ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, vs. COCA Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Cebu Plant, Respondent

9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 696
G.R. No. 198783. April 15, 2013.*
ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COCA

COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.CEBU PLANT,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Voluntary

Arbitrators; A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is
appealable to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review
under Rule 43.―This procedural issue being debated upon is not
novel. The Court has already ruled in a number of cases that a
decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the
CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. The recent case of
Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Hyatt (SAMASAH
NUWHRAIN) v. Hon. Voluntary Arbitrator Buenaventura C.
Magsalin and Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, 650 SCRA 445
(2011), reiterated the wellsettled doctrine on this issue.
_______________
* THIRD DlVISION.
358
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers Philippines,

Inc.Cebu Plant
Labor Law; Management Prerogatives; The Court has held

that management is free to regulate, according to its own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including
hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place, and
manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers,
working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay
off of workers, and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.—
The Court has held that management is free to regulate,
according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e470c3519316abfc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working

methods, time, place, and manner of work, processes to be
followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of
employees, work supervision, layoff of workers, and discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of management
prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be exercised in
good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.
Same; Labor Standards; There is no law that requires
employers to provide chairs for bottling operators. The Labor Code,
specifically Article 132 thereof, only requires employers to provide
seats for women. No similar requirement is mandated for men or
male workers.—The rights of the Union under any labor law were
not violated. There is no law that requires employers to provide
chairs for bottling operators. The CA correctly ruled that the
Labor Code, specifically Article 132 thereof, only requires
employers to provide seats for women. No similar requirement is
mandated for men or male workers. It must be stressed that all
concerned bottling operators in this case are men. There was no
violation either of the Health, Safety and Social Welfare Benefit
provisions under Book IV of the Labor Code of the Philippines. As
shown in the foregoing, the removal of the chairs was
compensated by the reduction of the working hours and increase
in the rest period. The directive did not expose the bottling
operators to safety and health hazards. The Union should not
complain too much about standing and moving about for one and
onehalf (1 ½) hours because studies show that sitting in
workplaces for a long time is hazardous to one’s health. The
report of VicHealth, Australia, disclosed that “prolonged
workplace sitting is an emerging public health and occupational
health issue with serious implications for the health of our
working population. Importantly, prolonged sitting is a risk factor
for poor health and early death, even among those who meet, or
exceed, national activity guidelines.”
359
, APRIL 15, 2013 359

Inc.Cebu Plant
Same; Same; NonDiminution of Benefits; The operators’

chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee benefits covered
in Article 100 of the Labor Code. In the Court’s view, the term
“benefits” mentioned in the nondiminution rule refers to monetary
benefits or privileges given to the employee with monetary

equivalents. Such benefits or privileges form part of the employees’
wage, salary or compensation making them enforceable
obligations.—The operators’ chairs cannot be considered as one of
the employee benefits covered in Article 100 of the Labor Code. In
the Court’s view, the term “benefits” mentioned in the non
diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges given to
the employee with monetary equivalents. Such benefits or
privileges form part of the employees’ wage, salary or
compensation making them enforceable obligations. This Court
has already decided several cases regarding the nondiminution
rule where the benefits or privileges involved in those cases
mainly concern monetary considerations or privileges with
monetary equivalents. Some of these cases are: Eastern
Telecommunication Phils. Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees
Union, 665 SCRA 516 (2012), where the case involves the
payment of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses; Central
Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union
NLU, 625 SCRA 622 (2010), regarding the 13th month pay,
legal/special holiday pay, night premium pay and vacation and
sick leaves; TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union, 545 SCRA
215 (2008), regarding salary wage increases; and American Wire
and Cable Daily Employees Union vs. American Wire and Cable
Company, Inc., 457 SCRA 684 (2005), involving service awards
with cash incentives, premium pay, Christmas party with
incidental benefits and promotional increase.
Same; Management Prerogatives; The Supreme Court often
declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.
The law must protect not only the welfare of the employees, but
also the right of the employers.—Jurisprudence recognizes the
exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage
interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of its
business. For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in
legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect
not only the welfare of the employees, but also the right of the
employers.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
360

