6.

Pag-asa Steel Works vs CA

Facts:
- This is a petition for review upon the order of the CA for Pag-asa Steel to pay the wage increase to its workers
- Jan, 199, !T"P# issued a wage increase order of P1$%&& per day
- 'n Septe()er *$, 1999, petitioner and the +nion entered into a Collective #argaining Agree(ent ,C#A-, effective July 1, 1999
until July 1, *&&.% Section 1, Article /0 ,Salaries and "age- of said C#A provides1
- Section 1% "A23 A4J+ST536T - The C'5PA67 agrees to grant all the workers, who are already regular and covered )y this
A2!33536T at the effectivity of this A2!33536T, a general wage increase as follows1
o July 1, 1999 % % % % % % % % % % % P18%&& per day per e(ployee
o July 1, *&&& % % % % % % % % % % % P*8%&& per day per e(ployee
o July 1, *&&1 % % % % % % % % % % % P$&%&& per day per e(ployee
- The wage increase shall )e i(ple(ented across the )oard% Any "age 'rder to )e i(ple(ented )y the !egional Tripartite "age
and Productivity #oard shall )e in addition to the wage increase adverted to a)ove% 9owever, if no wage increase is given )y the
"age #oard within si: ,;- (onths fro( the signing of this A2!33536T, the 5anage(ent is willing to give the following increases,
to wit1
o July 1, 1999 % % % % % % % % % % % P*&%&& per day per e(ployee
o July 1, *&&& % % % % % % % % % % % P*8%&& per day per e(ployee
o July 1, *&&1 % % % % % % % % % % % P$&%&& per day per e(ployee
- 'ct 1999, A "age 'rder was issued a P*8%8& increase per day in salary%
- 6ov *&&&, Another "age order was issued for P*;%8& increase per day%
- 06 S+55A!7 '< T93 50605+5 "A23 06C!3AS3 #7 T93 "A23 #'A!4%
o #efore Jan% 199 = P18%&&>day
o Jan 199 = P1$ ? P18%&& @ P19%&&
o 'ct 1999 = P*8%8& ? P19%&& @ P**$%8& = "A23 '!43! no% 6C!-&A
o 6ov *&&& = P*;%8& ? P**$%8& @ P*8&%&& = "A23 '!43! no% 6C!-&
- The union President ordered an i(ple(entation of the "age increase, )ut the petitioner defended that none of their e(ployees
have a salary lower than P*8&, therefore no need for the increase%
- CA !uled infavor of the union for the additional wage increase% 0t held that the C#A is plain and clear, and leaves no dou)t as to
the intention of the parties, that is, to grant a wage increase that (ay )e ordered )y the "age #oard in addition to the C#A-
(andated salary increases regardless of whether the e(ployees are already receiving wages way a)ove the (ini(u( wage%
ISSUE:
- whether or not the co(pany was o)liged to grant the wage increase as a (atter of practice%
HELD:
- 6o
- CA 4ecision is !eversed%
"age 'rder 6o% 6C!-& clearly states that only those e(ployees receiving salaries )elow the prescri)ed (ini(u( wage are entitled
to the wage increase provided therein, and not all e(ployees across-the-)oard as respondent +nion would want petitioner to do%
Considering therefore that none of the (e()ers of respondent +nion are receiving salaries )elow the P*8&%&& (ini(u( wage,
petitioner is not o)liged to grant the wage increase to the(%