ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1123 October 2, 1997 - JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1255 October 2, 1997 - SIBANAH E. USMAN v. JULIUS G. CABE

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1080 October 2, 1997 - HANSON SANTOS v. SANCHO DAMES II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102900 October 2, 1997 - MARCELINO ARCELONA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997 - SARKIES TOURS PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116184 October 2, 1997 - NATION BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116720 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL ENCINADA

  • G.R. No. 117240 October 2, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120961 October 2, 1997 - DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121449 October 2, 1997 - SANYO TRAVEL CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123172 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 102366 October 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1250 October 6, 1997 - DOMINADOR D. BORNASAL, JR. v. JAIME T. MONTES

  • G.R. No. 83402 October 6, 1997 - ALGON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103585 October 6, 1997 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118935 October 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO LO-AR

  • G.R. No. 123445 October 6, 1997 - BENJAMIN TOLENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104774-75 October 8, 1997 - ZACARIAS OARDE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107992 October 8, 1997 - ODYSSEY PARK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110115 October 8, 1997 - RODOLFO TIGNO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125616 October 8, 1997 - MARIO RABAJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95694 October 9, 1997 - VICENTE VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98328 October 9, 1997 - JUAN C. CARVAJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106632 & 106678 October 9, 1997 - DORIS TERESA HO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111194 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997 - ALAIN MANALILI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118992 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO CASTROMERO

  • Adm. Case No. 4467 October 10, 1997 - GIL A. DE LEON, ET AL. v. RODOLFO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103028 October 10, 1997 - CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 107434 October 10, 1997 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111148 October 10, 1997 - ENRIQUE A. SOBREPEÑA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115938 October 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GALERA

  • G.R. No. 119360 October 10, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119523 October 10, 1997 - ISABELO VIOLETA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120191 October 10, 1997 - LORETO ADALIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1199 October 13, 1997 - VLADIMIR BRUSOLA v. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 68166 October 13, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-91-562 October 16, 1997 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1139 October 16, 1997 - ROBERTO ESPIRITU v. EDUARDO JOVELLANOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-747 October 16, 1997 - JESUS R. LLAMADO v. ARMANDO RAVELO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1189 October 16, 1997 - LELU P. CONTRERAS v. SALVADOR C. MIRANDO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1207 October 16, 1997 - D. ROY A. MASADAO, ET AL. v. GERALDINE GLORIOSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1252 October 16, 1997 - ORESTES R. SANTOS v. NORBERTO V. DOBLADA, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1375 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. ANGELITO C. TEH

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1391 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO A. RIVERA v. EFREN A. LAMORENA

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-9-97-MCTC October 16, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT OF THE MCTC OF DINGLE-DUENAS, ILOILO

  • G.R. No. 94457 October 16, 1997 - VICTORIA LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 102936 October 16, 1997 - LEVY AGAO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105668 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DALABAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112745 October 16, 1997 - AQUILINO T. LARIN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997 - WATEROUS DRUG CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115282 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117399-117400 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY JAGOLINGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118230 October 16, 1997 - ABUNDIA BINGCOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118651 October 16, 1997 - PIONEER TEXTURIZING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118853 October 16, 1997 - BRAHM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118946 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICO JAMLAN SALEM

  • G.R. No. 121582 October 16, 1997 - SOUTHERN COTABATO DEV. & CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121687 October 16, 1997 - HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123248 October 16, 1997 - TWIN ACE HOLDINGS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128054 October 16, 1997 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113003 October 17, 1997 - ALBERTA YOBIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113788 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO GERON

  • G.R. No. 117459 October 17, 1997 - MOISES B. PANLILIO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122474-76 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR ABRECINOZ

  • G.R. No. 128119 October 17, 1997 - MURLI SADHWANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1393 October 20, 1997 - ALAN SUASIN v. ERNESTO DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. 107747 October 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD TALINGTING

  • G.R. No. 99838 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105008 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMENCIANO VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 108905 October 23, 1997 - GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111155 October 23, 1997 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111662 October 23, 1997 - A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118192 October 23, 1997 - PRO LINE SPORTS CENTER, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119777 & 120690 October 23, 1997 - HEIRS OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126321 October 23, 1997 - TOYOTA CUBAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112733 October 24, 1997 - PEOPLE’S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114398 October 24, 1997 - CARMEN LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125469 October 27, 1997 - PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130644 October 27, 1997 - FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118240 October 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIOVANNI BAJAR

  • G.R. No. 124099 October 30, 1997 - MANUEL G. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104504 October 31, 1997 - PEDRITO PASTRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 117240  October 2, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 117240. October 2, 1997.]

