Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83314:57307&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:32:28+00:00

Document:
BENSON INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP AND/OR VILMA GENON, EDISA HORTELANO, LOURDES ARANAS, TONY FORMENTERA, RENEBOY LEYSON, MA. ALONA ACALDO, MA. CONCEPCION ABAO, TERESITA CALINAWAN, NICIFORO CABANSAG, STELLA BARONGO, MARILYN POTOT, WELMER ABANID, LORENZO ALIA, LINO PARADERO, DIOSDADO ANDALES, LUCENA ABESIA, AND ARMANDO YBAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. BENSON INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated September 27, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated January 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03842 which reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated October 24, 2008 of the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), and accordingly deleted the award to petitioners Vilma Genon, Edisa Hortelano, Lourdes Aranas, Tony Formentera, Reneboy Leyson, Ma. Alona Acaldo, Ma. Concepcion Abao, Teresita Calinawan, Niciforo Cabansag, Stella Barongo, Marilyn Potot, Welmer Abanid, Lorenzo Alia, Lino Paradero, Diosdado Andales, Lucena Abesia, and Armando Ybañez (petitioners) of additional separation pay equivalent to four (4) days of work for every year of service.
Dissatisfied, Benson elevated the matter on appeal before the CA.
Aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution18 dated January 31, 2012, hence, this petition.
The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly deleted the award to petitioners of additional separation benefits equivalent to four (4) days of work for every year of service.
Benson even admits in its Comment that it was already saddled with loan from banks as early as 199731 and that it had been unable to service its loan obligations.32 And yet, nothing appears on record to discount the fact that it still unqualifiedly and freely agreed to the separation pay provision in the July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 CBA, its distressed financial condition notwithstanding.
It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. This principle stands strong and true in the case at bar.
A reading of the provision of the CBA reveals that the same provides for the giving of a “Christmas gift package/bonus” without qualification. Terse and clear, the said provision did not state that the Christmas package shall be made to depend on the petitioner’s financial standing. The records are also bereft of any showing that the petitioner made it clear during the CBA negotiations that the bonus was dependent on any condition. Indeed, if the petitioner and respondent Association intended that the P3,000.00 bonus would be dependent on the company earnings, such intention should have been expressed in the CBA.
From the foregoing, petitioner cannot insist on business losses as a basis for disregarding its undertaking. It is manifestly clear that petitioner was very much aware of the imminence and possibility of business losses owing to the 1997 financial crisis. In 1998, petitioner suffered a net loss of P14,347,548.00. Yet it gave a P3,000.00 bonus to the members of the Association. In 1999, when petitioner’s very own financial statement reflected that “the positive developments in the economy have yet to favorably affect the operations of the company,” and reported a loss of P346,025,733.00, it entered into the CBA with the respondent Association whereby it contracted to grant a Christmas gift package/bonus to the latter. Petitioner supposedly continued to incur losses on the years 2000 and 2001. Still and all, this did not deter it from honoring the CBA provision on Christmas bonus as it continued to give P3,000.00 each to the members of the respondent Association in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
All given, business losses are a feeble ground for petitioner to repudiate its obligation under the CBA. The rule is settled that any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection.
The parties to the contract must be presumed to have assumed the risks of unfavorable developments. It is, therefore, only in absolutely exceptional changes of circumstances that equity demands assistance for the debtor. In the case at bench, the Court determines that ETPI’s claimed depressed financial state will not release it from the binding effect of the 2001-2004 CBA Side Agreement.
To quell any doubts, it bears pointing out that the CA’s reliance on Galaxie Steel Workers Union (GSWU-NAFLU-KMU) v. NLRC38 and Cama v. Joni’s Food Services, Inc.39 was actually misplaced since no CBA was involved in those cases. As such, consistent with the parameters of Article 297 of the Labor Code as above-discussed, the payment of separation benefits in view of the employer’s serious business losses in those cases was not in order. In the same light, North Davao Mining Corporation v. NLRC40 was speciously applied by the CA given that the payment of separation benefits in that case was not sourced from a contractual CBA obligation but merely from a unilateral company practice which was deemed as an act of generosity on the part of the employer. It was in this context that the Court held that “to require [the company] to continue being generous when it is no longer in a position to do so would certainly be unduly oppressive, unfair and most revolting to the conscience.”41 The factual dissimilarity of these cases to Benson and petitioners’ situation therefore precludes the application of the same ruling.
Accordingly, finding no cogent reason for Benson not to comply with its obligations under the July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 CBA, and considering further that the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor should be interpreted in favor of labor,42 the Court hereby reverses the CA Decision and reinstates the October 24, 2008 VA Decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2011 and the Resolution dated January 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03842 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated October 24, 2008 of the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board is REINSTATED.
2 Id. at 31-39. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
4 Id. at 253-260. Penned by Voluntary Arbitrator Manuel P. Legaspi.
6 See id. at 43-44.
7 See id. at 33 and 52.
9 See id. at 44.
11 See id. at 254-255.
15 See id. at 255-260.
17 See id. at 35-38.
19 See Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. Employees Union – Olalia, G.R. No. 173154 and G.R. No. 173229, December 9, 2013; citations omitted.
21 469 Phil. 223 (2004).
24Prisma Construction & Development Corporation v. Menchavez, G.R. No. 160545, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 590, 597.
26Supreme Steel Corporation v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Ng Supreme Independent Union (NMS-IND-APL), G.R. No. 185556, March 28, 2011, 646 SCRA 501, 521.
27 G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 186.
34 G.R. No. 180866, March 2, 2010, 614 SCRA 63.
36 G.R. No. 185665, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 516.
38 535 Phil. 675 (2006).
40 G.R. No. 112546, March 13, 1996, 254 SCRA 721.
42 LABOR CODE, Article 4.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.