Tuesday, November 14, 2006 Court okays settlement between beverage firm, ex-workers
THE Court of Appeals (CA) on Monday approved the compromise agreement entered into by San Miguel Corporation, the country's biggest food and beverage company, with 30 of its managers and supervisors who were displaced in 2002.
In a decision penned by Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes, the CA approved the compromise agreement after finding it as "not contrary to law, morals good customs, public order and public policy."
The agreement was reached May 25, 2006 in which SMC agreed to the payment of some P12 million compensation to petitioners in exchange for the dropping of any complaints against the company and its subsidiaries San Miguel Food Inc. (SMFI) and San Miguel Purefoods Corporation (SMPC).
The appellate court noted that employees, as attested by their signatures, "release and forever discharge SMFI, SMC, PFC, its officers, directors, agents or representatives from any and all claims, causes of action, demands or complaints of whatever nature."
Court records showed that the case stemmed when SMC acquired Purefoods Corporation (PFC) and integrated its business with SMFI in order to "enhance competitiveness" in the field of poultry, seeds and flour business.
As part of the arrangement, SMFI absorbed all PFC employees, including the petitioners led by Ronald Mascariñas, senior vice president and head of PFC's Luzon Poultry Division.
Due to pre-existing organizational hierarchy in which they were absorbed, petitioners were re-assigned by SMFI to other available positions.
But the petitioners claimed that they were illegally demoted by SMFI as most supervisory employees were downgraded to occupy rank-and-file positions while managers were relegated to managing reduced area of concern.
Mascariñas, on the other hand, said that from senior vice president, he was transferred by SMFI to head the Integrated Service Food Group, a position which according to him is inappropriate for his qualifications.
Due to the demotion, petitioners resigned in different occasions in 2002.
However, respondents accused the resigning employees of conniving to resign en masse and transfer to its competitor to the damage and prejudice of SMFI.
The SMFI noted that the employees the were able acquire knowledge on the trade secrets and confidential information during their employment with SMFI and used the same in their employment
The SMFI branded the mass transfer of the employees to its competitor Bountry Agro-Ventures Inc. (Bavi) and its sister company Tyson Agro-Ventures Inc. (Tavi) as constituting "fraud, serious misconduct and and/or unfair competition." Thus, SMFI decided to forfeit the separation benefits of the employees.
On July 25, 2002, petitioners filed a complaint against respondents seeking the payment of their separation while respondents filed a suit for damages and injunction against the employees before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC).
On December 18, 2003, the Pasig RTC granted SMFI's petition and enjoined the employees from working with Tavi and Bavi.
The employees, on the other hand, got a favorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on Aug. 25, 2003 which ordered SMFI to pay the separation benefits of the employees amounting to P13.06 million.
The labor arbiter also ordered SMFI to pay the employees for moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P1.2 million. The respondents asked the NLRC to reconsider its decision.
In a ruling on Nov. 24, 2003, the NLRC reversed its ruling and dismissed the complaint filed by the employees. It declared that resignation of the employees en masse and their subsequent transfer to the respondents' competitor was illegal.
The employees their questioned the NLRC's reversal of its decision before the CA.
Pending the resolution of the appeal, the employees and respondents filed a Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement wherein SMFI agreed to pay the employees their actual separation benefits in the amount of more than P12 million.
On the other hand, Mascariñas and his fellow petitioners agreed to release the respondents from all claims or complaints in connection with the civil case they filed against them. (ECV/Sunnex)