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PNCC TOLL OPERATIONS EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (PNCC-TOEWU), Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    The instant petition seeks the reversal of the decision dated August 31, 1993 and resolution dated July 21, 1994 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission which dismissed the appeal of petitioner Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) and affirmed the March 29, 1993 decision of Labor Arbiter Cornelio Linsangan.

    From the pleadings of the parties, the following facts are deemed to have been established.

    PNCC and the Toll Operations Employees and Workers Union (PNCC-TOEWU) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement for a period of five (5) years from February 1, 1990 to January 30, 1995. It is provided in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that a mid-year bonus shall be granted to the employees who are covered by the bargaining unit as of June 1 of the covered year, viz.:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Section 2. Mid-Year Bonus — The COMPANY agrees to grant to all the employees covered by the bargaining unit a mid-year bonus of one (1) month basic salary to be given on or before June 1, each year. The mid-year bonus for 1990 shall be granted to employees who are covered by the bargaining unit including those employees who already attained the status of a regular employee as of June 1, 1990."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Due to financial difficulties, however, between April and May, 1991, PNCC implemented a Voluntary Separation Program. The individual complainants took advantage of the offer and, after signing individual quitclaims, were paid an equivalent of one-and-a-half month’s pay for every year of credited service as well as a 30-day advance salary. Consequently, they were not given any mid-year bonus because as of June 1, 1991, PNCC no longer considered them as its employees.

    The aggrieved employees then filed a claim for non-payment of mid-year bonus before the Labor Arbiter, who, in a decision dated March 29, 1993, ruled in their favor and ordered the payment of their mid-year bonuses. The disposition thereof reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent corporation to pay complainants their mid-year bonus for 1991, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    NAMES MONTHLY BASIC SALARY