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc.Cebu Plant
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Armando M. Alforque for petitioner.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for
respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition is the May 24, 2011 Decision1
and the September 2, 2011 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 05200, entitled CocaCola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc.Cebu Plant v. Royal Plant
Workers Union, which nullified and set aside the June 11,
2010 Decision3 of the Voluntary Arbitration Panel
(Arbitration Committee) in a case involving the removal of
chairs in the bottling plant of CocaCola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI).
The Factual and Procedural
Antecedents
The factual and procedural antecedents have been
accurately recited in the May 24, 2011 CA decision as
follows:
Petitioner CocaCola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a

domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of softdrink products. It has several bottling plants
all over the country, one of which is located in Cebu City. Under
the employ of each bottling plant are bottling operators. In the
case of the plant in Cebu City, there are 20 bottling operators who
work for its Bottling Line 1 while there are 1214 bottling
operators who man its Bottling Line 2. All of them are male and
they are members of herein respondent Royal Plant Workers
Union (ROPWU).
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2335 (Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and
concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Gabriel T. Ingles).
2 Id., at pp. 3637.
3 Voluntary Arbitration Panel Decision, id., at pp. 227238.
361
, APRIL 15, 2013 361

Inc.Cebu Plant
The bottling operators work in two shifts. The first shift is from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the second shift is from 5 p.m. up to the time
production operations is finished. Thus, the second shift varies
and may end beyond eight (8) hours. However, the bottling
operators are compensated with overtime pay if the shift extends
beyond eight (8) hours. For Bottling Line 1, 10 bottling operators
work for each shift while 6 to 7 bottling operators work for each
shift for Bottling Line 2.
Each shift has rotations of work time and break time. Prior to
September 2008, the rotation is this: after two and a half (2 ½)
hours of work, the bottling operators are given a 30minute break
and this goes on until the shift ends. In September 2008 and up to
the present, the rotation has changed and bottling operators are
now given a 30minute break after one and one half (1 ½) hours of
work.
In 1974, the bottling operators of then Bottling Line 2 were
provided with chairs upon their request. In 1988, the bottling
operators of then Bottling Line 1 followed suit and asked to be
provided also with chairs. Their request was likewise granted.
Sometime in September 2008, the chairs provided for the
operators were removed pursuant to a national directive of
petitioner. This directive is in line with the “I Operate, I
Maintain, I Clean” program of petitioner for bottling operators,
wherein every bottling operator is given the responsibility to keep
the machinery and equipment assigned to him clean and safe. The
program reinforces the task of bottling operators to constantly
move about in the performance of their duties and
responsibilities.
With this task of moving constantly to check on the machinery
and equipment assigned to him, a bottling operator does not need
a chair anymore, hence, petitioner’s directive to remove them.
Furthermore, CCBPI rationalized that the removal of the chairs
is implemented so that the bottling operators will avoid sleeping,
thus, prevent injuries to their persons. As bottling operators are
working with machines which consist of moving parts, it is
imperative that they should not fall asleep as to do so would
expose them to hazards and injuries. In addition, sleeping will
hamper the efficient flow of operations as the bottling operators
would be unable to perform their duties competently.
The bottling operators took issue with the removal of the
chairs. Through the representation of herein respondent, they
initiated the grievance machinery of the Collective Bargaining
Agree
362

Inc.Cebu Plant
ment (CBA) in November 2008. Even after exhausting the

remedies contained in the grievance machinery, the parties were
still at a deadlock with petitioner still insisting on the removal of
the chairs and respondent still against such measure. As such,
respondent sent a Notice to Arbitrate, dated 16 July 2009, to
petitioner stating its position to submit the issue on the removal
of the chairs for arbitration. Nevertheless, before submitting to
arbitration the issue, both parties availed of the
conciliation/mediation proceedings before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Regional Branch No.
VII. They failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
Thus, the process of arbitration continued and the parties
appointed the chairperson and members of the Arbitration
Committee as outlined in the CBA. Petitioner and respondent
respectively appointed as members to the Arbitration Committee
Mr. Raul A. Kapuno, Jr. and Mr. Luis Ruiz while they both chose
Atty. Alice Morada as chairperson thereof. They then executed a
Submission Agreement which was accepted by the Arbitration
Committee on 01 October 2009. As contained in the Submission
Agreement, the sole issue for arbitration is whether the removal
of chairs of the operators assigned at the
production/manufacturing line while performing their duties and
responsibilities is valid or not.
Both parties submitted their position papers and other
subsequent pleadings in amplification of their respective stands.
Petitioner argued that the removal of the chairs is valid as it is a
legitimate exercise of management prerogative, it does not violate
the Labor Code and it does not violate the CBA it contracted with
respondent. On the other hand, respondent espoused the contrary
view. It contended that the bottling operators have been
performing their assigned duties satisfactorily with the presence
of the chairs; the removal of the chairs constitutes a violation of
the Occupational Health and Safety Standards, the policy of the
State to assure the right of workers to just and humane conditions
of work as stated in Article 3 of the Labor Code and the Global
Workplace Rights Policy.
Ruling of the Arbitration Committee

