Case Summary (G.R. No. 250839)
Key Dates
– 1980s: Original multi-purpose loan policy adopted
– 2003: Loan program incorporated into Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
– 2007: PBCom amends repayment guidelines in Policies and Procedures Manual
– 2014: New management issues latest loan program Primer with additional restrictions
– April 20, 2018: Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator (OVA) Decision
– October 18, 2019: Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
– September 14, 2022: Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3 (right to self-organization, collective bargaining, participation in policy and decision-making)
– Labor Code of the Philippines
• Article 218 (State labor policy)
• Article 264 [253] (duty to bargain collectively and maintain status quo)
• Article 267 [255] (workers’ participation in policy and decision-making)
Antecedents: Multi-Purpose Loan Program
PBCom’s original 1980s policy allowed qualified employees to obtain multiple loans provided total amortizations did not exceed 35% of net pay, and expressly permitted pledges/deductions from mid-year and year-end bonuses. In 2003 this policy was enshrined in Section 2, Article XVI of the CBA. In 2007 and again in 2014, successive managements unilaterally introduced amendments requiring discretion to allow bonus pledges and a five-year service prerequisite before using bonuses, effectively restricting access to the original benefit. PBCEA protested but the amendments remained in force.
Antecedents: Service Award Policy
Since 1998, PBCom granted service awards on its anniversary to employees with ten or more years of service and at five-year intervals thereafter, eligibility extending to retirees or those who resigned before the anniversary. This was formalized in Section 2, Article XII of the CBA. In September 2015, management added a requirement that recipients be “on board” as of the release date, disqualifying eligible employees who had separated before that date. PBCEA’s demands for recall were denied, prompting a grievance.
Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision
On April 20, 2018, the OVA ruled that both the loan-program amendments and the revised service award policy unilaterally violated the CBA. Citing Article 264 of the Labor Code, the OVA held that neither party may modify a CBA during its term, and that management prerogative cannot override express CBA provisions without union consent.
Court of Appeals Decision
On October 18, 2019, the CA modified the OVA ruling by upholding the validity of the latest loan-program restrictions—service-length and net-pay conditions for bonus pledges—while sustaining the prohibition on the “on board” requirement for service awards.
Issue
Whether PBCom’s unilateral imposition of additional conditions on loan repayment through bonus pledges violates PBCEA’s right to collective bargaining and the duty to maintain the status quo under the existing CBA.
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Basis
The Supreme Court grante
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 250839)
Factual Background
- PBCom established a Multi-Purpose Loan Program in the 1980s allowing qualified employees to avail simultaneous loans limited by a 35% debt service ratio of net pay.
- Employees were expressly permitted to use mid-year and year-end bonuses to amortize loans, as stated in the Primer on PBCom Multi-Purpose Loan Programs for Officers and Staff.
- In 2003, the loan program was incorporated into Section 2, Article XVI of the CBA between PBCom and PBCEA, stipulating that the Bank “shall maintain its existing loan program.”
- Subsequent CBAs carried over the same provision, preserving the terms of the original loan policy.
Evolution of the Loan Program
- 2007 management issued a Policies and Procedures Manual amending bonus-pledge repayment to “may be allowed,” granting PBCom discretion to permit or deny bonus pledges.
- PBCEA opposed the amendment; PBCom deferred implementation but never resolved the dispute, leaving the policy suspended.
- In 2014, new investors redefined the program: bonus pledges allowed only if the employee had rendered five years’ service and net take-home pay could not accommodate amortization.
- PBCEA objected but PBCom unilaterally enforced the new restriction, preventing or discouraging employees from using bonuses for loan repayment.
- Grievance Machinery proceedings failed to settle the controversy over the loan policy change.
Service Award Policy Amendment
- Since January 1, 1998, PBCom granted Service Awards on its September 4 anniversary to employees with at least ten years’ service and every five years thereafter, including retirees and resigning employees before anniversary.
- Formalized in Section 2, Article XII of the CBA, the policy listed specified cash amounts per service milestone.
- On September 18, 2015, PBCom modified the Service Award policy to require employees to be “on board as of [the] release date or September 4” to qualify.
- At least three eligible employees lost entitlement due to the new “on board” requirement.
- PBCEA’s demand for recall was denied; referral to