced by the Office of the
Secretary after the resolution of the CBA issues.”
As already stated, public respondent issued as scheduled on October 9,
1995 the assailed Order resolving the deadlock, followed by two more
assailed Orders on November 21, 1995 and January 16, 1996 disposing
of the motions for reconsideration/clarification of both parties.
Dissatisfied with these Orders issued by public respondent, petitioner
sought remedy from this Court.
After realizing the urgency of the case and after meticulously
reviewing the Petition dated February 23, 1996; Comment by the private
respondent dated April 16, 1996 which was adopted as its own by the
public respondent; Reply by the petitioner dated September 7,
1996; Rejoinder dated October 3, 1996 and Sur-Rejoinder dated
November 12, 1996, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition
and to consider the case submitted for resolution without requiring
memoranda from the parties.
The Issues
Petitioner does not specifically pinpoint the issues it wants the Court to
rule upon. It appears, however, that petitioner questions public
respondent’s resolution of five issues in the CBA, specifically on wage
increase, union security clause, retirement benefits or application of the
new retirement plan, signing bonus and grievance and arbitration
machineries.
Private respondent, on the other hand, submits this lone issue: 10

_______________

10 Ibid., p. 288; original text in upper case.

227
 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 227
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
“Whether or not the Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment committed
grave abuse of discretion in resolving the instant labor dispute.”
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
Preliminary Matter: Certiorari in Labor Cases
At the outset, we must reiterate several settled rules in a petition for
certiorari involving labor cases.
First, the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies (such as the
Department of Labor and Employment), when supported by substantial
evidence, are binding on this Court and entitled to great respect,
considering the expertise of these agencies in their respective fields.  It 11

is well-established that findings of these administrative agencies are

generally accorded not only respect but even finality. 12

Second, substantial evidence in labor cases is such amount of

relevant evidence which a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. 13

Third, in Flores vs. National Labor Relations Commission  we 14

explained the role and function of Rule 65 as an extraordinary remedy:

_______________

11 Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. vs. Laguesma, 239
SCRA 460, 465, December 27, 1994, citing Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. vs. Gallo, G.R. No.
102845, February 4, 1994; PAL Employees’ Association vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 162 SCRA 426.
12 Villanueva, Sr. vs. Leogardo, Jr., 215 SCRA 835, 838, November 20, 1992,
citing Special Events & Central Shipping Office Workers Union vs. San Miguel Corp., 122
SCRA 557.
13 Madlos vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 248, 257, March 4,
1996, citing Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court. See Rase vs. NLRC, 237 SCRA 523 (1994).
14 253 SCRA 494, 497, February 9, 1996, per Panganiban, J., citing Sajonas vs.
NLRC, 183 SCRA 182, March 15, 1990; Special Events & Central Shipping Office Workers
Union vs. San Miguel
228
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2
8
 Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
“It should be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. An extraordinary
remedy, its use is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases—those
wherein the action of an inferior court, board or officer performing judicial or
quasi-judicial acts is challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction.
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction
including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. It does not include correction of public respondent NLRC’s
evaluation of the evidence and factual findings based thereon, which are generally
accorded not only great respect but even finality.
No question of jurisdiction whatsoever is being raised and/or pleaded in the
case at bench. Instead, what is being sought is a judicial re-evaluation of the
adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence on record, which is certainly beyond the
province of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Such demand is impermissible for
it would involve this Court in determining what evidence is entitled to belief and
the weight to be assigned it. As we have reiterated countless times, judicial review
by this Court in labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the
evidence upon which the proper labor officer or office based his or its
determination but is limited only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.”
We shall thus use the foregoing time-tested standards in deciding this
petition.
1. Wage Increase
The main assailed Order dated October 9, 1995 resolved the ticklish
demand for wage increase as follows: 15

“With this in mind and taking into view similar factors as financial capacity,
position in the industry, package of existing benefits, inflation rate, seniority, and
maintenance of the wage differentiation between and among the various classes of
employees within
_______________

Corporation, supra, and Yap vs. Inciong, 186 SCRA 664, June 21, 1990.
15 Ibid., p. 172.
229
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 229
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
 the entire Company, this Office hereby finds the following improved benefits
fair, reasonable and equitable:
1 Wage increases    
.
  Effective August 1, 1995 — 14%
  Effective August 1, 1996 — 14%
  Effective August 1, 1997 — 13%
2 Meal subsidy — P 15.00”
.
In denying the motions for reconsideration/clarification of the above
award, public respondent ruled in the challenged Order dated November
21, 1995: 16

