SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 218010, February 06, 2023 ]
FERNAND O. MATERNAL, RAYMUNDO VINOYA, ERWIN S. CONSTANTINO, EDILBERTO F. CARZON, LOURDES V. ALIBUDBUD, GLORIA BATHAN, DIOSCORO MARLA, FELICISIMO ARTICONA, JOSEPH E. CALINGASIN, LORETA D. APARATO, CORAZON ORIENDA, DANNY BALUNES, JOY OCADO, RONNIE PALENTINOS, REYNANTE C. BASINANG, RAMIL DURAN, VICTORINO O. ATIENZA, JR., ALLAN B. MIOLE, WLLBERT BANAYO, CHRISTIAN CANTOS, ARNALDO P. BATIS, REYNALDO R. ORIEL, WILFREDO A. DE LEON, WILFREDO S. MORALEDA, EDWARD R. REGOCERA, CHRISTOPHER CARULLO, ANDY BAROŅA,* RENATO PAG-ONG,* RICHARD E. RIŅON,* REYNALDO H. ARLATA, JR., TEODORICO F. FORTUNO, PETER M. POCOY, JULIANA G. DOMINE, CHRISTIAN C. MANUBAG, VIVIAN M. CAPARAS, MARK ZUŅIGA, WARLINITO GUNO, EDUEL AGUILA, ROGELIO BONGATO, ART NABATILAN, JUAN ENTENA, JR., GILBERT GASAPOS, NICANOR* BORROMEO, CHRIS MANIQUIS, ALFRED DE GUZMAN, RICO D. PAZ, JOSELITO M. PAGCALIWAGAN,* CRIS* R. SAN PEDRO, LARRY B. TABURA, EMILIO T. GENADA, EDZEL C. NOBLE, HELEN T. ERASGA, MENCHITO B. RECARO, ARIEL T. RONCESVALLES, MAURO M. VILLADIEGO, MANUEL A. CANTILLAN, LIBRADO L. LANDICHO, FERDINAND SANTIAGO, ERIBERTO P. PALENCIA, ARIEL C. LUMIO, ARNEL D. ALCANTARA, CRISPULO DEL MUNDO, CASTOR B. ISIANG, ELVIN G. PACUMO,* MAXIMO M. TUIZA, JOSE U. VILLAPANDO, ELMO L. CAMALIG, ROMMEL TORRENTE, NATHANIEL A. HERNANDEZ, LEO A. SIOSON, JUANITO D. BEATO, MARVIN M. RODAS, TRISTAN HERNANDEZ, RANDY B. MEDIANERO, RAFAEL CEAZAR C. VARGAS, ANDREW SARMIENTO, GLEN A. AZUELO, RODERICK PEREZ, DEXTER CORACHEA, ROLAN BALO, RUBEN LAZO, DENNIS EUGENIO, ELMER GUIBAO, ADELO VERGARA, MONICO MARASIGAN, HENRY B. LOPEZ, MARIANO G. AGUILAR, JR., AUGUST B. BUENAVENTURA, HENRY N. SUMAGUE, EDWIN R. CELZO, PRUDENCIO J. ZURBITO, JR., MARLON L. GAMILLA, JOHNNY* A. MAJERANO, LEVIE B. ARGON, DIONISIO R. MABALOT, GLIENDON I. GARCIA, REGINO P. BATERISNA, ELVIN A. MANE AND RANDY M. QUERUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (NOW KNOWN AS COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILS., INC.), RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 248662
FERNAND O. MATERNAL, RAYMUNDO VINOYA, ERWIN S. CONSTANTINO, EDILBERTO F. CARZON, LOURDES V. ALIBUDBUD, GLORIA BATHAN, DIOSCORO MARLA, FELICISIMO ARTICONA, JOSEPH E. CALINGASIN, LORETA D. APARATO, CORAZON ORIENDA, WILFREDO S. MORALEDA, EDWARD R. REGOCERA, CHRISTOPHER CARULLO, ANDY BARONA, RENATO PAGONG, RICHARD E. RIŅON, REYNALDO H. ARLATA, JR., TEODORICO F. FORTUNO, PETER M. POCOY, JULIANA G. DOMINE, CHRISTIAN C. MANUBAG, VIVIAN M. CAPARAS, MARK ZUŅIGA, WARLINITO GUNO, EDUEL AGUILA, ROGELIO BONGATO, ART NABATILAN, JUAN ENTENA, JR., GILBERT GASAPOS, NICANOR BORROMEO, CHRIS MANIQUIS, ALFRED DE GUZMAN, RICO D. PAZ, JOSELITO M. PAGCALIWAGAN, CRIS R. SAN PEDRO, LARRY B. TABURA, EMILIO T. GENADA, EDZEL C. NOBLE, HELEN T. ERASGA, MENCHITO B. RECARO, ARIEL T. RONCESVALLES, MAURO M. VILLADIEGO, MANUEL A. CANTILLAN, LIBRADO L. LANDICHO, FERDINAND SANTIAGO, ERIBERTO P. PALENCIA, ARIEL C. LUMIO, ARNEL D. ALCANTARA, CRISPULO DEL MUNDO, CASTOR B. ISIANG, ELVIN G. PACUMO, MAXIMO M. TUIZA, JOSE U. VILLAPANDO,* ELMO L. CAMALIG, ROMMEL TORRENTE, NATHANIEL A. HERNANDEZ, LEO A. SIOSON, JUANITO D. BEATO, MARVIN M. RODAS, TRISTAN HERNANDEZ, RAFAEL CEAZAR C. VARGAS, ANDREW SARMIENTO, GLEN A. AZUELO, RODERICK PEREZ, DEXTER CORACHEA, ROLAN BALO, RUBEN LAZO, DENNIS EUGENIO, ELMER GUIBAO, ADELO VERGARA, MONICO MARASIGAN, HENRY B. LOPEZ, MARIANO G. AGUILAR, JR., AUGUST B. BUENAVENTURA, HENRY N. SUMAGUE, EDWIN R. CELZO, PETITIONERS, VS. COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI) FORMERLY KNOWN AS COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCFPI), RESPONDENT.
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I humbly beg the indulge1ice of my esteemed colleague but I must dissent from his ponencia, which found that an annual bonus regularly received by the employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. for at least seven years had not ripened into a company practice.
