eastern telecom vs eastern telecom employees union

Upload: abigail-dee

Post on 03-Jun-2018

233 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    1/25

    Republic of the Philippines

    Supreme Court

    Manila

    THIRD DIVISION

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    2/25

    EASTERN

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    PHILIPPINES, INC,

    Petitioner,

    - versus -

    EASTERN TELECOMS

    EMPLO!EES UNION,

    Respondent.

    "R No #$%&&%

    Present:

    VELASCO, JR.,J.,Chairperson,

    BERSAM!,

    ABA",

    ME!"O#A, and

    PERLAS-BER!ABE,JJ.

    Promul$ated:

    %e&ruar' (, )*+)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D E C I S I O N

    MENDOZA, J.:

    "esi$nated as additional mem&er in lieu o Asso/iate Justi/e "iosdado M. Peralta, per Rale

    dated Jul' +, )*+*.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    3/25

    Beore t0e Court is a petition or revie1 on /ertiorari see2in$ modii/ation

    o t0e June )3, )**( "e/ision+4+5 o t0e Court o Appeals (CA)and its "e/em&er

    +), )**( Resolution,)4)5 in CA-6.R. SP !o. 7+789, annullin$ t0e April )(, )**3

    Resolution45 o t0e !ational La&or Relations Commission (NLRC) in !LRC-

    !CR-CC-***)8-*9 entitled ;In the Matter of the Labor Dispute in Eastern

    Telecounications, !hilippines, Inc."

    The '(cts

    As s'nt0esi

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    4/25

    +pril 4. The company"s main ground in postponing the payment ofbonuses is due to allege continuing deterioration of company"s financialposition $hich started in the year . 0o$ever, ETPI $hile postponingpayment of bonuses sometime in +pril 4, such payment $ould also besub1ect to availability of funds.

    Invo#ing the *ide +greement of the existing 2ollective 3argaining+greement for the period %-4 bet$een ETPI and ETE! $hichstated as follo$s

    4. Employment Related Bonuses. The Company

    confirms that the 14th, 15th and 16thmonth bonuses otherthan 1!thmonth pay" are #ranted.$

    The union strongly opposed the deferment in payment of the bonuses byfiling a preventive mediation complaint $ith the 5263 on 7uly , ,the purpose of $hich complaint is to determine the date $hen the bonusshould be paid.

    In the conference held at the 5263, ETPI reiterated its stand thatpayment of the bonuses $ould only be made in +pril 4 to $hich dateof payment, the union agreed. Thus, considering the agreement forgedbet$een the parties, the said agreement $as reduced to a 6emorandum of+greement. The union re8uested that the President of the company shouldbe made a signatory to the agreement, ho$ever, the latter refused to sign.In addition to such a refusal, the company made a sudden turnaround inits position by declaring that they $ill no longer pay the bonuses until theissue is resolved through compulsory arbitration.

    The company"s change in position $as contained in a letter dated+pril %4, 4 $ritten to the union by 6r. *onny 7avier, 9ice-President for0uman :esources and +dministration, stating that ;the deferred releaseof bonuses had been superseded and voided due to the union"s filing of theissue to the 5263 on 7uly %bonuses" to any and all union members.=

    Thus, on +pril /, 4, ETE! filed a 5otice of *tri#e on the

    ground of unfair labor practice for failure of ETPI to pay the bonuses ingross violation of the economic provision of the existing 23+.

    ?n 6ay %@, 4, the *ecretary of Aabor and Employment, finding

    that the company is engaged in an industry considered vital to theeconomy and any $or# disruption thereat $ill adversely affect not only its

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    5/25

    operation but also that of the other business relying on its services,certified the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration pursuant to +rticle/ (8) of the Aabor 2ode as amended.

