Arco Metal Products vs. SAMARM-NAFLU

Arco Metal Products vs. SAMARM-NAFLU

G.R. No. 170734 May 14, 2008

Facts: Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of metal products, whereas respondent is the labor union of petitioner’s rank and file employees. Sometime in December 2003, petitioner paid the 13^th month pay, bonus, and leave encashment of three union members in amounts proportional to the service they actually rendered in a year, which is less than a full twelve (12) months. The employees were Rante Lamadrid, Alberto Gamban, and Rodelio Collantes. Respondent protested the prorated scheme, claiming that on several occasions petitioner did not prorate the payment of the same benefits to seven (7) employees who had not served for the full 12 months. The payments were made in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2003, and 2004. According to respondent, the prorated payment violates the rule against diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. Thus, they filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The parties submitted the case for voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator, Apron M. Mangabat, ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Issue/s: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the grant of 13^th month pay, bonus, and leave encashment in full regardless of actual service rendered constitutes voluntary employer practice and, consequently, the prorated payment of the said benefits does not constitute diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code.

Whether the intent of the CBA provisions is to grant full benefits regardless of service actually rendered by an employee to the company.

Held: IN VIEW HEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85089 dated 29 September 2005 is and its Resolution dated 9 December 2005 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Ratio Decidendi: The Petition fails.

In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer has the burden of proving that the employees did receive the wages and benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law. Indeed, if petitioner wants to prove that it merely erred in giving full benefits, it could have easily presented other proofs, such as the names of other employees who did not fully serve for one year and thus were given prorated benefits. Experientially, a perfect attendance in the workplace is always the goal but it is seldom achieved. There must have been other employees who had reported for work less than a full year and who, as a consequence received only prorated benefits. This could have easily bolstered petitioner’s theory of mistake/error, but sadly, no evidence to that effect was presented.