SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237267. January 22, 2020.]
DISC CONTRACTORS, BUILDERS AND GENERAL SERVICES, INC., * petitioner, vs.GEORGE A. BUEN, RUDY P. EQUIO, REYNALDO A. BODAÑO, ** RODOLFO G. CANOZA, AND ESMERALDA V. ESTEBAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237267 (Disc Contractors, Builders and General Services, Inc. v. George A. Buen, Rudy P. Equio, Reynaldo A. Bodaño, Rodolfo G. Canoza, and Esmeralda V. Esteban). — The Court NOTES the compliance dated December 13, 2019 by counsel for respondents George A. Buen, Rudy P. Equio, Reynaldo A. Bodaño, Rodolfo G. Canoza, and Esmeralda V. Esteban (respondents) with the Resolution dated September 2, 2019, submitting the PDF file of respondents' signed third motion for extension to file a comment.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 25, 2017 Decision 2 and the January 16, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144298 for failure of petitioner Disc Contractors, Builders and General Services, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible in finding that its unilateral withdrawal of its grant of mid-year bonus violated the principle of non-diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code, as amended. 4 HEITAD
As correctly ruled by the CA, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the National Labor Relations Commission in affirming the Labor Arbiter's finding that: (a) petitioner is a private corporation beyond the authority of the governance commission of the Government Owned and Controlled Corporation, following the status of its parent company, Philippine National Construction Corporation; and (b) petitioner's grant of mid-year bonus ripened into a company policy, thereby making its unilateral withdrawal a violation of the principle of non-diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. 5 Settled is the rule that the application of the prohibition against the diminution of benefits presupposes that a company practice, policy or tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established, and that the payments made by the employer pursuant to the practice, policy, or tradition have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them, 6 which respondents were able to show in this case. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* "Disc Contractors, Builders and General Service, Inc." in some parts of the rollo.
** "Reynaldo A. Bodano" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2.Id. at 27-37. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 39-40.
4. Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015, entitled "RENUMBERING OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED" dated July 21, 2015. Article 100 thereof reads:
Article 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. — Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code.
5. See rollo, pp. 34-35.
6.Philippine Journalist, Inc. v. Journal Employees Union, 710 Phil. 94, 108 (2013).