1. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES FACULTY and STAFF
ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Wesleyan University-Philippines (Petitioner), a non-stock, non-profit
educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines and Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff
Association (Respondent), a duly registered labor organization acting as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file faculty and staff
employees of petitioner signed a 5-year CBA9 effective June 1, 2003 until
May 31, 2008.
A Memorandum providing guidelines on the implementation of vacation
and sick leave credits as well as vacation leave commutation was issued by
petitioner, through its President, Atty. Guillermo T. Maglaya (Atty.
Maglaya). Respondent President, Cynthia L. De Lara (De Lara) wrote a
letter to Atty. Maglaya informing him that respondent is not amenable to
the unilateral changes made by petitioner and questioning the guidelines
for being contrary to the existing practices and the CBA.
Petitioner advised respondent to file a grievance complaint on the
implementation of the vacation and sick leave policy during their Labor
Management Committee (LMC) Meeting. Petitioner announced therein its
plan of implementing a one-retirement policy whichwas unacceptable to
respondent.
Unable to settle their differences at the grievance level, the parties referred
the matter to a Voluntary Arbitrator. Respondent submitted affidavits
showing that there is an established practice of giving two retirement
benefits: one from the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association
(PERAA) Plan and another from the CBA Retirement Plan.
The Voluntary Arbitrator declared that the one-retirement policy and the
Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is contrary to law.
Petitioner appealed the case to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court. The CA affirmed the nullification of the one-
retirement policy and the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 on the
ground that these unilaterally amended the CBA without the consent of
respondent. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the
same.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave and
palpable error in ruling that a university practice of granting its employees
two (2) sets of Retirement Benefits had already been established? Whether
or not the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in
revoking petitioner Memorandum dated 16 August 2005 for being contrary
to extant policy?
HELD: Decision of the Court of Appeals is sustained.
LABOR LAW: non-diminution rule
Article 100 of the Labor Code provides for the Non-Diminution Rule. This
rule prohibits the employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits
received by their employees. It applies only if the benefit is based on an
express policy, a written contract, or has ripened into a practice. To be
considered a practice, it must be consistently and deliberately made by the
employer over a long period of time. However, this rule admits of an
exception and that is when the practice is due to error in the construction
or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law. The error, however,
must be corrected immediately after its discovery; otherwise, the rule on
Non-Diminution of Benefits would still apply.
In the case at bar, respondent presented substantial evidence in the form of
affidavits supporting its claim that there are two retirement plans. As
gleaned from the affidavits, petitioner has been giving two retirement
benefits as early as 1997. Petitioner failed to present any evidence to refute
the veracity of said affidavits. Moreover, no evidence was shown to prove
petitioner contention that there is only one retirement plan as the CBA
Retirement Plan and the PERAA Plan are one and the same.
LABOR LAW: collective bargaining agreement cannot be unilaterally
changed
The Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 imposes a limitation not agreed
upon by the parties nor stated in the CBA. Hence, it must be struck down.
It is provided in Sections 1 and 2 of Article XII of the CBA that all covered
employees are entitled to 15 days sick leave and 15 days vacation leave with
pay every year and that after the second year of service, all unused vacation
leave shall be converted to cash and paid to the employee at the end of each
school year, not later than August 30 of each year. Whereas, it is provided
in the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 that vacation and sick leave
credits are not automatic as leave credits would be earned on a month-to-
month basis. The said Memorandum, therefore, limits the available leave
credits of an employee at the start of the school year.
Basic is the rule that when the provisions of the CBA is clear, the literal
meaning of the stipulation shall govern. Any doubt in its interpretation
must be resolved in favor of labor.
The present petition for review is DENIED.
