REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 28 April 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 234556 (Visayan Electric Company Employees Union

{VECEUJ v. Visayan Electric Company, Inc.).

On November 8, 2012, Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO) and

Visayan Electric Company Employees Union (VECEU) entered into a
Collective Bargaining Agreement 1 (CBA) effective from January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2016. 2 Specifically, the parties stipulated on the Grievance
Procedures under Section 4, Article XVII of the CBA that "[any]
difference of opinion, controversy, dispute problem or complaint arising
from [Company-Union} or [Company-Worker} relations concerning the
interpretation or application of [the CEA] or regarding [ anyJ matter
affecting [Company-Union] or [Company-Worker] relations shall be
considered a [grievance}. xx x ."3

On February 10, 2014, VECEU filed a grievance against VECO with

the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), docketed as Case
No. AC899-VIl-03-03-2015E. VECEU asked for the proper interpretation
of the provision "[any} matter affecting [Company-Union} or [Company-
Worker] relations shall be considered a [grievance}." 4 Moreover, VECEU
alleged that VECO effected termination and suspension of its members
without observing the Grievance Procedures. 5 On the other band, VECO
maintained that the Company Code of Discipline should apply in the
investigation and imposition of penalties against erring employees.6
Furthermore, under Section 12, Article XIV of the CBA, "[t}he Company
agrees that henceforth there shall be a fair and uniform application of its

1
Rollo, pp. 144- 166.
2
Id. at 224.
3
ld.at218.
4
Id.
5 Id.
6
Id. at 223-24 1; and 282-292.

(200)URES - more -
 Resolution -2- G.R. No. 234556
April 28, 2021

rules and regulations. It is understood that disciplinary actions imposed on

employee or laborer shall be governed by the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Company as well as those provided for by existing laws
on the matter."7

On July 1, 2015, the NCMB ruled that matters affecting company-

union or company-worker relations violating the law, the CBA, or the
principle of justice shall be considered a grievance. The NCl\1B also held
that the Grievance Procedures should be observed before implementing
disciplinary actions against employees,8 thus:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, in the interest of

industrial peace, this office rules that matters affecting company-union or
company-worker relations which violate the law, or the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, or the principle of justice shall be considered a
grievance. Further, there is grievance when the disciplinary action
violates the law, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or the principle of
justice, and the grievance procedure should be complied with before
implementing the disciplinary action.

SO ORDERED.9

Aggrieved, VECO filed a Petition for Review 10 with the Court of

Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 09610. VECO invoked the
Court's Decision dated July 22, 2015 in G.R. No. 205575 in Visayan
Electric Co. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Visayan Electric Co. , Inc. 11
(Visayan Electric Co. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP), that specific
provisions on the CBA prevail over general ones. On April 25, 2017, the
CA reversed the NCMB's findings and held that Section 12, Article XIV of
the CBA is clear that what should apply is the Company Code of Conduct
and not the Grievance Procedures, 12 viz. :

Thus, as between a general and special law, the latter shall

prevail-genera/fa specialibus non derogant. Akin to this directive,
special provisions in a contract also prevai l over the general ones. Hence,
abiding by Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et
al. , vs. Visayan Electric Company, Inc., Section 13, Article XIV should
prevail over the grievance procedure set forth in Section 4, Article XVII.

xxxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for

review is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 1 July 2015 and
Order dated 21 September 201 5 of the National Conciliation and

1
ld. at 159.
8 !d. at 299-307.
9
Id. at 307.
10
I d. at 393-42 1.
11
764 Phi l. 608(20 15).
12
Rollo, pp. 52-66; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robenio l. with the concurre nce o f Associate
Justices Pame la Ann Abe lla Max ino and Pablito A. Perez.

(200)URES - more -
J·i/t__ .
 Resolution -3- G.R. No. 234556
April 28, 2021

Mediation Board in Case No. AC899-VII-03-03-2015E are hereby

REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED. 13 (Emphases in the original.)

VECEU sought reconsideration but was denied. 14 Hence, this

petition. 15 VECEU argues that the Grievance Procedures under the CBA
are applicable in matters affecting the tennination or suspension of
employees, and not the Company Code of Conduct. 16

RULING

The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is embodied in

Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that
"[;Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines." The doctrine
enjoins adherence to judicial precedents anchored on the principle that once
a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument. 17 The doctrine of stare decisis is one
of the policy grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability
of judicial decisions, thus:

Time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and
necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle
of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are
substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the
decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means
that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should
be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same,
even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first
principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing
considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the
same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the
parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a
competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to
relitigate the same issue. 18 (Emphases supplied; citation omitted.)

