Ranises vs NLRC : 111914 : September 24, 1996 : J Francisco : Third ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/111914.htm petitioners salary should be reduced to US$1,387.00, and his period of employment to 10 months, in accordance with Article XXXV, of said new CBA Article XXXV CONFLICT WITH CONTRACT PROVISIONS In case of conflict between the provisions of the individual employment contract of the seaman and that of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the provisions of this Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be upheld and prevail over that of the individual employment contract. Petitioners employment contract was necessarily amended by said new CBA which was both signed by his union and private respondent Sinkai Shipping Co. Ltd. and later approved by NLRC. [18] Resultingly, petitioner, although herein adjudged as entitled to the award of his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract for having been illegally dismissed, the same must however be computed at the reduced rate of US$1,387.00 per month in accordance with the new CBA approved by the POEA between respondent employer and petitioners union. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision of the NLRC dated September 14, 1992 as well as the resolution dated August 20, 1993 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby entered ordering private respondents to pay petitioner his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract at the rate of US$1,387.00 per month and the sum of US$957.00 or its peso equivalent representing his leave pay differential of six (6) days for every month of service. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, CJ., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Panganiban, JJ., concur. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Rollo, pp. 39-54. Per Putong, R., Comm., with Carale, B., Pres. Comm. and Veloso, V., Comm., concurring. Rollo, p. 56. Per Quimpo, A., Comm., with Carale, B., Pres. Comm. and Veloso, V., Comm., Concurring. Rollo, pp. 14-15, Petition, pp. 3-4. Rollo, p. 37. NLRC Decision, p. 15, Rollo, p. 53. NLRC Decision, p. 10, Rollo, p. 48. [7] Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 668 (1995); Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 643 (1995); Tiu vs. NLRC, 215 SCRA 540 (1992); San Miguel Corp. vs. Javate, Jr., 205 SCRA 469 (1992). [8] Rapiz vs. NLRC, 207 SCRA 243 (1992). [9] San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 222 SCRA 818 (1993); China City Restaurant Corporation vs. NLRC, 217 SCRA 443 (1993); Mapalo vs. NLRC, 233 SCRA 266 (1994) [10] Philippine Manpower Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 691 (1993); Golden Donuts, Inc. vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA, 153 (1994); Polymedic General Hospital vs. NLRC, 134 SCRA 420 (1985). [11] NLRC Decision, p. 10, Rollo, p. 48. [12] Memorandum, Private Respondent, p. 16. [13] Annex D, Rollo, p. 58. [14] POEA Decision, p. 6, Rollo, p. 36. 5 of 6 1/20/2016 12:51 PM