“First, on the matter of wages, we find no compelling reasons to alter or modify

our award after having sufficiently passed upon the same arguments raised by both
parties in our previous Order. The subsequent agreement on a package of wage
increases at Shell Company, adverted to by the Union as the usual yardstick for
purposes of developing its own package of improved wage increases, would not be
sufficient basis to grant the same increases to the Union members herein
considering that other factors, among which is employment size, were carefully
taken into account. While it is true that inflation has direct impact on wage
increases, it is not quite accurate to state that inflation ‘as of September 1995’ is
already registered at 11.8%. The truth of the matter is that the average inflation for
the first ten (10) months was only 7.496% and Central Bank projections indicate
that it will take a 13.5% inflation for November and December to record an
average inflation of 8.5% for the year. We, therefore, maintain the reasonableness
of the package of wage increases that we awarded.”
Petitioner belittles the awarded increases. It insists that the increase
should be ruled on the basis of four factors: “(a) the economic needs of
the [u]nion’s members; (b) the [c]ompany’s financial capacity; (c) the
bargaining history between the [u]nion and the [c]ompany; and (d) the
traditional parity in wages between Caltex and Shell Refinery
Employees.” 17

_______________

16 Ibid., p. 202.
17 Ibid., p. 12.
230
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3
0
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Petitioner contends that the “inflation rate rose to 11.8% in September
[1995], rose further in October, and is still a double-digit figure at the
time of this writing.” Therefore, public respondent’s so-called
“improved benefits” are in reality “retrogressive.” 18

Petitioner tries to show private respondent’s “immense financial

capacity” by citing Caltex’s “Banaba Housing Upgrading” which would
cost “not less than P200,000,000.00.”  Petitioner does “not begrudge”
19

private respondent’s “pampering of its [r]efinery [m]anagers and

supervisors,” but asks that the rank and file employees be “not left too
far behind.” 20

Petitioner maintains that the salaries of Shell Refinery employees be

used as a “reference point” in upgrading the compensation of private
respondent’s employees because these two companies are in the “same
industry and their refineries are both in Batangas.” Thus, the wage
increase of petitioner’s members should be “15%/15%/15%.” 21

Private respondent counters with a “proposed 9% 7% 7% increase for

the same period with automatic adjustment should the increase fall short
of the inflation rate.” Hence, the Secretary’s award of “14% 14% 13%”
increase really comes “closer to the Union’s position.” 22

Petitioner’s arguments fail to impress us. First, the matter of inflation

rate was clearly addressed in public respondent’s Order dated November
21, 1995. Contrary to petitioners undocumented claim of 11.8% inflation
in September of 1995, the “truth of the matter is that the average
inflation for the first ten (10) months was only 7.496%, and Central
Bank projections indicate that it will take a 13.5% inflation for
November and December to record an average inflation of 8.5% for the
year.”  Second, private respondent’s financial capacity
23

_______________

18 Ibid., p. 14.
19 Ibid., pp. 15-16.
 20 Ibid., p. 16.
21 Ibid., pp. 18-20.
22 Ibid., p. 290.
23 Ibid., p. 202.
231
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 231
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
has been insufficiently explained in its Comment dated April 16, 1996 in
which it stated that the Banaba “upgrading” should not be construed as a
yardstick of its financial standing: 24

“It is equally amazing how the Union (petitioner) desperately justifies their
demands by comparing the ‘upgrading cost’ of the Company’s (private respondent)
Banaba Housing Facilities, a matter totally unrelated to the case, to the cost of their
demands. The Union not only errs in its choice of yardstick of the Company’s
capacity to pay, it likewise displays its ignorance of the Banaba Housing Program.
The Banaba Housing Facility is not a benefit. It is an integral part of an
indispensable requirement for smooth Plant operations and assurance of an
emergency response crew in times of calamities and accidents. Employees who are
required to stay in the housing facility are members of the Refinery’s emergency
response organization. It is also not a case of ‘upgrading.’ The Banaba Housing
Facility was built in 1954. A significant number of its structure are dilapidated and
in dire need of rehabilitation and preservation. Finally, Banaba is not a yardstick of
the Company’s capacity to pay, but rather, an eloquent demonstration of the
Company’s will to survive and remain globally competitive.”
The above reasoning convinces us that such upgrading should not be
equated with private respondent’s financial capacity to pay the proposed
wage increase, but should be evaluated as a business judgment “to
survive and remain globally competitive.” We believe that the standard
proof of a company’s financial standing is its financial statements duly
audited by independent and credible external auditors.  Third, the 25

traditional parity in wages used by petitioner to justify its proposal is

flimsy and trivial. Aside from its bare allegation of “similarity” in
salaries and locations, petitioner did not proffer
_______________

