JUNE 15, 2016
SALUTATION
Dear Chief Justice Sereno, et al:
MESSAGE
PREFATORY
"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
|
|
|
|
SHORT NARRATIVE
It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employers judgment in the conduct of his business; however, this is not absolute, as this is subject to limitation, as this prerogative, management prerogative is subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice.[1]
Ritche Coronel was a former plant operator who prior to his resignation got a common understanding with his boss that he will receive his performance related bonus(PRB) pending the assessment of the amount he was going to receive as PRB. This information is likewise been confirmed in the Labor Management Cooperation Meeting," Annex K".[2]
When the PRB payout came, Ritche was already in the U.S. and her mother, my cousin, asked me to receive Ritche's PRB, 75thousand pesos more or less, and provided me an authorization letter to receive the PRB payment for her. However, the paymaster and management refused to release payment to me upon learning that I will be receiving it for Coronel and Buensuceso(myself) and Coronel were relatives saying as an alibi that, "Employees who had resigned are no longer qualified to receive performance related bonus." This action casted a shameful predicament on my part in the eyes of my relatives, the Coronels, the public and the rest of my family. Had it not been being we are relatives, Ritche should have received his PRB.
Thus, a case for non payment of PRB, I filed in behalf of Ritche Coronel against Shell. I did not know what had been the outcome of this case until, Atty. Raul Quiroz provided me a copy of Annex H via his pleadings/documents on AC-10084, saying that mentioned case had been resolved in favor of Shell [3]. An instant perusal of Annex H showed that the case decision was issued on August 29, 2008, when both of us, Buensuceso and Coronel, were already in the U.S. which precluded us from knowing the information; thus, we were not able to respond accordingly.
May I move that this case Ritche Coronel v. Shell on the matter of complaint on No-payment of Performance Related Bonus be allowed to be included in my complaint to serve the interest of fair play and justice.
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE IS NOT BOUNDLESS
Cruz vs. Medina ( 177 SCRA 565 [1989])
University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 758 [1990])
[9] Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 782 (1993);
Corral v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 693(1993);
Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, 175 SCRA 450 (1989)
[2]
NOTE: [ 5. PRB Scope- Ritchie Coronel to receive whole PRB. R. Magtibay, O. Viray and B. de Villa to receive pro-rated prbs.]
[3]
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment