DISPOSITIVE:

In sum, the CDC has valid reason not to implement the increases in
salaries and benefits as provided in the renegotiated CBA. The Court reminds
that the law fixed the terms and conditions of government employment,35 and
any contract that violates the law is void and cannot be a source of rights and
obligations.36

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals’ Decision dated April 8, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 127560 is
REVERSED. The complaint in NCMB-AC25-RB3-08-0l -0l -2012 is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Furthermore, it was on March 22, 2016, that the President issued EO
No. 203, 28 Series of 2016, adopting the compensation and position
classification system as well as the index of occupational services for GOCCs.
Section 2 of EO No. 203, Series of 2016, is explicit that “[ w ]hile recognizing
the constitutional right of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, the Governing Boards of all covered GOCCs, whether
Chartered or Non-chartered, may not negotiate with their officers and
employees the economic terms of their CBAs.” This provision supports the
GCG’s position that the moratorium under EO No. 7, Series of 2010 on the
grant of additional benefits remains effective pending the promulgation and
approval of the compensation framework for all the GOCCs. Quite the
contrary, the Court finds no factual and legal bases for the CA and the AV A to
presume that the President approved the renegotiated economic provisions of
the CBA between CDC and ACSP. To be sure, the construction in favor of
labor only applies when there are doubts in the interpretation and
implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
rules and regulations. 29 As explained above, however, the language of
Section 9 ofEO No. 7, Series of2010 on the moratorium on increases in rates
of salaries and other benefits is unambiguous. Consequently, the law must be
interpreted following its plain and obvious meaning, and applied according to
its express tenns. 30 Again, the law requires the President’s consent as to
additional benefits effectively lifting the moratorium, and any presumption of
such approval is unwarranted.

In the analogous case of Social Housing Employees Association, Inc.
v. Social Housing Finance Corp., 31 the respondent revoked the economic
provisions of the CBA because they violated EO No. 7, Series of 2010, and
RA No. 10149, that prohibited the adjustment of several benefits without the
President’s approval. The Court ruled that the petitioner “is not entitled to the
new benefits and increases which yield neither legal nor binding effect.”32
The revocation of the CBA’ s economic provisions is valid and did not amount
to diminution of benefits. Similarly, in Philippine National Construction
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,33 the Court held that
the petitioner “did not violate the non-diminution rule when it desisted from
granting mid-year bonus to its employees”34 without first securing authority
from the President in view of the enactment of RA No. 10149. In that case, the
petitioner failed to obtain the President’s approval as to the grant of additional
benefits.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.