This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A similar disposition was also made in the case of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union,[36] wherein the Court held as follows: 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. | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to Article 100 of the Labor Code, petitioner as the employer could not reduce, diminish, discontinue or eliminate any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by or granted to its employees. This prohibition against the 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.[29] The application of the prohibition against the diminution of benefits presupposes that a company practice, policy or tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by the employer pursuant to the practice, policy, or tradition have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.[30] To be considered as a practice, policy or tradition, however, the giving of the benefits should have been done over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.[31] It is relevant to mention that we have not yet settled on the specific minimum number of years as the length of time sufficient to ripen the practice, policy or tradition into a benefit that the employer cannot unilaterally withdraw.[32] | |||||
|
2013-04-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This Court has already decided several cases regarding the non-diminution rule where the benefits or privileges involved in those cases mainly concern monetary considerations or privileges with monetary equivalents. Some of these cases are: Eastern Telecommunication Phils. Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union,[17] where the case involves the payment of 14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses; Central Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union-NLU,[18] regarding the 13th month pay, legal/special holiday pay, night premium pay and vacation and sick leaves; TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union, [19] regarding salary wage increases; and American Wire and Cable Daily Employees Union vs. American Wire and Cable Company, Inc.,[20] involving service awards with cash incentives, premium pay, Christmas party with incidental benefits and promotional increase. | |||||
|
2013-04-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Generally, employees have a vested right over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer.[14] Thus, any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[15] The principle of non-diminution 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.[16] In turn, said mandate is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be rendered in favor of labor."[17] | |||||