    +cting on the certified labor dispute, a hearing $as called on 7uly

    %/, 4 $herein the parties have submitted that the issues for resolutionare (%) unfair labor practice and () the grant of %4th, %thand %/thmonthbonuses for , and %4thmonth bonus for 4. Thereafter, they $eredirected to submit their respective position papers and evidence in supportthereof after $hich submission, they agreed to have the case consideredsubmitted for decision.4'4

    n its position paper,3435 t0e Eastern =ele/oms Emplo'ees >nion (ETE%)

    /laimed t0at Eastern =ele/ommuni/ations P0ilippines, n/. (ET!I)0ad /onsistentl'

    and voluntaril' &een $ivin$ out +9t0mont0 &onus durin$ t0e mont0 o April, and

    +3t0and +?t0mont0 &onuses ever' "e/em&er o ea/0 'ear (sub&ect bonuses)to its

    emplo'ees rom +783 to )**), even 10en it did not reali t0eori /ontended t0at t0e un@ustiied and mali/ious reusal o t0e /ompan'

    to pa' t0e su&@e/t &onuses 1as a /lear violation o t0e e/onomi/ provision o t0e

    9495d. at 8?-8(.

    3435d. at 979-3+9.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    6/25

    CBA and /onstitutes unair la&or pra/ti/e (%L!).A//ordin$ to E=E>, su/0 reusal

    1as not0in$ &ut a plo' to spite t0e union or &rin$in$ t0e matter o dela' in t0e

    pa'ment o t0e su&@e/t &onuses to t0e !ational Con/iliation and Mediation Board

    (NCM'). t pra'ed or t0e a1ard o moral and eemplar' dama$es as 1ell as

    attorne's ees or t0e unair la&or pra/ti/e alle$edl' /ommitted &' t0e /ompan'.

    On t0e ot0er 0and, E=P in its position paper,?4?5 uestioned t0e aut0orit' o

    t0e !LRC to ta2e /o$ni

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    7/25

    %urt0er, E=P ar$ued t0at t0e &onus provision in t0e )**+-)**9 CBA Side

    A$reement 1as a mere airmation t0at t0e distri&ution o &onuses 1as

    dis/retionar' to t0e /ompan', premised and /onditioned on t0e su//ess o t0e

    &usiness and availa&ilit' o /as0. t su&mitted t0at said &onus provision partoo2 o

    t0e nature o a ;one-time $rant 10i/0 t0e emplo'ees ma' demand onl' durin$ t0e

    'ear 10en t0e Side A$reement 1as ee/uted and 1as never intended to /over t0e

    entire term o t0e CBA. %inall', E=P emp0asi

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    8/25

    *? ?:DE:ED.&'&

    Respondent E=E> moved or re/onsideration &ut t0e motion 1as denied &'t0e !LRC in its Resolution dated Au$ust +, )**3.

    A$$rieved, E=E> iled a petition or /ertiorari(4(5 &eore t0e CA as/ri&in$

    $rave a&use o dis/retion on t0e !LRC or disre$ardin$ its eviden/e 10i/0

    alle$edl' 1ould prove t0at t0e su&@e/t &onuses 1ere part o t0e union mem&ers1a$es, salaries or /ompensations. n addition, E=E> asserted t0at t0e !LRC

    /ommitted $rave a&use o dis/retion 10en it ruled t0at E=P is not /ontra/tuall'

    &ound to $ive said &onuses to t0e union mem&ers.

    n its assailed June )3, )**( "e/ision, t0e CA de/lared t0at t0e Side

    A$reements o t0e +77( and )**+ CBA /reated a /ontra/tual o&li$ation on E=P to

    /oner t0e su&@e/t &onuses to its emplo'ees 1it0out ualii/ation or /ondition. t

    also ound t0at t0e $rant o said &onuses 0as alread' ripened into a /ompan'

    pra/ti/e and t0eir denial 1ould amount to diminution o t0e emplo'ees &eneits. t

    0eld t0at E=P /ould not see2 reu$e under Arti/le +)?8 o t0e Civil Code &e/ause

    t0is provision 1ould appl' onl' 10en t0e dii/ult' in ulillin$ t0e /ontra/tual

    o&li$ation 1as maniestl' &e'ond t0e /ontemplation o t0e parties, 10i/0 1as not

    t0e /ase t0erein. =0e CA, 0o1ever, sustained t0e !LRC indin$ t0at t0e alle$ation

    8485d. at 7*.