On June 11, 2010, the Arbitration Committee rendered a
decision in favor of the Royal Plant Workers Union (the
Union) and against CCBPI, the dispositive portion of which
reads, as follows:
363
, APRIL 15, 2013 363

Wherefore, the undersigned rules in favor of ROPWU declaring

that the removal of the operators chairs is not valid. CCBPI is
hereby ordered to restore the same for the use of the operators as
before their removal in 2008.4
The Arbitration Committee ruled, among others, that

the use of chairs by the operators had been a company
practice for 34 years in Bottling Line 2, from 1974 to 2008,
and 20 years in Bottling Line 1, from 1988 to 2008; that the
use of the chairs by the operators constituted a company
practice favorable to the Union; that it ripened into a
benefit after it had been enjoyed by it; that any benefit
being enjoyed by the employees could not be reduced,
diminished, discontinued, or eliminated by the employer in
accordance with Article 100 of the Labor Code, which
prohibited the diminution or elimination by the employer of
the employees’ benefit; and that jurisprudence had not laid
down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of
years before a benefit would constitute a voluntary
company practice which could not be unilaterally
withdrawn by the employer.
The Arbitration Committee further stated that,
although the removal of the chairs was done in good faith,
CCBPI failed to present evidence regarding instances of
sleeping while on duty. There were no specific details as to
the number of incidents of sleeping on duty, who were
involved, when these incidents happened, and what actions
were taken. There was no evidence either of any accident or
injury in the many years that the bottling operators used
chairs. To the Arbitration Committee, it was puzzling why
it took 34 and 20 years for CCBPI to be so solicitous of the
bottling operators’ safety that it removed their chairs so
that they would not fall asleep and injure themselves.
Finally, the Arbitration Committee was of the view that,
contrary to CCBPI’s position, line efficiency was the result
of
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 227238.
364

many factors and it could not be attributed solely to one

such as the removal of the chairs.
Not contented with the Arbitration Committee’s
decision, CCBPI filed a petition for review under Rule 43
before the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On May 24, 2011, the CA rendered a contrasting
decision which nullified and set aside the decision of the
Arbitration Committee. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED and the Decision, dated 11 June 2010, of the
Arbitration Committee in AC389VII09102009D is NULLIFIED
and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered in its stead SUSTAINING
the removal of the chairs of the bottling operators from the
manufacturing/production line.5
The CA held, among others, that the removal of the

chairs from the manufacturing/production lines by CCBPI
is within the province of management prerogatives; that it
was part of its inherent right to control and manage its
enterprise effectively; and that since it was the employer’s
discretion to constantly develop measures or means to
optimize the efficiency of its employees and to keep its
machineries and equipment in the best of conditions, it was
only appropriate that it should be given wide latitude in
exercising it.
The CA stated that CCBPI complied with the conditions
of a valid exercise of a management prerogative when it
decided to remove the chairs used by the bottling operators
in the manufacturing/production lines. The removal of the
chairs was solely motivated by the best intentions for both
the Union and CCBPI, in line with the “I Operate, I
Maintain, I Clean” program for bottling operators, wherein
every bottling opera
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 2335.
365
, APRIL 15, 2013 365

tor was given the responsibility to keep the machinery and

equipment assigned to him clean and safe. The program
would reinforce the task of bottling operators to constantly
move about in the performance of their duties and
responsibilities. Without the chairs, the bottling operators
could efficiently supervise these machineries’ operations
and maintenance. It would also be beneficial for them
because the working time before the break in each rotation
for each shift was substantially reduced from two and a
half hours (2 ½) to one and a half hours (1 ½) before the 30
minute break. This scheme was clearly advantageous to the
bottling operators as the number of resting periods was
increased. CCBPI had the best intentions in removing the
chairs because some bottling operators had the propensity
to fall asleep while on the job and sleeping on the job ran
the risk of injury exposure and removing them reduced the
risk.
The CA added that the decision of CCBPI to remove the
chairs was not done for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of its employees under the special
laws, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or the
general principles of justice and fair play. It opined that the
principles of justice and fair play were not violated because,
when the chairs were removed, there was a commensurate
reduction of the working time for each rotation in each
shift. The provision of chairs for the bottling operators was
never part of the CBAs contracted between the Union and
CCBPI. The chairs were not provided as a benefit because
such matter was dependent upon the exigencies of the work
of the bottling operators. As such, CCBPI could withdraw
this provision if it was not necessary in the exigencies of
the work, if it was not contributing to the efficiency of the
bottling operators or if it would expose them to some
hazards. Lastly, the CA explained that the provision of
chairs to the bottling operators cannot be covered by Article
100 of the Labor Code on elimination or diminution of
benefits because the employee’s benefits referred to therein
mainly involved monetary considerations or privileges
converted to their monetary equivalent.
366

