View full case

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION v. NLRC

FACTS:

National Sugar Refineries Corporation (NASUREFCO), a government-owned corporation, implemented a Job Evaluation Program in 1988 that reclassified employees and adjusted their salaries and benefits. The union representing former supervisors of NASUREFCO's Batangas Sugar Refinery filed a complaint two years later, claiming non-payment of overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the union members, stating that the long payment of benefits created a contractual obligation and that the special allowance given by NASUREFCO was insufficient. The NLRC affirmed the arbiter's decision, declaring that the union members are entitled to the said benefits.

NASUREFCO filed a petition for certiorari questioning the NLRC's decision. It argued that the union members, as supervisory employees, should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff and are therefore not entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay. The main issue to be resolved is the classification of the union members and whether they fall under the exemption from coverage provided by Article 82 of the Labor Code. The definition of supervisory and managerial employees under the Labor Code, particularly Article 212(m), is examined, with the NLRC adopting this definition. However, NASUREFCO contends that the union members should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff as defined under Article 82 and the Rules to Implement the Labor Code.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the members of the respondent union are exempted from overtime, rest day, and holiday pay as officers or members of the managerial staff.

  2. Whether the definition of managerial and supervisory employees under Article 212(m) of the Labor Code should apply only to provisions on Labor Relations or also to working conditions and entitlement to benefits.

  3. Whether or not the union members should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff and are exempt from the coverage of Article 82.

  4. Whether or not the payment of overtime, rest day, and holiday pay to the union members has ripened into a contractual obligation.

  5. Whether the promotion of the union members remove them from the coverage of the law and exempts them from receiving benefits attached to their former positions.

  6. Whether the petitioner acted in bad faith in implementing the Job Evaluation (JE) Program.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer. The Court held that the members of the respondent union are not entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay as officers or members of the managerial staff. The Court considered the character of the work performed by the employees, rather than their job titles. It was found that the union members were under the direct supervision of their department superintendents and assisted them in various duties, including planning, organizing, staffing, and decision making. These duties and responsibilities showed that the employees were engaged in work directly related to management policies and exercised discretion and independent judgment. Therefore, they fell under the definition of officers or members of the managerial staff and were not entitled to the disputed benefits.

  2. The union members should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff and are exempt from the coverage of Article 82. They perform work directly related to management policies, regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment, regularly and directly assist managerial employees, execute work along specialized or technical lines, and do not devote more than 20% of their hours worked in a work-week to activities not directly related to their work. Therefore, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay.

  3. The payment of the questioned benefits to the union members has not ripened into a contractual obligation. Prior to the Job Evaluation Program (JE Program), the union members were treated similarly to rank-and-file employees and their duties as supervisors were not properly defined. The payment of benefits during that time cannot be considered as a voluntary employer practice. With the implementation of the JE Program, the union members were re-classified as managerial staff and their basic pay increased. It can be inferred that after the JE Program, there was a promotion and change in position, rank, and salary for the union members.

  4. The Supreme Court held that with the promotion of the union members, they are no longer entitled to the benefits attached and pertaining exclusively to their former positions. Entitlement to the benefits provided for by law requires prior compliance with the conditions set forth therein. Their assumption of these positions removed them from the coverage of the law, thus exempting them from receiving those benefits.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent union failed to convince the Court that the petitioner acted in bad faith in implementing the JE Program. There was no showing that the program was intended to circumvent the law and deprive the union members of their benefits. Hence, the Court dismissed the basic complaint of the private respondent union.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of whether an employee is exempt from the benefits of labor laws depends on the character of the work performed, not the employee's job title.

  • The definition of managerial and supervisory employees under Article 212(m) of the Labor Code applies not only to provisions on Labor Relations but also to working conditions and entitlement to benefits.

  • Members of the managerial staff are exempt from the coverage of Article 82 and are not entitled to overtime, rest day, and holiday pay.

  • The payment of benefits does not necessarily constitute a contractual obligation and can be changed or withdrawn by the employer. For a practice to be considered a voluntary employer practice, it must be practiced over a long period of time, consistent, and deliberate.

  • Promotion of employees is a prerogative of management, as long as it is done in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not to defeat or circumvent the rights of employees under special laws or valid agreements.

  • Management prerogative may be exercised without fear of liability, provided it is not exercised in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, wanton manner, or out of malice or spite.