    (4(5d. at 93*-9(*.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    9/25

    o >LP 1as devoid o merit. =0e dispositive portion o t0e uestioned de/ision

    reads:

    B0E:EC?:E, premises considered, the instant petition is:+5TED and the resolution of the 5ational Aabor :elations2ommission dated +pril

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    10/25

    II

    THE COURT O' APPEALS COMMITTED "RAVE ERROR O' LA)

    )HEN IT DISRE"ARDED THE RULE THAT 'INDIN"S O' 'ACTS O'

    0UASI1UDICIAL -ODIES ARE ACCORDED 'INALIT! I' THE! ARE

    SUPPORTED -! SU-STANTIAL EVIDENCE CONSIDERIN" THAT

    THE CONCLUSIONS O' THE NLRC )ERE -ASED ON SU-STANTIAL

    AND OVER)HELMIN" EVIDENCE AND UNDISPUTED 'ACTS

    III

    IT )AS A "RAVE ERROR O' LA) 'OR THE COURT O' APPEALS TO

    CONSIDER THAT THE -ONUS "IVEN -! EASTERN

    COMMUNICATIONS TO ITS EMPLO!EES IS NOT DEPENDENT ON

    THE REALI2ATION O' PRO'ITS

    IV

    THE COURT O' APPEALS COMMITTED A "RAVE ERROR O' LA)

    )HEN IT DISRE"ARDED THE UNDISPUTED 'ACT THAT EASTERN

    COMMUNICATIONS IS SU''ERIN" 'ROM TREMENDOUS

    'INANCIAL LOSSES, AND ORDERED EASTERN COMMUNICATIONS

    TO "RANT THE -ONUSES RE"ARDLESS O' THE 'INANCIAL

    DISTRESS O' EASTERN COMMUNICATIONS

    V

    THE COURT O' APPEALS COMMITTED A "RAVE ERROR O' LA)

    )HEN IT ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE "RANT O'

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    11/25

    -ONUS "IVEN -! EASTERN COMMUNICATIONS TO ITS

    EMPLO!EES HAS RIPENED INTO A COMPAN! PRACTICE+*4+*5

    A /areul perusal o t0e voluminous pleadin$s iled &' t0e parties leads t0e

    Court to /on/lude t0at t0is /ase revolves around t0e ollo1in$ /ore issues:

    +. D0et0er or not petitioner E=P is lia&le to pa' +9 t0, +3t0and +?t0

    mont0 &onuses or t0e 'ear )** and +9 t0mont0 &onus or t0e 'ear)**9 to t0e mem&ers o respondent union and

    ). D0et0er or not t0e CA erred in not dismissin$ outri$0t E=E>s

    petition or /ertiorari.

    E=P insists t0at it is under no le$al /ompulsion to pa' +9t0, +3t0and +?t0

    mont0 &onuses or t0e 'ear )** and +9t0 mont0 &onus or t0e 'ear )**9

    /ontendin$ t0at t0e' are not part o t0e demanda&le 1a$e or salar' and t0at t0eir

    $rant is /onditional &ased on su//essul &usiness perorman/e and t0e availa&ilit'

    o /ompan' proits rom 10i/0 to sour/e t0e same. =o t01art E=E>s monetar'

    /laims, it insists t0at t0e distri&ution o t0e su&@e/t &onuses alls 1ell 1it0in t0e

    /ompan's prero$ative, &ein$ an a/t o pure $ratuit' and $enerosit' on its part.

    =0us, it /an 1it00old t0e $rant t0ereo espe/iall' sin/e it is /urrentl' pla$ued 1it0

    e/onomi/ dii/ulties and inan/ial losses. t alle$es t0at t0e /ompan's is/al

    situation $reatl' de/lined due to tremendous and etraordinar' losses it sustained

    &e$innin$ t0e 'ear )***. t /laims t0at it /annot &e /ompelled to a/t li&erall' and

    +*4+*5d. at 9.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    12/25

    /oner upon its emplo'ees additional &eneits over and a&ove t0ose mandated &'

    la1 10en it /annot aord to do so. t posits t0at so lon$ as t0e $ivin$ o &onuses

    1ill result in t0e inan/ial ruin o an alread' distressed /ompan', t0e emplo'er

    /annot &e or/ed to $rant t0e same.

