Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Leyte IV Electric Cooperative vs Leyeco Facts: Leyte IV Electric Cooperative (Leyte IV) and Leyeco IV Employees Union (union)

) entered into a CBA covering rank and !ile employees !or a period o! " years e!!ective #anuary $% $&&'( )*e union% t*roug* +egional V, Casilan% demanded *oliday pay !or all employees as provided !or in t*e CBA( Leyte IV% t*roug* its legal counsel% replied and said t*at it *ad paid all employees all t*e *oliday pays enumerated in t*e CBA( A!ter t*e procedures o! t*e grievance mac*inery% t*e parties agreed to su-mit t*e issues o! interpretation and implementation o! t*eir CBA on t*e payment o! *oliday pay (and its computation) !or ar-itration .it* t*e /ational Conciliation and 0ediation Board (/C0B)( )*ey .ere re1uired to su-mit respective position papers% t*en t*e dispute .as su-mitted !or decision( Accdg to union in t*eir position paper: t*e employees .ere paid all o! t*e days o! t*e mont* even i! t*ere .as no .ork% -ut t*ey are not prevented !rom making separate demands !or t*e payment o! regular *olidays in accordance .it* t*e CBA( Leyte IV in t*eir position paper: payment o! t*e *oliday pay .as presumed -ecause o! *o. t*e computation t*ey used in determining t*e daily rate (-asic mont*ly salary divided -y 23 days4 or -asic mont*ly salary multiplied -y $5% t*en divided -y 263)4 t*us% employees .ere already paid t*eir regular and special days% days .*en no .ork is done( Voluntary Ar-itrator Lope78s decision: Leyte IV is lia-le !or t*e payment o! unpaid *olidays( )*ey !ailed to s*o. t*at it complied .it* t*e CBA mandate t*at *oliday pay s*ould -e re!lected during any payroll period o! occurrence since t*e payroll slips did not re!lect any payment o! t*e paid *olidays( Leyte IV !iled an 0+ -ut it .as denied -y t*e VA( )*ey !iled a ,etition !or Certiorari .it* t*e CA ascri-ing grave a-use o! discretion amounting to lack o! 9urisdiction to t*e VA( )*ey claim t*at t*e VA ignored t*at t*eir computation already includes payment o! $2 un.orked regular *olidays under t*e CBA% and t*at t*ey s*ould not -e lia-le 9ust -ecause t*e slips su-mitted as evidence did not s*o. any payment !or t*e regular *olidays( CA dismissed t*e pet( !or certiorari !or adopting t*e .rong mode o! appeal( )*e proper remedy s*ould *ave -een a petition !or revie. under +ule :2 o! t*e $&&; +ules o! Civil ,rocedure( A petition !or certiorari cannot -e a su-stitute !or a lost appeal% t*e period o! appeal *aving already lapsed( A su-se1uent 0+ .as also denied( Issue: <*et*er t*e applica-le mode o! appeal s*ould -e a petition !or revie. under +ule :2% or a petition !or certiorari under +ule 6" +uling: )*e proper appeal s*ould -e petition !or certiorari .it* t*e CA( Accdg to t*e case o! Lu7on =evelopment Bank% a VA% .*et*er acting solely or in a panel% en9oys in la. t*e status o! a 1uasi 9udicial agency( >is decisions and a.ards are appeala-le to t*e CA -ecause t*e a.ards -ecome !inal and e?ecutory upon t*e lapse o! t*e period to appeal( )*eir a.ards determine t*e rig*ts o! t*e parties% t*eir decisions *ave t*e same e!!ect as 9udgments o! a court( )*ere!ore% t*e proper remedy !rom an a.ard o! a VA is a petition !or revie. to t*e CA according to @ection $% +ule :2 o! t*e +ules( )*e general rule is t*at t*e proper remedy !rom decisions o! VAs is a petition !or revie. under +ule :2 o! t*e +ules( A pet !or certiorari is t*e proper remedy !or one .*o complains t*at t*e tri-unal e?ercising 9udicial or 1uasi 9udicial !unctions acted in total disregard o! evidence material to or decisive o! t*e controversy( An independent action !or certiorari may -e availed o! only .*en t*ere is no appeal or any plain% speedy and ade1uate remedy in t*e ordinary course la.% and it is not a su-stitute !or t*e lapsed remedy o! appeal( )*e e?ceptions to t*is are .*en: a) pu-lic .el!are and advancement o! pu-lic policy dictate4 -) -roader interest o! 9ustice so re1uire4 c) .rits issued are null4 and d) t*e order amounts to an oppressive e?ercise o! 9udicial aut*ority(

In t*is case% t*e -roader interests o! 9ustice .arrant rela?ation o! t*e rules on procedure( Leyte IV claims t*at t*e VA8s conclusions *ave no -asis in !act and la.% and t*e petition s*ould not -e dismissed on procedural grounds( )*e VA a-used its discretion in giving a strict or literal interpretation o! t*e CBA provisions t*at t*e *oliday pay -e re!lected in t*e payroll slips( @uc* interpretation ignores t*e admission o! t*e union t*at t*e employees .ere paid all t*e days o! t*e mont* even i! not .orked( )*e VA s*ould not *ave simply -rus*ed aside t*e company8s !ormula( In granting t*e union8s claim% t*e VA imposed a dou-le -urden -ecause it made t*e company pay !or *oliday pay( )*e VA sanctioned un9ust enric*ment in !avor o! t*e respondent and caused un9ust !inancial -urden to t*e company(