RESULTADOS PRINCIPÁLES

FACTS: Petitioner Antonio Locsin II was the Regional Sales Manager of respondent Mekeni Food

Corporation. He was hired on February 2004 to oversee the NCR and Luzon operation. In addition to his compensation and benefit package, a car was offered to him under which one-half of the cost of the vehicle is to be paid by the company and the other half to be deducted from petitioner's salary. The car valued at 280,000 which Locsin paid through salary deductions of 5,000 per month.

On February 2006, Locsin resigned. A total of 112,500.00 had already been deducted from his monthly salary and applied as part of his share in the car plan. Upon resignation, petitioner made personal and written follow-ups regarding his unpaid salaries, commissions, benefits, and offer to purchase his service vehicle. Mekeni replied that the company car plan benefit applied only to employees who have been with the company for five years; for this reason, the balance that petitioner should pay on his service vehicle stood at P116,380.00 if he opts to purchase the same.

On May 3, 2007, petitioner filed against Mekeni and/or its President, Prudencio S. Garcia, a Complaint for the recovery of monetary claims consisting of unpaid salaries, commissions, sick/vacation leave benefits, and recovery of monthly salary deductions which were earmarked for his cost-sharing in the car plan.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund of all the amounts applied to the cost of the service vehicle under the car plan.

RULING

Any benefit or privilege enjoyed by petitioner from using the service vehicle was merely incidental and insignificant, because for the most part the vehicle was under Mekeni's control and supervision. Free and complete disposal is given to the petitioner only after the vehicle's cost is covered or paid in full. Until then, the vehicle remains at the beck and call of Mekeni. Given the vast territory petitioner had to cover to be able to perform his work effectively and generate business for his employer, the service vehicle was an absolute necessity, or else Mekeni's business would suffer adversely. Thus, it is clear that while petitioner was paying for half of the vehicle's value, Mekeni was reaping the full benefits from the use thereof.

Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, ―every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." Article 2142 of the same Code likewise clarifies that there are certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts which give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract, to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing the car plan arrangement between the petitioner and Mekeni, a quasi- contractual relation was created between them. Consequently, Mekeni may not enrich itself by charging petitioner for the use of its vehicle which is otherwise absolutely necessary to the full and effective promotion of its business. It may not, under the claim that petitioner's payments constitute rents for the use

134 | P a g e of the company vehicle, refuse to refund what petitioner had paid, for the reasons that the car plan did not carry such a condition; the subject vehicle is an old car that is substantially, if not fully, depreciated; the car plan arrangement benefited Mekeni for the most part; and any personal benefit obtained by petitioner from using the vehicle was merely incidental.

Conversely, petitioner cannot recover the monetary value of Mekeni's counterpart contribution to the cost of the vehicle; that is not property or money that belongs to him, nor was it intended to be given to him in lieu of the car plan. Mekeni's share of the vehicle's cost was not part of petitioner's compensation package. The vehicle is an asset that belonged to Mekeni. Just as Mekeni is unjustly enriched by failing to refund petitioner's payments, so should petitioner not be awarded the value of Mekeni's counterpart contribution to the car plan, as this would unjustly enrich him at Mekeni's expense.

Thus, Mekeni Food Corporation should refund petitioner Antonio Locsin II's payments under the car plan agreement amounting only to the extent of the contribution Locsin made, totalling to the amount of P112,500.00.

83.

TH Shopfitters Corp., et al., vs. T&H Shopfitters Corp. Union GR No. 191714, Feb 26, 2014

FACTS: On September 7, 2004, the T&H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation workers union

(THS-GQ Union) filed their Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) by way of union busting, and Illegal Lockout, with moral and exemplary damages and attorney‘s fees, against T&H Shopfitters Corporation (T&H Shopfitters) and Gin Queen Corporation before the Labor Arbiter (LA).

1st CAUSE:

In their desire to improve their working conditions, respondents and other employees of held their first formal meeting on November 23, 2003 to discuss the formation of a union. The following day, seventeen (17) employees were barred from entering petitioners‘ factory premises located in Castillejos, Zambales, and ordered to transfer to T&H Shopfitters‘ warehouse at Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) purportedly because of its expansion. Afterwards, the said seventeen (17) employees were repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due to the unavailability of work.

Respondents contended that the affected employees were not given regular work assignments, while subcontractors were continuously hired to perform their functions. Respondents sought the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Subsequently, an agreement between petitioners and THS-GQ Union was reached. Petitioners agreed to give priority to regular employees in the distribution of work assignments. Respondents averred, however, that petitioners never complied with its commitment but instead hired contractual workers. Instead, Respondents claimed that the work weeks of those employees in the SBFZ plant were drastically reduced to only three (3) days in a month.

