452

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC G.R.No.101761.March24,1993.

*

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION, (PACIWU)TUCP,respondents.
Labor Law; Constitutional Law; While social justice has an inclination to give favor and protection to the working class, the cause of the labor sector is not upheld at all times as the management has also a right entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcementintheinterestofsimplefairplay.Outofitsconcernfor thosewithlessprivilegesinlife,thisCourthasinclinedmore often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts withtheemployer.Suchfavoritism,however,hasnotblindedusto the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensedinthelightoftheestablishedfactsandtheapplicablelaw anddoctrine. Same; Classification of Employment; Criterion which determines whether a particular employee is within the definition of a statute is the character of work performed rather than title or nomenclature of position held.The question whether a given employee is exempt from the benefits of the law is a factual one dependent on the circumstances of the particular case. In determining whether an employee is within the terms of the statutes,thecriterionisthecharacteroftheworkperformed,rather than the title of the employee's position. Consequently, while generallythisCourtisnotsupposedtoreviewthefactualfindingsof respondent commission, substantial justice and the peculiar

circumstancesobtaininghereinmandateadeviationfromtherule. Same; Same; Same; Overtime pay, etc.; Supervisory employees discharging functions that qualify them as officers or members of the managerial staff considered exempt from the coverage of Article 82 of the Labor Code and therefore, not entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday payThe members of respondent union discharge dutiesandresponsibilitieswhichineluctablyqualifythemasofficers ormembersofthe
______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

453

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

453

managerial staff, as defined in Section 2, Rule I, Book III of the aforestated Rules to Implement the Labor Code, viz.: x x x Under the facts obtaining in this case, we are constrained to agree with petitioner that the union members should be considered as officers ormembersofthemanagerialstaffandare,therefore,exemptfrom the coverage of Article 82. Perforce, they are not entitled to overtime,restdayandholidaypay. Same; Same; Same; Same; Payment of the questioned benefits has not ripened into a contractual obligation as payment thereof was made at a time when they were rightfully entitled thereto.We likewisedonotsubscribetothefindingofthelaborarbiterthatthe payment of the questioned benefits to the union members has ripened into a contractual obligation. x x x The members of respondent union were paid the questioned benefits for the reason that,atthattime,theywererightfullyentitledthereto.Priortothe JEProgram,theycouldnotbecategoricallyclassifiedasmembersor officers of the managerial staff considering that they were then treated merely on the same level as rankandfile. Consequently, the payment thereof could not be construed as constitutive of voluntary employer practice, which cannot now be unilaterally withdrawnbypetitioner. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Entitlement to benefits provided for by law requires prior compliance with conditions set

forth therein.Quintessentially, with the promotion of the union members, they are no longer entitled to the benefits which attach andpertainexclusivelytotheirformerpositions.Entitlementtothe benefits provided for by law requires prior compliance with the conditions set forth therein. With the promotion of the members of respondentunion,theyoccupiedpositionswhichnolongermeetthe requirements imposed by law. Their assumption of these positions removed them from the coverage of the law, ergo, their exemption therefrom. Same; Management Prerogatives; Promotion of employees is a recognized management prerogative to be exercised in good faith; Case at bar.Promotion of its employees is one of the jurisprudentiallyrecognized exclusive prerogatives of management, provided it is done in good faith. In the case at bar, private respondent union has miserably failed to convince this Court that the petitioner acted in bad faith in implementing the JE Program. There is no showing that the JE Program was intended to circumventthelawanddeprivethemembersofrespondentunionof thebenefitstheyusedtoreceive.

