Case Digest (G.R. No. 200010)
Facts:
Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association and/or Ronnie B. Alcantara v. Ma. Rollette G. Prudente, G.R. No. 200010, August 27, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. Home Credit (petitioner) employed Ma. Rollette G. Prudente (respondent). Prudente had been provided service vehicles by Home Credit: a first service vehicle in 1997 (fully company-paid), a second in 2003 (subject to a company-imposed maximum limit of P660,000, with Prudente paying the equity above that cap), and she purchased the vehicles at depreciated value in later years. In 2009, when Prudente applied for a third service vehicle, Home Credit required her to pay equity exceeding P550,000 and instituted a cost-sharing scheme requiring employees to shoulder 40% of the acquisition price (a 60%-40% company-employee split).Aggrieved, Prudente filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code (prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits). On October 30, 2009, the LA dismissed the complaint, finding that while the employer’s grant of transportation facilities ripened into company practice, the specific terms (covered employees, depreciation period, car model, company share) were managerial prerogatives and could vary. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s decision in its August 5, 2010 resolution.
Prudente sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. On August 31, 2011, the CA reversed the labor tribunals, holding that the car plan at full company cost had ripened into a company practice and was part of Prudente’s hiring package; consequently, Home Credit could not unilaterally reduce or withdraw it. The CA ordered Home Credit to provide a car of equivalent value on a non-participatory basis and awarded moral and exempl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in finding that Home Credit violated the rule against diminution of benefits by adopting a 60%-40% cost sharing scheme for the acquisition of a service vehicle?
- Had the car plan ripened into a company practice or formed part of Prudente’s hiring package such that the non-participation (full company cost) as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)