2nd CAUSE:

On March 24, 2004, THS-GQ Union filed a petition for certification election and an order was issued to hold the certification election in both T&H Shopfitters and Gin Queen.

135 | P a g e On October 10, 2004, petitioners sponsored a field trip to Iba, Zambales, for its employees. The officers and members of the THS-GQ Union were purportedly excluded from the field trip. On the evening of the field trip, a certain Angel Madriaga, a sales officer of petitioners, campaigned against the union in the forthcoming certification election.

When the certification election was scheduled on October 11, 2004, the employees were escorted from the field trip to the polling center in Zambales to cast their votes. The remaining employees situated at the SBFZ plant cast their votes as well. Due to the heavy pressure exerted by petitioners, the votes for "no union" prevailed.

3rD CAUSE:

A memorandum was issued by petitioner Ben Huang (Huang), Director for Gin Queen, informed its employees of the expiration of the lease contract between Gin Queen and its lessor in Castillejos, Zambales and announced the relocation of its office and workers to Cabangan, Zambales.

When the respondents, visited the site in Cabangan, discovered that it was a "talahiban" or grassland. The said union officers and members were made to work as grass cutters in Cabangan, under the supervision of a certain Barangay Captain Greg Pangan. Due to these circumstances, the employees assigned in Cabangan did not report for work. The other employees who likewise failed to report in Cabangan were meted out with suspension.

PETITIONERS‘ DEFENSE:

In its defense, Petitioners also stress that they cannot be held liable for ULP for the reason that there is no employer-employee relationship between the former and respondents. Further, Gin Queen avers that its decision to implement an enforced rotation of work assignments for respondents was a management prerogative permitted by law, justified due to the decrease in orders from its customers, they had to resort to cost cutting measures to avoid anticipated financial losses. Thus, it assigned work on a rotational basis. It explains that its failure to present concrete proof of its decreasing orders was due to the impossibility of proving a negative assertion. It also asserts that the transfer from Castillejos to Cabangan was made in good faith and solely because of the expiration of its lease contract in Castillejos. It was of the impression that the employees, who opposed its economic measures, were merely motivated by spite in filing the complaint for ULP against it.

ISSUES:

Whether ULP acts were committed by petitioners against respondents.

RULING:

ULP were committed by petitioners against respondents.

Petitioners are being accused of violations of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 257 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code,13 to wit:

Article 257. Unfair labor practices of employers.––It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

136 | P a g e

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; x x x x

(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

x x x x

(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. x x x

The questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1) sponsoring a field trip to Zambales for its employees, to the exclusion of union members, before the scheduled certification election; 2) the active campaign by the sales officer of petitioners against the union prevailing as a bargaining agent during the field trip; 3) escorting its employees after the field trip to the polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of subcontractors performing respondents‘ functions; 5) assigning union members to the Cabangan site to work as grass cutters; and 6) the enforcement of work on a rotational basis for union members, taken together, reasonably support an inference that, indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict respondents‘ free exercise of their right to self- organization.

The Court is of the considered view that petitioners‘ undisputed actions prior and immediately before the scheduled certification election, while seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive bargaining representative.

84.

Wesleyan University-Phils., vs. Wesleyan University-Phils., Faculty & Staff Asso., GR No. 181806, March 12, 2014

FACTS: Petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly

organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. Respondent Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association, on the other hand, is a duly registered labor organization acting as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file faculty and staff employees of petitioner.

In December 2003, the parties signed a 5-year CBA effective June 1, 2003 until May 31, 2008.

On August 16, 2005, petitioner, through its President, Atty. Maglaya , issued a Memorandum providing guidelines on the implementation of vacation and sick leave credits as well as vacation leave commutation which states that vacation and sick leave credits are not automatic as leave credits would be earned on a month-to-month and only vacation leave is commuted or monetized to cash which is effected after the second year of continuous service of an employee.

Respondents questioned the guidelines for being violative of existing practices and the CBA which provide that all covered employees are entitled to 15 days sick leave and 15 days vacation leave with pay every year and that after the second year of service, all unused vacation leave shall be converted to cash and paid to the employee at the end of each school year, not later than August 30 of each year.

137 | P a g e Respondent file a grievance complaint on the implementation of the vacation and sick leave policy. Petitioner also announced its plan of implementing a one-retirement policy which was unacceptable to respondent.

Respondent submitted affidavits to prove that there is an established practice of giving two retirement benefits, one from the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association (PERAA) Plan and another from the CBA Retirement Plan.

