Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183122 2011-06-15	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Anent its period of effectivity, Article XIV of the imposed CBA provides that "(t)his Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from 1 December 1991, provided that sixty (60) days prior to the lapse of the third year of effectivity hereof, the parties shall open negotiations on economic aspect for the fourth and fifth years effectivity of this Agreement." [44] Considering that no new CBA had been, in the meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, we find that the CA's Special Twentieth Division correctly ruled in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226 that, pursuant to Article 253 of the Labor Code, [45] the provisions of the imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until a new CBA has been entered into by the parties. Article 253 mandates the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. [46] In the same manner that it does not provide for any exception nor qualification on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect, [47] the law does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed CBA like the one under consideration.
	GR No. 185556 2011-03-28	SUPREME STEEL CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPREME INDEPENDENT UNION NACHURA, J.
It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. If the terms of a CBA are clear and there is no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail.[54] Moreover, the CBA must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically and the Court must place a practical and realistic construction upon it.[55] Any doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor should be resolved in favor of labor.[56]
	GR No. 171231 2010-02-17	PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT v. PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Thus, if the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail.[16] In fine, the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be achieved, being the law between the parties. In Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of Appeals,[17] this Court held that the CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on the ground that the same are not favorable to them.
	GR No. 182836 2009-10-13	CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Being for the benefit of the employee, CBA provisions on bereavement leave and other death benefits should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. Time and again, the Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor.[29] In the same way, the CBA and CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of labor. In Marcopper Mining v. National Labor Relations Commission,[30] we pronounced: Finally, petitioner misinterprets the declaration of the Labor Arbiter in the assailed decision that "when the pendulum of judgment swings to and fro and the forces are equal on both sides, the same must be stilled in favor of labor." While petitioner acknowledges that all doubts in the interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor, it insists that what is involved-here is the amended CBA which is essentially a contract between private persons. What petitioner has lost sight of is the avowed policy of the State, enshrined in our Constitution, to accord utmost protection and justice to labor, a policy, we are, likewise, sworn to uphold.
	GR No. 162324 2009-02-04	RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION v. KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner maintains, however, that the parties failed to foresee a situation where the special holiday would fall on a rest day. The Court is not persuaded. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, it should be interpreted in favor of labor.[8]