Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > July 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26197 July 20, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP., INC.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26197. July 20, 1968.]

ADELO C. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Francisco D. Alas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM; EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT BENEFITS; EMPLOYER’S CONTRIBUTION TO PRIVATE PLANS. — Where the company has paid the amount of P331 as its contribution to the Social Security System for and in behalf of plaintiff, the company has therefore the right to deduct the same amount from the total amount of retirement benefits. This situation has been envisaged by Section 9 of the Social Security Act to the effect that the employer’s total contribution to his private benefit plan and to the Social Security System shall be the same as his contribution to his private plan before the compulsory coverage.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN DEDUCTIBLE. — What is prohibited is the deduction of the employer’s contribution from the compensation of his employees, or the recovery from said employees of the employer’s contribution to the System with respect to their coverage. But the employer is not prevented from deducting the contributions it had paid to a private plan which it has integrated with the System for to allow the appellant-employee to enjoy the full amount of retirement pay under the private plan and all the benefits due to him without spending any single cent is to sanction the universally accepted maxim against unjust enrichment.

3. ID.; ID.; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT; NON-UNION MEMBER EMPLOYEES COVERED BY BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT. — When a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer, even the non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against non-members.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision dated December 10, 1965 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental in civil case 2480.

On June 18, 1964 Adelo C. Rivera — litigating as pauper — filed with the municipal (now city) court of Cagayan de Oro a complaint against the San Miguel Brewery Corporation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for collection of separation pay and recovery of a sum of money, including actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On July 15, 1964, the Company filed its answer, traversing the material allegations of the complaint.

On July 25, 1964 Rivera filed a request for admission of, inter alia, the fact that the plaintiff (Rivera), like the other security guards of the Company, is not and was never a member of any labor union with which the Company has or had a collective bargaining agreement.

On November 25, 1964 the city court of Cagayan de Oro rendered judgment, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This Court, after a careful consideration of the documentary evidence, oral and written arguments of the parties as well, finds that the defendant has already paid its obligation to the plaintiff in accordance with law; hence, for lack of merit, this case is hereby dismissed with costs against the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

Rivera appealed to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental.

Instead of filing another answer, the Company, in its manifestation of January 26, 1965, adopted as its answer that which it filed on July 15, 1964 with the city court.

On August 6, 1965, when the case was called for a pre-trial conference, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts, quoted verbatim as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

"1. For the first cause of action, the plaintiff is of legal age, resident of Corrales Avenue, Cagayan de Oro City and the defendant is a domestic corporation with principal office at Manila, Philippines and a plant at Cagayan de Oro City;

"2. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant Corporation on December 8, 1952 as a security guard up to and including September 16, 1963, approximately 10 years and 9 months;

"3. On September 16, 1963 plaintiff was separated for physical disability due to illness as shown by a letter of termination dated September 17, 1963 from the employer signed by Mr. Vicente Pardo, Manager of the Cagayan Coca-Cola Plant which is already marked in the records of this case as Exhibit C for the plaintiff;

"4. At the time of plaintiff’s separation from the service he was receiving a daily wage of P5.90 and in accordance with the Health, Welfare and Retirement Plan (Exhibit 1) [hereinafter referred to as the private plan] of the defendant particularly Article 9 (Exhibit 1-A for the Defendant), plaintiff was paid a total of P930.35 as retirement as shown in Exhibits A and B for the Plaintiff which exhibits are also admitted by the defendant.

"ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

"For the second cause of action paragraph 1 as submitted in the first cause of action, the employer-employee relation is likewise admitted. As also stated in the first cause of action the statement of accounts embodied in Exhibits A and B for the plaintiff are likewise admitted; and as also admitted in the first cause of action the cause of termination of the employee is as stated in Exhibit C for the plaintiff, the letter termination; That the employee was not a member of the labor union; That the amount of P331.40 representing the Defendant’s contribution to the Social Security System during the period from September 1957 to March 1963 was deducted from Plaintiff’s retirement benefits in accordance with Article 15 (Exhibit 1-B) of the Defendant’s Health, Welfare and Retirement Plan (Exhibit 1 for the Defendant); and That the Health, Welfare and Retirement Plan Exhibit 1 of the defendant is fully company financed, no contribution whatsoever from plaintiff was ever required."cralaw virtua1aw library

On December 10, 1965 the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental rendered judgment, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation of the facts and the law respecting the matter, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant Company and against the plaintiff dismissing the latter’s complaint with costs against him."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this appeal to us, Rivera poses only one question of law — which is, whether the Company had the right to deduct the amount of P331.40 from his retirement benefits and/or separation pay and thus recover its contribution to the Social Security System — but assigns two errors, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The lower court erred in holding that Section 9 of the Social Security Act authorizes the employer to deduct from its employee’s separation pay and/or retirement pay whatever it contributed to the Social Security System in so far as the coverage of the said employee is concerned.

2. The lower court erred in giving force and validity to Article XV of the Company’s private plan, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19 of Republic Act 1161 as amended by Republic Acts 1792 and 2658.

The appellant’s case must fall on both counts.

For unmistakable is the import of section 9 of the Social Security Act 1 which expressly provides, inter alia, that

". . . [P]rivate plans which are existing and in force at the time of compulsory coverage shall be integrated with the plan of the System in such a way that where the employer’s contributions to his private plan in [sic] more than that required of him in this Act, he shall pay to the System only the contribution required to him and he shall continue his contributions to such private plan less his contribution to the System so that the employer’s total contribution to his private benefit plan and to the Social Security System shall be the same as his contribution to his private plan before the compulsory coverage; Provided, further, That any changes, adjustments, modifications, eliminations or improvements in the benefits to be available under the remaining private plan, which may be necessary to adopt by reason of the reduced contribution thereto as a result of the integration, shall be subject to agreements between the employers and employees concerned . . ." (Italics supplied)

The Company has a private benefit plan — its Health, Welfare and Retirement Plan — which is wholly company-financed because the employees do not contribute to its maintenance. The Company has integrated its private plan with that of the Social Security System. It remitted to the latter the contributions required of it for and in behalf of its employees — including the appellant Rivera — but at the same time it has maintained its own private plan. It is not controverted that the Company’s contributions to its private benefit plan are greater than that required of it under the Social Security Act. It has, therefore, the right to deduct its contributions to the System from the benefits accruing to its employees under its private plan.

In the case at bar, the total of the retirement benefits due to Rivera under the private plan of the Company was P1,261.75. But since the latter had paid the amount of P331.40 as its contribution to the Social Security System for and in behalf of Rivera, it has therefore the right to deduct the latter amount from the total amount of the retirement benefits, leaving a balance of P930.35, which latter sum was paid to Rivera. Otherwise, the Company would be paying to the System and its private plan, both for the benefit of Rivera, the total amount of P1,593.15 — a fact situation not envisaged by the aforequoted Section 9 (of the Social Security Act) which emphatically stresses "that the employer’s total contribution to his private benefit plan and to the Social Security System shall be the same as his contribution to his private plan before the compulsory coverage."cralaw virtua1aw library

Besides, the authority of the Company to effect the said deduction is neither unilateral nor without basis. In compliance with the directive set forth in Section 9, supra, that "any changes, adjustments, modifications, eliminations, or improvements in the benefits to be available under the remaining private benefit plan, which may be necessary to adopt by reason of the reduced contribution thereto as a result of the integration, shall be subject to agreements between the employers and employees", the Company incorporated into its private plan Article XV which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The benefits provided in these Rules shall be reduced by such amounts as would be sufficient to compensate the company for its (i.e., employer’s) contribution for the account of each employee to the Social Security System. However, beginning with the Company’s contributions corresponding to the month of April, 1963 the Company’s contribution to the Social Security System shall no longer be deducted from the benefits provided in these rules." (Italics supplied)