PETITION for certiorari of the decision of the National Labor

454

454

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

RelationsCommission. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Jose Mario C. Bunagforpetitioner. The Solicitor General and the Chief Legal Officer, NLRC,forpublicrespondent. Zoilo V. de la Cruzforprivaterespondent. REGALADO,J.: The main issue presented for resolution in this original petitionforcertiorariiswhethersupervisoryemployees,as definedinArticle212(m),BookVoftheLaborCode,should beconsideredasofficersormembersofthemanagerialstaff underArticle82,BookIIIofthesameCode,andhenceare notentitledtoovertime,restdayandholidaypay. Petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), a corporation which is fully owned and

controlled by the Government, operates three (3) sugar refineries located at Bukidnon, Iloilo and Batangas. The Batangas refinery was privatized on April 11, 1992 pursuanttoProclamationNo.50.1Privaterespondentunion represents the former supervisors of the NASUREFCO BatangasSugarRefinery,namely,theTechnicalAssistant to the Refinery Operations Manager, Shift Sugar Warehouse Supervisor, Senior Financial/Budget Analyst, General Accountant, Cost Accountant, Sugar Accountant, Junior Financial/Budget Analyst, Shift Boiler Supervisor, Shift Operations Chemist, Shift Electrical Supervisor, General Services Supervisor, Instrumentation Supervisor, Community Development Officer, Employment and TrainingSupervisor,AssistantSafetyandSecurityOfficer, Head of Personnel Services, Head Nurse, Property WarehouseSupervisor,HeadofInventoryControlSection, Shift Process Supervisor, Assistant Shift Process Supervisor, Shift R/M Supervisor, Day Maintenance SupervisorandMotorpoolSupervisor. On June 1, 1988, petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all employees, from rankandfiletodeRollo,209.
455

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

455

partment heads. The JE Program was designed to rationalize the duties and functions of all positions, reestablish levels of responsibility, and reorganize both wage and operational structures. Jobs were ranked according to effort, responsibility, training and working conditions and relative worth of the job. As a result, all positionswerereevaluated,andallemployeesincludingthe members of respondent union were granted salary adjustments and increases in benefits commensurate to theiractualdutiesandfunctions. Wegleanfromtherecordsthatforabouttenyearsprior totheJEProgram,themembersofrespondentunionwere treatedinthesamemannerasrankandfileemployees.As such, they used to be paid overtime, rest day and holiday paypursuanttotheprovisionsofArticles87,93and94of the Labor Code, as amended. With the implementation of theJEProgram,thefollowingadjustmentsweremade:(1)

the members of respondent union were reclassified under levelsS5toS8whichareconsidered managerial staff for purposes of compensation and benefits; (2) there was an increase in basic pay on the average of 50% of their basic paypriortotheJEProgram,withtheunionmembersnow enjoying a wide gap (P1,269.00 per month) in basic pay compared to the highest paid rankandfile employee; (3) longevity pay was increased on top of alignment adjustments; (4) they were entitled to increased company COLAof P225.00 per month; and (5) there was a grant of P100.00allowanceforrestday/holidaywork. On May 11, 1990, petitioner NASUREFCO recognized hereinrespondentunion,whichwasorganizedpursuantto Republic Act No. 6715 allowing supervisory employees to formtheirownunions,asthebargainingrepresentativeof all the supervisory employees at the NASUREFCO BatangasSugarRefinery. TwoyearsaftertheimplementationoftheJEProgram, specifically on June 20, 1990, the members of herein respondentunionfiledacomplaintwiththeexecutivelabor arbiter for nonpayment of overtime, rest day and holiday payallegedlyinviolationofArticle100oftheLaborCode. OnJanuary7,1991,ExecutiveLaborArbiterAntonioC. 2 Pidorenderedadecision disposingasfollows:
_____________
2AnnexE,Petition;Rollo,51,5657.

456

456

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent National Sugar RefineriesCorporationisherebydirectedto 1. paytheindividualmembersofcomplainantuniontheusual overtimepay,restdaypayandholidaypayenjoyedbythem instead of the P100.00 special allowance which was implementedonJune11,1988;and 2. pay the individual members of complainant union the difference in money value between the P100.00 special allowance and the overtime pay, restday pay and holiday paythattheyoughttohavereceivedfromJune1,1988.

Allotherclaimsareherebydismissedforlackofmerit. SOORDERED."

