(Digest) P.I. Manufacturing Vs P.I.manufacturing Supervisors

P.I. Manufacturing Inc. vs P.I.
Manufacturing Supervisors and Forman Association

FACTS: P.I. Manufacturing, Incorporated (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of household appliances. On the other hand, respondent P.I. Manufacturing
Supervisors and Foremen Association (PIMASUFA) is an organization of petitioner's supervisors and
foremen, joined in this case by its federation, the National Labor Union (NLU). On December 10,
1987, the President signed into law RA No. 6640 providing, among others, an increase in the statutory
minimum wage and salary rates of employees and workers in the private sector. Section 2 of said Act
provides: That those already receiving above the minimum wage up to one hundred pesos (P100.00)
shall receive an increase of ten pesos (P10.00) per day.
Thereafter, on December 18, 1987, petitioner and respondent PIMASUFA entered into a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement (1987 CBA) whereby the supervisors were granted an increase of P625.00 per
month and the foremen, P475.00 per month. The increases were made retroactive to May 12, 1987, or
prior to the passage of R.A. No. 6640, and every year thereafter until July 26, 1989. On January 26,
1989, respondents PIMASUFA and NLU led a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-01-00584, charging
petitioner with violation of R.A. No. 6640.
The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision in favor of respondents. Petitioner was ordered to give the
members of respondent PIMASUFA wage increases equivalent to 13.5% of their basic pay they were
receiving prior to December 14, 1987. The percentage in increase given to those who received benefits
under R.A. 6640 should be the same percentage given to the supervisors and foremen. On appeal by
petitioner, the NLRC, in its Resolution dated January 8, 1991, affirmed the Labor Arbiter's judgment.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with this Court. However, we referred the petition to
the Court of Appeals. The CA rendered its Decision affirming the Decision of the NLRC with
modification by raising the 13.5% wage increase to 18.5%. Petitioner averred that the CBA absolved it
from any wage distortion brought about by the implementation of the new minimum wage law. Since
the contract was signed on December 17, 1987, or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6640,
petitioner claims that private respondent is deemed to have waived any benefit it may have under the
new law. The CA disagreed and said that the increase resulting from any wage distortion caused by the
implementation of Republic Act 6640 is not waivable.
Quoting Purefoods vs NLRC the CA said: "Generally, quitclaims by laborers are frowned upon as
contrary to public policy and are held to be ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the
worker's rights. The reason for the rule is that the employer and the employee do not stand on the same
footing." Moreover, Section 8 of the Rules Implementing RA 6640 states: No wage increase shall be
credited as compliance with the increase prescribed herein unless expressly provided under valid
individual written/collective agreements; and provided further that such wage increase was granted in
anticipation of the legislated wage increase under the act. But such increases shall not include
anniversary wage increases provided in collective bargaining agreements. Likewise, Article 1419 of
the Civil Code mandates that: When the law sets, or authorizes the setting of a minimum wage for
laborers, and a contract is agreed upon by which a laborer accepts a lower wage, he shall be entitled to
recover the deficiency.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA, thus the petition for review
on certiorari to the SC.
ISSUE(S):
(1) Whether the implementation of R.A. No. 6640 resulted in a wage distortion
(2) Whether such distortion was cured or remedied by the 1987 CBA
HELD:
(1) YES, the implementation resulted in a wage distortion. R.A. No. 6727, otherwise known as the
Wage Rationalization Act, explicitly defines "wage distortion" as: a situation where an increase in
prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative
differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to
effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of
service, or other logical bases of differentiation. Otherwise stated, wage distortion means the
disappearance or virtual disappearance of pay differentials between lower and higher positions in an
enterprise because of compliance with a wage order.
The implementation of R.A. No. 6640 resulted in the increase of P10.00 in the wage rates of the lowest
paid supervisor and foremen. As a consequence, their increased wage rates exceeded that of previously
higher paid supervisors. The gaps or differences between and among the wage rates of all the above
employees have been substantially altered and reduced. It is therefore undeniable that the increase in
the wage rates by virtue of R.A. No. 6640 resulted in wage distortion.
(2) YES, it was cured. The 1987 CBA increased the monthly salaries of the supervisors by P625.00 and
the foremen, by P475.00, effective May 12, 1987. These increases re-established and broadened the
gap, not only between the supervisors and the foremen, but also between them and the rank-and-le
employees. Significantly, the 1987 CBA wage increases almost doubled that of the P10.00 increase
under R.A. No. 6640. Clearly, the gap between the wage rates of the supervisors and those of the
foremen was inevitably re-established. It continued to broaden through the years. Interestingly, such
gap as re-established by virtue of the CBA is more than a substantial compliance with R.A. No. 6640
Under RA 6640, only those receiving wages P100.00 and below are entitled to the P10.00 wage
increase. The apparent intention of the law is only to upgrade the salaries or wages of the employees
specified therein. Almost all of the members of respondent PIMASUFA have been receiving wage rates
above P100.00 and, therefore, not entitled to the P10.00 increase. To compel employers simply to add
on legislative increases in salaries or allowances without regard to what is already being paid, would be
to penalize employers who grant their workers more than the statutory prescribed minimum rates of
increases. Clearly, this would be counter-productive so far as securing the interests of labor is
concerned.
MR GRANTED. CA DECISION REVERSED.

(Digest) P.I. Manufacturing Vs P.I.manufacturing Supervisors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Digest) P.I. Manufacturing Vs P.I.manufacturing Supervisors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

(Digest) P.I. Manufacturing Vs P.I.manufacturing Supervisors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P.I. Manufacturing Inc. vs P.I.

Manufacturing Supervisors and Forman Association

You might also like