G.R. No. 218010 - Maternal vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

Petitioners are rank-and-file employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI), engaged in manufacturing, selling, marketing, and distributing soft drinks.
Respondent CCBPI (now known as Coca-Cola Femsa Phils., Inc.) underwent management changes: Initially managed by San Miguel Corporation (SMC), acquired by Coca-Cola Amatil Ltd. in 1997, reacquired by SMC in 2001, and transferred management to The Coca-Cola Company in 2007.

Various bonuses were granted to employees under different managements with differing designations such as One-time Grant, One-time Economic Assistance, One-time Gift, and One-time Transition Bonus.
These bonuses varied in amount, recipients, and timing, generally based on a percentage of the basic salary or fixed amounts.
The data on bonuses is as follows:

1997: One-Time Grant (80% of basic salary or more depending on type of employee).
2001: One-Time Economic Assistance (50% of basic salary or PHP 40,000.
2002: One-Time Economic Assistance / Gift (50-75% of basic salary).
2003-2007: Various one-time economic assistance or gifts, amounts ranging from PHP 5,000 gift certificates plus cash, to PHP 50,000 or one month prorated base pay.

Starting 2008, CCBPI stopped granting bonuses other than mandatory 13th month pay and performance-based incentives.
Employees and their union filed complaints for nonpayment of bonuses from 2008 onwards.
Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of employees ordering payment of bonuses from 2008 to 2010 equivalent to monthly pay multiplied by number of unpaid years.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this, later modifying the amount to two-thirds of basic monthly pay.
CCBPI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which voided the earlier decisions, ruling bonuses did not ripen into demandable rights and were discretionary.
Execution orders and writs were issued and later challenged; some funds were released to employees.
NLRC issued resolutions annulling some orders and restraining execution.
Employees filed motions and petitions for certiorari; CA decisions generally upheld CCBPI's stance denying entitlement.

The Supreme Court consolidated petitions challenging CA rulings on entitlement to bonuses.
Contentions included claims that bonuses were given voluntarily, regularly, and unconditionally, constituting a part of wages.
CCBPI argued bonuses remained discretionary, not forming part of wages, and prior Court rulings in similar cases settled the matter against employees.
Issues raised involved applicability of prior minute resolutions, diminution of benefits under the Labor Code, finality of decisions, and alleged grave abuse of discretion by NLRC.

Whether the Supreme Court is bound by minute resolutions in consolidated cases involving similar claims by other workers.
Whether discontinuing the bonuses depicted as one-time economic assistance or gifts constitutes unlawful diminution of employee benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Whether employees’ entitlement to year-end bonuses declared final by labor tribunals is reviewable upon appeal.
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the execution order implementing a previously affirmed decision.