EL PARQUE DE VIVIENDAS
3.1. I NTRODUCCIÓN
3.2.4. F ACTORES FISCALES
Arco Metal Products v Samahan ng Manggagawa: ER cannot shrink away from its responsibility by merely claiming that its acts of giving full 13th month pay to EEs who have not worked for the full year is a mistake. It has become practice.
Exceptions to the Non-Diminution Rule 1. Correction of error;
2. Negotiated benefits;
3. Wage order compliance;
4. Benefits on reimbursement basis;
5. Reclassification of position;
6. Contingent benefits or conditional bonus; and
7. Productivity incentives.
Not established practice; Mistake in App of Law
Globe Mackay v NLRC: ER had been computing the COLA by multiplying P3/day by 30 days. Upon effectivity of Wage Order #6, and in virtue thereof, it used 22 days or actual days of work. Union disagreed and claimed 30 days basis as company practice. SC: Not voluntary company practice. To be considered as such, it should have been practiced over a long pd of time, and must be shown to have been consistent &
deliberate and not merely an erroneous application of the law.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC: Granted that the ER had granted an across-the-board wage increase pursuant to RA 6727, that single instance may not be considered an established company practice.
Negotiated benefits – benefits initiated through negotiation bet ER & EEs, such as CBAs, are not w/in the prohibition of Art 100 because, as
products of bilateral contract, they can only be eliminated or diminished bilaterally. What the law forbids is elimination/modification done unilaterally by the ER.
Wage Order Compliance – the giving of across-the-board salary increases so as to rectify a salary distortion caused by compliance w/ a wage order cannot be said to have ripened into a company practice.
Pag-asa Steel Works v CA: To ripen into a company practice that is demandable as a matter of right, the giving of the increase should not only be by reason of a strict legal (as Wage Order) or contractual oblig (CBA), but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the ER.
Benefit on Reimbursement Basis –
o Per diem allowance – a daily allowance given for each day when an EE is away from his home base; intended to cover their cost of lodging & subsistence when on duty outside of their permanent stationif the EE did not leave his permanent station and spent nothing for meals & lodging outside thereof, then he is not entitled to per diem as there is nothing to be reimbursed
o Monthly ration of gas given to certain managerial EEs is not part of their basic salary. its temporary revocation does not
constitute a diminution of the EE’s fringe benefits.
o The elimination of an existing benefit in exchange for an equal or better one does not violate Art 100.
Reclassification of Position; Promotion
o from rank-and-file to supervisory - the position holders lose OT pay and other benefits but Art 100 is not violated.
But, promotion & position reclassification must be done in GF.
National Sugar Refineries Corp v NLRS & NBSR Union: ER
implemented a Job Evaluation program affecting all EEs. Respondents were reclassified from rank-and-file to supervisory/managerial positions. Because of that, they lost their OT, rest day & holiday pay but it was also shown that they received upward adjustments in basic pay & allowances. SC: This reclassification is in essence a promotion w/c is one of the jurisprudentially recognized exclusive prerogatives of mgt, provided in is done in GF. Union failed to prove BF on the part of the ER.
Promotion – the advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties & responsibilities as authorized by law and usually accompanied by an increase in salary
Contingent/Conditional Benefits; Bonus
- Art 100 is n/a to a benefit whose grant depends on the existence of certain conditions, so that the benefit is no demandable if those preconditions are absent.
Bonus – an amt granted & paid to an EE for his industry & loyalty w/c contributed to the success of the ER’s business and made possible the realization of profits. It is an act of generosity.
- it is not a demandable and enforceable oblig. BUT! It is so when it is made a part of the wage/salary. In such a case, the latter would be a fixed amt and the former would be a contingent one dependent upon the realization of profit
WON bonus forms part of wages: depends on the circs and conditions for its payment.
a. If it is an addt’l compensation w/c the ER promised and agreed to give w/o any conditions imposed for its payment, such as success of business or greater production or output, then it is part of the wage.
b. If it is paid only if profits are realized on a certain amt of productivity achieved, it cannot be considered part of the wages.
c. Where it is not payable to all but only to laborers and only when the laborer becomes more efficient or more productive, it is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize therefor, not a part of the wage.
Luzon Stevedoring Corp case: An ER cannot be forced to distribute bonuses w/c it can no longer afford to pay. To hold otherwise would be to penalize the ER for his past generosity.
American Wire & Cable Daily Rated EEs Union v AWC Co Inc & the CA: For a bonus to be enforceable, it must have been promised by the ER and expressly agreed by the parties, or it must have had a fixed amt and had been a long and regular practice on the part of the ER.
Equity or Long Practice as Basis of Bonus
- Ph Education Co. Inc v CIR: even if a bonus is not demandable for not being part of the salary of the EE, the bonus may nevertheless be granted on equitable consideration.
- Marcos v NLRC:if one enters into a contract of ENT under an agreemt that he shall be paid a certain salary by the week or some other stated period and, in addition, a bonus, in case he serves for a specified length of time, there is not reason for refusing to enforce the promise to pay the bonus, if the EE has served during the stipulated time, on the ground that it was a promise of mere gratuity.
Services Rendered as Basis of Bonus
- EEs whose ENT has been terminated may still demand paymt of service under company policy and of the bonuses. The R is not defeated by a
―release & quitclaim‖
- LG Marcos v NLRC & Insular Life: The fact that an EE has signed a satisfaction receipt for his claims does not necessarily result in the waiver thereof. The law does not consider as valid any agreement whereby a worker agrees to receive less compensation than what he is entitled to
recover. A deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an EE from demanding benefits to w/c he is legally entitled.
No Profit, No Bonus
-
Traders Royal Bank v NLRC: The matter of giving the EEs bonuses over & above their lawful salaries & allowances is entirely dependent on the profits, if any, realized by the bank from its operations during the past year. Since the fiscal condition having declined, the bank may not be forced to distribute bonuses w/c it can no longer afford to pay and, in effect, be penalized for its past generosity to its EEs. Productivity Incentives - bonus that comes from productivity gain, or improved output without increasing input
- RA 6971: EE’s share is in the nature of salary bonus proportionate to increases in current productivity over the average for the preceding 3 consecutive yrs
- Not gratuitous; it is a benefit claimable only on the basis of predefined output level
- Contingent/conditional; if they are not given because the preconditions are absent, Art 100 is not violated except perhaps if there is contractual commitment to the contrary.