This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Therefore, respondent's isolated act of including the SMI in the retirement package of Velazquez could hardly be classified as a company practice that may be considered an enforceable obligation. To repeat, the principle against diminution of benefits is applicable only if the grant or benefit is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time which is consistent and deliberate; it presupposes that a company practice, policy and tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by the company pursuant to it have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.[26] Certainly, a practice or custom is, as a general rule, not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable right.[27] Company practice, just like any other fact, habits, customs, usage or patterns of conduct, must be proven by the offering party who must allege and establish specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit or company practice.[28] | |||||
|
2012-03-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.[18] | |||||