24 Ibid., pp. 291-292; Comment, pp. 11-12.

 25 Saballa
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 260 SCRA 697, 709, August 22,
1996 per Panganiban, J., citing Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free
Workers, 189 SCRA 179, 190, August 30, 1990.
232
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3
2
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
any substantial reason to impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the public respondent. On the other hand, we find private respondent’s
discussion of this matter reasonable, as the following shows: 26

“It is further amazing that the Union continues to use an outmoded concept of the
‘Shell yardstick’ and ‘relative parities in wages’ to justify an imperative need for
them to keep their traditional edge in pay over their industry counterparts. It is not
just a matter of being above the rest. Sound compensation principle of higher
productivity equals higher pay, as well as, recent developments in the industry
have negated this argument. Both Shell and Petron continue to benefit from
increasing manpower productivity. Shell, for instance, produces 155,000 barrels
per day on a 120 manpower complement of operatives and rank and file; while the
Company only produces 65,000 barrels per day with its 221 manpower
complement. In addition, the counterpart union at Shell incurs an average overtime
rate of 37%, as a percentage of base pay; the Union’s overtime rate is 102%.
Thus, the issue is productivity, not sales, and so far, the Company’s Refinery is
not as productive as Shell’s or Petron’s. To ask for relative parity in the face of this
reality is not only unreasonable, it is likewise illogical.
As it is, the wage increase of 14%, 14% and 13% will result in an average basic
salary of P23,510.00 at the end of the three-year cycle. The resulting pay is
excessive and disproportionately high compared with the value of the jobs within
the bargaining unit. Stated differently, this average salary will be unreasonably
high for the skills and qualifications needed for the job.
Even now, with an average monthly salary (prior to the DOLE awarded CBA
increases) of P16,010 plus overtime, holiday and other premiums way above those
mandated by law, the Union members are already the highest paid in the
Philippines, in terms of gross income.”
The alleged “similarity” in the situation of Caltex and Shell cannot be
considered a valid ground for a demand of wage increase, in the absence
of a showing that the two companies are also similar in “substantial
aspects,” as discussed above.
_______________

26 Comment, pp. 12-13; rollo, pp. 292-293.

233
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 233
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Private respondent is merely asking that an employee should be paid on
the basis of work done. If such employee is absent on a certain day, he
should not, as a rule, be paid wages for that day. And if the employee
has worked only for a portion of a day, he is not entitled to the pay
corresponding to a full day. A contrary precept would ultimately result
in the financial ruin of the employer. The age-old general rule governing
relations between labor and capital, or management and employee, is “a
fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.” If no work is performed by the
employee, there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was
ready, willing and able to work but was locked out, dismissed,
suspended or otherwise illegally prevented from working.  True, union 27

members have the right to demand wage increases through their

collective force; but it is equally cogent that they should also be able to
justify an appreciable increase in wages. We observe that private
respondent’s detailed allegations on productivity are unrebutted. It is
noteworthy that petitioner ignored this argument of private respondent
and based its demand for wage increase not on the ground that they were
as productive as the Shell employees. Thus, we cannot attribute grave
abuse of discretion to public respondent.
2. Union Security Clause
In the impugned Order dated October 9, 1995, public respondent’s
contested resolution on the “union [security] clause” reads: 28

“The relevant provisions found in Article III of the CBA, which hereby read, thus:
‘Section 1. Employees of the COMPANY who at the signing of this Agreement are
members of the UNION and those who subsequently become members thereof shall main
_______________