    1. Bernadette Principe P5,793.00

    2. Lucila Roxas 6,378.00

    3. Wilhelmia Aquino 5,956.00

    4. Librando Custodio 5,717.00

    5. Socorro Escondo 4,937.00

    6. Reynaldo Guelas 4,684.00

    7. Sixto Pagoso 4,569.00

    8. Gloria Mapoy 4,569.00

    9. Rolando Gregore 5,390.00

    10. Rolando Gilmo 5,813.00

    11. Jose Estargo 5,594.00

    12. Leonardo Dionisio 6,286.00

    13. Pablo Gonzales 6,319.00

    14. Gualberto Reblora 6,277.00

    15. Regino Dechosa 5,507.00

    16. Mariano Martija 5,080.00

    17. Felix Lacson, Jr. 4,825.00

    18. Juan Garcenilla 5,446.00

    19. Gerardo Paragua 5,259.00

    20. Marita Milan 5,434.00

    21. Rodrigo Sugcang 5,425.00

    22. Francisco Lucas 6,361.00

    23. Elizabeth Ramos 5,576.00

    24. Rogelio Venturina 5,233.00

    25. Gregorio Batac 4,937.00

    26. Elpidio Alcaraz 6,239.00

    27. Melva Mabeza 5,670.00

    28. Elenita Gonzales 5,688.00

    29. Edna Habil 4,810.00

    30. Carolina Matutina 5,095.00

    31. Romeo Bunag 6,115.00

    32. Romeo Cruz 5,518.00

    33. Carlos Carino 5,151.00

    34. Eduardo Adriano 5,485.00

    35. Mario Bueno 6,428.00

    36. Felix Nillas 4,636.00

    37. Paulino Baloran 5,151.00

    38. Federico Navarrete 5,436.00

    39. Jose Argana 5,151.00

    40. Mario Africa 5,780.00

    41. Eduardo Natalio 5,306.00

    42. Filomeno de Vera 5,354.00

    43. Remigio Peralta 5,515.00

    44. Marcelino Garcia 3,991.00

    —————

    Grand Total P239,884.00

    In addition, the respondent Philippine National Construction Company should also pay complainants Attorney’s fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total award, or the sum of Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight-Pesos and 40/100 (P23,988.40)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    PNCC elevated this judgment to the NLRC which, however, affirmed the same. Hence, this petition.

    The pivotal question determinative of this controversy is whether the complainants are entitled to the mid-year bonus provided in the CBA.

    PNCC contends that since complainants voluntarily separated themselves from PNCC before June 1, 1991, they are no longer entitled to the mid-year bonus.

    We find merit in PNCC’s contention.

    There is no dispute that the complainants freely applied for the benefits under PNCC’s voluntary separation program. As such, they effectively resigned from their respective positions.

    Resignation is defined in Section II, Rule XIV, Book V of the Revised Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, and once accepted the employee no longer has any right to the job. 1 It therefore goes without saying that resignation terminates the employer-employee relationship. 2 From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the employer-employee relationship between the complainants and PNCC ceased as of May 1991, a fact which was admitted by the complainants in their comment. 3 As such they were no longer employees of the PNCC as of June 1, 1991, the cut-off period necessary for entitlement to the mid-year bonus.

    We have held that once an employee resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the employer, he is thereby estopped from filing any further money claims against the employer arising from his employment. Such money claims may be given due course only when the voluntariness of the execution of the quitclaim or release is put in issue, or when it is established that there is an unwritten agreement between the employer and employee which would entitle the employee to other renumeration or benefits upon his or her resignation. 4 In this case, the voluntariness of the execution of the quitclaim was never put in issue and, as such, must be treated as a valid and binding agreement between the complainants and PNCC. 5chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    Complainants further argue that when they executed the quitclaim they had no intention of waiving their mid-year bonus. In signing the quitclaim, however, the necessary implication is that the release would cover any and all claims arising out of the employment relationship.

    From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the complainants voluntarily resigned from PNCC for a valuable consideration. The quitclaim they executed in favor of PNCC amounts to a legitimate compromise agreement. We, therefore, sustain the validity of said agreement.

    Moreover, a bonus is "a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right. It is something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient. The granting of a bonus is basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the employees’ basic salaries or wages. 6 After all, the term "bonus," as used in employment contracts, conveys an idea of something which is gratuitous, or which may be claimed to be gratuitous, over and above the prescribed usage which the employer agrees to pay. 7 It cannot be argued that the grant of the mid-year bonus has become an established business practice of the PNCC, such that it has virtually become a part of the employees’ salary for the same was given but once, that is, on June 1, 1990.

    Furthermore, in light of PNCC’s precarious financial situation at the time, it should no longer be burdened with distributing bonuses to its employees who have resigned. We also note that the benefits granted under the separation program are much more than the "mid-year bonus," hence complainants cannot claim that they have been unduly deprived of what should have been accorded to them.

    In view of the foregoing, this Court no longer finds any need to discuss the remaining issues raised by PNCC.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case NCR Case No. 04868-93 dated August 31, 1993, its resolution dated July 21, 1994, as well as the decision of Labor Arbiter Cornelio Linsangan dated March 29, 1993, are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the complaint of, and consequently, the award of bonuses to the resigned employees. No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Intertrod Maritime, Inc. v. NLRC, 198 SCRA 318 (1991).

    2. Art. 286, Labor Code, as amended.

    3. Rollo, p. 59.

    4. Talla v. NLRC, 175 SCRA 479 (1989).

    5. Mercer v. NLRC, 244 SCRA 376 (1995).

    6. Traders Royal Bank v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 274 (1990).

    7. Marcos v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 146 (1995); Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 380 (1995).

    G.R. No. 117240  October 2, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED