CASE DIGEST: DOLE Phils., petitioners Vs Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero, respondents G.R. No. 146650 January 13, 2003

DOLE Phils., petitioners  Vs Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero, respondents                                                    

G.R. No. 146650    January 13, 2003

Doctrine: The disputed provision of the CBA is clear and unambiguous. The terms are explicit and the language of the CBA is not susceptible to any other interpretation. Hence, the literal meaning of free meals after three (3) hours of overtime work shall prevail, which is simply that an employee shall be entitled to a free meal if he has rendered exactly, or no less than, three hours of overtime work, not after more than or in excess of three hours overtime work.

The exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. It is subject to the limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement or the general principles of fair play and justice. This situation constitutes one of the limitations. The CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner and private respondent and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.

Facts:

February 22, 1996, a new five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement for the period starting February 1996 up to February 2001, was executed by petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc., and private respondent Pawis Ng Makabayang Obrero-NFL (PAMAO-NFL). Among the provisions of the new CBA is the disputed section on meal allowance under Section 3 of Article XVIII on Bonuses and Allowances. Some departments of Dole reverted to the previous practice of granting free meals after exactly three hours of actual overtime work. However, other departments continued the practice of granting free meals only after more than three hours of overtime work. Thus, private respondent filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board alleging that petitioner Dole refused to comply with the provisions of the 1996-2001 CBA because it granted free meals only to those who rendered overtime work for more than three hours and not to those who rendered exactly three hours overtime work.

The parties agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Thereafter, the voluntary arbitrator, deciding in favor of the respondent, issued an order directing petitioner Dole to extend the free meal benefit to those employees who actually did overtime work even for exactly three hours only.

Petitioner Dole asserts that the phrase after three hours of actual overtime work should be interpreted to mean after more than three hours of actual overtime work. On the other hand, private respondent union and the voluntary arbitrator see it as meaning after exactly three hours of actual overtime work.

Petitioner asserts that the phrase after three (3) hours of actual overtime work does not mean after exactly three hours of actual overtime work; it means after more than three hours of actual overtime work. Petitioner insists that this has been the interpretation and practice of Dole for the past thirteen years. Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that after three (3) hours of actual overtime work simply means after rendering exactly, or no less than, three hours of actual overtime work.

Issue: W/ON The omission of the phrase more than between after and three hours in the present CBA spells a big difference.

Held: No. No amount of legal semantics can convince the Court that after more than means the same as after. The disputed provision of the CBA is clear and unambiguous. The terms are explicit and the language of the CBA is not susceptible to any other interpretation. Hence, the literal meaning of free meals after three (3) hours of overtime work shall prevail, which is simply that an employee shall be entitled to a free meal if he has rendered exactly, or no less than, three hours of overtime work, not after more than or in excess of three hours overtime work.

Source and Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/146650.htm