Disgruntled with the adverse CA decision, the Union

has come to this Court praying for its reversal on the
following
GROUNDS
I
THAT WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT A
PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 43 OF THE
RULES OF COURT IS THE PROPER REMEDY OF
CHALLENGING BEFORE SAID COURT THE DECISION
OF THE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR OR PANEL OF
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS UNDER THE LABOR CODE.
II
THAT WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NULLIFYING
AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE PANEL OF
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS WHICH DECLARED AS NOT
VALID THE REMOVAL OF THE CHAIRS OF THE
OPERATORS IN THE MANUFACTURING AND/OR
PRODUCTION LINE.
In advocacy of its positions, the Union argues that the

proper remedy in challenging the decision of the
Arbitration Committee before the CA is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. The petition for review under
Rule 43 resorted to by CCBPI should have been dismissed
for being an improper remedy. The Union points out that
the parties agreed to submit the unresolved grievance
involving the removal of chairs to voluntary arbitration
pursuant to the provisions of Article V of the existing CBA.
Hence, the assailed decision of the Arbitration Committee
is a judgment or final order issued under the Labor Code of
the Philippines. Section 2, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, expressly states that the said rule does not
cover cases under the Labor Code of the Philippines. The
judgments or final orders of the Voluntary
367
, APRIL 15, 2013 367

Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators are governed

by the provisions of Articles 260, 261, 262, 262A, and 262
B of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
On the substantive aspect, the Union argues that there
is no connection between CCBPI’s “I Operate, I Maintain, I
Clean” program and the removal of the chairs because the
implementation of the program was in 2006 and the
removal of the chairs was done in 2008. The 30minute
break is part of an operator’s working hours and does not
make any difference. The frequency of the break period is
not advantageous to the operators because it cannot
compensate for the time they are made to stand throughout
their working time. The bottling operators get tired and
exhausted after their tour of duty even with chairs around.
How much more if the chairs are removed?
The Union further claims that management
prerogatives are not absolute but subject to certain
limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement,
or general principles of fair play and justice. The operators
have been performing their assigned duties and
responsibilities satisfactorily for thirty (30) years using
chairs. There is no record of poor performance because the
operators are sitting all the time. There is no single
incident when the attention of an operator was called for
failure to carry out his assigned tasks. CCBPI has not
submitted any evidence to prove that the performance of
the operators was poor before the removal of the chairs and
that it has improved after the chairs were removed. The
presence of chairs for more than 30 years made the
operators awake and alert as they could relax from time to
time. There are sanctions for those caught sleeping while
on duty. Before the removal of the chairs, the efficiency of
the operators was much better and there was no recorded
accident. After the removal of the chairs, the efficiency of
the operators diminished considerably, resulting in the
drastic decline of line efficiency.
368

Finally, the Union asserts that the removal of the chairs

constitutes violation of the Occupational Health and Safety
Standards, which provide that every company shall keep
and maintain its workplace free from hazards that are

likely to cause physical harm to the workers or damage to
property. The removal of the chairs constitutes a violation
of the State policy to assure the right of workers to a just
and humane condition of work pursuant to Article 3 of the
Labor Code and of CCBPI’s Global Workplace Rights
Policy. Hence, the unilateral withdrawal, elimination or
removal of the chairs, which have been in existence for
more than 30 years, constitutes a violation of existing
practice.
The respondent’s position
CCBPI reiterates the ruling of the CA that a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was the proper
remedy to question the decision of the Arbitration
Committee. It likewise echoes the ruling of the CA that the
removal of the chairs was a legitimate exercise of
management prerogative; that it was done not to harm the
bottling operators but for the purpose of optimizing their
efficiency and CCBPI’s machineries and equipment; and
that the exercise of its management prerogative was done
in good faith and not for the purpose of circumventing the
rights of the employees under the special laws, the CBA or
the general principles of justice and fair play.
The Court’s Ruling
The decision in this case rests on the resolution of two
basic questions. First, is an appeal to the CA via a petition
for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure a proper remedy to question the decision of the
Arbitration Committee? Second, was the removal of the
bottling operators’ chairs from CCBPI’s
production/manufacturing lines a valid exercise of a
management prerogative?
369
, APRIL 15, 2013 369

The Court sustains the ruling of the CA on both issues.

