When an employee resigns from a company with a car plan agreement lacking specific terms, the employer cannot treat the employee’s installment payments as rent for the vehicle’s use. This Supreme Court ruling emphasizes that absent a clear agreement, the primary benefit of the service vehicle accrues to the employer, making any employee benefit merely incidental.

Wheels of Fortune or Roads to Obligation? Decoding Car Plan Agreements

The case of Antonio Locsin II vs. Mekeni Food Corporation, G.R. No. 192105, decided on December 9, 2013, revolves around a car plan agreement between an employee and his employer. Antonio Locsin II was offered a Regional Sales Manager position at Mekeni Food Corporation, which included a car plan where half of the vehicle’s cost would be shouldered by the company, and the other half through salary deductions. Locsin resigned after about two years, having paid a portion of his share. A dispute arose when Mekeni claimed that the car plan benefit applied only to employees with five years of service, and Locsin sought reimbursement for his contributions.

The central legal question is whether Mekeni was justified in retaining the installment payments made by Locsin, treating them as rentals for the service vehicle. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Locsin, directing Mekeni to turn over the vehicle upon payment of the remaining balance. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ordering Mekeni to reimburse Locsin’s payments and the company’s equivalent share. The Court of Appeals (CA) then modified the NLRC’s decision, deleting the reimbursement of Locsin’s payments and Mekeni’s share, leading to the Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court examined the nature of car plan agreements and the obligations arising from them. The Court emphasized that the absence of specific terms governing the car plan was crucial. Mekeni failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the car plan agreement stipulated that installment payments would be considered rentals if the employee failed to complete the payments. This lack of clarity led the Court to analyze whether retaining Locsin’s payments would constitute unjust enrichment for Mekeni.

The Court distinguished this case from Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, stating that the installments may be treated as rentals if there is an express stipulation in the car plan agreement to such effect. In the present case, no such stipulation existed. Thus, the appellate court’s reliance on Elisco Tool was misplaced. As the Supreme Court noted, there should be clear agreement between the parties, absent such an agreement, the employee is entitled to reimbursement.

First. Petitioner does not deny that private respondent Rolando Lantan acquired the vehicle in question under a car plan for executives of the Elizalde group of companies. Under a typical car plan, the company advances the purchase price of a car to be paid back by the employee through monthly deductions from his salary. The company retains ownership of the motor vehicle until it shall have been fully paid for. However, retention of registration of the car in the company’s name is only a form of a lien on the vehicle in the event that the employee would abscond before he has fully paid for it. There are also stipulations in car plan agreements to the effect that should the employment of the employee concerned be terminated before all installments are fully paid, the vehicle will be taken by the employer and all installments paid shall be considered rentals per agreement.

The Court also scrutinized whether the car plan was primarily a benefit to Locsin or an operational necessity for Mekeni. The Supreme Court determined that the service vehicle was essential for Locsin to effectively perform his duties, covering a vast sales territory. Without the vehicle, Mekeni’s business operations would be significantly hampered. The Court underscored that any personal benefit Locsin derived from using the vehicle was incidental compared to the substantial benefits Mekeni gained.

In the case at bar, the disallowance of the subject car plan benefits would hamper the officials in the performance of their functions to promote and develop trade which requires mobility in the performance of official business. Indeed, the car plan benefits are supportive of the implementation of the objectives and mission of the agency relative to the nature of its operation and responsive to the exigencies of the service.

Given these considerations, the Supreme Court invoked the principle of unjust enrichment, as embodied in Article 22 of the Civil Code, which states: “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.” The Court clarified that a quasi-contractual relation arose between Locsin and Mekeni, necessitating the return of Locsin’s payments to prevent Mekeni from unjustly benefiting.

Art. 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.

However, the Court also ruled that Locsin was not entitled to recover the monetary value of Mekeni’s counterpart contribution to the vehicle’s cost. This share was not intended as part of Locsin’s compensation package but was an investment by Mekeni in its own operational needs. Awarding this to Locsin would constitute unjust enrichment on his part, as he would be receiving a benefit without a valid basis.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially granted Locsin’s petition. The Court ordered Mekeni to refund Locsin’s payments under the car plan, totaling P112,500.00, while denying Locsin’s claim for Mekeni’s equivalent share. This decision underscores the importance of clearly defined terms in car plan agreements and the principle that employers cannot unjustly benefit from employee contributions when the agreement lacks specific provisions regarding termination or resignation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Mekeni Food Corporation should reimburse Antonio Locsin II for his car plan payments after his resignation, given the absence of specific terms in their agreement. The court examined if retaining these payments constituted unjust enrichment for the employer.
What is a car plan agreement?	A car plan agreement is an arrangement between an employer and employee where the employer provides a vehicle for the employee’s use, often with the cost shared between both parties. Typically, the employee pays a portion through salary deductions.
What happens when a car plan agreement lacks specific terms?	When specific terms are missing, the court will look at the arrangement’s nature and whether either party is unjustly enriched. In this case, because Mekeni benefited most from the car, they had to return the payments made.
Why did the court cite the principle of unjust enrichment?	The court cited unjust enrichment because Mekeni retained the car and Locsin’s payments without a clear agreement allowing them to do so. This principle ensures that no party benefits unfairly at the expense of another.
Was the car plan considered part of Locsin’s compensation package?	The court determined that while the car plan was beneficial to Locsin, it was primarily an operational necessity for Mekeni. Therefore, Locsin was not entitled to Mekeni’s contributions to the car plan.
What was the significance of the Elisco Tool case in this decision?	The Elisco Tool case established that car plan installments could be treated as rentals only if the agreement explicitly stated so. Since Mekeni’s car plan lacked this provision, the court distinguished it from Elisco Tool.
What does this case imply for employers offering car plans?	Employers should ensure that their car plan agreements have clearly defined terms regarding ownership, payment responsibilities, and what happens upon termination or resignation. The terms prevent potential disputes and ensure fairness.
Can an employee recover the employer’s share of the car plan?	No, the employee is not entitled to the employer’s share of the car plan, as this contribution is considered an investment by the company to facilitate its business operations, not part of the employee’s compensation.
What is a quasi-contractual relation?	A quasi-contractual relation arises from lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts that prevent unjust enrichment. It’s a legal concept used when no formal contract exists but one party benefits unfairly at the other’s expense.

This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers to clearly define the terms of their car plan agreements to avoid disputes and ensure fair treatment of employees. By establishing clear guidelines, companies can prevent unjust enrichment and maintain positive employer-employee relations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Antonio Locsin II vs. Mekeni Food Corporation, G.R. No. 192105, December 9, 2013