The Supreme Court ruled that Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) could not impose a new condition, the “no negative data bank policy,” for employees to avail of loan benefits outlined in their existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This policy, which barred employees with negative credit records from accessing loans, was deemed a violation of the CBA’s terms. The Court emphasized that the CBA’s original provisions regarding loan eligibility must be honored, safeguarding the employees’ agreed-upon benefits and upholding the sanctity of labor contracts.

BPI’s “No NDB” Policy: Can a Bank Change the Rules Mid-Contract?

This case revolves around whether Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) could unilaterally impose a “no negative data bank (NDB) policy” on its employees, effectively adding a new requirement for eligibility for the loan benefits already outlined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila (BPIEU-MM) argued that this new policy violated the CBA, which had been in effect since April 1, 2001, and contained specific provisions for employee loans with defined interest rates and terms. The heart of the matter lies in the interpretation of the CBA and whether the bank could introduce new conditions that restrict employee access to benefits already agreed upon.

The CBA between BPI and BPIEU-MM details various fringe benefits, including multi-purpose loans, real estate secured housing loans, and car loans. These loans came with relatively low interest rates, a key point of agreement between the bank and its employees. Section 14 of the CBA outlines the specific terms for these loans, including the loan amounts, repayment periods, and interest rates. For instance, multi-purpose loans were capped at P40,000 with an 8% annual interest rate, while real estate-secured housing loans could reach P450,000 with a 9% interest rate, potentially reducible to 6% under certain conditions.

However, BPI introduced the “no negative data bank policy,” which effectively disqualified employees with adverse credit records from availing of these loan benefits. This policy stipulated that employees, or their spouses, must not be listed in a negative data bank, or if previously listed, must obtain clearance before applying for a loan. The union contested this policy, arguing it added a new condition not contemplated in the CBA. The policy stated that:

As bank employees, one is expected to practice the highest standards of financial prudence and sensitivity to basic rules of credit and management of his/her financial resources and needs, it is for this reason that Management deemed fit that reference to the Negative Data Bank (NDB) and other sources of financial data handling shall be made for purposes of evaluation of manpower loans.

This disagreement led to labor-management dialogues, but failing resolution, the issue was escalated to the grievance machinery and subsequently to a Voluntary Arbitrator. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the union, finding that the “no negative data bank” policy violated the CBA. The arbitrator ordered BPI to grant loan benefits to employees previously denied due to the policy and to pay attorney’s fees. BPI then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the arbitrator’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) constitutes the law between the parties. As in all contracts, a CBA requires a clear meeting of the minds. The Court stated:

Therefore, the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties.

The Court highlighted that the CBA in question contained no provision regarding the “no negative data bank policy.” The terms for loan availment were plain and clear, needing only proper implementation. The CA was correct in ruling that while BPI could issue rules for administering loans, these rules could not impose new conditions not contemplated in the CBA and must remain reasonable. The “no negative data bank policy” introduced a new condition not originally agreed upon and, in some instances, could be considered unreasonable.

The Court recognized that negotiations between an employer and a union precede the agreement on CBA terms. If BPI intended to include the “no negative data bank policy,” it should have proposed it during negotiations. Introducing it after the CBA’s effectivity altered the original agreement. The Supreme Court referred to Article 1702 of the New Civil Code, which dictates that labor legislation and contracts should be construed in favor of the laborer’s welfare, stating:

Article 1702 of the New Civil Code provides that, in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court sided with the employees, underscoring the importance of upholding the agreed-upon terms of the CBA to protect their benefits and rights.

The BPI argued that the “No NDB policy” is a valid and reasonable requirement consistent with sound banking practice. They maintained that it inculcates fiscal responsibility among employees, especially in an industry requiring high trust. Further, BPI contended that the policy aligns with existing BSP regulations and safe banking practices. However, the Supreme Court held firm that the CBA’s existing terms must prevail, indicating that the bank’s concerns, while valid, should have been addressed during CBA negotiations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether BPI could unilaterally impose a “no negative data bank policy” on its employees, adding a new condition for loan eligibility that was not part of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
What did the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) include?	The CBA included specific terms for employee loans, such as multi-purpose loans, real estate secured housing loans, and car loans, with defined interest rates and terms. These loan benefits were part of the agreement between BPI and its employees.
What was the “no negative data bank policy”?	The “no negative data bank policy” disqualified employees with adverse credit records from availing of loan benefits under the CBA. This policy stated that employees, or their spouses, must not be listed in a negative data bank or must obtain clearance before applying for a loan.
Why did the union object to the “no negative data bank policy”?	The union objected to the policy because it added a new condition for loan eligibility that was not part of the original CBA. The union argued that BPI could not unilaterally change the terms of the agreement.
What did the Voluntary Arbitrator decide?	The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the union, finding that the “no negative data bank policy” violated the CBA. The arbitrator ordered BPI to grant loan benefits to employees previously denied due to the policy.
What did the Court of Appeals decide?	The Court of Appeals affirmed the arbitrator’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The CA agreed that BPI could not unilaterally impose new conditions for loan eligibility.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties. The Court ruled that BPI could not impose new conditions not contemplated in the CBA.
What is the significance of Article 1702 of the New Civil Code in this case?	Article 1702 states that labor legislation and contracts should be construed in favor of the laborer’s welfare. The Supreme Court cited this article to support its decision in favor of the employees.

This case underscores the importance of upholding the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement and ensuring that employers do not unilaterally impose new conditions that restrict employee benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that a CBA represents a binding agreement between an employer and its employees and that any changes must be negotiated and agreed upon by both parties.

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: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION- METRO MANILA, G.R. No. 175678, August 22, 2012