Regarding the first issue, the Union insists that the CA
erred in ruling that the recourse taken by CCBPI in
appealing the decision of the Arbitration Committee was
proper. It argues that the proper remedy in challenging the
decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator before the CA is by
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court, not a petition for review under Rule 43.
CCBPI counters that the CA was correct in ruling that
the recourse it took in appealing the decision of the
Arbitration Committee to the CA via a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was proper and in
conformity with the rules and prevailing jurisprudence.
A Petition for Review
under Rule 43 is the
proper remedy
CCBPI is correct. This procedural issue being debated
upon is not novel. The Court has already ruled in a number
of cases that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator
is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule
43. The recent case of Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa
Hyatt (SAMASAHNUWHRAIN) v. Hon. Voluntary
Arbitrator Buenaventura C. Magsalin and Hotel
Enterprises of the Philippines6 reiterated the wellsettled
doctrine on this issue, to wit:
In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt

NUWHRAINAPL v. Bacungan,7 we repeated the wellsettled rule
_______________
6 G.R. No. 164939, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 445, 454456.
7 G.R. No. 149050, March 25, 2009, 582 SCRA 369, 374375, citing Luzon
Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, 319 Phil.
262; 249 SCRA 162 (1995); Alcantara, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 395; 386
SCRA 370 (2002); and Nippon Paint Employees UnionOlalia v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 159010, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 286.
370

Inc.Cebu Plant
that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to

the CA via petition for review under Rule 43. We held that:
“The question on the proper recourse to assail a decision
of a voluntary arbitrator has already been settled in Luzon
Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development
Bank Employees, where the Court held that the decision or
award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators
should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in
line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative
Circular No. 195 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure), just like those of the quasi
judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated
therein, and consistent with the original purpose to provide
a uniform procedure for the appellate review of
adjudications of all quasijudicial entities.
Subsequently, in Alcantara, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, and
Nippon Paint Employees UnionOlalia v. Court of Appeals,
the Court reiterated the aforequoted ruling. In Alcantara,
the Court held that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 43,
the ruling in Luzon Development Bank still stands. The
Court explained, thus:
‘The provisions may be new to the Rules of Court
but it is far from being a new law. Section 2, Rules 42
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as presently
worded, is nothing more but a reiteration of the
exception to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals, as provided for in Section 9, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No.
7902:
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Employees’ Compensation Commission and the Civil
Service Commission, except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the
371
, APRIL 15, 2013 371

Inc.Cebu Plant
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,

the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.’
The Court took into account this exception in Luzon
Development Bank but, nevertheless, held that the decisions
of voluntary arbitrators issued pursuant to the Labor Code
do not come within its ambit x x x.”
Furthermore, Sections 1, 3 and 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure, as amended, provide:
“SECTION 1. Scope.―This Rule shall apply to appeals
from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals
and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of
or authorized by any quasijudicial agency in the exercise of
its quasijudicial functions. Among these agencies are the x
x x, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
x x x x
SEC. 3. Where to appeal.―An appeal under this Rule
may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and
in the manner therein provided, whether the appeal
involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact
and law.
SEC. 4. Period of appeal.―The appeal shall be taken
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution, or from the date of its last
publication, if publication is required by law for its
effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new
trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the
governing law of the court or agency a quo. x x x. (Emphasis
supplied.)’
Hence, upon receipt on May 26, 2003 of the Voluntary
Arbitrator’s Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, petitioner should have filed with the CA, within
the fifteen (15)day
372

Inc.Cebu Plant
reglementary period, a petition for review, not a petition for

certiorari.
On the second issue, the Union basically claims that the

CCBPI’s decision to unilaterally remove the operators’
chairs from the production/manufacturing lines of its
bottling plants is not valid because it violates some
fundamental labor policies. According to the Union, such
removal constitutes a violation of the 1) Occupational
Health and Safety Standards which provide that every
worker is entitled to be provided by the employer with
appropriate seats, among others; 2) policy of the State to
assure the right of workers to a just and humane condition
of work as provided for in Article 3 of the Labor Code;8 3)
Global Workplace Rights Policy of CCBPI which provides

for a safe and healthy workplace by maintaining a
productive workplace and by minimizing the risk of
accident, injury and exposure to health risks; and 4)
diminution of benefits provided in Article 100 of the Labor
Code.9
Opposing the Union’s argument, CCBPI mainly
contends that the removal of the subject chairs is a valid
exercise of management prerogative. The management
decision to remove the subject chairs was made in good
faith and did not intend to defeat or circumvent the rights
of the Union under the special laws, the CBA and the
general principles of justice and fair play.
Again, the Court agrees with CCBPI on the matter.
_______________
8 Article 3. Declaration of basic policy.—The State shall afford
protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work
opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations
between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of
workers to selforganization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and
just and humane conditions of work.
9 ART. 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of
benefits.―Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any
way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at
the time of promulgation of this Code.
373
, APRIL 15, 2013 373

A Valid Exercise of
Management Prerogative
The Court has held that management is free to regulate,
according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place, and manner of work, processes to be
followed, supervision of workers, working regulations,
transfer of employees, work supervision, layoff of workers,
and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The
exercise of management prerogative, however, is not
absolute as it must be exercised in good faith and with due
regard to the rights of labor.10
In the present controversy, it cannot be denied that

CCBPI removed the operators’ chairs pursuant to a
national directive and in line with its “I Operate, I
Maintain, I Clean” program, launched to enable the Union
to perform their duties and responsibilities more efficiently.
The chairs were not removed indiscriminately. They were
carefully studied with due regard to the welfare of the
members of the Union. The removal of the chairs was
compensated by: a) a reduction of the operating
hours of the bottling operators from a twoandonehalf (2
½)hour rotation period to a oneandahalf (1 ½) hour
rotation period; and b) an increase of the break period
from 15 to 30 minutes between rotations.
Apparently, the decision to remove the chairs was done
with good intentions as CCBPI wanted to avoid instances
of operators sleeping on the job while in the performance of
their duties and responsibilities and because of the fact
that the chairs were not necessary considering that the
operators constantly move about while working. In short,
the removal of the chairs was designed to increase work
efficiency. Hence,
_______________
10 Julie’s Bakeshop v. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, February 15, 2012, 666
SCRA 101, 115.
374

CCBPI’s exercise of its management prerogative was made

in good faith without doing any harm to the workers’
rights.
The fact that there is no proof of any operator sleeping
on the job is of no moment. There is no guarantee that such
incident would never happen as sitting on a chair is
relaxing. Besides, the operators constantly move about
while doing their job. The ultimate purpose is to promote
work efficiency.
No Violation of Labor Laws
The rights of the Union under any labor law were not
violated. There is no law that requires employers to provide
chairs for bottling operators. The CA correctly ruled that
the Labor Code, specifically Article 13211 thereof, only
the Labor Code, specifically Article 13211 thereof, only

requires employers to provide seats for women. No similar
requirement is mandated for men or male workers. It must
be stressed that all concerned bottling operators in this
case are men.
There was no violation either of the Health, Safety and
Social Welfare Benefit provisions under Book IV of the
Labor Code of the Philippines. As shown in the foregoing,
the removal of the chairs was compensated by the
reduction of the working hours and increase in the rest
period. The directive did not expose the bottling operators
to safety and health hazards.
The Union should not complain too much about standing
and moving about for one and onehalf (1 ½) hours because
_______________
11 Art. 132. Facilities for Women.—The Secretary of Labor shall
establish standards that will insure the safety and health of women
employees. In appropriate cases, he shall by regulations, require
employers to:
(a) Provide seats proper for women and permit them to use such
seats when they are free from work and during working hours,
provided they can perform their duties in this position without
detriment to efficiency.
375
, APRIL 15, 2013 375

studies show that sitting in workplaces for a long time is

hazardous to one’s health. The report of VicHealth,
Australia,12 disclosed that “prolonged workplace sitting is
an emerging public health and occupational health issue
with serious implications for the health of our working
population. Importantly, prolonged sitting is a risk factor
for poor health and early death, even among those who
meet, or exceed, national13 activity guidelines.” In another
report,14 it was written:
Workers needing to spend long periods in a seated position on the job

such as taxi drivers, call centre and office workers, are at risk for injury
and a variety of adverse health effects.
The most common injuries occur in the muscles, bones, tendons and
ligaments, affecting the neck and lower back regions. Prolonged sitting:
reduces body movement making muscles more likely to pull,
cramp or strain when stretched suddenly,
causes fatigue in the back and neck muscles by slowing the blood
supply and puts high tension on the spine, especially in the low
back or neck, and
causes a steady compression on the spinal discs that hinders their
nutrition and can contribute to their premature degeneration.
Sedentary employees may also face a gradual deterioration in health if
they do not exercise or do not lead an otherwise physically active life. The
most common health problems that these employees experience are
disorders in blood circulation and injuries affecting their ability to move.
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), where a clot forms in a large vein after
prolonged sitting (e.g., after a long flight) has also been shown to be a
risk.
_______________
12 http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/AboutVicHealth.aspx. Last visited
March 28, 2013.
13 Australian.
14 http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/workplaceconditions/
sedentarywork/index.cfm. Last visited March 28, 2013.
376

