Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 102132. March 19, 1993.

DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, in his capacity as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator and THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU-TUCP), respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent and the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the rank and file workers entered into collective bargaining agreement under Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII thereof, provide for sick leave with pay benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of service with the company, thus:

Section 1. Sick Leaves — The Company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave with pay each year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already rendered at least one year of service with the company. However, such sick leave can only be enjoyed upon certification by a company designated physician, and if the same is not enjoyed within one year period of the current year, any unenjoyed portion thereof, shall be converted to cash and shall be paid at the end of the said one year period. And provided however, that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not intermittent, are entitled to the herein sick leave privilege.

Section 3. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including overtime.

Upon its renewal, the coverage of the said benefits was expanded to include the "present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this Agreement." Section 3, Article VIII, as revised, provides, thus:

"Section 3. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool and present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this agreement shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including overtime.

Also, all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits. Any unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said one-year period pursuant to Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII of the CBA.

The commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of the intermittent workers or its conversion to cash was, however, discontinued or withdrawn when petitioner-company under a new assistant manager, Mr. Benjamin Marzo (who replaced Mr. Cecilio Beltran, Jr. upon the latter's resignation), stopped the payment of its cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of the 1989 CBA.

The Union objected said discontinuance because it would violate the principle in labor laws that benefits already extended shall not be taken away and that it would result in discrimination between the non-intermittent and the intermittent workers of the petitioner-company. The Union brought it before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and said public respondent issued an award in favour of the Union. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the intermittent field workers are entitled to conversion to cash of any unused sick leave.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It was said that CBA is not an ordinary contract but impressed with public interest, thus it must yield to the common good.

It must be noted that the 1989 CBA has two (2) sections on sick leave with pay benefits which apply to two (2) distinct classes of workers in petitioner's company, namely: (1) the regular non-intermittent workers or those workers who render a daily eight-hour service to the company and are governed by Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA; and (2) intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool as of the signing of the agreement on April 15, 1989 or those workers who have irregular working days and are governed by Section 3, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA.

It is thus erroneous for petitioner to isolate Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA from the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits, specifically Section 3 thereof, in its attempt to justify the discontinuance or withdrawal of the privilege of commutation or conversion to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefit to regular intermittent workers because well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or conversion to cash, being an existing benefit, the petitioner-company may not unilaterally withdraw, or diminish such benefits.

It is a fact that petitioner-company had, on several instances in the past, granted and paid the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits of some intermittent workers. Under the circumstances, these may be deemed to have ripened into company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn.

Acknowledgment: Barbie Pinos