RICARDO E. VERGARA, JR., petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 176985 | April 1, 2013
TOPIC:
Nondimunition of Benefits
FACTS:
Petitioner Ricardo E. Vergara, Jr. was an
employee of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. from May 1968 until
he retired on January 31, 2002 as a District Sales Supervisor for Las Pinas
City, Metro Manila. As stipulated in respondent’s existing Retirement Plan
Rules and Regulations at the time, the Annual Performance Incentive Pay of a
DSS shall be considered in the computation of retirement benefits.
Claiming his entitlement to an additional
P474,600.00 as Sales Management Incentives and to the amount of P496,016.67
which respondent allegedly deducted illegally, representing the unpaid accounts
of 2 dealers within his jurisdiction, petitioner filed a complaint before the
NLRC for the payment of his “Full Retirement Benefits, Merit Increase,
Commission/Incentives, Length of Service, Actual, Moral and Exemplary Damages,
and Attorney’s Fees.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SMI should be included
in the computation of petitioner’s retirement benefits on the ground of
consistent company practice
RULING:
Generally, employees have a vested right
over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer. Thus, any
benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer. The principle of
non-dimunition of benefits is actually founded on the Constitutional mandate to
protect the rights of workers, to promote their welfare, and to afford them
full protection.
There is diminution of benefits when the
following requisites are present: (1) the grant or benefit is founded on a
policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time; (2) the practice
is consistent and deliberate; (3) the practice is not due to error in the
construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law; and (4)
the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.
To be considered as a regular company
practice, the employee must prove by substantial evidence that the giving of
the benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has been made
consistently and deliberately. Jurisprudence has not laid down any
hard-and-fast rule as to the length of time that company practice should have
been exercised in order to constitute voluntary employer practice. The common
denominator in previously decided cases appears to be the regularity and
deliberateness of the gran of benefits over a significant period of time. It
requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the
benefit knowing fully well that the employees are not covered by any provision
of the law or agreement requiring payment thereof. In sum, the benefit must be
characterized by regularity, voluntary and deliberate intent of the employer to
grant the benefit over a considerable period of time.
Comments
Post a Comment