[G.R. No. L-80737. September 29, 1988.

] working days was a more humane solution instead of

a retrenchment and reduction of personnel. The
PHILIPPINE GRAPHIC ARTS INC., IGMIDIO R. petitioner further points out that this is in consonance
SILVERIO AND CARLOS CABAL, Petitioners, v. with the collective bargaining agreement between the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, employer and its employees.
ROSALINA M. PULPULAAN AND EMELITA
SALONGA, Respondents. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT; DECISION TO RESORT TO FORCED
George L. Howard, for Petitioners. LEAVES, A MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE; WORKER’S
CLAIM OF NON-RESORT TO GRIEVANCE MACHINERY,
The Office of the Solicitor General for NEGATED BY THEIR FAILURE TO INITIATE STEPS FOR
public Respondent. ITS EMPLOYMENT. — The decision to resort to forced
leaves was, under the circumstances, a management
Raul E. Espinosa for Private Respondents. prerogative. The workers’ claim of non-resort to the
grievance machinery is negated by their failure to
initiate steps for its employment. (See: Art. 261,
SYLLABUS Labor Code.) As the Solicitor General stressed: "in the
case at bar, when petitioners sent notice to
complainants, no grievance between petitioners and
1. LABOR LAW; LABOR CODE; UNFAIR LABOR private respondents that need be threshed out before
PRACTICE; TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF WORK the grievance machinery has yet materialized. But
SCHEDULE WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF EMPLOYEES then, private respondents, who received such notice
AND PROMPTED BY ECONOMIC CRISES DOES NOT and being aggrieved thereof, instituted a case before
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — The Court the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practices and
is convinced from the records now before it, that there discrimination, prior to any referral to the grievance
was no unfair labor practice. As found by the NLRC, machinery, which they are equally mandated to go
the private respondents themselves never questioned through and under the circumstances they were better
the existence of an economic crisis but, in fact, situated to initiate; likewise, petitioners even prayed
admitted its existence. There is basis for the before the Labor Arbiter that the complaint be
petitioner’s contentions that the reduction of work dismissed and/or referred to the grievance machinery.
schedule was temporary, that it was taken only after Thus, petitioner should not be faulted if the grievance
notice and consultations with the workers and machinery was in any way bypassed."
supervisors, that a consensus was reached on how to
deal with deteriorating economic conditions and
reduced sales and that the temporary reduction of
 DECISION
On June 19, 1986, the NLRC affirmed the arbiter’s
decision with modification as follows: jg c:ch an rob les.c om.p h

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

"Be that as it may, since as intimated at the outset,
the vacation leave forced upon the complainants was
In October, 1984, the petitioner corporation was visited with arbitrariness not amounting to unfair labor
forced by economic circumstances to require its practice, a refund of the amount equivalent to the
workers to go on mandatory vacation leave in batches earned leave of each of the complainants treated as
of seven or nine for periods ranging from 15, 30, to 45 their pay during their vacation is believed in order.
days. The workers were paid while on leave but the
pay was charged against their respective earned "WHEREFORE, modified as above indicated, the
leaves. ch an rob les .com:cr ala w:red
decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. (PARTIAL
APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
As a result, the private respondents filed complaints COMMISSION, P. 1)" (p. 60, Rollo).
for unfair labor practice and discrimination.
The petitioners raise two issues in their petition,
On April 9, 1986, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision namely: ch an rob 1 es virt u al 1 a w l ib rary

