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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case#2 CEBU OXYGEN vs. DRILON

    Uploaded by

    Rio Tolentino
    83 views2 pages
    1. The petitioner entered into a CBA with its employees' union regarding annual salary increases from 1986-1988. A new law then increased minimum wage but the implementing order prohibited crediting CBA increases, requiring additional payment by petitioner. 2. The issues were whether administrative officers can resolve pure legal questions with finality, and whether implementing orders can prohibit more than what is in the law. 3. The Court held that legal questions cannot be resolved with finality by administrators, and implementing orders cannot add to or detract from the law, so the prohibition exceeded the authority granted by the wage law.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The petitioner entered into a CBA with its employees' union regarding annual salary increases from 1986-1988. A new law then increased minimum wage but the implementing order prohibited crediting CBA increases, requiring additional payment by petitioner. 2. The issues were whether administrative officers can resolve pure legal questions with finality, and whether implementing orders can prohibit more than what is in the law. 3. The Court held that legal questions cannot be resolved with finality by administrators, and implementing orders cannot add to or detract from the law, so the prohibition exceeded the authority granted by the wage law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views2 pages

    Case#2 CEBU OXYGEN vs. DRILON

    Uploaded by

    Rio Tolentino
    1. The petitioner entered into a CBA with its employees' union regarding annual salary increases from 1986-1988. A new law then increased minimum wage but the implementing order prohibited crediting CBA increases, requiring additional payment by petitioner. 2. The issues were whether administrative officers can resolve pure legal questions with finality, and whether implementing orders can prohibit more than what is in the law. 3. The Court held that legal questions cannot be resolved with finality by administrators, and implementing orders cannot add to or detract from the law, so the prohibition exceeded the authority granted by the wage law.

    Copyright:

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

    CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC.

    vs.

    SEC. FRANKLIN DRILON OF DOLE, ASST. REGIONAL DIRECTOR CANDIDO CUMBA, ET AL.,

    G.R. NO. 82849 : August 2, 1989

    GANCAYCO, J.

    Facts:

    Petitioner entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Cebu Oxygen, Acetylene and Central
    Visayas Employees Association (COAVEA) regarding the salary increases for the years 1986-1988. The
    agreement states that the increase shall be credited as payment to any mandated government wage
    adjustment or allowance increases which may be issued by way of legislation, decree or presidential
    edict counted from the above date to the next increase.

    On December 1987, RA No. 6640 was passed, increasing the minimum wage. The Secretary of Labor
    issued an implementing order which prohibits the employer from crediting CBA anniversary wage
    increases for the compliance with Sec. 8 of RA No. 6640. Accordingly, the petitioner credited the first-
    year increase under the CBA.

    On the year 1988, a Labor and Employment Development Officer commenced a routine inspection of
    petitioner’s establishment and alleged that the latter committed violations of the law, constituting
    underpayment of basic wage for two months and 13 th month pay for the year 1987 representing 208
    employees in the aggregate amount of 131, 248.00. The assistant regional director ordered the
    petitioner to pay the said amount to its 208 employees. However, the petitioner brought the case
    immediately to the Supreme Court without appealing to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

    Issues:

    1. Whether the question of law may be resolved by administrative officer with finality.
    2. Whether the implementing order issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment can provide
    prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement.

    Held:

    1. No.  It is fundamental that in a case where only pure questions of law are raised, the doctrine of
    exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply because issues of law cannot be resolved
    with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the administrative officer of orders involving
    questions of law would be an exercise in futility since administrative officers cannot decide such
    issues with finality. The questions raised in this petition are questions of law. Hence, the failure
    to exhaust administrative remedies cannot be considered fatal to this petition.
    2. No.  It is a fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions
    of law it is designed to implement. The provisions of Republic Act No. 6640 do not prohibit the
    crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases for purposes of compliance with Republic Act No.
    6640. The implementing rules cannot provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the
    law. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department
    must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of
    carrying into effect its general provisions. The law itself cannot be expanded by such regulations.
    An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.  Thus petitioner's contention that
    the salary increases granted by it pursuant to the existing CBA including anniversary wage
    increases should be considered in determining compliance with the wage increase mandated by
    Republic Act No. 6640, is correct. However, the amount that should only be credited to
    petitioner is the wage increase for 1987 under the CBA when the law took effect. The wage
    increases for 1986 had already accrued in favor of the employees even before the said law was
    enacted.

    You might also like