27 Social Security System vs. SSS Supervisors’ Union, 117 SCRA 746, 749, October 23, 1982,
citing J.P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union, 92 Phil. 577 (1953).
28 Rollo, p. 20.
234
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3
4
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
tain their membership with the UNION for the duration of this Agreement as a condition
of employment.
Section 2. Members of the UNION who cease to be members of the UNION in good
standing by reason of resignation or expulsion shall not be retained in the employment of
the COMPANY.
x x x x x x x’
are sought to be amended by the Union, to read as follows:
‘Section 1. Employees of the Company who at the signing of this Agreement are
members of the Union and those who subsequently become members thereof shall
maintain their membership in GOOD STANDING with the Union for the duration of this
Agreement as a condition of CONTINUOUS employment.
Section 2. PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING, ANY UNION MEMBER WHO
CEASES TO BE SUCH MEMBER ON GROUNDS PROVIDED IN ITS
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS SHALL, UPON PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE BY
THE UNION TO THE COMPANY, BUT SUBJECT TO THE OBSERVANCE OF DUE
PROCESS AND THE EXPRESS RATIFICATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE
UNION MEMBERSHIP, BE DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT BY THE
COMPANY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE UNION SHALL HOLD THE
COMPANY FREE AND BLAMELESS FROM ANY LIABILITY IN THE EVENT
THAT THE EMPLOYEE IN ANY MANNER QUESTIONS HIS DISMISSAL.’
The proposed amendment of the Union gives the same substantial effect as the
existing provision. Rather, the same tackles more on procedure which, to our
belief, is already sufficiently provided under its constitution and by-laws. Insofar
as Union security is concerned, this is sufficiently addressed by the present
provisions in the CBA. Hence, we find we are not competent to arbitrarily
incorporate any modification thereof. We are convinced that any amendment on
this matter should be a product of mutual concern and agreement.” 29

_______________

29 Ibid., pp. 175-176.

235
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 235
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Petitioner contends that the foregoing disposition leaving to the parties
the decision on the union security clause issue is “contrary to the whole
idea of assumption of jurisdiction.” Petitioner argues that in spite of the
provisions on the “union security clause,” it may expel a member only
on any of three grounds: non-payment of dues, subversion, or conviction
for a crime involving moral turpitude. If the employee’s act does not
constitute any of these three grounds, the member would continue to be
employed by private respondent. Thus, the disagreement between
petitioner and private respondent on this issue is not only “procedural”
but also “substantial.” 30

On the other hand, private respondent argues that nothing prevents

petitioner from expelling its members; however, termination of
employment should be based only on these three grounds agreed upon in
the existing CBA. Further, private respondent explains that petitioner’s
citation of Article 249 (a)  of the Labor Code is out of context. It adds
31

that the cited section provides only for the right of a union to prescribe
its own rules with respect to the acquisition and retention of
membership, and that upholding the arguments of petitioner would make
the private respondent a policeman of the union. 32

We agree with petitioner. The disagreement between petitioner and

private respondent on the union security clause should have been
definitively resolved by public respondent. The labor secretary should
take cognizance of an issue which is not merely incidental to but
essentially involved in the
_______________

30 Ibid.,
p. 25.
31 “Article 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations.—It shall be unfair labor
practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. However, a
labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or
retention of membership;
x x x      x x x      x x x”
32 Comment, pp. 13-15; rollo, pp. 293-295.
236
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3
6
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
labor dispute itself, or which is otherwise submitted to him for
resolution.  In this case, the parties have submitted the issue of the union
33

security clause for public respondent’s disposition. But the secretary of

labor has given no valid reason for avoiding the said issue; he merely
points out that this issue is a procedural matter. Such vacillation clearly
sidesteps the nature of the union security clause as one intended to
strengthen the contracting union and to protect it from the fickleness or
perfidy of its own members. Without such safeguard, group solidarity
becomes uncertain; the union becomes gradually weakened and
increasingly vulnerable to company machinations. In this security clause
lies the strength of the union during the enforcement of the collective
bargaining agreement. It is this clause that provides labor with
substantial power in collective bargaining. The secretary of labor
assumed jurisdiction over this labor dispute in an industry indispensable
to national interest, precisely to settle once and for all the disputes over
which he has jurisdiction at his level. In not performing his duty, the
secretary of labor committed a grave abuse of discretion.
3. New Retirement Plan
Public respondent’s contested resolution on “retirement benefits
(application of the new retirement plan)” in the Order dated November
21, 1995 reads: 34

“Third, the matter of retirement benefits deserves a second look considering that
the concerned employees were already previously granted the option to choose
between the old and the new plan at the time the latter was initiated and they chose
to be covered under the Old Plan. To accede to the Union’s demand to cover them
under the new plan entails a different arrangement under a new scheme and
likewise requires the approval of a Board of Trustees. It is, therefore, understood
that the new Retirement Plan does not
_______________

33 St. Scholastica’s College vs. Torres, 210 SCRA 565, 571, June 29, 1992.
34 Rollo, p. 202.
237
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 237
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
 apply to the more or less 40 employees being sought by the Union to be
covered under the New Plan.”
Petitioner contends that “40 of its members who are still covered by the
Old Retirement Plan because they were not able to exercise the option to
shift to the New Retirement Plan, for one reason or another, when such
option was given in the past” are included in the New Retirement Plan.
Petitioner argues that the exclusion of forty employees from the New
Plan constitutes grave abuse of discretion for three reasons. First, “it is a
case of the left hand taking away, so to speak, what the right hand had
given.” Second, the change “was done for a very shallow reason.” The
new scheme was no longer new, “as the New Retirement Plan had been
in place for at least two years.” Third, in not applying the New
Retirement Plan to the 40 employees, public respondent was
perpetrating his department’s discriminatory practice. 35

Private respondent counters that “these 40 or so employees have

opted to remain covered by the old plan despite opportunities given them
in 1985 to shift to the New Plan.” 36

We hold that public respondent did not commit grave abuse of

discretion in respecting the free and voluntary decision of the employees
in regard to the Provident Plan and the irrevocable one-time option
provided for in the New Retirement Plan. Although the union has every
right to represent its members in the negotiation regarding the terms and
conditions of their employment, it cannot negate their wishes on matters
which are purely personal and individual to them. In this case, the forty
employees freely opted to be covered by the Old Plan; their decision
should be respected. The company gave them every opportunity to
choose, and they voluntarily exercised their choice. The union cannot
pretend to know better; it cannot impose its will on them.
_______________

35 Ibid., pp. 26-29.

36 Ibid., p. 295.
238
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3
8
 Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
4. Grievance Machinery and Arbitration
The public respondent’s contested resolution on “grievance and
arbitration machineries” in the Order dated November 21, 1995 reads: 37

“Seventh, we are constrained to take a closer look at the existing procedure

concerning grievance in relation to the modifications being proposed by the Union.
In this regard, we affirm our resolution to shorten the periods to process/resolve
grievances based on existing practice from (45) days to (30) days at the first step
and (10) days to seven (7) days at the second step which is the level of the VP for
Manufacturing. We further reviewed the steps through which a grievance may be
processed and in line with the principle to expedite the early resolution of
grievances, we find that the establishment of a joint Council as an additional step
in the grievance procedure, may only serve to protract the proceeding and,
therefore, no longer necessary. Instead, the unresolved grievance, if, not settled
within (7) days at the level of the VP for Manufacturing, shall automatically be
referred by both parties to voluntary arbitration in accordance with R.A. 6715. As
to the number of Arbitrators for which the Union proposes to employ only one
instead of a panel of three Arbitrators, we find it best to leave the matter to the
agreement of both parties. Finally, we hereby advise the parties that the list of
accredited voluntary arbitrators is now being maintained and disseminated by the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board and no longer by the Bureau of Labor
Relations.”
Petitioner contends that public respondent “derailed the grievance and
arbitration scheme proposed by the Union.”  Petitioner argues that the
38

proposed “Grievance Settlement Council” is intended to “supplement

the effort of the Vice President for Manufacturing in reviewing the
grievance elevated to him, so that instead of acting alone x x x he will be
obliged to convoke a conference of the Council to afford the grievant a
thorough hearing.” Petitioner’s recommendation for a “single arbitrator
is based on the proposition that if vol-
_______________

37 Ibid., pp. 203-204.

38 Ibid., p. 36.
239
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 239
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
 Brillantes
untary arbitration should be resorted to at all, this recourse should entail
the least possible expense.” 39

Private respondent counters that the disposition on the grievance

machinery is likewise “fair and reasonable under the circumstances and
in fact was merely a reiteration of the (u)nion’s position during the
conciliation meetings conducted by Undersecretary Bienvenido
Laguesma.” 40

No particular setup for a grievance machinery is mandated by law.

