Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    C3h - 14 MERALCO v. Quisumbing

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    This case involves a dispute between MERALCO and a union representing some of its employees over increasing wages. The union relied on a report from All Asia Capital to argue that MERALCO could afford wage increases. However, the court held that the report was not admissible evidence to determine the appropriate wage increase. It was a newspaper report, not a commercial list, and did not have sufficient figures or testimony to support its accuracy. Commercial lists must be published for an occupation and generally relied on in that field. The All Asia Capital report did not meet these standards to be determinative of the wage issue in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    C3h - 14 MERALCO v. Quisumbing

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    122 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between MERALCO and a union representing some of its employees over increasing wages. The union relied on a report from All Asia Capital to argue that MERALCO could afford wage increases. However, the court held that the report was not admissible evidence to determine the appropriate wage increase. It was a newspaper report, not a commercial list, and did not have sufficient figures or testimony to support its accuracy. Commercial lists must be published for an occupation and generally relied on in that field. The All Asia Capital report did not meet these standards to be determinative of the wage issue in the case.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Original Title

    C3h- 14 MERALCO v. Quisumbing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between MERALCO and a union representing some of its employees over increasing wages. The union relied on a report from All Asia Capital to argue that MERALCO could afford wage increases. However, the court held that the report was not admissible evidence to determine the appropriate wage increase. It was a newspaper report, not a commercial list, and did not have sufficient figures or testimony to support its accuracy. Commercial lists must be published for an occupation and generally relied on in that field. The All Asia Capital report did not meet these standards to be determinative of the wage issue in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views2 pages

    C3h - 14 MERALCO v. Quisumbing

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    This case involves a dispute between MERALCO and a union representing some of its employees over increasing wages. The union relied on a report from All Asia Capital to argue that MERALCO could afford wage increases. However, the court held that the report was not admissible evidence to determine the appropriate wage increase. It was a newspaper report, not a commercial list, and did not have sufficient figures or testimony to support its accuracy. Commercial lists must be published for an occupation and generally relied on in that field. The All Asia Capital report did not meet these standards to be determinative of the wage issue in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Commercial Lists

    MERALCO v. Quisumbing
    GR No. 127598
    Feb 22, 2000

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    FACTS:
    Members of the Private respondent union were dissatisfied with the terms of a CBA with
    petitioner. The parties in this case were ordered by the Sec. of Labor to execute a collective
    bargaining agreement (CBA) wherein.The CBA allowed for the increase in the wages of the
    employees concerned. The petitioner argues that if such increase were allowed, it would pass off
    such to the consumers.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the All Asia Capital report that the Union relies to support its position regarding
    the wage value maybe admitted as evidence as an accurate basis and conclusive determinant of the
    wage increase.

    HELD:
    No.

    Petitioner warns that if the wage increase of P2,200.00 per month as ordered by the
    Secretary is allowed, it would simply pass the cost covering such increase to the consumers through
    an increase in the rate of electricity. This is a non sequitur. The Court cannot be threatened with
    such a misleading argument. An increase in the prices of electric current needs the approval of the
    appropriate regulatory government agency and does not automatically result from a mere increase
    in the wages of petitioners employees. Besides, this argument presupposes that petitioner is
    capable of meeting a wage increase.

    The All Asia Capital report upon which the Union relies to support its position regarding the
    wage issue can not be an accurate basis and conclusive determinant of the rate of wage increase.
    Section 45 of Rule 130 Rules of Evidence provides:

    "Commercial lists and the like. - Evidence of statements of matters of interest to


    persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
    published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
    matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that
    occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein."

    Under the afore-quoted rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical may be


    admitted only "if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is
    generally used and relied upon by them therein." As correctly held in our Decision dated January 27,
    1999, the cited report is a mere newspaper account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is
    but an analysis or opinion which carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no
    sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It cannot
    be said that businessmen generally rely on news items such as this in their occupation. Besides, no
    evidence was presented that the publication was regularly prepared by a person in touch with the
    market and that it is generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of their
    accuracy, these reports are not admissible.[6] In the same manner, newspapers containing stock
    quotations are not admissible in evidence when the source of the reports is available.[7] With more
    reason, mere analyses or projections of such reports cannot be admitted. In particular, the source
    of the report in this case can be easily made available considering that the same is necessary for
    compliance with certain governmental requirements.

    You might also like