    E=P urt0er avers t0at t0e a/t o $ivin$ t0e su&@e/t &onuses did not ripen

    into a /ompan' pra/ti/e ar$uin$ t0at it 0as al1a's &een a /ontin$ent one dependent

    on t0e reali

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    13/25

    t0at t0e CA /ourt s0ould 0ave rerained rom ta/2lin$ issues o a/t and, instead,

    limited itsel on issues o @urisdi/tion and $rave a&use o @urisdi/tion amountin$ to

    la/2 or e/ess o it.

    The Cou3t4s Rulin5

    As a $eneral rule, in petitions or revie1 under Rule 93, t0e Court, not &ein$

    a trier o a/ts, does not normall' em&ar2 on a re-eamination o t0e eviden/e

    presented &' t0e /ontendin$ parties durin$ t0e trial o t0e /ase /onsiderin$ t0at t0e

    indin$s o a/ts o t0e CA are /on/lusive and &indin$ on t0e Court. =0e rule,

    0o1ever, admits o several e/eptions, one o 10i/0 is 10en t0e indin$s o t0e

    appellate /ourt are /ontrar' to t0ose o t0e trial /ourt or t0e lo1er administrative

    &od', as t0e /ase ma' &e.++4++5 Considerin$ t0e in/on$ruent a/tual /on/lusions o

    t0e CA and t0e !LRC, t0is Court inds tsel o&li$ed to resolve it.

    =0e pivotal uestion determinative o t0is /ontrovers' is 10et0er t0e

    mem&ers o E=E> are entitled to t0e pa'ment o +9t0, +3t0and +?t0mont0 &onuses

    or t0e 'ear )** and +9t0mont0 &onus or 'ear )**9.

    Ater an assiduous assessment o t0e re/ord, t0e Court inds no merit in t0e

    petition.

    ++4++5Ne Cit 'uil*ers, Inc. #. National Labor Relations Coission, 977 P0il. )*8, )+)-)+

    F)**3G.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    14/25

    %rom a le$al point o vie1, a &onus is a $ratuit' or a/t o li&eralit' o t0e

    $iver 10i/0 t0e re/ipient 0as no ri$0t to demand as a matter o ri$0t. +)4+)5 =0e

    $rant o a &onus is &asi/all' a mana$ement prero$ative 10i/0 /annot &e or/ed

    upon t0e emplo'er 10o ma' not &e o&li$ed to assume t0e onerous &urden o

    $rantin$ &onuses or ot0er &eneits aside rom t0e emplo'ees &asi/ salaries or

    1a$es.+4+5

    A &onus, 0o1ever, &e/omes a demanda&le or enor/ea&le o&li$ation 10en it

    is made part o t0e 1a$e or salar' or /ompensation o t0e emplo'ee.+94+95

    Parti/ularl' instru/tive is t0e rulin$ o t0e Court in Metro Transit +rani$ation,

    Inc. #. National Labor Relations Coission,+34+35 10ere it 1as 1ritten:

    Bhether or not a bonus forms part of $ages depends upon thecircumstances and conditions for its payment. If it is additionalcompensation $hich the employer promised and agreed to give $ithoutany conditions imposed for its payment, such as success of business orgreater production or output, then it is part of the $age. 3ut if it is paidonly if profits are realiFed or if a certain level of productivity is achieved, itcannot be considered part of the $age. Bhere it is not payable to all but

    +)4+)5!hilippine National Construction Corp. #. National Labor Relations Coission, 93

    P0il. )9, + F+778G.

    +4+5Tra*er-s Roal 'an #. National Labor Relations Coission, 6.R. !o. ((+?(, Au$ust

    *, +77*, +(7 SCRA )89, )88.

    +9[14]!hilippine National Construction Corp. #. National Labor Relations Coission , ??P0il. ?8( F+777G!hilippine Duplicators, Inc. #. National Labor Relations Coission, ++ P0il.

