Union Service Charge Ruling

Summary

The Unions demand for service charges was not prescribed as the prescriptive period was interrupted by the Unions demands. However, the claims were dismissed on substantive grounds due to insufficient proof of service charge collection. The NLRCs decision to rule in favor of the Union was considered an abuse of discretion by the Supreme Court, as it erroneously presumed service charges were collected without proper analysis of the transactions under the CBA.

Full Conversation

How about on
It seems you're asking about the prescriptive period in the context of the case. To clarify, the court found that the prescriptive period for filing claims was interrupted by the Union's demands. However, the claims were dismissed on substantive grounds, not due to the prescriptive period. Is there anything else you would like to know?
how about on NLRC's error in ruling for the Union: Whether the NLRC's decision to rule in favor of the Union for uncollected service charges constituted an abuse of discretion, especially considering that no service charges were collected on the transactions in question\
Yes, the NLRC's decision was considered an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court found that the NLRC erroneously presumed service charges were collected without properly analyzing if the transactions were "service chargeable" under the CBA, leading to a flawed ruling in favor of the Union.