ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141628. March 6, 2000]

DIAMOND FARMS, INC. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 6 2000.

G.R. No. 141628 (Diamond Farms, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

The sole issue in the instant petition is whether r not the private respondents, former employees of petitioner corporation, are entitled to the signing bonus provided in the collective bargaining agreement by and between petitioner corporation and the respondent union of which private respondents were members, even if the latter had ceased to be petitioner's employees upon the conclusion of said agreement.

The antecedent facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

Private respondents were regular employees of petitioner corporation and members of respondent union. On July 31, 1994, private respondents were retrenched by petitioner corporation.

On October 21, 1994, petitioner corporation and respondent union concluded a Collective Bargaining Agreement which provided, among others, for a signing bonus of P6,000.00 to all regular employees as of July 1, 1994. However, petitioner refused to grant said bonus to private respondents on the ground that as of the time the CBA was concluded they were no longer employees of petitioner corporation. Private respondents filed a complaint for non-payment of signing bonus before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI of the NLRC, Davao City.

On June 30, 1997, the labor arbiter rendered a decision which reads in part:

xxx The CBA now in issue, particularly Article XVII, section 13, thereof, provides inter alia:

"As a further benefit, the Company agrees to grant a signing bonus in the amount of P6,000.00 payable as follows: (a) P2,000.00 upon execution of this contract to each worker as of July 1, 1994 and (b) P4,000.00 on or before July 1, 1995. Those workers who became regular after July 1, 1994 are not covered of (sic) this agreement." (Underscoring ours.)

From the above provision of the CBA it is obvious that complainants are entitled to the signing bonus. The only condition sine qua non imposed by the CBA for the entitlement of the P6,000.00 signing bonus is that, the regular workers shall obtain a regular employment status on or before July 1, 1994. Such date, July 1, 1994, became the cut-off date for the regular workers to be granted P6,000.00 signing bonus.

x x x

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, but the latter affirmed in toto the decision of the labor arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for consideration, which was, however, denied.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On July 16, 1999, the appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the petition and affirming the resolutions of the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner maintains that private respondents are not entitled to the signing bonus of P6,000.00 since the CBA which granted the said benefit was signed and ratified long after private respondents were separated from employment.

We find the petition bereft of merit.

A perusal of the assailed decision will reveal that it is in accord with law.

While it is true that private respondents were no longer in the employ of petitioner at the time the CBA was signed and ratified, it is undisputed that as of July 1, 1994, they were still regular employees thereof. They only ceased to be such on July 31, 1994, when they were separated from employment due to retrenchment. Thus, since the only requirement for entitlement to the signing bonus is that the employees be regular employees as of July 1, 1994, the private respondents are clearly entitled to the said bonus.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DENIED for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error in the assailed decision. Pardo, J., is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE