GR 181806 Wesleyan Univ v. WUP Staff, 2014

LABOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES VS. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES

FACULTY and STAFF ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. 181806 | March 12, 2014
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract entered into by an employer and a legitimate labor organization
concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Like any other contract, it has the force of law between the parties and, thus,
should be complied with in good faith. Unilateral changes or suspensions in the implementation of the provisions of the CBA,
therefore, cannot be allowed without the consent of both parties.
DEL CASTILLO, J.
FACTS: Petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly

organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Respondent Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty
and Staff Association, on the other hand, is a duly registered labor organization acting as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of all rank-and-file faculty and staff employees of petitioner.
In December 2003, the parties signed a 5-year CBA effective June 1, 2003 until May 31, 2008.
On August 2005, petitioner issued a Memorandum providing guidelines on the implementation of vacation and
sick leave credits as well as vacation leave commutation, respondent, however, did not accede to the unilateral
changes made by petitioner for the same being violative of the existing practices and the CBA.
Unable to settle their differences at the grievance level, the parties referred the matter to a Voluntary Arbitrator.
During the hearing, respondent submitted affidavits to prove that there is an established practice of giving two
retirement benefits, one from the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association (PERAA) Plan and
another from the CBA Retirement Plan, a practice which has been implemented for the past thirty (30) years.
Petitioner, on the hand, argues that there is only one retirement plan as the CBA Retirement Plan and the
PERAA Plan are one and the same, that no such practice exists, and assuming that it did, such was a mere
oversight evidenced by the lack of a board resolution authorizing the release of two retirement benefits.
On November 2006, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision declaring the one-retirement policy and the
Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 contrary to law. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the case to the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner unilaterally
amended the CBA without the consent of respondent. Hence the present petition.
ISSUES:
1. Is the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 null and void?
HELD:
The Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is null and void
The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 10039 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from
eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit
is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice. To be considered a practice, it
must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period of time.
In this case, respondent was able to present substantial evidence in the form of affidavits to support its claim
that there are two retirement plans. Based on the affidavits, petitioner has been giving two retirement benefits
as early as 1997. Petitioner, on the other hand, failed to present any evidence to refute the veracity of these
affidavits. Petitioner’s contention that these affidavits are self-serving holds no water. The retired employees of
petitioner have nothing to lose or gain in this case as they have already received their retirement benefits. Thus,
they have no reason to perjure themselves. Obviously, the only reason they executed those affidavits is to bring
out the truth. As we see it then, their affidavits, corroborated by the affidavits of incumbent employees, are
more than sufficient to show that the granting of two retirement benefits to retiring employees had already
ripened into a consistent and deliberate practice.
These circumstances, taken together, bolster the finding that the two-retirement policy is an already established
practice. Thus, petitioner cannot, without the consent of respondent, eliminate the two-retirement policy and
implement a one-retirement policy as this would violate the rule on non-diminution of benefits.
A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract entered into by an employer and a legitimate labor
organization concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Like any other contract, it has the force of
law between the parties and, thus, should be complied with in good faith. Unilateral changes or suspensions in
the implementation of the provisions of the CBA, therefore, cannot be allowed without the consent of both
parties.
SUMMARY FORMAT
Q: Employer Wesleyan University-Philippines is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized

and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association,
on the other hand, is a duly registered labor organization acting as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
rank-and-file faculty and staff employees of petitioner. Both had entered into a five year collective bargaining
agreement. A two years later, Employer University released a memorandum which had the effect of amending
the rights and benefits, ultimately combining the two existing retirement plans of the University for its workers
contrary to a thirty year-long company practice and to what is already provided for by the CBA. The University
Association protested the memorandum. Employer University alleged CBA Retirement Plan and the
memorandum are one and the same, that no such practice exists, and assuming that it did, such was a mere
oversight evidenced by the lack of a board resolution authorizing the release of two retirement benefits. Is the
memorandum valid?
A: No, a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract entered into by an employer and a legitimate
labor organization concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Like any other contract, it has the
force of law between the parties and, thus, should be complied with in good faith. Unilateral changes or
suspensions in the implementation of the provisions of the CBA, therefore, cannot be allowed without the
consent of both parties. (Wesleyan University-Philippines vs. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty
and Staff Association, G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014).

GR 181806 Wesleyan Univ v. WUP Staff, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 181806 Wesleyan Univ v. WUP Staff, 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

GR 181806 Wesleyan Univ v. WUP Staff, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES VS. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

FACTS: Petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly

The Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is null and void

Q: Employer Wesleyan University-Philippines is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized

You might also like