The Supreme Court ruled that when a company consistently grants optional retirement benefits to employees, even those not explicitly covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), this practice becomes an enforceable obligation. This means that employers cannot arbitrarily deny these benefits to some employees while granting them to others, as such actions would violate labor laws prohibiting the diminution of benefits. This decision reinforces the principle that established company practices can create legally binding rights for employees, ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of benefits.

Optional Retirement: Can a Company’s Past Practice Create Future Obligations?

Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) faced a legal challenge when two employees, Erika Marie R. De Guzman and Edna Quirante, sought to avail themselves of the company’s optional retirement plan. De Guzman and Quirante believed they were eligible for optional retirement benefits based on the company’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and past practices. However, PJI denied their applications, arguing that the employees were not covered by the CBA and that the company was facing financial difficulties. This denial led to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, focusing on whether PJI’s historical grant of optional retirement benefits created an enforceable company practice.

The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation of company practice and its impact on employee benefits. The employees argued that PJI had consistently granted optional retirement benefits to managerial employees in the past, even though the CBA primarily covered rank-and-file employees. They presented evidence of previous instances where employees outside the CBA’s scope had successfully availed themselves of the optional retirement plan. PJI countered that these instances were exceptions or errors and did not constitute a binding company practice. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals sided with the employees, emphasizing that the consistent grant of benefits over time created a legitimate expectation among employees. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this interpretation was legally sound and whether PJI could unilaterally withdraw a benefit it had previously extended.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court delved into the concept of company practice and its enforceability under Philippine labor laws. The Court highlighted that to qualify as a binding company practice, the grant of benefits must be: (1) shown to have been consistently and deliberately made over a long period; (2) the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing that the employees were not covered by the law requiring payment thereof; and (3) it arose from an act of liberality on the part of the employer. The Court emphasized that a company cannot arbitrarily withdraw benefits that have become an established practice, especially when employees have come to rely on them. This protection is rooted in Article 100 of the Labor Code, which prohibits the elimination or diminution of benefits being enjoyed by employees at the time of its promulgation.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered PJI’s financial condition and its claim of business losses. However, the Court found that PJI’s assertions were not supported by sufficient evidence. It noted that PJI had been found guilty of illegal dismissal based on an illegal retrenchment scheme, while its upper management continued to enjoy corporate bonuses, perks, and privileges. This inconsistency undermined PJI’s argument that it could not afford to grant optional retirement benefits to the employees. The Court also pointed out that PJI’s denial of the employees’ applications appeared to be discriminatory, as it had previously granted optional retirement benefits to other employees in similar positions. This further strengthened the argument that PJI’s actions were unfair and violated the principle of non-diminution of benefits.

Furthermore, the Court addressed PJI’s conduct in handling the employees’ resignation letters. The Court found that PJI had acted in bad faith by immediately accepting the resignations without clarifying the employees’ eligibility for optional retirement benefits. This was particularly concerning, as the employees had tendered their resignations based on the understanding that they could avail themselves of the company’s optional retirement package. The Court criticized PJI for not taking the time to explain that the optional retirement program was no longer in effect or to give the employees an opportunity to reconsider their actions. This lack of transparency and fairness further supported the Court’s finding that PJI had engaged in unfair labor practices.

The Supreme Court also addressed the specific instance of two management employees and the applicability of the optional retirement benefits. Examining these instances, the Court noted that the grant of optional retirement benefits to these employees was voluntary, deliberate, and done with sufficient regularity to indicate that it had become a company practice. PJI’s refusal to apply this practice to the respondents, based on the pretext of financial losses, was deemed inconsistent with the company’s actual conduct. The Court found that PJI had engaged in unfair labor activities and taken an anti-labor stance at the expense of its employees, prioritizing management’s perks over the interests of its workforce. This conduct, the Court emphasized, could not be condoned.

To be considered as a regular company practice, the employee must prove by substantial evidence that the giving of the benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has been made consistently and deliberately. Jurisprudence has not laid down any hard-and-fast rule as to the length of time that company practice should have been exercised in order to constitute voluntary employer practice. The common denominator in previously decided cases appears to be the regularity and deliberateness of the grant of benefits over a significant period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employees are not covered by any provision of the law or agreement requiring payment thereof. In sum, the benefit must be characterized by regularity, voluntary and deliberate intent of the employer to grant the benefit over a considerable period of time.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) could deny optional retirement benefits to employees based on their CBA coverage, given the company’s past practice of granting such benefits to employees outside the CBA’s scope. The court needed to determine if this past practice constituted a binding company policy.
What is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?	A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a contract between an employer and a labor union representing the employees. It typically covers terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, and applies to employees who are members of the bargaining unit.
What does the principle of non-diminution of benefits mean?	The principle of non-diminution of benefits, as enshrined in Article 100 of the Labor Code, prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing benefits that employees are already receiving at the time the Code was enacted. This principle aims to protect employees from arbitrary reductions in their compensation and welfare.
What factors determine whether a benefit has ripened into a company practice?	To qualify as a company practice, the grant of benefits must be shown to have been consistently and deliberately made over a long period. Also, the employer must have agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing that the employees were not legally entitled to them. The practice must also stem from the employer’s liberality.
What evidence did the employees present to support their claim of company practice?	The employees presented evidence of previous instances where PJI had granted optional retirement benefits to managerial employees and executive staff, even though these employees were not covered by the CBA. This evidence included affidavits and records of past retirement benefits paid to employees outside the CBA’s scope.
How did the Court assess PJI’s claim of financial losses?	The Court scrutinized PJI’s claim of financial losses and found it to be unsubstantiated. The Court noted that PJI had been found guilty of illegal dismissal based on an illegal retrenchment scheme and that its upper management continued to enjoy corporate bonuses and privileges.
What was the significance of PJI’s handling of the employees’ resignation letters?	The Court found that PJI had acted in bad faith by immediately accepting the employees’ resignations without clarifying their eligibility for optional retirement benefits. This demonstrated a lack of fairness and transparency, which further supported the Court’s finding that PJI had engaged in unfair labor practices.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for employers in the Philippines?	This ruling reinforces the principle that employers cannot arbitrarily deny benefits that have become an established company practice. Employers must act consistently and fairly in the application of benefits and should not discriminate against employees based on their CBA coverage or other factors.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of employee benefits. It clarifies that established company practices can create legally binding obligations, protecting employees from arbitrary actions by employers. This ruling serves as a reminder that employers must honor their commitments and act in good faith when dealing with their employees.

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: Philippine Journalists Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 208027, April 01, 2019