    9*8, 9+7 F+773G.

    +34+35+3 P0il. (?*, (8+ F+773G.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    15/25

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    16/25

    A readin$ o t0e a&ove provision reveals t0at t0e same provides or t0e

    $ivin$ o +9t0, +3t0and +?t0mont0 &onuses ithout /ualification. =0e 1ordin$ o

    t0e provision does not allo1 an' ot0er interpretation. =0ere 1ere no /onditions

    spe/iied in t0e CBA Side A$reements or t0e $rant o t0e &eneits /ontrar' to t0e

    /laim o E=P t0at t0e same is @ustiied onl' 10en t0ere are proits earned &' t0e

    /ompan'. =erse and /lear, t0e said provision does not state t0at t0e su&@e/t &onuses

    s0all &e made to depend on t0e E=Ps inan/ial standin$ or t0at t0eir pa'ment 1as

    /ontin$ent upon t0e reali intended t0at t0e su&@e/t

    &onuses 1ould &e dependent on t0e /ompan' earnin$s, su/0 intention s0ould 0ave

    &een epressl' de/lared in t0e Side A$reements or t0e &onus provision s0ould 0ave

    &een deleted alto$et0er. n t0e a&sen/e o an' proo t0at E=Ps /onsent 1as

    vitiated &' raud, mista2e or duress, it is presumed t0at it entered into t0e Side

    A$reements voluntaril', t0at it 0ad ull 2no1led$e o t0e /ontents t0ereo and t0at

    it 1as a1are o its /ommitment under t0e /ontra/t. Veril', &' virtue o its

    in/orporation in t0e CBA Side A$reements, t0e $rant o +9t0, +3t0and +?t0mont0

    &onuses 0as &e/ome more t0an @ust an a/t o $enerosit' on t0e part o E=P &ut a

    /ontra/tual o&li$ation it 0as underta2en. Moreover, t0e /ontinuous /onerment o

    &onuses &' E=P to t0e union mem&ers rom +77( to )**) &' virtue o t0e Side

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    17/25

    A$reements evidentl' ne$ates its ar$ument t0at t0e $ivin$ o t0e su&@e/t &onuses is

    a mana$ement prero$ative.

    %rom t0e ore$oin$, E=P /annot insist on &usiness losses as a &asis or

    disre$ardin$ its underta2in$. t is maniestl' /lear t0at alt0ou$0 it in/urred

    &usiness losses o +97,*?(,*?.** in t0e 'ear )***, it /ontinued to distri&ute +9t0,

    +3t0and +?t0mont0 &onuses or said 'ear. !ot1it0standin$ su/0 0u$e losses, E=P

    entered into t0e )**+-)**9 CBA Side A$reement on Septem&er , )**+ 10ere&' it

    /ontra/ted to $rant t0e su&@e/t &onuses to E=E> in no un/ertain terms. E=P/ontinued to sustain losses or t0e su//eedin$ 'ears o )**+ and )**) in t0e

    amounts o 9(,8(,*+.** and +3,989,999.**, respe/tivel'. Still and all, t0is

    did not deter it rom 0onorin$ t0e &onus provision in t0e Side A$reement as it

    /ontinued to $ive t0e su&@e/t &onuses to ea/0 o t0e union mem&ers in )**+ and

    )**) despite its alle$ed pre/arious inan/ial /ondition. Parent0eti/all', it must &e

    emp0asi

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    18/25

    durin$ t0e 'ear t0e Side A$reement 1as si$ned. =0e Court uotes 1it0 approval

    t0e o&servation o t0e CA in t0is re$ard:

    ETPI argues that assuming the bonus provision in the *ide+greement of the %-4 23+ entitles the union members to thesub1ect bonuses, it is merely in the nature of a ;one-time= grant and notintended to cover the entire term of the 23+. The contention is untenable.The bonus provision in 8uestion is exactly the same as that contained inthe *ide +greement of the %@@ mem&ers under t0e Side A$reements, its /urrent inan/ial

    dii/ulties s0ould 0ave released it rom t0e o&li$ator' or/e o said /ontra/t

    invo2in$ Arti/le +)?8 o t0e Civil Code. Said provision de/lares:

    +rticle %/&. Bhen the service has become so difficult as to bemanifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may alsobe released therefrom, in $hole or in part.

