G.R. No. 151309; October 15, 2008
BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO and/or FRANCISCO SIQUIG, as Union President, JOSELITO LARIÑO, VIVENCIO B. BARTE, SATURNINO EGERA and SIMPLICIO AYA-AY, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRYCO PHARMA CORPORATION, and/or WILFREDO C. RIVERA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are regular employees of Tryco Pharma Corporation, a manufacturer of veterinary medicines with its principal office in Caloocan City, and are members of the exclusive bargaining representative, Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco (BMT). The parties had a Memorandum of Agreement implementing a compressed workweek, wherein employees waived overtime pay for work rendered from 8:00 a.m. to 6:12 p.m., Monday to Friday. In January 1997, BMT and Tryco negotiated for a new CBA but failed. In March 1997, Tryco received a letter from the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) reminding it that its production activities, per its License to Operate, should only be conducted at its San Rafael, Bulacan plant, not in Caloocan City. Consequently, Tryco issued memoranda directing petitioners to report to the Bulacan plant. Petitioners refused. BMT opposed the transfer, contending it constituted unfair labor practice, and declared a strike in May 1997. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment, nonpayment of overtime and service incentive leave pay, and refusal to bargain. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

1. Whether the transfer of petitioners to the Bulacan plant amounted to constructive dismissal.
2. Whether the transfer constituted unfair labor practice.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to their money claims (overtime pay, service incentive leave, etc.).

RULING

1. No, the transfer did not amount to constructive dismissal. The transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative, precipitated by the BAI’s directive for Tryco to conduct production only at its licensed address in Bulacan. The Court found no bad faith, as the transfer was due to legal necessity and business efficiency, not to circumvent petitioners’ rights. The allegation that the BAI letter was a solicited ploy was baseless. The orders for petitioners to report to Bulacan remained, and they were directed to return to work there without backwages.
2. No, the transfer did not constitute unfair labor practice. The petitioners were not members of the union’s negotiating panel, and the transfer was due to a government directive, not to interfere with union activities. The Court upheld the finding that the company’s failure to reach a new CBA was due to the union panel’s stubbornness, not bad faith bargaining.
3. No, petitioners are not entitled to their money claims. The Court upheld the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement on compressed workweek, which included a waiver of overtime pay for work rendered within the agreed schedule. The claim for service incentive leave pay was denied as petitioners were already enjoying vacation leave with pay. The claim regarding Wage Order No. 4 was deemed a matter for the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrator. The nonpayment of wages for May 26-31, 1997 was justified as petitioners did not render work during the strike.
The petition was DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution were AFFIRMED.