Workers who spend most of their working time seated may also
experience other, less specific adverse health effects. Common effects
include decreased fitness, reduced heart and lung efficiency, and
digestive problems. Recent research has identified too much sitting as an
important part of the physical activity and health equation, and suggests
we should focus on the harm caused by daily inactivity such as prolonged
sitting.
Associate professor David Dunstan leads a team at the Baker IDI in
Melbourne which is specifically researching sitting and physical activity.
He has found that people who spend long periods of time seated (more
than four hours per day) were at risk of:
higher blood levels of sugar and fats,
larger waistlines, and
higher risk of metabolic syndrome
regardless of how much moderate to vigorous exercise they had.
In addition, people who interrupted their sitting time more often just by
standing or with light activities such as housework, shopping, and
moving about the office had healthier blood sugar and fat levels, and
smaller waistlines than those whose sitting time was not broken up.
Of course, in this case, if the chairs would be returned,

no risks would be involved because of the shorter period of
working time. The study was cited just to show that there
is a health risk in prolonged sitting.
No Violation of the CBA
The CBA15 between the Union and CCBPI contains no
provision whatsoever requiring the management to provide
chairs for the operators in the production/manufacturing
line while performing their duties and responsibilities. On
the contrary, Section 2 of Article 1 of the CBA expressly
provides as follows:
_______________
15 Rollo, pp. 127148.
377
, APRIL 15, 2013 377

Article I
SCOPE
SECTION 2. Scope of the Agreement.—All the terms and
conditions of employment of employees and workers within the
appropriate bargaining unit (as defined in Section 1 hereof) are
embodied in this Agreement and the same shall govern the
relationship between the COMPANY and such employees and/or
workers. On the other hand, all such benefits and/or
privileges as are not expressly provided for in this
Agreement but which are now being accorded, may in the
future be accorded, or might have previously been
accorded, to the employees and/or workers, shall be
deemed as purely voluntary acts on the part of the
COMPANY in each case, and the continuance and
repetition thereof now or in the future, no matter how
long or how often, shall not be construed as establishing
an obligation on the part of the COMPANY. It is however
understood that any benefits that are agreed upon by and
between the COMPANY and the UNION in the Labor
Management Committee Meetings regarding the terms and

conditions of employment outside the CBA that have general
application to employees who are similarly situated in a
Department or in the Plant shall be implemented. [emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
As can be gleaned from the aforecited provision, the

CBA expressly provides that benefits and/or privileges, not
expressly given therein but which are presently being
granted by the company and enjoyed by the employees,
shall be considered as purely voluntary acts by the
management and that the continuance of such benefits
and/or privileges, no matter how long or how often, shall
not be understood as establishing an obligation on the
company’s part. Since the matter of the chairs is not
expressly stated in the CBA, it is understood that it was a
purely voluntary act on the part of CCBPI and the long
practice did not convert it into an obligation or a vested
right in favor of the Union.
378

No Violation of the general principles

of justice and fair play
The Court completely agrees with the CA ruling that the
removal of the chairs did not violate the general principles
of justice and fair play because the bottling operators’
working time was considerably reduced from two and a
half (2 ½) hours to just one and a half (1 ½) hours and the
break period, when they could sit down, was increased
to 30 minutes between rotations. The bottling operators’
new work schedule is certainly advantageous to them
because it greatly increases their rest period and
significantly decreases their working time. A break time of
thirty (30) minutes after working for only one and a half (1
½) hours is a just and fair work schedule.
No Violation of Article 100
of the Labor Code
The operators’ chairs cannot be considered as one of the
employee benefits covered in Article 10016 of the Labor
Code. In the Court’s view, the term “benefits” mentioned in
the nondiminution rule refers to monetary benefits or
privileges given to the employee with monetary

equivalents. Such benefits or privileges form part of the
employees’ wage, salary or compensation making them
enforceable obligations.
This Court has already decided several cases regarding
the nondiminution rule where the benefits or privileges
involved in those cases mainly concern monetary
considerations or privileges with monetary equivalents.
Some of these cases are: Eastern Telecommunication Phils.,
Inc. v. Eastern Tele
_______________
16 Art. 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits.
—Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way
diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the
time of promulgation of this Code.
379
, APRIL 15, 2013 379

