G.R. No.

192601 June 3, 2013

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., petitioner VS. JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION,
FOR ITS UNION MEMBER, MICHAEL ALFANTE, respondents
Facts:
The two complainants Judith Pulido and Michael Alfante alleged that they
were illegally dismissed without just cause from Philippine Journalists, Inc. Judith
sent two letters of complaint to then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and was
furnished by Secretary Silvestre Afable Jr. who then endorsed the letter of complaint
to the Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo. The respondents argued that the two
complainants in this case were dismissed for not complying with the rules and
policies of the company and was given warning memos from their superior such as:
memo on tardiness, memo on work attitude, memo on poor performance, and so
on. The respondents then argued that these reasons are sufficient for them to
terminate the two complainants from the office.
The Court of Appeals then rendered its judgment and found complainant
Judith Pulido to have been illegally dismissed by the Philippine Journalists, Inc. and
ordered the respondent to pay complainant Judith her back wages from August 7,
2003 up to her actual reinstatements. However, the Court of Appeals found
complainant Michael Alfantes charge of illegal dismissal from office was dismissed
for bereft of merit.
Michael Alfante, together with his labor organization, the Journal Employees
Union, appealed in the National Labor Relations Comission. However, it was denied
by the NLRC. The petitioners then assailed the decision of the NLRC before the Court
of Appeals on Certiorari and party granted the instant petition for the
reconsideration of the funeral or bereavement aid on February 5, 2010.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners denial of respondents claims for funeral and
bereavement aid granted under Section 4, Article XIII of their CBA constituted a
diminution of benefits in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Held:
The Court found that the petition for review lacks merit. Pursuant to Article
100 of the Labor Code, the petitioner as the employer could not reduce,
discontinue, diminish or eliminate any benefit and supplement enjoyed or granted
to its employees. It is stated in the constitution the protection of the rights of the
workers and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection, that the
prohibition against the diminution of benefits is unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 5, 201 0;
and ORDERS petitioner to pay the costs of suit.