Philippine Bank of Communications v. Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) had a Multi-Purpose Loan Program allowing employees to avail of loans simultaneously, subject to a debt service ratio and the pledge of bonuses. This policy was incorporated into the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In 2007 and 2014, new management altered the loan policy, making the pledge of bonuses discretionary or disallowed if the take-home pay could accommodate the amortization. PBCOM also had a Service Award Policy granting awards to employees completing 10 years of service and every five years thereafter, including retirees and resigned employees. In 2015, the policy was modified to require employees to be "on board as of release date or September 4 of each year" to be entitled to the award, affecting at least three employees. Respondent Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association (PBCOMEA) opposed these changes. Procedural History: The dispute was brought to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) ruled in favor of PBCOMEA, declaring the changes to the loan program a violation of the CBA and the service award policy void. The Court of Appeals (CA) partly granted PBCOM's petition, declaring the amendment on loan payment through pledges/deductions from bonuses valid, subject to length of service and net take-home pay. However, the CA sustained the VA's declaration voiding the requirement that employees be "on board" on the anniversary date for service awards. PBCOM's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: PBCOM filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision regarding the service award policy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ruling that Petitioner violated the CBA when it required an employee to be on board as of the release date of the service award, thereby diminishing benefits. Whether retired or resigned employees acquired an entitlement to the service award based on the incorporated Service Award Policy, and whether the unilateral imposition of the 'on board' requirement violated the CBA.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated October 18, 2019, and the Resolution dated September 17, 2020, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155585 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Petitioner violated the CBA by requiring an employee to be on board as of the release date of the service award, thereby diminishing benefits: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that Petitioner violated the CBA. The Service Award Policy dated January 1, 1998, which was incorporated into the CBA, stipulated that retired and resigned employees would receive their awards. The CBA, specifically Section 2, Article XII, requires the review and participation of both management and the union in determining and granting service awards. The Court emphasized that the CBA is the law between the parties, and its terms, when clear and unambiguous, must be followed literally. Petitioner unilaterally imposed a new condition requiring employees to be 'on board' at the time of awarding without consulting Respondent, thereby violating the CBA. This act also amounted to a diminution of benefits, as Petitioner unilaterally withdrew a benefit enjoyed by employees based on a company policy. On the issue of whether retired or resigned employees acquired an entitlement to the service award based on the incorporated Service Award Policy, and whether the unilateral imposition of the 'on board' requirement violated the CBA: The Court's affirmation of the CA's decision implies that the original policy, which allowed awards to retired and resigned employees, created an entitlement that could not be unilaterally removed. The Service Award Policy itself provided for the grant of awards to employees who retire or resign after completing the required years of service. The subsequent incorporation of this policy into the CBA meant that any modification required the consent of both parties. The unilateral imposition of the 'on board' requirement effectively removed this entitlement for those no longer employed, which was deemed a violation of the CBA and a diminution of benefits. The Court reiterated that parties are bound by the CBA's terms, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy.
Main Doctrine
A bank cannot unilaterally amend a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provision regarding service awards without the consent of the labor union, as the CBA constitutes the law between the parties. Modifications to policies incorporated into the CBA require mutual agreement.