A bonus is an act of generosity from an employer that aims to recognize the employees' contribution to the realization of profits or to encourage them to perform better. The grant of a bonus is a management prerogative and is not demandable, unless it has become part of the employee's wage or compensation.1 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission2 instructs when a bonus is considered part of an employee's wage and when it is not:
Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the circumstances and conditions for its payment. If it is additional compensation which the employer promised and agreed lo give without any conditions imposed for its payment, such as success of business or greater production or output, then it is part of the wage. But if it paid only if profits are realized or if a certain level of productivity is achieved, it cannot be considered part of the wage. Where it is not payable to all but only to some employees and only when their labor becomes more efficient or more productive, it is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize therefore, not a part of the wage.3 (Emphasis in the original)
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor Relations Commission4 then explains that "to be considered a company practice, the giving of the benefits should have been done over a long period of time, and must have been shown to have been consistent and deliberate."5
There is no hard-and-fast rule as regards the length of time needed for an act to constitute a company practice. Instead, what needs to be proven with substantial evidence is that the employer granted benefits over a significant period of time and that this was done with regularity and deliberateness.6
The facts are not disputed. Petitioners, as respondent's employees, received annual bonuses, which were released either mid-year or end of the year in 1997 and in 2001 to 2007. The details of the bonuses received are as follows:7
| DATE |
BONUS |
AMOUNT |
RECIPIENT |
| November 26, 1997 |
One-Time Grant |
For monthly-paid, non-commission earning [personnel]: 80% of the basic salary rate; For Sales Office in Charge: 80% of the basic salary rate; For monthly-paid commission earning personnel: 80% of basic salary rate plus 80% of average monthly sales commission for the past 12 months immediately preceding month of the grant of incentive; For daily paid personnel: 80% of resulting monthly rate after conversion of daily rate. |
Non-Commission and Commission-Earning Monthly and Daily Paid Personnel of CCBPI |
| July 13, 2001 |
One-Time Economic Assistance |
One half (1/2) of the basic salary or [PHP] 40,000.00, whichever is lower. |
All Regular CCBPI Employees except Officers and those holding the position of Asst. Vice Pres. & above. |
| June 2, 2002 |
One-Time Economic Assistance |
Seventy-five (50%) [sic] of basic salary or [PHP] 40,000.00 whichever is lower. |
All Employees/Personnel of CCBPI whether Commission or Non-Commission Based. |
| November 5, 2002 |
One-Time Gift |
Seventy-five (75%) of basic salary |
All Employees/ Personnel of CCBPI whether Commission or Non-Commission. |
| June 27, 2003 |
One-Time Economic Assistance |
Fifty Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 50,000) or 50% of basic salary, whichever is lower . |
All Regular CCBPI Employees except Officers and those holding the position of Asst. Vice Pres. & above. |
| June 25, 2004 |
One-Time Economic Assistance |
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) or one-half of the basic salary, whichever is lower. |
All Philippine-based Regular Employees of San Miguel Group of Companies which then included CCBPI. |
| December 2, 2004 |
One-Time Gift |
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) worth of SMC Gift Certificates and Cash amounting to seventy-five percent (75%) of basic pay |
