Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
By these consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari,[2] the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila (the Union) and Zenaida Uy (Uy) seek modification of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Amended Decision[3] dated July 4, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 92631. Said Amended Decision computed Uy's back wages and other monetary awards pursuant to the final and executory Decision[4] dated March 31, 2005 of this Court in G.R. No. 137863 based on her salary rate at the time of her dismissal and disregarded the salary increases granted in the interim as well as other benefits which were not proven to have been granted at the time of Uy's dismissal from the service.
	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
On March 31, 2005, the Court rendered its Decision[10] in G.R. No. 137863, the dispositive portion of which reads:
	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
In an Order dated December 6, 2005,[15] the Voluntary Arbitrator agreed with Uy's/Union's contention that full back wages should include all wage and benefit increases, including new benefits granted during the period of dismissal. The Voluntary Arbitrator opined that this Court's March 31, 2005 Decision in G.R. No. 137863 reinstated his December 31, 1997 Decision which ordered the payment of full back wages computed from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement including all benefits under the CBA. Nonetheless, the Voluntary Arbitrator excluded the claims for uniform allowance, anniversary bonus and Omega watch for want of basis for their grant.
	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Voluntary Arbitrator, BPI filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[19] BPI alleged that the Voluntary Arbitrator's erroneous computation of back wages amended and varied the terms of the March 31, 2005 final and executory Decision in G.R. No. 137863.
	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Meanwhile, the CA issued a TRO[21] restraining the implementation of the December 6, 2005 Order of the Voluntary Arbitrator and the corresponding Writ of Execution issued on December 12, 2005. Upon receipt of the TRO, Uy and the Union filed an Urgent Motion for Clarification[22] on whether the TRO encompasses even the implementation of the reinstatement aspect of the March 31, 2005 Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 137863.
	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The case eventually reached this Court when both parties separately filed petitions for review on certiorari. While BPI's petition which was docketed as G.R. No. 137856 was denied for failure to comply with the requirements of a valid certification of non-forum shopping,[9] Uy's and the Union's petition which was docketed as G.R. No. 137863 was given due course.
	GR No. 175283 2008-03-28	JACKQUI R. MORENO v. SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-RECOLETOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In accordance with Durabuilt Recapping Plant & Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, [43] the Court may not only mitigate, but also absolve entirely, the liability of the employer to pay backwages where good faith is evident. Likewise, backwages may be withheld from a dismissed employee where exceptional circumstances are availing.[44]
	GR No. 162583 2007-06-08	ALBERTO NAVARRO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. QUISUMBING, J.
We reiterate that the State policy is to afford full protection to labor. When conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of capital should be counterbalanced by the compassion that the law accords the less privileged workingman.[14] Under Article 279[15] of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him.[16]