Rather, Article 260 of the Labor Code, as incorporated by RA 6715,
provides for only a single grievance machinery in the company to settle
problems arising from “interpretation or implementation of their
collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation
or enforcement of company personnel policies.” Article 260, as
amended, reads:
Article 260. Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration.—The parties to a
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure
the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a
machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies.
All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled
within seven (7) calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically
be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
For this purpose, parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and
designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, or
include in the agreement a procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of qualified
Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. In case the parties fail to select
a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall designate
the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, as may be necessary,
pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement,
_______________

39 Ibid., pp. 36-38.

40 Ibid., p. 297.
 240
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
4
0
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
which shall act with same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of
Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as described above.”
We believe that the procedure described by public respondent
sufficiently complies with the minimum requirement of the law. Public
respondent even provided for two steps in hearing grievances prior to
their referral to arbitration. The parties will decide on the number of
arbitrators who may hear a dispute only when the need for it arises. Even
the law itself does not specify the number of arbitrators. Their
alternatives—whether to have one or three arbitrators—have their
respective advantages and disadvantages. In this matter, cost is not the
only consideration; full deliberation on the issues is another, and it is
best accomplished in a hearing conducted by three arbitrators. In effect,
the parties are afforded the latitude to decide for themselves the
composition of the grievance machinery as they find appropriate to a
particular situation. At bottom, we cannot really impute grave abuse of
discretion to public respondent on this issue.
5. Signing Bonus
The public respondent’s contested resolution on the “signing bonus” in
the Order dated November 21, 1995 reads: 41

“Fifth, specifically on the issue of whether the signing bonus is covered under
the ‘maintenance of existing benefits’ clause, we find that a clarification is indeed
imperative. Despite the expressed provision for a signing bonus in the previous
CBA, we uphold the principle that the award for a signing bonus should partake
the nature of an incentive and premium for peaceful negotiations and amicable
resolution of disputes which apparently are not present in the instant case. Thus,
we are constrained to rule that the award of signing bonus is not covered by
the ‘maintenance of existing benefits’ clause.”
_______________

41 Ibid., p. 203.
241
 VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 241
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
Petitioner asseverates that the “signing bonus is an existing benefit
embodied in the old CBA.”  It explains that public respondent erred in
42

removing the award of a signing bonus which is “given not only as an

incentive for peaceful negotiations and amicable settlement of disputes
but also as an extra award to the workers following the settlement of a
CBA dispute by whatever means.” 43

Private respondent disagrees, contending that a signing bonus is not

awarded when CBA negotiations “result in a strike.” There are two
reasons therefor: First, “the grant of a signing bonus is a matter of
discretion and cannot be demanded as a matter of right”; and Second, the
signing bonus is meant as an incentive for a peaceful negotiation. Once
these negotiations result in a strike, an illegal one at that, the basis or
rationale for such an award is lost.” 44

Although proposed by petitioner,  the signing bonus was not accepted

45

by private respondent.  Besides, a signing bonus is not a benefit which

46

may be demanded under the law. Rather, it is now claimed by petitioner

under the principle of “maintenance of existing benefits” of the old
CBA. However, as clearly explained by private respondent, a signing
bonus may not be demanded as a matter of right. If it is not agreed upon
by the parties or unilaterally offered as an additional incentive by private
respondent, the condition for awarding it must be duly satisfied. In the
present case, the condition sine qua non for its grant—a non-strike—was
not complied with. In fact, private respondent categorically stated in its
counter-proposal—to the exclusion of those agreed upon before—that
the new collective bargaining agreement would constitute the only
agreement between the parties, as follows:
______________

42 Ibid., p. 30; underscoring omitted.

43 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
44 Ibid., pp. 297-298.
45 Ibid., p. 121.
46 Ibid., p. 136.
242
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
4
2
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
“SECTION 4. Scope of Agreement.—The terms and conditions of employment of
the employees within the appropriate bargaining unit are embodied in this
Agreement. On the other hand, all such benefits which are not expressly provided
for in this Agreement, but which are now being accorded, may in the future be
accorded, or might have been previously accorded to employees, by the
COMPANY shall be deemed as purely discretionary or pure acts of grace and
magnanimity on the part of the COMPANY in each particular case, and the
continuance or repetition thereof now or in the future, no matter how long or how
often, shall not be construed as establishing a right for the employee and/or
obligation on the part of the COMPANY.” 47

