G.R. No. 118069 November 16, 1998 PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIIPPINES, !"o# F$r%& P'$($))$"e I"&er"*&$o"*( B*"+, petitioner, vs. NRC *"- PRODUCERS BANK EPO/EES ASSOCIATION, respondents. F*&% Petitioner was placed by the Central Bank under a conservator for the purpose of protecting its assets. It appears that when the private respondents sought the implementation of Section I, Article I of the CBA regarding the retirement plan and Section !, Article thereof, pertaining to uniform allowance, the acting conservator of the petitioner e"pressed her ob#ection to such plan, resulting in an impasse between the petitioner bank and the private respondent union. $he deadlock continued for at least si" months when the private respondent, respondent, to resolve the issue, decided to %le a case against the petitioner for unfair labor practice and for &agrant violation of the CBA provisions. 'abor Arbiter dismissed private respondent(s complaint, on this premise) Considering that the Bank is under conservatorship program under which the bank is under the rule of a conservator, the latter is under no compulsion to implement the resolutions issued by the '*+C. If he %nds that the enforcement of the resolutions would not redound for the best interest of the Bank in accordance with the conservatorship program, program, he may not be faulted by such inaction or action. $he '+C, '+C, after reviewing reviewing the arguments arguments of both both parties, reversed reversed the %ndings %ndings of the 'abor 'abor Arbiter, thus) ot only is the worker protected by the 'abor Code, he is likewise protected by other laws -Civil Code and social legislations the source of which is the no less than the Constitution itself. $o adhere %rst to the interest of the company to the pre#udice of the workers can never be allowed or tolerated as the interest of the working masses is the paramount concern of the government. Conse/uently, the '+C ordered the petitioner to implement the provisions of the CBA which were disallowed by the conservator. I%%2e 01 the bank shall implement the provisions provisions of the CBA regardless regardless of the ob#ection of the conservator. He(- 23S He(- 23S R*&$o 0hile admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far4reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that such powers must be related to the 5-reservation of the assets of the bank, the reorgani6ation reorgani6ation of the management thereof and the restoration restoration of its viability.5 Such powers, enormous and e"tensive as they are, cannot e"tend to the post4facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the non4impairment
Titles you can't find anywhere else
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Titles you can't find anywhere else
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
clause of the Constitution. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an e"isting valid contract, how can it delegate such non4e"istent powers to the conservator under Section 784A of said law9 :bviously, therefore, Section 784A merely gives the conservator power to revoke contracts that are, under e"isting law, deemed to be defective. ;ence, the conservator merely takes the place of a bank(s board of directors. 0hat the said board cannot do < such as repudiating a contract validly entered into under the doctrine of implied authority < the conservator cannot do either. ;is power is not unilateral and he cannot simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. ;is authority would be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts < as he has already done so in the instant case. $o rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at the e"pense of third parties, by simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or another come to be considered unfavorable unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank. Prescinding from the rationali6ation that a conservator cannot rescind a valid and e"isting contract and that the CBA is the law between the contracting parties, it is obvious that the conservator had no authority whatsoever to disallow the implementation of the provisions of the CBA, especially considering that the ideals of social #ustice and protection of labor are guaranteed not only by the 'C, but more importantly by the Constitution. It bears repeating that apart from the non4impairment clause, what is also well4settled is the principle that when the con&icting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social #ustice, the dominant in&uence of the latter must be counter4balanced counter4balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the under4privileged worker. e"t, petitioner insists that both the 'abor Arbiter and the '+C '+C have no #urisdiction to entertain the complaint of the private respondent, respondent, asserting that the issue was cogni6able by the voluntary arbitrator pursuant pursuant to Article 7=> 'C. ?ranting that both the 'abor Arbiter and the '+C indeed had no #urisdiction over the issue, petitioner cannot anymore plead such procedural &aw under the principle of estoppel. It appears that in the proceedings proceedings before the 'A, ' A, it vigorously vigorously argued its defense and prayed for alternative relief. In fact, in its position paper and reply, the issue concerning the 'A(s lack of #urisdiction was not raised by the petitioner. *oreover, in its answer to the memorandum of appeal %led by the private respondents before the '+C, petitioner was again silent regarding the issue of #urisdiction #urisdiction on the part part of the '+C '+C to decide the appeal. It was only when the decision of the '+C was unfavorable that it raised the issue of #urisdiction. @inally, petitioner asserts since the employees have retired, as a conse/uence of which no employee4employer relationship relationship e"ists anymore between it and the employees, private respondent respondent no longer had the personality personality to %le the complaint for them.
Titles you can't find anywhere else
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
0hen the retired employees were re/uesting that their retirement bene%ts be granted, they were not pleading for generosity but were merely demanding that their rights, as embodied in the CBA, be recogni6ed. $hus, when an employee has retired but his bene%ts under the law or the CBA have not yet been given, he still retains, for the purpose of prosecuting his claims, the status of an employee entitled to the protection of the 'abor Code, one of which is the protection of the labor union. In Esso Philippines, Inc. v. **3, we recogni6ed that while the individual complainants are the real party m interest in issues involving monetary claims and bene%ts, the union, however, is not denied its right to sue on behalf of its members, thus)
