G.R. No. 254021 . February 14, 2022.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PBCOMEA), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) and respondent Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association (PBCOMEA) are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). PBCOM had a long-standing Multi-Purpose Loan Program allowing employees to avail loans and pledge their mid-year and year-end bonuses for repayment, a policy incorporated into the 2003 CBA. In 2014, under new management, PBCOM unilaterally changed this policy, disallowing the use of bonuses as pledges if loan amortizations could still be accommodated by the employee’s take-home pay. Separately, PBCOM had a Service Award Policy effective January 1, 1998, granting awards to employees completing 10, 15, 20, etc., years of service, covering even retired or resigned employees who completed the required years. On September 18, 2015, PBCOM amended this policy to require an employee to be “on board as of release date or September 4 of each year” to be entitled, disqualifying at least three employees (John Conrad Clavio, Ronald Buenavista, and Marcus Brian Belo) who were no longer employed by the release date. PBCOMEA protested both changes, leading the dispute to voluntary arbitration. The Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator (OVA) ruled for PBCOMEA, declaring the changes violated the CBA. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the OVA decision, upholding PBCOM’s changes to the loan program but sustaining the OVA’s nullification of the “on board” requirement for the service award. PBCOM filed a petition for review, challenging only the CA’s ruling on the service award.

ISSUE

1. Whether PBCOM violated the CBA by requiring an employee to be “on board” as of the release date to be entitled to the service award.
2. Whether retired or resigned employees acquired a vested right over the service award despite no longer being connected with PBCOM.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s ruling on the service award. The Court held that the Service Award Policy dated January 1, 1998, which did not contain an “on board” requirement, was incorporated into the CBA. The CBA’s provision stating that “all existing benefits, privileges and practices not expressly provided herein shall remain in full force and effect” necessarily included the existing service award policy. Therefore, PBCOM’s unilateral imposition of a new condition (being “on board” on the release date) amounted to a modification of the CBA, which is prohibited without mutual consent. The Court further ruled that the grant of service awards to employees who completed the required years of service, including those who retired or resigned, had ripened into a vested right. This benefit, established in 1998 and subsequently incorporated into the CBA, could not be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer. The cessation of the employer-employee relationship does not negate this vested right earned through completed service.