This provision on the scope of the agreement is further buttressed by the

clause on waiver: 48

“The parties acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in the
execution of this Agreement, each of them had the unlimited opportunity to make
demands and proposals with respect to any and all subjects and matters proper for
collective bargaining and not prohibited by law; and the parties further
acknowledge that the understandings and agreements arrived at by them after the
exercise of that right and unlimited opportunity are fully set forth in this
Agreement. Therefore, the COMPANY and the UNION during the life of this
Agreement, each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right and each agrees
that the other shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any
subject or matter referred to or covered in this Agreement or with respect to any
subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement even
though such subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge or
contemplation of either or both parties at the time they negotiated or signed this
Agreement.”
Epilogue
We have carefully reviewed the assailed Orders. Other than his failure to
rule on the issue of union security, the secretary of labor cannot be
indicted for grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of
jurisdiction.
_______________

47 Counter-Proposal of Caltex, p. 3; rollo, p. 130.

 48 Ibid., p. 10; rollo, p. 137.
243
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 243
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
“Basically, there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
where the respondent board, tribunal or officer exercising judicial functions
exercised its judgment in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner.
However, it has also been said that grave abuse is committed when “the lower
court acted capriciously, and whimsically or the petitioner’s contention appears to
be clearly tenable or the broader interest of justice or public policy [so] require x x
x.” Also, grave abuse of discretion is committed when the board, tribunal or officer
exercising judicial function fails to consider evidence adduced by the parties.” 49

In Saballa vs. National Labor Relations Commission,  we ruled on how 50

a decision of an administrative body must be drawn:

“The Court has previously held that judges and arbiters should draw up their
decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and
accurately reflect their conclusions and their final dispositions. x x x The same
thing goes for the findings of fact made by the NLRC, as it is a settled rule that
such findings are entitled to great respect and even finality when supported by
substantial evidence; otherwise, they shall be struck down for being whimsical and
capricious and arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. It is a requirement of due
process and fair play that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was
decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the
facts and the law of which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was
reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint
the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.”
In the present case, the foregoing requirement has been sufficiently met.
Petitioner’s claim of grave abuse of discretion is anchored on the simple
fact that public respondent adopted largely the proposals of private
respondent. It should be understood that bargaining is not equivalent to
an adversarial
_______________

49 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Confesor, 231 SCRA 41-42, March 10, 1994, per Nocon, J.
50 G.R. Nos. 102472-84, August 22, 1996, per Panganiban, J.
244
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
4
4
Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs.
Brillantes
litigation where rights and obligations are delineated and remedies
applied. It is simply a process of finding a reasonable solution to a
conflict and harmonizing opposite positions into a fair and reasonable
compromise. When parties agree to submit unresolved issues to the
secretary of labor for his resolution, they should not expect their
positions to be adopted in toto. It is understood that they defer to his
wisdom and objectivity in insuring industrial peace. And unless they can
clearly demonstrate bias, arbitrariness, capriciousness or personal
hostility on the part of such public officer, the Court will not interfere or
substitute the said officer’s judgment with its own. In this case, it is
possible that this Court, or some its members at least, may even agree
with the wisdom of petitioner’s claims. But unless grave abuse of
discretion is cogently shown, this Court will refrain from using its
extraordinary power of certiorari to strike down decisions and orders of
quasi-judicial officers specially tasked by law to settle administrative
questions and disputes. This is particularly true in the resolution of
controversies in collective bargaining agreements where the question is
rarely one of legal right or wrong—nay, of black and white—but one of
wisdom, cogency and compromise as to what is possible, fair and
reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
partly GRANTED. The assailed Orders are AFFIRMED with the
modification that the issue on the union security clause
be REMANDED to the Department of Labor and Employment for
definite resolution within one month from the finality of this Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Romero, Melo and Francisco,
JJ., concur.
Petition partly granted, orders affirmed with modification.
 Note.—The individual employee, at various times in his working life,
is confronted by two aggregates of power—collective labor, directed by
a union, and collective capital,
245
VOL. 279, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 245
People vs. De la Cruz
directed by management. The union, an institution developed to organize
labor into a collective force and thus protect the individual employee
from the power of collective capital, is, paradoxically, both the
champion of employee rights, and a new source of their frustration.
Moreover, when the Union interacts with management, it produces a
third aggregate of group strength from which the individual also needs
protection—the collective bargaining relationship. (Victoriano vs.
Elizalde Rope Workers, 59 SCRA 54 [1974])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.