    =0e Court is not persuaded.

    +(4+(5d. at +(.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    19/25

    =0e parties to t0e /ontra/t must &e presumed to 0ave assumed t0e ris2s o

    unavora&le developments. t is, t0ereore, onl' in a&solutel' e/eptional /0an$es

    o /ir/umstan/es t0at euit' demands assistan/e or t0e de&tor.+74+75 n t0e /ase at

    &en/0, t0e Court determines t0at E=Ps /laimed depressed inan/ial state 1ill not

    release it rom t0e &indin$ ee/t o t0e )**+-)**9 CBA Side A$reement.

    E=P appears to &e 1ell a1are o its deterioratin$ inan/ial /ondition 10en

    it entered into t0e )**+-)**9 CBA Side A$reement 1it0 E=E> and o&li$ed itsel

    to pa' &onuses to t0e mem&ers o E=E>. Considerin$ t0at E=P 0ad &een

    /ontinuousl' suerin$ 0u$e losses rom )*** to )**), its &usiness losses in t0e

    'ear )** 1ere not ea/tl' unoreseen or unepe/ted. Conseuentl', it /annot &e

    said t0at t0e dii/ult' in /ompl'in$ 1it0 its o&li$ation under t0e Side A$reement

    1as ;maniestl' &e'ond t0e /ontemplation o t0e parties. Besides, as 0eld in

    Central 'an of the !hilippines #. Court of Appeals,)*4)*5 mere pe/uniar' ina&ilit'

    to ulill an en$a$ement does not dis/0ar$e a /ontra/tual o&li$ation. Contra/ts,

    on/e pere/ted, are &indin$ &et1een t0e /ontra/tin$ parties. O&li$ations arisin$

    t0ererom 0ave t0e or/e o la1 and s0ould &e /omplied 1it0 in $ood ait0. E=P

    /annot rene$e rom t0e o&li$ation it 0as reel' assumed 10en it si$ned t0e )**+-

    )**9 CBA Side A$reement.

    +74+750o #. 1oo* 1est Lan*, Inc., 6.R. !o. +(?)(, April 8, )*+*, ?+8 SCRA 39+, 33*.

    )*4)*5)) P0il. )??, )89 F+7(3G.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    20/25

    6rantin$ aruen*ot0at t0e CBA Side A$reement does not /ontra/tuall' &ind

    petitioner E=P to $ive t0e su&@e/t &onuses, nevert0eless, t0e Court inds t0at its

    a/t o $rantin$ t0e same 0as &e/ome an esta&lis0ed /ompan' pra/ti/e su/0 t0at it

    0as virtuall' &e/ome part o t0e emplo'ees salar' or 1a$e. A &onus ma' &e

    $ranted on euita&le /onsideration 10en t0e $ivin$ o su/0 &onus 0as &een t0e

    /ompan's lon$ and re$ular pra/ti/e. n!hilippine Appliance Corporation #. Court

    of Appeals,)+4)+5it 1as pronoun/ed:

    To be considered a ;regular practice,= ho$ever, the giving of the

    bonus should have been done over a long period of time, and must besho$n to have been consistent and deliberate. The test or rationale of thisrule on long practice re8uires an indubitable sho$ing that the employeragreed to continue giving the benefits #no$ing fully $ell that saidemployees are not covered by the la$ re8uiring payment thereof.

    =0e re/ords s0o1 t0at E=P, aside rom /ompl'in$ 1it0 t0e re$ular +t0

    mont0 &onus, 0as &een urt0er $ivin$ its emplo'ees +9t0

    mont0 &onus ever' Aprilas 1ell as +3t0and +?t0mont0 &onuses ever' "e/em&er o t0e 'ear, 1it0out ail,

    rom +783 to )**) or or )8 'ears 10et0er it earned proits or not. =0e

    /onsidera&le len$t0 o time E=P 0as &een $ivin$ t0e spe/ial $rants to its

    emplo'ees indi/ates a unilateral and voluntar' a/t on its part to /ontinue $ivin$

    said &eneits 2no1in$ t0at su/0 a/t 1as not reuired &' la1. A//ordin$l', a

    /ompan' pra/ti/e in avor o t0e emplo'ees 0as &een esta&lis0ed and t0e pa'ments

    made &' E=P pursuant t0ereto ripened into &eneits en@o'ed &' t0e emplo'ees.