Infindingforthemembersofhereinrespondentunion,the laborarbiterruledthatthelongspanoftimeduringwhich thebenefitswerebeingpaidtothesupervisorshascaused thepaymentthereoftoripenintoacontractualobligation; thatthecomplainantscannotbeestoppedfromquestioning the validity of the new compensation package despite the fact that they have been receiving the benefits therefrom, consideringthatrespondentunionwasformedonlyayear after the implementation of the Job Evaluation Program, hence there was no way for the individual supervisors to express their collective response thereto prior to the formation of the union; and the comparative computations presentedbytheprivaterespondentunionshowedthatthe P100.00specialallowancegivenbyNASUREFCOfellshort of what the supervisors ought to receive had the overtime pay, rest day pay and holiday pay not been discontinued, whicharrangement,therefore,amountedtoadiminutionof benefits. Onappeal,inadecisionpromulgatedonJuly19,1991by its Third Division, respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the labor arbiteronthegroundthatthemembersofrespondentunion are not managerial employees, as defined under Article 212(m)oftheLaborCodeand,therefore,theyareentitledto overtime, rest day and holiday pay. Respondent NLRC declared that these supervisory employees are merely exercising recommendatory powers subject to the evaluation, review and final action by their department heads; their responsibilities do not require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment; they do not participateintheformulationofmanagementpoliciesnorin thehiringorfiringofemploy
457

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

457

ees; and their main function is to carry out the ready 3 policies and plans of the corporation. Reconsideration of saiddecisionwasdeniedinaresolutionofpublicrespondent 4 datedAugust30,1991.

Hence this petition for certiorari, with petitioner NASUREFCO asseverating that public respondent commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the fact that the members of respondentunionaremembersofthemanagerialstaffwho arenotentitledtoovertime,restdayandholidaypay;and inmakingpetitionerassumethe"doubleburden"ofgiving the benefits due to rankandfile employees together with thoseduetosupervisorsundertheJEProgram. We find creditable merit in the petition and the extraordinarywritofcertiorarishallaccordinglyissue. Theprimordialissuetoberesolvedhereiniswhetherthe membersofrespondentunionareentitledtoovertime,rest dayandholidaypay.Beforethiscanberesolved,however,it must of necessity be ascertained first whether or not the union members, as supervisory employees, are to be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff whoareexemptfromthecoverageofArticle82oftheLabor Code. Itisnotdisputedthatthemembersofrespondentunion aresupervisoryemployees,asdefinedunderArticle212(m), BookVoftheLaborCodeonLaborRelations,whichreads:
"(m) 'Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogativestolaydownandexecutemanagementpoliciesand/orto hire,transfer,suspend,layoff,recall,discharge,assignordiscipline employees.Supervisoryemployeesarethosewho,intheinterestof theemployer,effectivelyrecommendsuchmanagerialactionsifthe exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in naturebutrequirestheuseofindependentjudgment.Allemployees notfallingwithinanyoftheabovedefinitionsareconsideredrank andfileemployeesforpurposesofthisBook."

RespondentNLRC,inholdingthattheunionmembersare entitledtoovertime,restdayandholidaypay,andinruling that

_____________
3AnnexA,id.;

ibid.,2027; NLRC Case CA No. L000058; penned by

Pres.Comm.LourdesC.Javier,withtheconcurrenceofComm.Ireneo B.BernardoandRogelioI.Rayala.
4Rollo,2829.

458

458

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

the latter are not managerial employees, adopted the definitionstatedintheaforequotedstatutoryprovision. Petitioner, however, avers that for purposes of determining whether or not the members of respondent union are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay, saidemployeesshouldbeconsideredas"officersormembers ofthemanagerialstaff'asdefinedunderArticle82,BookIII oftheLaborCodeon'WorkingConditionsandRestPeriods" andamplifiedinSection2,RuleI,BookIIIoftheRulesto ImplementtheLaborCode,towit:
"Art. 82. Coverage.The provisions of this title shall apply to employeesinallestablishmentsandundertakingswhetherforprofit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personalserviceofanother,andworkerswhoarepaidbyresultsas determinedbytheSecretaryofLaborinappropriateregulations. "As used herein, 'managerial employees' refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in whichtheyareemployedorofadepartmentorsubdivisionthereof, andtootherofficers or members of the managerial staff."(Emphasis supplied.) xxx "Sec.2.Exemption.Theprovisionsofthisruleshallnotapplyto the following persons if they qualify for exemption under the conditionsetforthherein: xxx

(b) Managerial employees, if they meet all of the followingconditions,namely: (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of theestablishmentinwhichtheyareemployedorof adepartmentorsubdivisionthereof; (2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of twoormoreemployeestherein; (3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendationsastothehiringandfiringandas to the promotion or any other change of status of otheremployeesaregivenparticularweight.