the dispositive portion of which reads: ch an rob 1 es virt u al 1 a w lib rary

A. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE

Wherefore, for lack of merit, the complaint for unfair OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING A RESOLUTION ON
labor practice on grounds of discrimination, forced AN ISSUE INVOLVING A MONEY CLAIM, WHICH WAS
leave and reduction of working days is hereby, NOT A SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL NOR ASSIGNED AS AN
DISMISSED. Respondent is hereby ordered to restore ERROR.
and grant to all its employees the company policy
regarding groceries previously enjoyed by them." (p. B. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE
27, Rollo) OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING A RESOLUTION IN
FAVOR OF THE UNION AND/OR 23 OTHER EMPLOYEES
The private respondents filed a "partial appeal" with WHO ARE NOT REAL PARTIES IN THE CASE, NOR IN
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) THE PARTIAL APPEAL. (pp. 17 & 22, Rollo)
questioning the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of their
complaint for unfair labor practice and the resultant After considering the petition and treating the
forced vacation leaves which were actually without comments of the private respondents and the Solicitor
[Link] an rob les virt u alawlib rar y ch an rob l es.c om:ch an rob le s.c om.p h
General as Answers, the Court resolved to give due
course to the petition and decide it on the basic
merits.
"Likewise the forced leave was enforced neither in a
The principal issue now before the Court is the forced malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive nor wanton
vacation leave without pay — whether or not it is manner, or out of malice or spite. Apart from private
unfair labor practice and if not an unfair labor practice, respondents’ concurrence that the forced leave was
whether or not it was tainted with arbitrariness. implemented due to economic crisis, what only ‘hurts’
(ibid.) them ‘is that said management’s plan was not
The Court is convinced from the records now before it, even discussed in the grievance procedure so that the
that there was no unfair labor practice. As found by Union members thereof may well be apprised of the
the NLRC, the private respondents themselves never reason therefor.’ (Ibid.)
questioned the existence of an economic crisis but, in
fact, admitted its existence. There is basis for the "However, to rule that petitioners’ failure to bring the
petitioner’s contentions that the reduction of work question of necessity in the imposition of forced leave
schedule was temporary, that it was taken only after and the distribution of work availability before the
notice and consultations with the workers and grievance machinery, as a prior requisite for the
supervisors, that a consensus was reached on how to implementation of the forced leave scheme,
deal with deteriorating economic conditions and constitutes arbitrariness is erroneous." (Rollo, pp. 63-
reduced sales and that the temporary reduction of 64)
working days was a more humane solution instead of
a retrenchment and reduction of personnel. The The decision to resort to forced leaves was, under the
petitioner further points out that this is in consonance circumstances, a management prerogative. The
with the collective bargaining agreement between the workers’ claim of non-resort to the grievance
employer and its employees. ch an rob les.c om:cral aw:red machinery is negated by their failure to initiate steps
for its employment.
The Court, therefore, agrees with the Solicitor General
in his submission that:jg c:ch an rob les .co m.p h As stressed by the Solicitor General: jg c:ch an rob les.c om.p h

"There is also no showing that the imposition of forced "The statutory law on grievance procedure provides
leave was exercised for the purpose of defeating or that:jg c:ch an rob [Link] .p h

circumventing the rights of employees under special

laws or under valid agreements. As the records show, "‘ART. 261. Grievance machinery. Whenever a
petitioners instituted the forced leave due to economic grievance arises from the interpretation or
crisis, which private respondents do not even implementation of a collective agreement, including
question. (Position Paper [Private Respondents’], disciplinary actions imposed on members of the
dated July 1985, p. 2). bargaining unit, the employer and the bargaining
representative shall meet to adjust the grievance. grievance machinery was in any way bypassed."
Where the grievance procedure as provided herein (Rollo, pp. 64-66).
does not apply, grievances shall be subject to
negotiation, conciliation or arbitration as provided WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
elsewhere in this Code.’" (Labor Code (Emphasis June 19, 1987 resolution of the National Labor
supplied) Relations Commission is set aside and the April 9,
1986 decision of the Labor Arbiter is [Link] an rob les virt u al awlib rary

"As the law stands, both employers and bargaining

ch an rob les.c om:ch an rob les .c om.p h

representative of the employees are required to go SO ORDERED.

through the grievance machinery in case a grievance
arises. And though the law does not provide who, as
between labor and capital, should initiate that said
grievance be brought first to the grievance machinery,
it is only logical, just and equitable that whoever is
aggrieved should initiate settlement of the grievance
through the grievance machinery. To impose the
compulsory procedure on employers alone would be
oppressive of capital, notwithstanding the fact that in
most cases the grievance is of the employees.

"In the case at bar, when petitioners sent notice to

complainants, no grievance between petitioners and
private respondents that need be threshed out before
the grievance machinery has yet materialized. But
then, private respondents, who received such notice
and being aggrieved thereof, instituted a case before
the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practices and
discrimination, prior to any referral to the grievance
machinery, which they are equally mandated to go
through and under the circumstances they were better
situated to initiate; likewise, petitioners even prayed
before the Labor Arbiter that the complaint be
dismissed and/or referred to the grievance machinery.
(Position Paper (Petitioners’), dated 24 July 1985, p.
7) Thus, petitioner should not be faulted if the