The Supreme Court held that compromise agreements in labor disputes must be reasonable and made with a full understanding of the terms, ensuring employees are not exploited. This case underscores the importance of fair settlements that reflect the actual claims and prevent employers from offering disproportionately low amounts, safeguarding the rights and financial security of workers affected by illegal dismissals.

David vs. Goliath: Can a Small Settlement Erase a Massive Labor Violation?

This case, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., revolves around the plight of 5,984 employees of Aris Philippines, Inc. who were terminated when the company ceased operations in 1995. The employees filed for illegal dismissal, alleging that Fashion Accessories Phils., Inc. (FAPI) was simply a continuation of Aris’s business. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the employees, awarding them a staggering P3,453,664,710.86 in monetary benefits. However, the companies involved sought to reduce this amount significantly through a compromise agreement, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

At the heart of this case is the question of whether a compromise agreement, especially one offering a substantially smaller amount than the original judgment, can be considered valid and binding on the employees. Petitioners tried to file a motion to Admit Confession of Judgment by Sara Lee Corporation (SLC). The Corporations argued that it was an acceptable alternative to a compromise agreement because obtaining consent from all 5,984 complainants was impossible. This motion was seen as a method to buy peace or secure against any potential contingent liability.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the proposed compromise. The Court referenced the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Bisaya Land Transportation Co to distinguish between a judgment on consent and a judgment by confession. The Court emphasized that a compromise must be fair, voluntary, and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy. In this light, the Court referenced Article 227 of the Labor Code which authorizes compromise agreements voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, but only when in conformity with the State’s basic policy to promote free collective bargaining. A compromise agreement is valid as long as the consideration is reasonable and the employee signed the waiver voluntarily.

ART. 227 Compromise Agreements. – Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of noncompliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.

The Court noted the stark disparity between the original judgment and the proposed settlement. The judgment awarded each employee approximately P577,149.85, while the compromise offered a mere P57,200.00, further reduced to P48,620.00 after deducting attorney’s fees. The Court found the compromised amount to be roughly 10% of the judgment award, a figure it deemed unconscionable. Considering the importance of the appeal bond, the compromise amount was still small compared to the P725 Million bond that the Court set in the decision.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of ensuring that compromise agreements in labor cases are genuinely fair and reflect a reasonable consideration of the employees’ claims. Building on this principle, the Court cited several precedents where similarly disproportionate settlements were struck down. The Court held that it will not hesitate to strike down a compromise agreement which is unconscionable and against public policy.

The petitioners also questioned the amount of the bond that the Court required in its decision. The Corporations argued that the ruling in McBurnie v. Ganzon required only the posting of a bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award. The Court, however, clarified that the 10% requirement pertains to the reasonable amount which the NLRC would accept as the minimum of the bond that should accompany the motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC rules. This percentage of bond set is merely provisional. The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of “meritorious grounds” and “reasonable amount.”

The Corporations argued that there was no legal impediment for the NRLC to issue its 19 December 2006 Resolution vacating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision as no TRO or injunction was issued by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court disagreed. In the recent case of Trajano v. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, the court gave a brief discourse on judicial courtesy, which concept was first introduced in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals.

The concept of judicial courtesy applies if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. The 19 December 2006 ruling of the NLRC would moot the appeal filed before the higher courts because the issue involves the appeal bond which is an indispensable requirement to the perfection of the appeal before the NLRC. This is the essence of judicial courtesy.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a compromise agreement offering a substantially lower amount than the original judgment in an illegal dismissal case could be considered valid and binding on the employees.
What was the amount awarded to each employee in the original decision?	The Labor Arbiter’s decision awarded each of the 5,984 employees approximately P577,149.85, totaling P3,453,664,710.86 in monetary benefits.
How much was offered to each employee in the proposed compromise agreement?	The compromise agreement offered each employee P57,200.00, which was further reduced to P48,620.00 after the deduction of attorney’s fees.
What did the Supreme Court say about the disparity between the judgment and the settlement?	The Supreme Court found the disparity to be unconscionable, noting that the settlement amount was only roughly 10% of the original judgment award.
What is the concept of ‘judicial courtesy’ as discussed in the case?	Judicial courtesy applies when there is a strong probability that the issues before a higher court would be rendered moot by the continuation of proceedings in a lower court.
Did the Supreme Court approve the proposed compromise agreement?	No, the Supreme Court denied the motion for the approval of the compromise agreement, deeming it unconscionable and against public policy.
What is the significance of Article 227 of the Labor Code in this case?	Article 227 authorizes compromise agreements voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, but only when the consideration is reasonable and the employee signs the waiver voluntarily.
What was the required amount for the appeal bond set by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court directed the corporations to post P725 Million, in cash or surety bond, within TEN (10) days from the receipt of the decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al. serves as a crucial reminder of the need for fairness and reasonableness in labor settlements. The ruling reinforces the protection of employees from exploitative practices and emphasizes that compromise agreements must genuinely reflect the value of their claims.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Emilinda D. Macatlang, et al., G.R. No. 180147, January 14, 2015