The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision declaring the one-retirement policy and the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 contrary to law. CA also affirmed the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator.

Petitioner argues that there is only one retirement plan as the CBA Retirement Plan and the PERAA Plan are one and the same. It maintains that there is no established company practice or policy of giving two retirement benefits to its employees. Respondent belies the claims of petitioner and asserts that there are two retirement plans as the PERAA Retirement Plan, which has been implemented for more than 30 years, is different from the CBA Retirement Plan. Respondent further avers that it has always been a practice of petitioner to give two retirement benefits and that this practice was established by substantial evidence as found by both the Voluntary Arbitrator and the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are entitled to two retirement plans.

RULING:

The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice. To be considered a practice, it must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period of time. Respondent was able to present substantial evidence in the form of affidavits to support its claim that there are two retirement plans. Based on the affidavits, petitioner has been giving two retirement benefits as early as 1997. Petitioner, on the other hand, failed to present any evidence to refute the veracity of these affidavits. Petitioner's assertion that there is only one retirement plan as the CBA Retirement Plan and the PERAA Plan are one and the same is not supported by any evidence.

The Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is contrary to the existing CBA. It limits the available leave credits of an employee at the start of the school year. The Memorandum dated imposes a limitation not agreed upon by the parties nor stated in the CBA, so it must be struck down.

85.

Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Co., vs. Esteban, GR No. 192582, April 7, 2014, citing2011 Nina Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts Inc. vs. Montecillo

FACTS: The respondent was employed as a sales clerk and assigned at the petitioner‘s boutique. Her

primary tasks were attending to all customer needs, ensuring efficient inventory, coordinating orders from clients, cashiering and reporting to the accounting department. The petitioner learned that some of their

138 | P a g e employees had access to their POS system with the use of a universal password given to them by a certain Elmer Flores, who in turn learned of the password from the respondent. The petitioner then conducted an investigation and asked the petitioner to explain why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with. During the investigation the respondent was placed under preventive suspension. After investigation the petitioner terminated the respondent on the grounds of loss of trust or confidence. This respondent was given her final wage and benefits less the inventory variance incurred by the store. This urged the respondent to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, holiday pay, rest day and separation pay. The labor arbiter ruled in her favour awarding her backwages. The petitioner appealed the decision in the NLRC and the decision was reversed. However, upon the respondent‘s petition for certiorari in the court of appeals the decision was reinstated. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the negative sales variance could be validly deducted from the respondent‘s wage?

HELD:

No, it cannot be deducted in this case.

Article 113 of the Labor Code provides that no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except in cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, among others. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, meanwhile, provides:

SECTION 14. Deduction for loss or damage. — Where the employer is engaged in a trade, occupation or business where the practice of making deductions or requiring deposits is recognized to answer for the reimbursement of loss or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer to the employee, the employer may make wage deductions or require the employees to make deposits from which deductions shall be made, subject to the following conditions:

(a) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be responsible for the loss or damage; (b) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to show cause why deduction should not be made;

(c) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not exceed the actual loss or damage; and

(d) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does not exceed 20 percent of the employee's wages in a week.

In this case, the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that Esteban was responsible for the negative variance it had in its sales for the year 2005 to 2006 and that Esteban was given the opportunity to show cause the deduction from her last salary should not be made.

139 | P a g e [T]he petitioners should first establish that the making of deductions from the salaries is authorized by law, or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. Further, the posting of cash bonds should be proven as a recognized practice in the jewelry manufacturing business, or alternatively, the petitioners should seek for the determination by the Secretary of Labor through the issuance of appropriate rules and regulations that the policy the former seeks to implement is necessary or desirable in the conduct of business. The petitioners failed in this respect. It bears stressing that without proofs that requiring deposits and effecting deductions are recognized practices, or without securing the Secretary of Labor's determination of the necessity or desirability of the same, the imposition of new policies relative to deductions and deposits can be made subject to abuse by the employers. This is not what the law intends.

86.

Congson vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 114250; April 5, 1995

FACTS: Dominico C. Congson is the registered owner of Southern Fishing Industry. Respondents were

hired as piece-rate employees uniformly paid at a rate of P1.00 per tuna weighing thirty (30) to eighty (80) kilos per movement. They work for 7 days a week. Due to alleged scarcity of tuna, Congson notified his proposal to reduce the rate-per-tuna movement. When they reported the following day, they found out that they were already replaced with new set of workers. They wanted to have a dialogue with the management, but they waited in vain. Thus, they filed a case before NLRC for underpayment of wages (violation of the