Arco Metal vs.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Arco

G.R. No. 170734
Facts:
Petitioner is a coman! engage" in the man#$act#re o$ metal ro"#cts% whereas reson"ent is
the la&or #nion o$ etitioner's ran( an" $ile emlo!ees. Sometime in )ecem&er *003% etitioner
ai" the 13th month a!% &on#s% an" leave encashment o$ three #nion mem&ers in amo#nts
roortional to the service the! act#all! ren"ere" in a !ear% which is less than a $#ll 1* months.
Reson"ent roteste" the rorate" scheme% claiming that on several occasions etitioner "i"
not rorate the a!ment o$ the same &ene$its to 7 emlo!ees who ha" not serve" $or the $#ll
1* months. +he a!ments were ma"e in 1,,*% 1,,3% 1,,4% 1,,-% 1,,,% *003% an" *004.
Accor"ing to reson"ent% the rorate" a!ment violates the r#le against "imin#tion o$ &ene$its
#n"er Article 100 o$ the .a&or /o"e. +h#s% the! $ile" a comlaint &e$ore the N/M0. +he arties
s#&mitte" the case $or vol#ntar! ar&itration.
+he vol#ntar! ar&itrator% Manga&at% r#le" in $avor o$ etitioner an" $o#n" that the giving o$ the
conteste" &ene$its in $#ll% irresective o$ the act#al service ren"ere" within one !ear has not
riene" into a ractice. 1e note" the a$$i"avit o$ 0aingan% man#$act#ring gro# hea" o$
etitioner% which states that the giving in $#ll o$ the &ene$it was a mere error. 1e also interrete"
the hrase 2$or each !ear o$ service3 $o#n" in the ertinent /0A rovisions to mean that an
emlo!ee m#st have ren"ere" one !ear o$ service in or"er to &e entitle" to the $#ll &ene$its
rovi"e" in the /0A.
+he /A r#le" that the /0A "i" not inten" to $oreclose the alication o$ rorate" a!ments o$
leave &ene$its to covere" emlo!ees. +he aellate co#rt $o#n" that etitioner% however% ha"
an e4isting vol#ntar! ractice o$ a!ing the a$oresai" &ene$its in $#ll to its emlo!ees% there&!
re5ecting the claim that etitioner erre" in a!ing $#ll &ene$its to its seven emlo!ees. +he
aellate co#rt note" that asi"e $rom the a$$i"avit o$ etitioner's o$$icer% it has not resente" an!
evi"ence in s#ort o$ its osition that it has no vol#ntar! ractice o$ granting the conteste"
&ene$its in $#ll an" witho#t regar" to the service act#all! ren"ere" within the !ear. 6t also
7#estione" wh! it too( etitioner 11 !ears &e$ore it was a&le to "iscover the allege" error.
6ss#e: 89N the grant o$ 13th month a!% &on#s% an" leave encashment in $#ll regar"less o$
act#al service ren"ere" constit#tes vol#ntar! emlo!er ractice an"% conse7#entl!% the rorate"
a!ment o$ the sai" &ene$its "oes not constit#te "imin#tion o$ &ene$its #n"er Article 100 o$ the
.a&or /o"e.
1el":
Petitioner claims that its $#ll a!ment o$ &ene$its regar"less o$ the length o$ service to the
coman! "oes not constit#te vol#ntar! emlo!er ractice. 6t oints o#t that the a!ments ha"
&een erroneo#sl! ma"e an" the! occ#rre" in isolate" cases in the !ears 1,,*% 1,,3% 1,,4%
1,,,% *00* an" *003. Accor"ing to etitioner% it was onl! in *003 that the acco#nting
"eartment "iscovere" the error 2when there were alrea"! 3 emlo!ees involve" with rolonge"
a&sences an" the error was correcte" &! imlementing the ro:rata a!ment o$ &ene$its
#rs#ant to law an" their e4isting /0A.3 6t a""s that the seven earlier cases o$ $#ll a!ment o$
&ene$its went #nnotice" consi"ering the roortion o$ one emlo!ee concerne" ;er !ear< vis
= vis the 170 emlo!ees o$ the coman!. Petitioner "escri&es the sit#ation as a 2clear
oversight3 which sho#l" not &e ta(en against it. +o $#rther &olster its case% etitioner arg#es that
$or a grant o$ a &ene$it to &e consi"ere" a ractice% it sho#l" have &een ractice" over a long
erio" o$ time an" m#st &e shown to &e consistent% "eli&erate an" intentional% which is not what
haene" in this case. Petitioner tries to ma(e a case o#t o$ the $act that the /0A has not &een
mo"i$ie" to incororate the giving o$ $#ll &ene$its regar"less o$ the length o$ service% roo$ that
the grant has not riene" into coman! ractice.
An! &ene$it an" s#lement &eing en5o!e" &! emlo!ees cannot &e re"#ce"% "iminishe"%
"iscontin#e" or eliminate" &! the emlo!er. +he rincile o$ non:"imin#tion o$ &ene$its is
$o#n"e" on the /onstit#tional man"ate to 2rotect the rights o$ wor(ers an" romote their
wel$are%3 an" 2to a$$or" la&or $#ll rotection.3 Sai" man"ate in t#rn is the &asis o$ Article 4 o$ the
.a&or /o"e which states that 2all "o#&ts in the imlementation an" interretation o$ this /o"e%
incl#"ing its imlementing r#les an" reg#lations shall &e ren"ere" in $avor o$ la&or.3
>#risr#"ence is relete with cases which recogni?e the right o$ emlo!ees to &ene$its which
were vol#ntaril! given &! the emlo!er an" which riene" into coman! ractice. +h#s in
)avao Fr#its /ororation v. Associate" .a&or @nions% et al. where an emlo!er ha" $reel! an"
contin#o#sl! incl#"e" in the com#tation o$ the 13th month a! those items that were e4ressl!
e4cl#"e" &! the law% we hel" that the act which was $avora&le to the emlo!ees tho#gh not
con$orming to law ha" th#s riene" into a ractice an" co#l" not &e with"rawn% re"#ce"%
"iminishe"% "iscontin#e" or eliminate".
6n the !ears 1,,*% 1,,3% 1,,4% 1,,,% *00* an" *003% etitioner ha" a"ote" a olic! o$ $reel!%
vol#ntaril! an" consistentl! granting $#ll &ene$its to its emlo!ees regar"less o$ the length o$
service ren"ere". +r#e% there were onl! a total o$ seven emlo!ees who &ene$ite" $rom s#ch a
ractice% &#t it was an esta&lishe" ractice nonetheless. >#risr#"ence has not lai" "own an!
r#le seci$!ing a minim#m n#m&er o$ !ears within which a coman! ractice m#st &e e4ercise"
in or"er to constit#te vol#ntar! coman! ractice. +h#s% it can &e - !ears% 3 !ears% or even as
short as * !ears. Petitioner cannot shir( awa! $rom its resonsi&ilit! &! merel! claiming that it
was a mista(e or an error% s#orte" onl! &! an a$$i"avit o$ its man#$act#ring gro# hea".
6n cases involving mone! claims o$ emlo!ees% the emlo!er has the &#r"en o$ roving that
the emlo!ees "i" receive the wages an" &ene$its an" that the same were ai" in
accor"ance with law.
Petition "enie"