(c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they performthefollowingdutiesandresponsibilities: (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of workdirectlyrelatedtomanagementpoliciesoftheir employer;
459

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

459

(2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independentjudgment; (3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists ofthemanagementoftheestablishmentinwhichhe is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute undergeneralsupervisionworkalongspecializedor technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks; and (4) Who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hoursworkedinaworkweektoactivitieswhichare notdirectlyandcloselyrelatedtotheperformanceof the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above." Itisthesubmissionofpetitionerthatwhilethemembersof respondent union, as supervisors, may not be occupying managerialpositions,theyareclearlyofficersormembersof the managerial staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and, hence, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay. It contends that the definition of managerial and supervisory employees under Article 212(m) should be made to apply only to the provisions on Labor Relations, while the right of said employees to the questioned benefits should be considered inthelightofthemeaningofamanagerialemployeeandof the officers or members of the managerial staff, as contemplated under Article 82 of the Code and Section 2, RuleI,BookIIIoftheimplementingrules.Inotherwords, for purposes of forming and joining unions, certification

elections, collective bargaining, and so forth, the union members are supervisory employees. In terms of working conditions and rest periods and entitlement to the questionedbenefits,however,theyareofficersor members ofthemanagerialstaff,hencetheyarenotentitledthereto. WhiletheConstitutioniscommittedtothepolicyofsocial justiceandtheprotectionoftheworkingclass,itshouldnot besupposedthateverylabordisputewillbeautomatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Out of its concernforthosewithlessprivilegesinlife,thisCourthas inclinedmoreoftenthannottowardtheworkerandupheld hiscauseinhisconflictswiththeemployer.Suchfavoritism, however,hasnotblindedustotherulethat
460

460

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

justiceisineverycaseforthedeserving,tobedispensedin thelightoftheestablishedfactsandtheapplicablelawand 5 doctrine. This is one such case where we are inclined to tip the scalesofjusticeinfavoroftheemployer. Thequestion whether a given employee is exempt from the benefits of the law is a factual one dependent on the circumstances of the particular case. In determining whetheranemployeeiswithinthetermsofthestatutes,the criterionisthecharacteroftheworkperformed,ratherthan 6 thetitleoftheemployee'sposition. Consequently,whilegenerallythisCourtisnotsupposed to review the factual findings of respondent commission, substantialjusticeandthepeculiarcircumstancesobtaining hereinmandateadeviationfromtherule. A cursory perusal of the Job Value Contribution 7 Statements of the union members will readily show that these supervisory employees are under the direct supervisionoftheirrespectivedepartmentsuperintendents and that generally they assist the latter in planning, organizing, staffing, directing, controlling, communicating and in making decisions in attaining the company's set goals and objectives. These supervisory employees are likewiseresponsiblefortheeffectiveandefficientoperation

of their respective departments. More specifically, their duties and functions include, among others, the following operationswherebytheemployee: 1) assists the department superintendent in the following: a) planning of systems and procedures relative to departmentactivities; b) organizing and scheduling of work activities of the department, which includes employee shifting scheduleandmanningcomplement; c) decisionmakinggbyprovidingrelevantinformation dataandotherinputs; d) attainingthecompany'ssetgoalsandobjectivesby
_____________
5

Sosito vs. Aguinaldo Development Corporation, 156 SCRA 392

(1987).
656C.J.S.,MasterandServant,Sec.151(11). 7AnnexesItoI23,Petition;Rollo,84149.

461

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

461

givinghisfullsupport; e) selecting the appropriate man to handle the job in thedepartment;and f) preparingannualdepartmentalbudget; 2) observes, follows and implements company policies atalltimesandrecommendsdisciplinaryactionon erringsubordinates; 3) trains and guides subordinates on how to assume responsibilitiesandbecomemoreproductive; 4) conductssemiannualperformanceevaluationofhis subordinates and recommends necessary action for theirdevelopment/advancement; 5) represents the superintendent or the department whenappointedandauthorizedbytheformer;

6) coordinatesandcommunicateswithotherinterand intradepartmentsupervisorswhennecessary; 7) recommendsdisciplinaryactions/promotions; 8) recommends measures to improve work methods, equipment performance, quality of service and workingconditions; 9) sees to it that safety rules and regulations and procedure are implemented and followed by all NASUREFCO employees, recommends revisions or modificationstosaidruleswhendeemednecessary, andinitiatesandpreparesreportsforanyobserved abnormalitywithintherefinery; 10) supervisestheactivitiesofallpersonnelunderhim and sees to it that instructions to subordinates are properlyimplemented;and 11) performsotherrelatedtasksasmaybeassignedby hisimmediatesuperior. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the members of respondent union discharge duties and responsibilities whichineluctablyqualifythemasofficersormembersofthe managerialstaff,asdefinedinSection2,RuleI,BookIIIof theaforestatedRulestoImplementtheLaborCode,viz.:(1) their primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer; (2) they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independentjudgment;(3)theyregularlyanddirectlyassist the managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of a department of the establishment in which they are employed; (4) they execute, under general supervision, work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; (5) they execute, under general supervision, special assignmentsandtasks;and
462

462

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

(6)theydonotdevotemorethan20%oftheirhoursworked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and clearlyrelatedtotheperformanceoftheirworkhereinbefore described.

Underthefactsobtaininginthiscase,weareconstrained toagreewithpetitionerthattheunionmembersshouldbe considered as officers or members of the managerial staff andare,therefore,exemptfromthecoverageofArticle82. Perforce, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day and holidaypay. ThedistinctionmadebyrespondentNLRConthebasis of whether or not the union members are managerial employees, to determine the latter's entitlement to the questioned benefits, is misplaced and inappropriate. It is admitted that these union members are supervisory employeesandthisisoneinstancewherethenomenclatures or titles of their jobs conform with the nature of their functions. Hence, to distinguish them from a managerial employee, as defined either under Articles 82 or 212(m) of the Labor Code, is puerile and inefficacious. The controversyactuallyinvolvedhereseeksadeterminationof whether or not these supervisory employees ought to be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff. The distinction, therefore, should have been made along thatlineanditscorrespondingconceptualcriteria. II.Welikewisedonotsubscribetothefindingofthelabor arbiterthatthe payment of the questioned benefits to the unionmembershasripenedintoacontractualobligation. A. PriortotheJEProgram,theunionmembers,while being supervisors, received benefits similar to the rankandfile employees such as overtime, rest day and holiday pay, simply because they were treated inthesamemannerasrankandfileemployees,and theirbasicpaywasnearlyonthesamelevelasthose of the latter, aside from the fact that their specific functions and duties then as supervisors had not been properly defined and delineated from those of the rankandfile. Such fact is apparent from the clarification made by petitioner in its motion for 8 reconsideration filedwithrespondentcommissionin NLRCCaseNo.CANo.I000058,datedAugust16, 1991,whereinitlucidlyexplained:
_____________
8AnnexG,Petition;Rollo,72.

463

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC

463

"But, complainants no longer occupy the same positions they held before the JE Program. Those positions formerly classified as 'supervisory' and found after the JE Program to be rankandfile were classified correctly and continue to receive overtime, holiday andrestdaypay.Astothem,thepracticesubsists. "However,thosewhosedutiesconfirmedthemtobesupervisory, were reevaluated, their duties redefined and in most cases their organizationalpositionsredesignatedtoconfirmtheirsuperiorrank and duties. Thus, after the JE program, complainants cannot be 9 saidtooccupythesamepositions."

