PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTIC, INC. VS. JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION (JEU) FOR ITS UNION MEMBER, MICHAEL ALFANTE.

Facts: Judith Pulido, the first complainant worked as proofreader in the respondent dated 10 January 1991; that she will be having a monthly basic salary of P-15,493.66 plus P-155.00 longevity pay plus other benefits provided by law and their Collective Bargaining Agreement; that on 21 February 2003, as union president, she sent two letters to President Gloria Arroyo, regarding their complaint of inaccuracy being committed by PIJ executive. Sometime in May 2003 the union was furnished. Complainant received a memo regarding with her attendance, reprimand, for not wearing company ID and tardiness, which she replied; and that on the day of August 7 a staff of HRD handed her termination paper.

The second complainant Michael L. Alfante he work with respondents as computer technician. Pagkalinawan the new head of his department was opposed by complainant; he even sent Alfante a memorandum for excessive tardiness bur later on he submitted his explanation, but still considered as poor performance which is the reason of dismissal.

This issue was brought in NLRC Case No. 02-0402973-93, that the said complainant Judith Pulido has been illegally terminated. Due to that she is entitled to reinstatement and back wages of P294,379.54. On January 31, 2007, the NLRC rendered its decision dismissing the partial appeal of Alfante for lack of merit.

This was brought by Alfante and JEU to the Court to challenge the CAs dispositions regarding the legality of his dismissal, the non-compliance with Minimum Wage Order No. 9 and the non-payment of the rest day. This was denied due to lack of sufficiency.

Issue: Whether the Philippine Journalistic, Inc. violates the (Labor) law for Illegal dismissal of Alfante, non-compliance with Minimum Wage Order No. 9 and non-payment of the rest day.

Held: The employer is considered liable for the dismissal of Alfante without a due process of law. In Accordance to Article 100 of the Labor Code, petitioner as the employer could not reduce, diminish, discontinue or eliminate any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by or granted to its employees. This constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection. Therefore, pursuant to Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA violated the law prohibiting the diminution of benefits. The court was in favor of the Respondent and orders the petioner to pay the suit.