[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
207 views2 pages

Summarize The Case Decided by The Supreme Court.: Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs. Laguesma 286 SCRA

This case involved a union of 92 piece workers at a warehouse and rice mill who were denied certain benefits. The union organized in response. The respondent then barred union members from working and hired non-members. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the respondent appealed. The Supreme Court granted both petitions. It revised and set aside the respondent's orders and resolutions, reinstating the labor arbiter's original decision with some modifications to benefits awarded.

Uploaded by

Nina Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
207 views2 pages

Summarize The Case Decided by The Supreme Court.: Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs. Laguesma 286 SCRA

This case involved a union of 92 piece workers at a warehouse and rice mill who were denied certain benefits. The union organized in response. The respondent then barred union members from working and hired non-members. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the respondent appealed. The Supreme Court granted both petitions. It revised and set aside the respondent's orders and resolutions, reinstating the labor arbiter's original decision with some modifications to benefits awarded.

Uploaded by

Nina Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union Vs.

Laguesma 286 SCRA

Summarize the case decided by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner union has a member of ninety-two who are “kargador” at a


warehouse and ricemills Corfarm at Umingsan, Pangasinan since 1982. They were paid
by the respondents on a piece rate basis and they were denied some benefits to them.
Due to this case, they’ve organized a petitioner union. Upon hearing such event, the
respondent barred its member from working with them and hired new comers that are
non-members in 1992.
Labor Arbiter Ricardo Olairez in NLRC Case No. Sub-Rab 01-117-0184-92
requested both parties to submit a position paper on November 24, 1992. Only the
complainant submitted its position paper in December 3, 1992.
On September 14, 1993, the Labor Arbiter had rendered a decision which favor
the petitioners based on the available records of the case provided that the respondent
was given ample time to submit their position paper and other complaints against them
such as illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, non-payment of deductions or diminution
of their underpaid daily wages and other causes of action pleaded by the petitioners.
In the view of jurisprudence, there is a correction in the labor arbiter’s decision.
The thirteenth month pay awarded should be computed for each year of service from
the time the employees was hired until their actual reinstatement. Same computation
will be applied on the service incentive leave and underpaid wages. Moreover, a refund
of 12 pesos shall be computed for each day of service in every employee, to be
reckoned from the date the employee was hired.
The court ruled that both petitions are granted. In G.R. 113542, Respondents
Laguema’s Order dated January 4, 1994 and January 27, 1994 are revised and set
aside. Order dated at September 7, 1993 is reinstated. Resolutions are promulgated on
February 16, 1994 and March 28, 1994 are revised and set aside. September 14, 1993
is reinstated with modification as set out in these benefits awarded will be accordance t
the decision and submits its compliance within thirty days from notice of decisions.

Cite 1 Legal issue regarding the case.


The respondent Laguesma premised the dismissal of the petition for the
certification election on the absence of the employer -employee relationship between
petitioner and the respondent on Order dated on January 4, 1994.

Cite the decision of the court in resolving the issue.


The court ruled that both petitions are granted. In G.R. 113542, Respondents
Laguema’s Order dated January 4, 1994 and January 27, 1994 are revised and set
aside. Order dated at September 7, 1993 is reinstated. Resolutions are promulgated on
February 16, 1994 and March 28, 1994 are revised and set aside. September 14, 1993
is reinstated with modification as set out in these benefits awarded will be accordance t
the decision and submits its compliance within thirty days from notice of decisions.
Reference
CAURDANETAAN PIECE WORKERS UNION v. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA.Lawyerly. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c8b07

You might also like