In Visayan Electric Co. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, the Court

resolved a similar conflict between CBA provisions regarding grievance
procedures and the employer' s management prerogative. In that case, the
Court 1uled that the specific provision on the application of company rules
in disciplinary actions is paramount over the general provision on

13 Id. at 65.
14
Id. at 69-7 I; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Pamela Ann Abe lla Maxi no and Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court).
15
Id. at 12-48.
16 Id.
17
Fermin v. People, 573 Phil. 278,287 (2008).
18
Chinese Young Men's Christian Association l?.f the Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corp., 573
Phil. 320, 337 (2008).

(200)URES - more -
 Resolution -4- G.R. No. 234556
April 28, 2021

grievance procedures. Moreover, we upheld the employer's right to

discipline its employees, thus:

True, it is a fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the

law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its
provisions. If the provisions of the CBA seem clear and unambiguous,
the literal meaning of the ir stipulations shall control. However, as in this
case, when general and specific provisions of the CBA are
inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount to and govern
the general provision.

Section 4, Article XVII of the CBA states that " (a)ny difference
of opinion, controversy, dispute problem or complaint arising from
Company-Union or Company-Worker relations concerning the
interpretation or application of this Agreement or regarding any matter
affecting Company -Union or Company-Worker relations shall be
considered a grievance." On the other hand, under Section 13, A1iicle
XIV, "(t)he Company agrees that henceforth there shall be a fair and
uniform application of its rules and regulations. It is understood that
disciplinary actions imposed on employee or laborer shall be governed
by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Company as well as
those providedfor by existing laws on the matter."

The Court is in accord with the ratiocination of the NLRC

that the sweeping statement "any matter affecting Company-Union
or Company-Worker relations shall be considered a grievance"
under Section 4, Article XVII is general, as opposed to Section 13,
Article XIV of the CBA, which is specific, as it precisely refers to
"what governs employee disciplinary actions." Thus, the NLRC
correctly ruled that VECO acted within the bounds of law when it
proceeded with its administrative investigation of the charges
against other union officers and members.

This is consistent with jurisprudential rulings supporting an

employer's free reign and "wide latitude of discretion to regulate all
aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline
in its employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, upon
erring employees. x x x The Labor Code does not excuse employees
from complying with valid company policies and reasonable regulations
for their governance and guidance. 19 (Emphases and italics supplied;
citations omitted.)

This settled jurisprudence must be applied to subsequent cases

involving substantially the same facts and issues. Notably, the conflicting
CBA provisions in Visayan Electric Co. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP are
similarly worded with the present case. Moreover, the parties in both cases
raised identical issues on whether grievance procedures should be observed
before implementing disciplinary actions against employees. Hence, the
CA correctly followed the precedent that the specific provision on the
application of company rules in disciplinary actions is paramount over the
general provision on grievance procedures. On this point, we reiterate that

19
Supra note 11, at 620-62 1.

(200)URES - more -
Resolution -5- G.R. No. 234556
April 28, 2021

the. doctrine of stare ~ecisis assumed such value in our judicial system that
the Court has ruled that "[a]bandonrnent thereof must be based only on
strong and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of
predictability which is expected from this Court would be immeasurably
affected and the ·public's confidence . in the stability of the solemn
pronouncements diininished." 20 Here, VECEU has not shown any strong
and compelling teason to convince the Court that the doctrine of stare
decisis should not be applied to this case.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of

Appeals' Decision dated April 25, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 31,
2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 09610 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional Member p er

Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

PRO-LABOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (reg) JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Counsel for Petitioner Supreme Court, Manila
No. 33-B,E. Rodriguez A venue
Quezon City PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
ALVAREZ NUEZ GINGOYON ESPINA LOPEZ [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
& ESPINA (reg)
Counsel for Respondent . OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
Suite 904, 9u, Floor, Cebu ~foldings Center OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
Cebu Business Park (Ayala) PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
6000 Cebu C ity Supreme Court, Manila

PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS (reg) COURT OF APPEALS (reg)

National Conciliation & Mediation Board Visayas Station
th
Regional Branch No. VII, 6 Floor, Insular Building Cebu C ity
General Maxilom comer Gorordo Avenue CA-G.R. SP No. 09610
DOLE VII Building, 6000 Cebu City
Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
GR234556. 04/28/2021(200)URES

20 Pepsi-Cola Products, Phils., Inc. v. Pagdanganan, 535 Phil. 540, 554-55.'i (2006).

(200)URES