coms Employees Union,17 where the case involves the

payment of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses; Central
Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor
UnionNLU,18 regarding the 13th month pay, legal/special
holiday pay, night premium pay and vacation and sick
leaves; TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union,19
regarding salary wage increases; and American Wire and
Cable Daily Employees Union vs. American Wire and Cable
Company, Inc.,20 involving service awards with cash
incentives, premium pay, Christmas party with incidental
benefits and promotional increase.
In this regard, the Court agrees with the CA when it
resolved the matter and wrote:
Let it be stressed that the aforequoted article speaks of non

diminution of supplements and other employee benefits.
Supplements are privileges given to an employee which constitute
as extra remuneration besides his or her basic ordinary earnings
and wages. From this definition, We can only deduce that the
other employee benefits spoken of by Article 100 pertain only to
those which are susceptible of monetary considerations. Indeed,
this could only be the most plausible conclusion because the cases
tackling Article 100 involve mainly with monetary considerations

or privileges converted to their monetary equivalents.
x x x x
Without a doubt, equating the provision of chairs to the
bottling operators as something within the ambit of “benefits’’ in
the context of Article 100 of the Labor Code is unduly stretching
the coverage of the law. The interpretations of Article 100 of the
Labor Code do not show even with the slightest hint that such
provision of chairs for the bottling operators may be sheltered
under its mantle.21
_______________
17 G.R. No. 185665, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 516.
18 G.R. No. 188949, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 622.
19 G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 215.
20 497 Phil. 213; 457 SCRA 684 (2005).
21 Rollo, pp. 2335.
380

Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management

prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with
an employer’s judgment in the conduct of its business. For
this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in
legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must
protect not only the welfare of the employees, but also the
right of the employers.22
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Leonen,

JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.―It is a wellsettled rule that labor laws do not

authorize interference with the employer’s judgment in the
conduct of its business. (SCA Hygiene Products Corporation
Employees AssociationFFW vs. SCA Hygiene Products
Corporation, 627 SCRA 414 [2010])
The rule is settled that any benefit and supplement
being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.

The principle of nondiminution of benefits is founded on
the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers
and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full
protection. (Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.
vs. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, 665 SCRA 516
[2012])
――o0o――
_______________
22 Arnulfo O. Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center, G.R. No.
161615, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 299, 309.
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, vs. COCA Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Cebu Plant, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, vs. COCA Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Cebu Plant, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, vs. COCA Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Cebu Plant, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 696

G.R. No. 198783. April 15, 2013.*

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COCA­

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Voluntary

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers Philippines,

Labor Law; Management Prerogatives; The Court has held

employment, including hiring, work assignments, working

, APRIL 15, 2013 359

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers Philippines,

Same; Same; Non­Diminution of Benefits; The operators’

benefits or privileges given to the employee with monetary

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Coca­Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a

, APRIL 15, 2013 361

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ment (CBA) in November 2008. Even after exhausting the

Ruling of the Arbitration Committee

, APRIL 15, 2013 363

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers

Wherefore, the undersigned rules in favor of ROPWU declaring

The Arbitration Committee ruled, among others, that

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers

many factors and it could not be attributed solely to one

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

The CA held, among others, that the removal of the

, APRIL 15, 2013 365

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers

tor was given the responsibility to keep the machinery and

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca­Cola Bottlers

Disgruntled with the adverse CA decision, the Union

In advocacy of its positions, the Union argues that the

, APRIL 15, 2013 367

Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators are governed

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Finally, the Union asserts that the removal of the chairs

and maintain its workplace free from hazards that are

, APRIL 15, 2013 369

The Court sustains the ruling of the CA on both issues.

filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of

In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt­

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to

Circular No. 1­95 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997

, APRIL 15, 2013 371

Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,

Furthermore, Sections 1, 3 and 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reglementary period, a petition for review, not a petition for

On the second issue, the Union basically claims that the

Global Workplace Rights Policy of CCBPI which provides

, APRIL 15, 2013 373

In the present controversy, it cannot be denied that

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CCBPI’s exercise of its management prerogative was made

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COCA

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers Philippines,

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers Philippines,

Same; Same; NonDiminution of Benefits; The operators’

Petitioner CocaCola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. CocaCola Bottlers

In the case of Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt

Circular No. 195 (now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997

Let it be stressed that the aforequoted article speaks of non

Notes.―It is a wellsettled rule that labor laws do not