    )+4)+56.R. !o. +9799, June , )**9, 9* SCRA 3)3, 3).

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    21/25

    =0e $ivin$ o t0e su&@e/t &onuses /annot &e peremptoril' 1it0dra1n &'

    E=P 1it0out violatin$ Arti/le +** o t0e La&or Code:

    +rt. %. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits.G 5othing in this 3oo# shall be construed to eliminate or in any $aydiminish supplements, or other employee benefits being en1oyed at thetime of promulgation of this 2ode.

    =0e rule is settled t0at an' &eneit and supplement &ein$ en@o'ed &' t0e

    emplo'ees /annot &e redu/ed, diminis0ed, dis/ontinued or eliminated &' t0e

    emplo'er. =0e prin/iple o non-diminution o &eneits is ounded on t0e

    /onstitutional mandate to prote/t t0e ri$0ts o 1or2ers and to promote t0eir 1elare

    and to aord la&or ull prote/tion.))4))5

    nterestin$l', E=P never presented /ountervailin$ eviden/e to reute

    E=E>s /laim t0at t0e /ompan' 0as &een /ontinuousl' pa'in$ &onuses sin/e +783

    up to )**) re$ardless o its inan/ial state. ts ailure to /ontrovert t0e alle$ation,

    10en it 0ad t0e opportunit' and resour/es to do so, 1or2s in avor o E=E>. =ime

    and a$ain, it 0as &een 0eld t0at s0ould dou&ts eist &et1een t0e eviden/e presented

    &' t0e emplo'er and t0e emplo'ee, t0e s/ales o @usti/e must &e tilted in avor o

    t0e latter.)4)5

    ))4))5Arco Metal !ro*ucts Co., Inc. #. 0aahan N Ma Manaaa 0a Arco Metal2NA1L%,

    6.R. !o. +8*89, Ma' +9, )**(, 339 SCRA ++*, ++(.

    )4)53u2iro #. A*orable,6.R. !o. +?*73),9(* P0il. 378, ?*3 F)**9G.

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    22/25

    )HERE'ORE, t0e petition is DENIED. =0e June )3, )**( "e/ision o

    t0e Court o Appeals and its "e/em&er +), )**( Resolution are A''IRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    OSE CATRAL MENDO2A

    Asso/iate Justi/e

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    23/25

    DE CO!C>R:

    PRES-ITERO VELASCO, R

    Asso/iate Justi/e

    C0airperson

    LUCAS P -ERSAMIN RO-ERTO A A-AD

    Asso/iate Justi/e Asso/iate Justi/e

    ESTELA M PERLAS1-ERNA-E

    Asso/iate Justi/e

    A T T E S T A T I O N

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    24/25

    attest t0at t0e /on/lusions in t0e a&ove "e/ision 0ad &een rea/0ed in

    /onsultation &eore t0e /ase 1as assi$ned to t0e 1riter o t0e opinion o t0e Courts

    "ivision.

    PRES-ITERO VELASCO, R

    Asso/iate Justi/e

    C0airperson, =0ird "ivision

    C E R T I ' I C A T I O N

    Pursuant to Se/tion +, Arti/le V o t0e Constitution and t0e "ivision

    C0airpersons Attestation, /erti' t0at t0e /on/lusions in t0e a&ove "e/ision 0ad

    &een rea/0ed in /onsultation &eore t0e /ase 1as assi$ned to t0e 1riter o t0e

    opinion o t0e Courts "ivision.

    RENATO C CORONA

    C0ie Justi/e

  • 8/12/2019 Eastern Telecom vs Eastern Telecom Employees Union

    25/25