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]
On the 2001 CBA between the Shell and Tasrea (union) yielded a salary increase of 9.5% for all occupying the senior level position. It is true for 9.5% for senior operators, 9.5 % for senior electricians, 9.5% for senior mechanics and 9.5% for senior office staff employees. However, though Martinez, Sonido and Burog are senior office staff employees, they were given 10% instead of 9.5%, on account of they being having served the company for 16 long years. My question is why despite the fact that I have served the company with an even longer years of service (24 years), this length of service criterion consideration was applied only to them and been denied to me? Though we are members of the same class of senior level employees and qualified or passed the length of service criterion set forth, why the same treatment been denied to me ? I constantly and persistently claimed for the same treatment to be applied to me but Shell refused?
Above is a classic example of out of bounds application of management prerogative as it transgressed limitation prescribed by generally accepted principles of fair play and justice.[1]
It is interesting to note that no senior electrician, no senior mechanic and no other senior operator asked for similar consideration as I am requesting. The reason is that other operators, mechanics and electricians having 16 years of service have all been promoted to Optech level position(above senior) and thus automatically received 10% salary increase or had become supervisors. Hence, there is no need for them to ask for something that is already been given to them without applying other consideration or criterion.
Since my 10th year of service, I have been a senior operator, and Shell pegged me at that position in a span of 14 more years until 2003 when Shell terminated me from employment.
That is why I was the only one concerned by the length of service criterion applied to the 3 senior office staff employees which Shell discriminately refused to be applied to me.
PROMOTION/STAGNATION ON JOB POSITION
I never complained for management act of not giving promotion to me for such a long time(14 years), though younger operators who used to be under me as trainees and have overtook me and became Optechs or supervisors. I considered promotions of employees, or STAGNATION on my part, was a management's prerogative within limits bounded by law or CBA or general principles of fair play and justice.
Anyways, past my 10th employment anniversary, year in and year out, promotions and job assignments abroad had always been offered to me insidiously, but, in exchange of leaving my convictions and principles behind and neglect the cause I am fighting with regard to the sanity of the perfect attendance award system; That, I can not compromise. And This, was a choice I freely took.
The act of non-promotion or stagnation, though humiliating and painful on my part, I voluntary acknowledged it as management's prerogative.
Unlike the application of 10% salary increase on account of length of service criterion to the senior office employees but been denied to a senior operator employee.
As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, [e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. A violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights, a tortuous conduct. We expounded in Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that:
The principle of abuse of rights stated in the above article, departs from the classical theory that he who uses a right injures no one. The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit.
Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in ones acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs.
While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the cardinal law on human conduct expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/principle-of-abuse-of-rights
The principle of abuse of rights is found under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that:
Art. 19. “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.”
Art. 20. “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
Art. 21. “Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
The above articles, depart from the classical theory that “he who uses a right injures no one”. The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other. As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: “With this article (Article 21), combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right which could not be checked by the application of these articles” (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72).
There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]).
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
Of the three articles, Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs.
While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the “cardinal law on human conduct” expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability.
Article 19 of the Civil Code, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.
Further, may your honors be enlightened and seek solace and inspiration reading 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
May this message serves as the 27th PERSUASIVE APPEAL for you to reconsider your position with respect to your appreciation of cases GR-183273 and AC-10084 and institute through your own volition disciplinary actions against erring guardians of law in relation to the cases mentioned as preliminary to showing convincing evidences proving that the court is not acting in collusion with Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, its officers and managers, jointly and severally, to perpetuate injustice against me and my family. Otherwise, you all, are in admission of the act of collusion between Shell, her lawyers and you to perpetuate injustice against me and my family as charged.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
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)
|
|
|
|
|
