501 Phil. 170
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“ACCORDINGLY, We GRANT the instant petition for certiorari. The Decision of public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator in VA Case No. 374-VII-09-014-98E dated July 8, 1999, and Order dated August 13, 1999, denying petitioner’s ‘Motion for Reconsideration’, are hereby SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby declared to have lawfully complied with Wage Order No. ROVII-06. No pronouncement as to costs.”[4]The Decision[5] of Voluntary Arbitrator Perfecto R. de los Reyes III,[6] reversed by the CA, disposed as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office hereby decides in favor of Complainant. Respondent is hereby ordered to grant its employees the amount of increases granted under RTWPB Wage Order ROVII-06 in an across-the-board manner retroactive to the dates provided for under the said Wage Order.”[7]The January 16, 2003 Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
“The instant case arose as a result of the issuance of Wage Order No. ROVII-06 by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) increasing the minimum daily wage by P10.00, effective October 1, 1998.
“Prior to said issuance, herein parties entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from August 1, 1994 to July 31, 1999.‘Sec. 1. Salary Increase. The Company shall grant a FIFTEEN (P15.00) PESOS per day increase to all its regular or permanent employees effective August 1, 1994.’
‘Sec. 2. Minimum Wage Law Amendment. In the event that a law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an across-the-board increase shall be granted by the company according to the provisions of the law.’
“On January 27, 1998, a re-negotiation of the CBA was terminated and pursuant to which a Memorandum of Agreement was forged between the parties. It was therein stated that petitioner shall grant a salary increase to all regular and permanent employees as follows:‘Ten (10) pesos per day increase effective August 1, 1997; Ten (10) pesos per day increase effective August 1, 1998.’
“Pursuant to said Memorandum of Agreement, the employees received wage increases of P10.00 per day effective August 1, 1997 and P10.00 per day effective August 1, 1998. As a result, the agreed P10.00 re-negotiated salary increase effectively raised the daily wage of the employees to P165.00 retroactive August 1, 1997; and another increase of P10.00, effective August 1, 1998, raising the employees[’] daily wage to P175.00.
“On March 10, 1998, the Regional Tripartite Wage Productivity Board (RTWPB) of Region VII issued Wage Order ROVII-06 which established the minimum wage of P165.00, by mandating a wage increase of five (P5.00) pesos per day beginning April 1, 1998, thereby raising the daily minimum wage to P160.00 and another increase of five (P5.00) pesos per day beginning October 1, 1998, thereby raising the daily minimum wage to P165.00 per day.
“In accordance with the Wage Order and Section 2, Article XII of the CBA, [petitioner] demanded an across-the-board increase. [Respondent], however, refused to implement the Wage Order, insisting that since it has been paying its workers the new minimum wage of P165.00 even before the issuance of the Wage Order, it cannot be made to comply with said Wage Order.
“Thus, [respondent] argued that long before the passage of Wage Order ROVII-06 on March 10, 1998, and by virtue of the Memorandum of Agreement it entered with herein [petitioner], [respondent] was already paying its employees a daily wage of P165.00 per day retroactive on August 1, 1997, while the minimum wage at that time was still P155.00 per day. On August 1, 1998, [respondent] again granted an increase from P165.00 per day to P175.00, so that at the time of the effectivity of Wage Order No. 06 on October 1, 1998 prescribing the new minimum wage of P165.00 per day, [respondent’s] employees were already receiving P175.00 per day.
“For failure of the parties to settle this controversy, a preventive mediation complaint was filed by herein [petitioner] before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, pursuant to which the parties selected public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator to decide said controversy.
“Submitted for arbitral resolution is the sole issue of whether or not [respondent] has complied with Wage Order No. ROVII-06, in relation to the CBA provision mandating an across-the-board increase in case of the issuance of a Wage Order.
“In his decision, public respondent arbitrator found herein [respondent] not to have complied with the wage order, through the following dispositions:‘The CBA provision in question (providing for an across-the-board increase in case of a wage order) is worded and couched in a vague and unclear manner.
‘x x x In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered (Art. 1371, New Civil Code). Thus, this Office x x x required the parties to submit additional evidence in order to be able to know and interpret the parties working intent and application of Wage Order No. 06 issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, Regional Office VII in relation to Section 2, Article XII provided for in the parties[’] existing CBA.‘x x x Viewed from the foregoing facts and evidence, the working intent and application of RTWPB Wage Order ROVII-06 in relation to Section 2, Article XII of the parties[’] existing CBA is clearly established. The evidence submitted by the parties, all point to the fact that their true intention on how to implement existing wage orders is to grant such wage orders in an across-the-board manner in relation to the provisions of Section 2, Article XII of their existing CBA. Respondent in this case [has] failed to comply with its contractual obligation of implementing the increase under RTWPB Wage Order ROVII-06 in an across-the-board manner as provided in Section 2, Article XII of its CBA with [petitioner].‘x x x x x x x x x’”[8]
“I. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the decision and resolution of the honorable voluntary arbitrator[.]The main issue is whether respondent violated the CBA in its refusal to grant its employees an across-the-board increase as a result of the passage of Wage Order No. ROVII-06. Also raised is the procedural issue relating to the propriety of the admission by the CA of RTWPB’s letter-opinion, which was attached to respondent’s Supplemental Memorandum submitted to that court on August 30, 2000, beyond the July 17, 2000 extended deadline.
II. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in considering the Supplemental Memorandum of respondent and giving merit to evidence presented for the first time on appeal and filed after the lapse of the non[-]extendible period of time to file memorandum and despite an extension granted to respondent[.]
III. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in disregarding established jurisprudence on statutory construction.”[11]
“SECTION 2. Minimum Wage Law Amendment. In the event that a law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an across-the-board increase shall be granted by the Company according to the provisions of the law.”Interestingly, petitioner disregards altogether in its argument the qualifying phrase “according to the provisions of the law” and merely focuses its attention on the “across-the-board increase” clause. Given the entire sentence, it is clear that the above-quoted CBA provision does not support the unyielding view of petitioner that the issuance of Wage Order No. ROVII-06 entitles its members to an across-the-board increase, absolutely and without any condition.
“Section 2. AMOUNT AND MANNER OF INCREASE. Upon the effectivity of this Order, the daily minimum wage rates for all the workers and employees in the private sector shall be increased by Ten Pesos (P10.00) per day to be given in the following manner:These provisions show that the prescribed minimum wage after full implementation of the P10 increase in the Wage Order is P165 for Class A private non-agriculture sectors. It would be reasonable and logical, therefore, to infer that those employers already paying their employees more than P165 at the time of the issuance of the Order are sufficiently complying with the Order.i. Five Pesos (P5.00) per day effective April 1, 1998, and
ii. Additional Five Pesos (P5.00) per day effective October 1, 1998.
“Section 3. UNIFORM WAGE RATE PER AREA CLASSIFICATION. To effect a uniform wage rate pursuant to Section 1 hereof, the prescribed minimum wage after full implementation of this Order for each area classification shall be as follows:
Area Classification Non-Agriculture Sector Agriculture Sector
Class A 165.00 150.00
Class B 155.00 140.00
Class C 145.00 130.00
Class D 135.00 120.00”