All Philippine-based Regular Employees of San Miguel Group of Companies which then included CCBPI. |
| December 2, 2005 |
One-Time Christmas Gift |
Seven Thousand Pesos (P7,000.00) worth of SMC Gift Certificates and Cash amounting to fifty percent (50%) of basic pay or Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), whichever is smaller. |
All Philippine-based Regular Employees of San Miguel Group of Companies which then included CCBPI. |
| November 17, 2006 |
One-Time Gift |
Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) worth of SMC Gift Certificates and Cash amounting to fifty percent (50%) of basic pay. |
All Philippine-based Regular Employees of San Miguel Group of Companies which then included CCBPI. |
| December 7, 2007 |
One-Time Transition Bonus |
One Month pro-rated base pay. |
All CCBPI Associates who were regular in status as of regular employee. |
In 2007, respondent announced that beginning 2008, all bonuses, save for the 13th month pay, would be based on individual performance and/or department performance. However, respondent failed to release any performance-based bonus or incentives in 2008 and 2009, prompting petitioner employees to file a claim for payment of the annual bonus.8
On April 18, 2011, the labor arbiter9 found that the annual bonus had ripened into a company practice and awarded petitioners a yearly bonus equivalent to their monthly pay. The dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, CCBPI is ORDERED to pay each of the complainants their yearly bonuses from 2008 to 2010, each yearly bonus equivalent to their respective monthly pay multiplied by three or the number of years it remained unpaid, thus:
....
This Office also DIRECTS CCBPI to pay complainants attorney's tees equivalent to 10% percent or the monetary award in the amount of P469,245.10.
It is understood that legal interest shall run until this decision becomes final and executory.
The complaints of DANNY BALUNES JOY OCADO, RONNIE PALENTINOS, REYNANTE C. BASINANG, RAMIL DURAN, VICTORINO O. A[TIENZA]. JR., ALLAN B. MOLE, WILBERT BANAYO, CHRISTIAN CANTOS, and [AR]NALDO P. BATIS are dismissed for failure to substantiate the same.
SO ORDERED.10
Both parties partially appealed the labor arbiter's Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission, but their appeals were dismissed.11 The dispositive portion of the National Labor Relations Commission's February 29, 2012 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING both appeals for lack or merit. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 18, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.12
Upon respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, the National Labor Relations Commission modified13 its earlier Decision and changed the amount of the annual bonus to two-thirds of the basic monthly pay. The dispositive portion of its July 25, 2012 Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is modified in that the amount of yearly bonus from 2008 to 2010, be equivalent to 2/3 of basic monthly pay.
SO ORDERED.14
Alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the labor tribunals, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
On August 19, 2014, the Court of Appeals15 granted the Petition and reversed the labor tribunals. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, We GRANT the instant Petition for Certiorari and DECLARE as VOID the Decision dated February 29, 2012 and Resolution dated July 28, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (Sixth Division) in NLRC LAC Case No. 07-001838-11/NLRC Case No.1aшphi1 SRAB IV-09-5179-10-L, NLRC Case No. SRAB IV-09-5186-10-L.
SO ORDERED.16
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision but their motion was denied on March 17, 2015.17 The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, We DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack or merit.
