Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Case Digest BPI Vs BPI Employees

    Uploaded by

    Ian Santos
    The document discusses a case between Bank of the Philippine Islands and a union representing its employees. It describes a merger between BPI and another bank, and whether employees transferred through the merger had to join the union. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ultimately ruled that the transferred employees were covered by the union agreement at BPI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest BPI Vs BPI Employees

    Uploaded by

    Ian Santos
    50 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case between Bank of the Philippine Islands and a union representing its employees. It describes a merger between BPI and another bank, and whether employees transferred through the merger had to join the union. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ultimately ruled that the transferred employees were covered by the union agreement at BPI.

    Original Title

    Case Digest BPI vs BPI Employees -

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case between Bank of the Philippine Islands and a union representing its employees. It describes a merger between BPI and another bank, and whether employees transferred through the merger had to join the union. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ultimately ruled that the transferred employees were covered by the union agreement at BPI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Case Digest BPI Vs BPI Employees

    Uploaded by

    Ian Santos
    The document discusses a case between Bank of the Philippine Islands and a union representing its employees. It describes a merger between BPI and another bank, and whether employees transferred through the merger had to join the union. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ultimately ruled that the transferred employees were covered by the union agreement at BPI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs.

    BPI EMPLOYEES’ UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF


    UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK

    G.R. No. 164301; October 19, 2011

    FACTS:

    In 2000, Far East Bank and trust Company (FEBTC) merged with Bank of the Philippine Islands. Petitioner
    had a Union Shop agreement with respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of
    Unions in BPI Unibank (the Union). Pursuant to the merger, respondent requested BPI to terminate the
    employment of those new employees from FEBTC who did not join the union.

    BPI refused to undertake such action and brought the controversy before a voluntary arbitrator.
    Although BPI won the initial battle at the Voluntary Arbitrator level, BPIs position was rejected by the
    Court of Appeals which ruled that the Voluntary Arbitrators interpretation of the Union Shop Clause was
    at war with the spirit and rationale why the Labor Code allows the existence of such provision.

    This was followed and affirmation by the Supreme Court of the CA decision holding that former
    employees of the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) "absorbed" by BPI pursuant to the two
    banks merger. The absorbed employees were covered by the Union Shop Clause in the then existing
    collective bargaining agreement (CBA)of BPI with respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-
    Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (the Union). Petitioners, despite the August 2010 decision moved
    for a Motion for reconsideration of the decision.

    ISSUE:

    May the "absorbed" FEBTC employees fell within the definition of "new employees," under the Union
    Shop Clause, such that they be required to join respondent union or suffer termination upon request by
    the union?

    HELD:

    The court agreed with Justice Brion's view that it is more in keeping with the dictates of social justice
    and the State policy of according full protection to labor to deem employment contracts as
    automatically assumed by the surviving corporation in a merger, without break in the continuity of their
    employment, and even in the absence of an express stipulation in the articles of merger or the merger
    plan.

    By upholding the automatic assumption of the non-surviving corporations existing employment


    contracts by the surviving corporation in a merger, the Court strengthens judicial protection of the right
    to security of tenure of employees affected by a merger and avoid confusion regarding the status of
    their various benefits. However, it shall be noted that nothing in the Resolution shall impair the right of
    an employer to terminate the employment of the absorbed employees for a lawful or authorized cause
    or the right of such an employee to resign, retire or otherwise sever his employment, whether before or
    after the merger, subject to existing contractual obligations.

    Although by virtue of the merger BPI steps into the shoes of FEBTC as a successor employer as if the
    former had been the employer of the latter’s employees from the beginning it must be emphasized that,
    in reality, the legal consequences of the merger only occur at a specific date, i.e., upon its effectivity
    which is the date of approval of the merger by the SEC thus, the court observed in the Decision that BPI
    and FEBTC stipulated in the Articles of Merger that they will both continue their respective business
    operations until the SEC issues the certificate of merger and in the event no such certificate is issued,
    they shall hold each other blameless for the non-consummation of the merger.

    In other words, the obligation of BPI to pay the salaries and benefits of the former FEBTC employees and
    its right of discipline and control over them only arose with the effectivity of the merger. Concomitantly,
    the obligation of former FEBTC employees to render service to BPI and their right to receive benefits
    from the latter also arose upon the effectivity of the merger. What is material is that all of these legal
    consequences of the merger took place during the life of an existing and valid CBA between BPI and the
    Union wherein they have mutually consented to include a Union Shop Clause.

    You might also like