Itbearsmentionthatthispositionalsubmissionwasnever refutednorcontrovertedbyrespondentunioninanyofits pleadingsfiledbeforehereinpublicrespondentorwiththis Court.Hence,itcanbesafelyconcludedtherefromthatthe members of respondent union were paid the questioned benefits for the reason that, at that time, they were rightfully entitled thereto. Prior to the JE Program, they couldnotbecategoricallyclassifiedasmembersorofficersof the managerial staff considering that they were then treated merely on the same level as rankandfile. Consequently, the payment thereof could not be construed asconstitutiveofvoluntaryemployerpractice,whichcannot now be unilaterally withdrawn by petitioner. To be considered as such, it should have been practiced over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been 10 consistentanddeliberate. Thetestorrationaleofthisruleonlongpracticerequires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment 11 thereof. In the case at bar, respondent union failed to sufficientlyestablishthatpetitionerhasbeenmotivatedor iswonttogivethesebenefitsoutofpuregenerosity. B. Itremainsundisputedthatwiththeimplementation of the JE Program, the members of private respondentunionwere
_____________
9Rollo,79.

10GlobeMackayCableandRadioCorporation,etal.vs.NLRC,etal.,

163SCRA71(1988).
11OceanicPharmacalEmployeesUnion(FFW)vs.Inciong,etal., 94

SCRA270(1979). 464

464

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED National Sugar Refineries Corporation us. NLRC reclassified under levels S5 to S8 which were considered under the program as managerial staff forpurposesofcompensationandbenefits,thatthey occupiedreevaluatedpositions,andthattheirbasic pay was increased by an average of 50% of their basicsalarypriortotheJEProgram.Inotherwords, after the JE Program there was an ascent in position, rank and salary. This in essence is a promotionwhichisdefinedastheadvancementfrom one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and 12 usuallyaccompaniedbyanincreaseinsalary.

Quintessentially,withthepromotionoftheunionmembers, theyarenolongerentitledtothebenefitswhichattachand pertainexclusivelytotheirformerpositions.Entitlementto the benefits provided for by law requires prior compliance withtheconditionssetforththerein.Withthepromotionof the members of respondent union, they occupied positions which no longer meet the requirements imposed by law. Theirassumptionofthesepositionsremovedthemfromthe coverageofthelaw,ergo,theirexemptiontherefrom. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, if the union members really wanted to continue receiving the benefits whichattachtotheirformerpositions,therewasnothingto preventthemfromrefusingtoaccepttheirpromotionsand their corresponding benefits. As the saying goes, they cannot have their cake and eat it too or, as petitioner suggests, they should not, as a simple matter of law and fairness, get the best of both worlds at the expense of NASUREFCO. Promotion of its employees is one of the jurisprudentiallyrecognized exclusive prerogatives of management,provideditisdoneingoodfaith.Inthecaseat bar, private respondent union has miserably failed to

convincethisCourtthatthepetitioneractedinbadfaithin implementing the JE Program. There is no showing that the JE Program was intended to circumvent the law and deprive the members of respondent union of the benefits theyusedtoreceive. Not so long ago, on this particular score, we had the occasionto
_____________
12Millaresvs.Subido,etal.,20SCRA954(1967);Doschvs.NLRC,et

al.,123SCRA296(1983). 465

VOL.220,MARCH24,1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC holdthat:

465

"xxxitistheprerogativeofmanagementtoregulate,accordingto its discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. This flows from the established rule that labor law does not authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its business.Suchmanagementprerogativemaybeavailedofwithout fear of any liability so long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers' interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special lawsorvalidagreementandarenotexercisedinamalicious,harsh, 13 oppressive,vindictiveorwantonmanneroroutofmaliceorspite."

WHEREFORE, the impugned decision and resolution of respondent National Labor Relations Commission promulgated on July 19, 1991 and August 30, 1991, respectively, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for having been rendered and adopted with grave abuse of discretion, and the basic complaint of private respondent unionisDISMISSED. Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla, Nocon and Campos, Jr., JJ.,concur. Resolution annulled and set aside. Note.Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actually

performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit (Cagampan vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 195 SCRA533). o0o
_____________
13WiseandCo.,Inc.vs.WiseandCo.,Inc.EmployeesUnionNATU,

etal.,178SCRA536(1989). 466

Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.