FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Court, challenging the Decision of the appellate court and the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. The petition was initially consolidated with another case but has now been separated for resolution.

The facts of the case are based on a previous Resolution issued by the Court on July 24, 2007. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc. (Kimberly) and United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization (UKCEO-PTGWO) expired on June 30, 1986. KILUSAN-OLALIA, a newly-formed labor organization, challenged the incumbency of UKCEO-PTGWO by filing a petition for certification election on April 21, 1986. A certification election was conducted on July 1, 1986, with UKCEO-PTGWO winning by a margin of 20 votes. However, 64 challenged ballots cast by 64 casual workers were left uncounted. KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a protest.

On November 13, 1986, the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) issued an Order stating that the casual workers not performing janitorial and yard maintenance services had attained regular status. UKCEO-PTGWO was declared as the exclusive bargaining representative of Kimberly's employees. KILUSAN-OLALIA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court, questioning the Order of the MOLE.

During the pendency of the case, Kimberly dismissed several employees, leading KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike on May 17, 1987. Kimberly filed an injunction case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and obtained temporary restraining orders. KILUSAN-OLALIA brought the issuance of the TROs to the Court via a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court consolidated the two cases and rendered a decision on May 9, 1990, ordering the med-arbiter to open and count the 64 challenged votes and declaring that the union with the highest number of votes would be the certified bargaining representative. Kimberly was also ordered to pay differential wages and benefits to the regularized workers.

KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a motion for execution with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce the decision. The DOLE issued an Order considering the opening and counting of the 64 challenged ballots as physically impossible and moot. However, it ordered the payment of differential wages and benefits to the regularized workers. The Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) submitted a report identifying 47 out of the 76 complainants as entitled to regularization. Kimberly filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the DOLE.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the payment of differential wages and benefits should include all regularized workers or only those who rendered one year of service as of the filing date of the petition for certification election.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the differential wages and benefits should be paid to all regularized workers and not just those who rendered one year of service as of the filing date of the petition for certification election. The decision in G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 ordered the payment of differential pay to regularized workers from the time they became regular employees, without any qualification or limitation as to the length of their service prior to the filing of the petition. Therefore, the eligibility for payment of differential wages and benefits is based on being a regularized worker, regardless of the length of service.

PRINCIPLES:

• The payment of differential wages and benefits to regularized workers is due from the time they became regular employees, without any qualification or limitation as to the length of service prior to the filing of the petition for certification election.

• The eligibility for payment of differential wages and benefits is based on being a regularized worker, regardless of the length of service.