ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Enero 25, 2023
Dear Chief Acosta,
Ang aking asawa ay naglilingkod sa financing company. Makalipas ang ilang taon ng kanyang paglilingkod ay binigyan siya ng “service vehicle” na may depreciated value na Php 500,000. Nang sumunod na taon, siya ay muling kumuha ng panibagong “service vehicle.” Ngunit dahil mas mataas ang presyo nito ay pinagbayad siya ng “equity” na katumbas ng hihigit sa Php 500,000.
Nang sumunod na taon, nais niya sanang kumuha ng panibagong “service vehicle”, ngunit ang nais na ng kumpanya ay hati sila. Hindi ba ito makokonsiderang paglabag sa prinsipyo ng non-diminution of benefits? - Rima
Dear Rima,
Ang iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association v. Ma. Rollette G. Prudent (G.R. No. 200010, Aug 27, 2020, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez), kung saan sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi makokonsiderang diminution of benefits ang “car plan” na hindi pa nag-ripen patungo sa company practice. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:
“(T)he non-diminution rule applies only if the benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice. In this case, Rollette's claim that the car plan was part of her hiring package was unsubstantiated. Admittedly, Home Credit has no existing car plan at the time Rollette was hired. Rollette's employment contract does not even contain any express provision on her entitlement to a service vehicle at full company cost.
Therefore, it is incongruous for the CA to conclude that the grant of a service vehicle was part of Rollette's hiring package.
Similarly, we find that the car plan has not ripened into a company practice. As a rule, "practice" or "custom" is not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable right. In labor cases, however, benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer, and which have ripened into company practice, are considered as rights and are subject to the non-diminution rule. To be considered a company practice, the benefit must be consistently and deliberately granted by the employer over a long period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employee is not covered by any provision of law or agreement for its payment. The burden to establish that the benefit has ripened into a company practice rests with the employee.
Here, the labor tribunals correctly held that Home Credit's act of giving service vehicles to Rollette has been a company practice - but not as to the non-participation aspect. There was no substantial evidence to prove that the car plan at full company cost had ripened into company practice. Notably, the only time Rollette was given a service vehicle fully paid for by the company was for her first car. For the second vehicle, the company already imposed a maximum limit of P660,000.00 but Rollette never questioned this. She willingly paid for the equity in excess of said limit. Thus, the elements of consistency and deliberateness are not present. (Emphasis Ours)
Sa kaso ng iyong asawa, kailangan niya munang tingnan kung ang pagbibigay ng “service vehicle” ay boluntaryong ibinibigay ng kanyang employer sa loob ng mahabang panahon para maituring itong company practice. Gayundin, kailangang tingnan ang halagang sinasagot ng kanyang employer base sa company practice. Kung mapatutunayan ang mga ito, maaaring ituring na paglabag ng Art. 100 ng Labor Code o ang prinsipyo ng non-diminution of benefits ang nangyari sa iyong asawa.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.