Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. v. Congress of Independent Organization-Iloilo Coca-Cola Sales Force Union, Panay Chapter

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240493. June 19, 2019.]

COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ILOILO COCA-COLA SALES FORCE UNION, PANAY CHAPTER, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240493 — COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, versus CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION-ILOILO COCA-COLA SALES FORCE UNION, PANAY CHAPTER, respondent.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated October 19, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated June 21, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09733, for failure of Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming with modification, the Decision 4 dated July 27, 2015, of the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) in favor of Congress of Independent Organization-Iloilo Coca-Cola Sales Force Union, Panay Chapter (respondent union).

It is an established rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The basic principle is set forth in the rule itself. 5 It is not the function of the Court to examine and consider anew the factual issues and evidence already passed upon by the appellate court and courts or tribunals below. The scope of a Rule 45 petition is limited to reviewing errors of law which may have been committed by the courts a quo. 6 HTcADC

The issue in this case hinges not only on the interpretation of Article 11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but on whether petitioner was able to prove that the union members were informed of, and consented to the conversion of the cash rice subsidy into a 50-kilogram rice ration, and the deduction of P550.00 from their basic monthly salary, which is a question of fact.

The CA and VA uniformly held that there was no evidence that the union members agreed to such a scheme. There was no provision in the CBA allowing the deduction of P550.00 from the basic monthly salary of the union members. No other document was presented showing the union members' consent thereto.

Petitioner failed to show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the findings of the VA. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, especially when they are affirmed by the CA, as in this case. Their common findings are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. 7 CAIHTE

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 9-37.

2.Id. at 39-52. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring.

3.Id. at 54-55.

4.Id. at 91-107.

5. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1, provides:

   x x x The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

6.Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Sps. Abay-abay, 687 Phil. 584, 590 (2012).

7.Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt Nuwhrain-APL v. Voluntary Arbitrator Bacungan, 601 Phil. 365, 372 (2009).