NFSW v.

Ovejera GR L-59743, May 31, 1982 Facts The NFSW (National Federation of Sugar Workers) is the bargaining agent of the majority of CAC (Central Azucarera de la Carlota) employees. February 16, 1981 a CBC (Collective Bargaining Agreement) between the two parties was concluded, with the CAC agreeing to pay its employees Christmas, Milling, and Amelioration bonuses. Said bonuses amount to 1 to 1.5 months worth of salary. November 28, 1981 the NFSW mounts a strike in protest of the CACs refusal to render 13th month pay under PD 851 in addition to the prior CBC. November 30, 1981 a compromise agreement was settled, in that the CAC would follow the Supreme Court ruling in Marcopper a case also dealing with 13th month pay if it is clearly held that the employer is liable to pay a 13th month pay separate and distinct from the bonuses already given. o The Marcopper case granted the 13th month pay to the employees, with 7 Justices concurring; the denial of the motion of reconsideration later on was supported by 5 Justices. NFSW later renewed its call for 13th month pay; CAC is all, no. January 22, 1982 NFSW filed with the Bacolod MOLE (Ministry of Labor and Employment) a notice to strike. January 28, 1982 A mere six days later, NFSW struck. January 29, 1982 One day after the beginning of the strike, the NFSW files its strike-vote report with the MOLE. February 8, 1982 CAC petitioned the MOLE to declare said strike illegal o It violated the 15-day cool-off period; o It violated the rule of submitting the strike-vote 7 days prior to the strike. February 20, 1982 Labor Arbiter and herein respondent Ovejera declares it illegal. February 26, 1982 the instant petition is filed, alleging the violation of petitioners rights. Issues 1. WON the strike is illegal. o Is the 7-day rule on strike-vote mandatory or directory? 2. WON PD 851 mandates the payment of a separate and distinct 13th month pay. 3. What about the compromise about following Marcopper? Held/Ratio 1. Totally illegal, brah. a. The 7-day rule on strike-votes as well as the 15/30 cool-off periods - is mandatory. To rule otherwise would make the law self-defeating;

b. The purpose of said rule, along with the 15/30 cool-off periods, is to provide for mediation and conciliation, as well as to prevent the abuse of the right to strike by minorities; c. Such restrictions are in the reasonable exercise of police power. Strikes, after all, affect the economy; d. Petitioners aver that cool-off periods are only for Unfair Labor Practices, and that violations of PD 851 are criminal in nature, so said periods do not apply. i. The law, however, is clear. PD 851 states that violations are to be treated as money claims. 2. PD 851 does not mandate a separate and distinct 13th month pay in this case. a. While PD 851 does direct employers to render 13th month pay, there is a clear exception: Employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree. b. The implementing rules issued by the MOLE state that the term its equivalent includes Christmas bonuses, xxx other cash bonuses. The interpretation of the implementing agency is accorded great weight. c. The law is clear. Moreover, the intent of the law the granting of relief to employees is also clear. To grant the petition would be to allow for a 14th, even 15th month pay. 3. The compromise agreement the following of the SC decision if it is clearly held works against the petitioner. a. WON the petitioner was aware of it, the use of the words clearly held require that the decision in question be accorded the status of stare decisis; b. A decision is stare decisis IFF it is concurred with by at least eight Justices. Marcopper initially had seven Justices in agreement, and the final decision denying the motion for reconsideration had the support of only five; c. Marcopper cannot be cited by petitioners.

Separate Opinions Lahat daw to concurring. Makiasar, J. FUCK YEAH FERNANDO Fernando, C.J. Yeah dude, that was a pretty logical ponencia. But we gotta refer to the Constitution; pure logic isnt enough here. a. Marcoppers original decision giving 13th month pay had 7 concurring, 2 abstaining, 1 on leave. No dissent, right. The denial of the motion for reconsideration, however, was different. Only 5 stuck to the original decision, 3 of us dissented. Thats coz they realized there were deficiencies in our arguments! Social Justice dapat. Less in life, more in law. b. PD 851 should be construed for laborers, not employers. c. Clearly-held naman yung Marcopper ah, even if it wasnt doctrinal. Dont be anal with wording.

d. Fine, the strike was illegal. But seriously, Social Justice and all that jazz. Barredo, J. I am effin pro-labor as fuck. But I support le decision, even though I originally approved Marcopper. Equity is a principle we run to when there is no law. But here, weve got law. And srsly, clearly means stare decisis. Im anal with words, wtf you gonna do huh. Abad Santos, J. Yeah Marcopper had to pay 13th month pay, but those were diff. circumstances. Their CBA clearly stated that theyd give 13th month pay in profitable years, and hellyeah those years were profitable. Also, the MOLE affirmed their liability. But here, the law is clear. And the MOLE here determined the lack of liability. Melencio-Herrera, J. I AGREE AND I WILL DIGEST THE WHOLE CASE IN THIS OPINION FOR SOME REASON.