This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100[39] of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice.[40] To be considered a practice, it must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a long period of time.[41] | |||||
|
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. | |||||