SO ORDERED.18
The ponencia upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals, but I believe that the appellate court erred in reversing the labor tribunals. Contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the facts substantially show that the annual bonus had already ripened into a company practice, making it a demandable right and its nonpayment a violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.19
It is not disputed that in 1997 and in 2001 to 2007, respondent handed out a "one-time" bonus at least once a year, released either middle of the year or end of the year, which was based on a fixed percentage of the employees' basic monthly salary. The Court of Appeals pointed to the gap between 1997 and 2001 to support its finding that there was no consistency or deliberateness in the granting of the annual bonuses.20 However, it conveniently omitted the seven-year period where respondent regularly gave out at a bonus at least once a year. As the labor arbiter correctly observed, even limiting the evidence to the bonuses released from 2001 to 2007 would still lead to a company practice.21
Further, a careful review of the memoranda22 related to the conferment of the bonus in 1997 and in 2001 to 2007 shows that the annual bonuses were neither an inducement for the employees to improve their performance nor were they contingent on the success of respondent's business or profitability. Instead, the subject bonuses were "intended to provide meaningful help" to respondent's regular employees.23 The labor arbiter thus observed:
The evidence for respondents reveals that they did not offer a reason or purpose for the payment of the "1997 One-Time Grant". There is nothing in the guidelines which show that the grant was in the form of a profit-sharing bonus. The 2002 "One-Time Economic Assistance" is no different, although this time CCBPI stated that the "monetary assistance is intended to provide meaningful help in meeting the financial needs of (the) employees especially at the time or year. This line was repeated in the memoranda on the granting of bonuses in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 and 2006, respondents abandoned this line and simply thanked the employees for their support and dedication for the years past. In 2007, respondents awarded their employees with one-time transition bonus for their "extra efforts."
Clearly, the giving of bonuses in CCBPI was not dependent on respondents capacity to pay in a given year."24
The labor arbiter's finding was echoed by the National Labor Relations Commission:
In this case, there is not one iota or evidence to show that the bonuses given were paid on the basis of certain conditions such as realization of profits for a particular year or even maybe having savings because of implementation of certain programs or because of meritorious performance. The gifts were not given as incentives. The memoranda earlier than 2007 covering the grant of such bonuses do not contain any condition that would qualify the same (Records, pp. 83, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94 ). In contrast, the memorandum for the 2007 gift expressly provided that beginning 2008 all bonuses other than the 13th month payment will be replaced by an individual and/or department incentive program based on specific performance metrics" (Records, p. 95) which was likewise mentioned in the 2008 memorandum (Records, p. 96). This clearly bolsters the finding that the gifts/ bonuses from 1997 to 2007 were given without any condition.1aшphi1 Having been given to the employees without any condition the gifts form part of the employees' wages and since this was done for 10 years it has already ripened into a long standing company practice.25
It is well-settled that if supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals should be accorded great respect and even finality by the courts.26
Clearly, despite the different names bestowed on the bonuses, respondent regularly and deliberately gave an annual bonus at least once a year from 2001 to 2007. These fixed27 bonuses were based on a percentage of the employees' basic monthly pay and were not contingent on the realization of profits. There was even a year when two bonuses were distributed, and some years when gift certificates were issued together with the bonus, but the fact is that an annual bonus was constantly distributed year in and year out for seven consecutive years. Thus, I submit that such benefit had already ripened into a company practice.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
Footnotes
* Also referred to as "Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (formerly known as Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils., Inc.)"
1 Producers Bank of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, 407 Phil. 804, 813 (2001) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].
2 315 Phil. 860 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
3 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 860, 871 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division]
4 607 Phil. 359 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
5 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, 607 Phil. 359, 370 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
6 Vergara v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 707 Phil. 255, 262-263 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
7 Ponencia, pp. 4-5.
8 Rollo (G.R. No. 218010). p. 54.
9 Id. at 69-93. The Decision docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-09-5179-10-L was penned by Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A. Guan.
10 Id. at 90-93.
11 Id. at 58-67. The Decision docketed as NLRC Case No. 07-001838-11 (NLRC Case No. SRAB IV 09-5179-10-L, NLRC Case No. SRAB IV 09-5186-10-L) was penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and concurred in by Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro of the Sixth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
12 Id. at 66.
13 Id. at 53-56. The Resolution was penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and concurred in by Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Viva-De Castro of the Sixth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
14 Id. at 56.
15 Id. at 29-44. The Decision docketed as .CA-G.R. SP No. 126819 was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals of Manila.
16 Id. at 43.
17 Id. at 24-27. The Resolution was penned by by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) or the Former Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals of Manila.
18 Id. at 26.
19 ART. 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code.
20 Rollo (G.R. No. 218010). p. 40.
21 Id. at 81-82.
22 Id. at 30-33.
23 Id. at 31-32.
24 Id. at 83-84.
25 Id. at 64, 64-1.
26 Culili v. Eastern Telecommunication Philippines, Inc., 657 Phil. 342, 361 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
27 Philippine Education Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 92 Phil. 381 (1952) [Per J. Padilla, First Division].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
