G.R. No. 90739.
October 3, 1991 NLRC Ruling: The 2nd Division reversed and set aside the decision of
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), and
FLORANTE ONGBUECO, Petitioners, vs.
NLRC, and UNION AJINOMOTO, INC., Respondents.
FACTS:
1. Florante Ongbueco was a staff engineer of Ajinomoto.
2. In 1982, the Bureau of Energy (BEU) required Ajinomoto to submit its
Quarterly Energy Consumption Reports and to appoint an employee who
would act as its Energy Manager.
3. The task of preparing the required reports was assigned to Engr.
Ongbueco from then on, plus he was given the additional assignment of
preparing all the reports required by the BEU.
4.Thereafter, Ajinomoto furnished the BEU with the name and bio-data of
its newly appointed Energy Manager, Florante Ongbueco.
5. Ajinomoto deemed it unnecessary to provide Engr. Ongbueco with a
salary increase since his designation as Energy Manager supposedly did
not entail additional responsibilities other than the preparation of the
required reports which he had already been attending to even prior to his
appointment.
6. However, after 3 years, Engr. Ongbueco filed a complaint NLRC for
underpayment of salary claiming that his promotion to the rank of Energy
Manager, entitled him to a corresponding salary increase.
7. The petitioner invokes that doubts in the interpretation and
implementation of the labor laws should be resolved in favor of labor. In
justifying his allegation, even if the law does not state an increase in the
salary, it would not have been the intention of the law-making authority to
do injustice to the employee concerned. Thus, he claims that the
ambiguity created should be resolved in his favor.
8. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that there is no particular
labor law nor contract of employment upon which the petitioner may
anchor his claim for a salary increase. The respondents also aver that the
petitioner could not have been promoted to managerial level as he was
not vested with any powers and prerogatives of a managerial employee.
LA Ruling: GRANTED.
the 4th Division.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to a salary increase upon his
assumption of office as an Energy Manager.
HELD: NO. It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize
interference with the employer’s judgment in the conduct of his
business. The determination of the qualifications and fitness of workers
for hiring and firing, promotion or reassignment, are exclusive
prerogatives of management. The employer is free to determine, using
his own discretion and business judgment, all elements of employment,
"from hiring to firing," except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those
which may be provided for by law. There is none in the instant case.
The court agreed that the petitioner was not promoted, but he was merely
given the title of Energy Manager to comply with the law. There is no
showing that he has ceased from performing his duties as Staff Engineer.
Of primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the
employee, but the nature of his functions. There is no substantial proof
that the petitioner was vested with any of the powers and prerogatives of
a managerial employee, as defined by the Labor Code.
However, in gratia argumenti that indeed the petitioner was promoted in
rank, it does not necessarily follow that he is entitled to a corresponding
salary increase. Promotion is the advancement from one position to
another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by
law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary.
The word usually simply means that not all promotions may be
accompanied by a corresponding salary increase, notwithstanding the
increase in duties and responsibilities of the employee.
Moreover, the court has already specifically ruled that the matter of salary
increases is a management prerogative.
While the court continuously affirm their enduring sympathy for the
welfare of the laborers, especially the low-salaried but modest rank-and-
file whose talents, efforts, patience, and dedication have often gone
unrewarded, the court cannot trample upon the rights of employers in
their exercise of what clearly are management prerogatives. The
employer’s inherent right to control and manage his/her affairs efficiently
and effectively must, likewise, be respected.