regulations by simply contracting with each other.” Moreover, incase of doubt, the terms of a contract should be construed in favorof labor.”RATIO:The applicable laws are Article 1700 of the Civil Code whichdeclares:“Art. 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merelycontractual. They are so impressed with public interest that laborcontracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contractsare subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining,strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hoursof labor and similar subjects.”And Section 280 of the Labor Code.DISPOSITIVE: Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision andResolution are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR VS CIRTEK ELECTRONICSDigested By: L. PanizaFACTS:-Cirtek Electronics and Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement(CBA) for a period of 5 years-Prior to its 3rdyear, both parties renegotiated the terms butunable to reach a settlement particularly on the issue ofwage increase-Cirtek Employees then declared a bargaining deadlock andfiled a Notice of Strike-Cirtek Electronics, on the other hand, filed a Notice ofLockout-Before the Secretary of Labor could rule on the controversy,Cirtek Electronics created Labor Management Council whereit provides for a daily wage increase of 6.00 per dayeffective Jan. 2004 and 9.00 per day effective Jan. 2005-Cirtek Employees submitted a MOA via Motion andManifestation to Sec. of Labor-Cirtek Employees alleged that their officers signed the MOAunder Cirtek Electronics’ assurance that should the Sec ofLabor order a higher award of wage increase, CirtekElectronics would complyDecision of SEC OF LABOR:oResolved CBA deadlock by awarding a wageincrease of from 6.00 to 10.00 per day on 2004and from 9.00 to 15.00 per day on 2005-Cirtek Electronics moved for a reconsiderationCA Ruling:oRuled in favor of Cirtek Electronics and SET ASIDEthe decision of Sec of Labor-Cirtek Employees filed the present petition.ISSUE:WON the Sec of Labor is authorized to give an award higherthan that agreed upon by the MOARULING:Yes.HOLDING:It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor, in the exercise of hispower to assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code,may resolve all issues involved in the controversy including theaward of wage increases and benefits.Since the filing and submission of the MOA did not have the effect ofdivesting the Secretary of his jurisdiction, neither should theprovisions of the MOA restrict the Secretary’s leeway in deciding thematters before him.And while the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the lawbetween the parties, it is not, however, an ordinary contract to whichis applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. A CBA,as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of theCivil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations betweenlabor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressedwith public interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. As
As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.
Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern
I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.
University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern
The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.