The private plan was set up by the Company pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement it entered into with the union which represents the majority of its employees. It can therefore be considered as an integral part of the said collective bargaining agreement, or in the very least, as an independent collective bargaining agreement dealing exclusively with the health, welfare and retirement of the employees. As such, it is binding on all employees of the Company — whether or not union members — because a collective bargaining agreement is the law of the plant. 2 Statutory law firmly supports this holding because the labor organization designated or selected by a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit is the "exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining." 3

The appellant stresses the fact that he is not a member of the labor union, and in the process impliedly argues that Article XV of the private plan is not binding on him. Assuming that he is correct, that is, he is not bound by the terms of the private plan, then it is only just and logical that its benefits be withheld likewise from him. But decisional law frowns upon this, the cases being unanimous that

"When a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer, even the non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against non-members." 4

The rationale behind the extension of the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement even to non-union members — as underscored by the abovecited jurisprudential touchstone — is to preclude undue discrimination against them. This same ruling does not and should not in turn justify any discriminatory treatment against union members, a result which is certain to follow if the appellant were to receive the benefits flowing from the private plan of the Company, sans the burden imposed on the recipient by the aforequoted Article XV. His readiness to receive the benefits accruing to him under the said private plan should be matched by his willingness to bear the burdens concomitant thereto, one of which is the reduction of the benefits owing to him up to the amount sufficient to compensate the Company for its (employer’s) contributions (for his account) to the Social Security System.

Finally, the appellant’s stand that Article XV of the Company’s private plan flies in the teeth of Section 19 of the Social Security Act, is untenable. This section expressly provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Employer’s contribution — Beginning as of the last day of the month when an employee’s compulsory coverage takes effect and every month thereafter during his employment, his employer shall pay, with respect to such covered employee, the employer’s contribution in accordance with the schedule indicated in Section Eighteen of this Act. Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, an employer shall not deduct, directly or indirectly, from the compensation of his employees covered by the System or otherwise recover from them the employer’s contribution with respect to such employees."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear, from a close scrutiny of the last sentence of the abovecited section, that what is prohibited is the deduction of the employer’s contribution from the compensation of his employees, or the recovery from said employees of the employer’s contribution to the System with respect to their coverage. Stated otherwise, what is enjoined is any employer’s scheme to make his employees shoulder his burden of paying to the System the employer’s contribution required by the Social Security Act. 5

There is no such scheme, in the case at bar, of passing the employer’s burden because the retirement pay of the appellant is not in the category of a compensation, but is a fringe benefit proceeding from the Company’s private plan. Moreover, the Company does not seek to recover from the appellant the former’s contribution with respect to the latter. It is merely deducting the same from what it pays to the private plan which it has set up and is single-handedly maintaining, and which it has integrated with the System.

For, indeed, to allow the appellant to enjoy the full amount of retirement pay under the private plan and all the benefits due to him under the Social Security Act without spending any single centavo — and conversely, to prohibit the company from making the corresponding deduction from such benefits of its contributions to the Social Security System in behalf of the appellant — is to sanction an inequitable situation that runs roughshod over the universally accepted maxim against unjust enrichment: "nemo cum alterius detrimenti locupletari potest."cralaw virtua1aw library

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is affirmed. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Republic Act 1161 as amended by Republic Acts 1792, 2658 and 3839.

2. J.I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944).

3. Republic Act 875, sec. 12(a).

4. National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union v. San Miguel Brewery, Et Al., L-18170, Aug. 31, 1963; International Oil Factory Workers’ Union v. Martinez, L-15560, Dec. 31, 1960; PRISCO v. PRISCO Workers’ Union, L-9288, Dec. 29, 1958; LASEDECO v. Caledonia Pile Workers’ Union, L-4877, Feb. 26, 1952; Leyte Land Transp. v. Leyte Farmers’ & Laborers’ Union, 80 Phil. 842 May 12, 1948.

5. See secs. 18 and 19 of Republic Act 1161 as amended by Republic Acts 1792, 2658 and 3839.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24990 July 3, 1968 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24804 July 5, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO PARAYNO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28561 July 8, 1968 - BARNEY FRENCH v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 102 July 15, 1968 - PAFLU v. HON. EMILIO C. TABIGNE

  • G.R. No. L-21175 July 15, 1968 - PASCUALA SOTTO PAHANG v. FILEMON SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-18414 July 15, 1968 - ANTONIO M. PEREZ, ET AL v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-24843 July 15, 1968 - MEMBERS OF THE CULT OF SAN MIGUEL ARCANGEL v. PEDRO NARCISO

  • G.R. No. L-24419 July 15, 1968 - LEONORA ESTOQUE v. ELENA M. PAJIMULA

  • G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA OSETE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21027 July 20, 1968 - JUAN GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. LUCIANO T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22002 July 20, 1968 - CANUTO A. LIM, ET AL. v. TOMAS V. SABARRE

  • G.R. No. L-24099 July 20, 1968 - CLOTILDE CORREOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO VALENZUELA Y PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24951 July 20, 1968 - IN RE: JOSE CHUA CHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26197 July 20, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18598 July 23, 1968 - TAN GUAN v. HON. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22682 July 23, 1968 - GORGONIO PABILING v. ISIDORO PARINACIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23796 July 23, 1968 - LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23934 July 25, 1968 - HIDPION P. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26353 July 29, 1968 - PERLA C. PACURSA v. SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26568 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO MALILLOS

  • G.R. No. L-28842 July 29, 1968 - FAUSTINO CORTEZ v. HON. ONOFRE VILLALUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24955 July 29, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24566 July 29, 1968 - ACCFA v. ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24576 July 29, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DORIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968 - SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24072 July 29, 1968 - ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24020-21 July 29, 1968 - FLORENCIO REYES, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19852 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 29, 1968 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23606 July 29, 1968 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20158 July 29, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21059 July 29, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22320 July 29, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL v. HON. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20619 July 29, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20794 July 29, 1968 - DY EN SIU CO, ET AL v. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23919 July 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24984 July 29, 1968 - PHIL. COMM., ELEC. & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FED., ET AL v. HON. JUDGE RAMON O. NOLASCO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24388 July 29, 1968 - REGAL MANUFACTURING EMP., ASSO., ET AL v. HON. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27741 July 29, 1968 - R.B. INDUSTRIAL DEV. CO., LTD., ET AL v. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28524 July 29, 1968 - ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. HON. TITO V. TIZON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24348 July 30, 1968 - FELICIDAD VIERNEZA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-22304 July 30, 1968 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO P. ARNADO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22159 July 31, 1968 - EMILIANO CASTRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24472 July 31, 1968 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PROSPERO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24924 July 31, 1968 - CRESENCIA ANTONEL, ET AL v. LAND TENURE ADMI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26192 July 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MANA-AY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24414 July 31, 1968 - DIONICIA J. CID, ET AL v. NANCY W. BURNAMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22663 July 31, 1968 - HOC HUAT TRADING, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23245 July 31, 1968 - JUANITA RIVERA v. SILVINO CURAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-23491 July 31, 1968 - TAURUS TAXI CO., INC., ET AL v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24140 July 31, 1968 - VICENTE ARRIETA v. MALAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24557 July 31, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24668 July 31, 1968 - ANDRES LAPITAN v. SCANDIA INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24987 July 31, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25550 July 31, 1968 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INS. CO., v. HON. W. DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27072 July 31, 1968 - SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26082 July 31, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27084 July 31, 1968 - ANGELA ESTATE, INC., ET AL v. CFI NEGROS OCCI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22542 July 31, 1968 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. SALVADOR CELORIO, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968 - NICOLAS SUPERABLE, JR. v. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-13938 July 31, 1968 - PEDRO BUTIONG v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22577 July 31, 1968 - BENJAMIN WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. CARMEN ZARAGOZA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23261 July 31, 1968 - ERNESTO VELUZ v. SOCORRO VELUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23689 July 31, 1968 - MAYO LOPEZ CARILLO, ET AL v. ALLIED WORKER’S ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24514 July 31, 1968 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC., ET AL v. JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL