The Manila Banking Corp. v. Tmbc Employees Council and the National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The parties, The Manila Banking Corp. (MANILA BANK) and TMBC Employees Council (TMBC Employees Council), submitted a compromise agreement to the Supreme Court. Procedural History: The case reached the Supreme Court, and the parties opted to settle through a compromise agreement. The Petition: The parties sought the Supreme Court's approval of their compromise agreement to resolve their dispute.
Issue(s)
Whether the compromise agreement is contrary to law, morals, or public policy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court approved the compromise agreement and rendered judgment in accordance therewith.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the compromise agreement's validity: The Court found the compromise agreement, as submitted by the parties, to be not contrary to law, morals, or public policy. The agreement stipulated that MANILA BANK, without admitting liability, would pay P2,500.00 to each remaining employee covered by the 1978-1981 CBA as of September 30, 1984, which amount would be applied to a P2,500.00 loan previously extended by MANILA BANK to each employee. This payment was acknowledged by TMBC Employees Council as full and complete settlement of claims for cost of living allowance under P.D. 1634 and for unworked regular holidays. Furthermore, MANILA BANK agreed to favorably consider granting P90.00 per month cost of living allowance during the upcoming CBA renewal negotiations. The Court's approval signifies its adherence to the principle of promoting industrial peace and harmonious employer-employee relations, as stated in the agreement itself.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court approved a compromise agreement between Manila Banking Corp. and TMBC Employees Council, finding it not contrary to law, morals, or public policy, and rendered judgment in accordance therewith.