G.R. No. 60337. August 21, 1987
UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS (A DIVISION OF UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOSE ARMAS, ENGRACIO ASIS, AUSTERINAO, ELEUTERI…
SARMIENTO, J.:
The petitioner invokes National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v.
Ovejera,[1]in which we held that Presidential Decree No.
851,[2] the 13th-month pay law, does not cover
employers already paying their employees an “equivalent” to the 13th
month pay.
There is no dispute as to
the facts.
Sometime in May, 1972,
the petitioner and the Universal Corn Products Workers Union entered into a
collective bargaining agreement in which it was provided, among other things,
that:
xxx xxx xxx
The COMPANY agrees to grant all regular workers within the bargaining
unit, with at least one (1) year of continuous service, a Christmas bonus
equivalent to their regular wages for seven (7) working days, effective
December, 1972. The bonus shall be given
to the workers on the second week of December.
In the event that the
service of a worker is not continuous due to factory shutdown, machine
breakdown or prolonged absences or leaves, the Christmas bonus shall be
prorated in accordance with the length of services that worker concerned has
served during the year.[3]
xxx xxx xxx
The agreement had a
duration of three years, effective June 1, 1971, or until June 1, 1974.
On account however of
differences between the parties with respect to certain economic issues the
collective bargaining agreement in question expired without being
renewed. On June 1, 1979, the parties
entered into an “addendum” stipulating certian wage increases
covering the years from 1974 to 1977.
Simultaneously, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement for
the years from 1979 to 1981. Like the
“addendum,” the new collective bargaining agreement did not refer to
the “Christmas bonus” theretofore paid but dealt only with salary
adjustments. According to the
petitioner, the new agreements deliberately excluded the grant of Christmas
bonus with the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 851[4]
on December 16, 1975. It further claims that since 1975, it had
been paying its employees 13th-month pay pursuant to the Decree.[5]
For failure of the
petitioner to pay the seven-day Christmas bonus for 1975 to 1978 inclusive, in
accordance with the 1972 CBA, the union went to the labor arbiter for
relief. In his decision,[6] the labor arbiter ruled that the payment of
the 13th-month pay precluded the payment of further Christmas bonus. The union appealed to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC
set aside the decision of the labor arbiter appealed from and entered another
one, “directing respondent company [now the petitioner] to pay the members
concerned of complainants [sic] union their 7-day wage bonus in accordance
with the 1972 CBA from 1975 to 1978.” Justifying its reversal of the arbiter’s decision, the NLRC held:
xxx xxx xxx
It is clear that the company implemented the aforequoted provision
of the CBA in 1972, 1973 and 1974. In
view thereof it is our considered opinion that the crediting of said benefit to
the 13th month pay cannot be sanctioned on the ground that it is contrary to
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No.
851, which provides, to wit:
“Section 10. Prohibition
against reduction or elimination of benefits.- Nothing herein shall be
construed to authorize any employer to eliminate, or diminish in any way,
supplements, or other employee benefits or favorable practice being enjoyed by
the employee at the time of promulgation of this issuance.”
More so because the benefit involved was not magnanimously extended
by the company to its employees but was obtained by the latter thru bargaining
negotiations. The aforementioned CBA was
the law between the parties and the provisions thereof must be faithfully
observed by them during its effectivity. In this connection, it should be noted that
the same parties entered into another 3-year CBA on June 11, 1979, which no
longer provides for a 7-day wage Christmas bonus. In effect, therefore, the parties agreed to
discontinue the privilege, which agreement should also be respected.[7]
xxx xxx xxx
We hold that in the case
at bar, Ovejera (La Carlota) case does not apply.
We apply instead, United
CMC Textile Workers Union v. Valenzula,[8] a recent decision. In that case this Court, speaking
through Mr. Justice Edgardo Paras, held:
xxx xxx xxx
x x x If the Christmas bonus was included
in the 13th month pay, then there would be no need for having a specific provision
on Christmas bonus in the CBA. But it
did not provide for a bonus in
graduated amounts depending on the length of service of the employee. The intention is clear therefore that the
bonus provided in the CBA was meant to be
in addition to the legal requirement. Moreover, why exclude the payment of the 1978
Christmas bonus and pay only the 1979-1980 bonus. The classification of the company’s workers
in the CBA according to their years of service supports the allegation that the
reason for the payment of bonus was to give bigger award to the senior
employees – a purpose which is not found by P.D. 851. A bonus under the CBA is an obligation
created by the contract between the management and workers while the 13th month
pay is mandated by the law (P.D. 851).[9]
xxx xxx xxx
In the same vein, we
consider the seven-day bonus here demanded “to be in addition to the legal
requirement.” Although unlike the Valenzuela CBA, which took effect
after the promulgation of Presidential Decree
No. 851 in 1975, the subject agreement was entered into as early as 1972, that
is no bar to our application of Valenzuela. What is significant for us is the
fact that, like the Valenzuela agreement, the Christmas bonus provided in the collective bargaining agreement
accords a reward, in this case, for loyalty, to certain employees. This is evident from the stipulation granting
the bonus in question to workers “with at least one (1) year of
continuous service.” As we said in Valenzuela, this is “a purpose not found in P.D.
851.”[10]
It is claimed, however,
that as a consequence of the impasse between the parties beginning 1974 through
1979, no collective bargaining agreement was in force during those intervening
years. Hence, there is allegedly no basis
for the money award granted by the respondent labor body. But it is not disputed that under the 1972
collective bargaining agreement, “[I]f no agreement and negotiations are
continued, all the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force up to
the time a new agreement is executed.”[11] The fact, therefore, that the new agreements
are silent on the seven-day bonus demanded should not preclude the private
respondents’ claims thereon. The 1972
agreement is basis enough for such claims for the whole writing is
“‘instinct with an obligation,’ imperfectly expressed. “[12]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DISMISSED. The Decision of the public
respondent NLRC promulgated on February 11, 1982, and its Resolution dated
March 23, 1982, are hereby AFFIRMED. The
temporary restraining order issued on May 19, 1982 is LIFTED.
This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Paras, and
Padilla, JJ., concur.
Melencio- Herrera, J., on
leave.
[1]
No. L-59743, May 31, 1982, 114 SCRA 354
(1982), per Plana, J.
[2] As amended by Memo. Order No. 28 (1986).
[3] Rollo, 6, 22.
[4]
Id., 7.
[5]
Id., 98, also, 12.
[6]
Id., 11-15.
[7]
Id., 23.
[8]
G.R. No. 70763, April 30, 1987.
[9]
At 7.
[10]
Supra.
[11]
Rollo, id., 73, 92.
[12]
Justice Cardozo, Wood v. Duff-Gordon, 222 Wy. 88, 118 NE 214 (1917), citing Scott, J., in McCall v.
Wright, 133 App. Div. 62, 117 N.Y. Supp. 775; Moran v. Standard-Dil Co.,
211 N.Y. 187, 198, 105 N.E. 217), and quoted by Chief Justice Fernando in his
opinion concurring with
qualifications on the questions of the legality of the strike and dissenting on
the interpretation to be accorded Presidential Decree No. 851 on the
thirteenth-month additional pay,
in National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Ovejera, supra, 372,
378.