Case Digest - BISUDECO

Account: BISUDECO
NACUSIP-BISUDECO Chapter/Ronald B. Dumulot, Rodolfo Parro, Antonio T. Falcon, Manuel

Aguilar, Gil Gomez, Jr., George Emata, Bienvenido S. Felina, Domingo Rabancos, Nelson
Berina, Pelecio de Jesus, Antonio Abonite, Mecito Ramos, Ernesto de, Luna, Domingo Arao,
Armando Villote, Pablo San Buenaventura, Roberto Tirao, Mariano Pelo, Eutiquio Enfeliz,
Reynaldo Ragay, Onefire Gallarte & Jaime Vinas vs. BISUDECO-PHILSUCORP/Asset
Privatization Trust and BAPCI-PENSUMIL
Background:
NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter is the exclusive bargaining agent for the rank-and-file
employees of Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO), a corporation engaged
in milling and producing sugar.
Since the 1980’s BISUDECO had been incurring heavy losses. It obtained loans from
the Philippine Sugar Corporation (PHILSUCORP) and Philippine National Bank (PNB), secured
by its assets and properties.
Under Proclamation No. 50, as amended, Administrative Order No. 14 dated February 3,
1987, the Deed of Transfer dated February 27, 1987, and the Trust Agreement dated February
27, 1987, PNB ceded its rights and interest over BISUDECO’s loans to the government through
APT.
On November 18, 1988, BISUDECO with the conformity of APT, entered into a
Supervision and Financing Agreement with PHILSUCORP for the latter to operate and manage
the mill until August 31, 1992. Due to BISUDECO’s continues failure to pay its loan obligations,
APT filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of BISUDECO’s mortgaged properties on
March 26, 1990. There being no other qualified bidder, APT was issued a certificate of sale
upon payment of Php1,725,063,044.00.
On December 15, 1990, NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter and BISUDECO entered into a

Collective Bargaining Agreement to be in effect until December 15, 1996. APT and
PHILSUCORP were also joined as parties.
Sometime in 1992, the APT, pursuant to its mandate to dispose of government

properties for privatization, decided to sell the assets and properties of BISUDECO. On
September 1, 1992, it issued a Notice of Termination to BISUDECO’s employees, advising them
that their services would be terminated within 30 days. NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter received
the Notice under protest.
On September 23, 1992, APT’s Board of Trustees issued a Resolution authorizing the
payment of separation pay and other benefits to BISUDECO’s employees in the event of its
privatization. On October 30, 1992, BISUDECO’s asset and properties where sold to Bicol Agro-
Industrial Producers Cooperative, Incorporated-Peñafrancia Sugar Mill (BAPCI-PENSUMIL).
BISUDECO’s employees where paid separation pay including 13th month, as well as
conversion of their accrued vacation and sick leave for the year 1992. However, George Emata,
Bienvenido Felina, Domingo Rebancos, Jr., Nelson Berina, Armando Villote, and Roberto Tirao
(Emata, et al.) refused to receive their checks on account of their protested dismissal.
Case:
A Complaint dated April 24, 1996 was filed by several members of
NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter, charging APT, BISUDECO, PHILSUCORP and BAPCI-
PENSUMIL with unfair labor practice, union busting, and claims for labor standard benefits.
On January 14, 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the Complaint
for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter that there was no union busting when APT and
PHILSUCORP disposed of BISUDECO’s assets and properties since APT was merely
disposing a non-performing asset of government, pursuant to its mandate under Proclamation
No. 50. However, it ordered APT to pay Emata, et al. their benefits since their co-complainants
where able to claim their checks. Pursuant to the Decision, APT deposited with NLRC a
Cashier’s Check in the amount of Php116,182.20, the equivalent of the monetary award in favor
of Emata, et al.
On February 8, 2000, APT filed a Notice of Partial Appeal, together with a Memorandum
of Partial Appeal, before the NLRC.
On December 6, 2000, Executive Order No. 323 was issued whereby APT was
succeeded by Privatization and Management Office (PMO).
On May 10, 2002, the NLRC issue the Resolution dismissing the Partial Appeal for
failure to perfect the appeal within the statutory period of appeal. PMO filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied in a Resolution dated June 21, 2002.
Aggrieved, PMO filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that its
appeal should have been decided on the merits in the interest of substantial justice. On
February 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision denying the Petition. It ruled that
the grant of separation pay to Emata, et al. was based on the finding that PMO had already
granted the same benefits to the other complainants in the labor case. PMO moved for
reconsideration, but the same was denied in the Resolution dated September 19, 2006. Hence,
PMO filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. PMO alleges that the
money claim of the employees had already prescribed since their Complaint for illegal dismissal
was filed beyond the prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
PMO further argues that even if the action had not yet prescribed, it would still not be
liable to pay separation pay and other benefits since the closure of the business was due to
serious losses and financial reverses. Moreover, since PMO is an instrumentality of the
government, any money claim against it should first be brought before the Commission on
Audit, in view of Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445.
The Supreme Court rendered its Decision dated March 9, 2016, denying the Petition.
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent’s claim to their separation benefits has not
yet prescribed. Similarly, their separation benefits may be released to them without filing a
separate money claim before the Commission on Audit (COA) considering that APT’s Board of
Trustees already issued the Resolution on September 23, 1992 for the release of funds to pay
separation benefits to terminated employees of BISUDECO. Private respondents’ checks were
releases by petitioner to the Arbitration Branch of the Labor Arbiter in 1992. The Court
presumed that the funds to be used for private respondents’ separation benefits have already
been appropriated and disbursed. This would account for why private respondents’ co-
complainant s were able to claim their checks without need of filing a separate claim before the
COA.
On May 20, 2016, the Supreme Court Decision dated March 9, 2016 became final and
executory as recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
Subsequently, on February 20, 2017, private respondents filed a motion for the issuance
of a Writ of Execution before the NLRC Legazpi, Albay.
Current Status:
A Notice of Hearing dated March 8, 2017 apprising both parties that a scheduled
conference was set on March 29, 2017 at 10:00 am.

Case Digest - BISUDECO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Case Digest - BISUDECO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - BISUDECO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Account: BISUDECO

NACUSIP-BISUDECO Chapter/Ronald B. Dumulot, Rodolfo Parro, Antonio T. Falcon, Manuel

On December 15, 1990, NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter and BISUDECO entered into a

Sometime in 1992, the APT, pursuant to its mandate to dispose of government

You might also like