22ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_14JUNE16_22ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE BOUNDED BY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE

JUNE 14, 2016  SALUTATION Dear Chief Justice Sereno, et al: MESSAGE PREFATORY  1     PACKET 11 : LABEL 5.11.1  SHELL                                              Position Paper p.7 No.20 "20. It is respectfully submitted that the reorganization undertaken by the Company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.  It was made imperative by the conditions still persist even up to the present.  The Supreme Court ruled in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. that: "It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employers judgment in the conduct of his business. The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not vest in the labor arbiters nor in the different divisions of the NLRC nor in the courts managerial authority.[16] The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the employers inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.".[17] REGALADO, J.: As quoted by Atty. Raul Quiroz [16] Almodiel vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 100641, June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 341. [17] Abbot Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713. NARRATIVES SHELL management concocted a PERFECT ATTENDANCE PROGRAM and called this PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM. At the beginning of the year the supervisors under the direction of SHELL management instructs their respective operators, mechanics and other rank and file employees to become PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEES to the end of the year. But how does one become an awardee? Being part of our benefit package we got through our collective bargaining agreement, we have fifteen (15)  days vacation leaves, fifteen (15) days sick leaves and five (5) days personal/emergency leaves annually. In order to become a PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEE an employee can only avail of his fifteen (15) days of vacation leaves and leave behind his fifteen (15) days of sick leave  and five (5) days personal/emergency leaves.  If the employee happened to consume even a day of his sick leave or personal/emergency he will no longer be entitled to become a PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEE and may suffer unfavorable consequences of it. Now, at the end of the year those sick leaves and personal/emergency leaves of awardees shall be forfeited in favor of SHELL. These fifteen days sick leaves and five days personal/emergency leaves shall all be collected by greedy SHELL and gives back a gift, just worth one-half day work; in my case : one G.E. flat iron during one Christmas party occasion. WHY not give a gift commensurate to at least to the 20 day work? Actually, if the employee consumed all the fifteen days sick leave and five days emergency leaves, these 20 day leaves will cost SHELL  50 days worth of work. Look when the employee avail of these 20 days leaves, he got  20 days. then another will work in his  place and will be paid  overtime  1.5 x 20 days and got 30 days. Therefore, 20 days for the employee who was on leave plus 30 days for the employee who is working overtime for the employee who is on leave is equal to 50 days. So why just give a half day worth of gift?  This is a real SCAM , a scandalous extortion racket. SHELL management forced employees into submission to this SCAM by warning non-conforming employees that they will not be promoted or will be transferred to other work assignment which the employee will find to be a difficult or ridiculous one. And we find ourselves in these predicament since I joined SHELL. Every year I asked for MANAGEMENT to give  sanity to the PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM but they never did. They kept doing this SCAM over and over again. On year 2000, January  I made a vow that I will not cut my hair to remind SHELL management that there is a constant plea for SANITY in the PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM. But before my hair could grow any longer  SHELL management opted to terminate my employment in the guise of redundancy on February 2003. A case of illegal termination of employment I filed against SHELL (GR-183273)  and disbarment complaint against its lawyer (ATTY. Raul Quiroz, AC-10084) and are now pending in the SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES. I am by myself, my counsel, have longed abandoned me after this case passed by the NLRC and lawyers whom we asked for assistance  practically advise me and my family to quit because SHELL is our opponent ….I can have all the winning arguments in facts and law but SHELL has the remarkable influence on the judges and/or justices making the decision. At this point, these "practical " lawyers seemed to be correct with their assessment. The court is tilted in favor of Shell. Nevertheless, though on my own, nothing will ever diminish my will to fight for a cause I believe is right and that justice shall prevail in the end. This PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCHEME though on the outset may look to be  free will of management to conduct its own business affairs however the court must struck this  down for being violative of the court's ruling which Atty. Raul Quiroz himself presented (The Supreme Court ruled in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.) to support the company's stand on the principle of managements' prerogatives where he had victoriously mislead the court into believing that managements' prerogative is absolute contrary to the meaning of the mentioned ruling,  as management prerogative is limited by general principles of fair play and justice, among others, which, again for emphasis, Atty. Raul Quiroz, himself,  presented.  I am sending you this message as a matter of  22nd PERSUASIVE APPEAL for this honorable court to consider review of GR-183273 and AC-10084 respectively and to institute corrective applicable disciplinary proceedings against erring guardians of law in connection with these two cases. May your honors be enlightened with the following citation: "SEC 200 Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong."         _ John Locke : Second Treatise of Civil Government,           Chapter xviii : Of  Tyranny Sincerely, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.