American Wire and Cable Co.

, Inc v
American Wire and Cable Co., Inc., AWCCI is a corporation engaged in the
manufacture of wires and cables. The American Wire and Cable Monthly-Rated
Employees Union (Monthly-Rated Union) and the American Wire and Cable DailyRated Employees Union (Daily-Rated Union), two unions in the said company, filed
an original action before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board NCMB of the
DOLE for voluntary arbitration. The two unions alleged that the AWCCI suddenly
withdrew and denied certain benefits and entitlements which they have long
enjoyed without valid cause. These are the following: service award (35% premium
pay of an employees basic pay for the work rendered during Holy Mon, Tue and
Wed; Dec 23,26-29; Christmas Party; and Promotional Increase). 15 members of the
union, who has asked for promotional increase, were given new job classifications
which according to the petitioners were in the nature of promotion.
The two parties filed their submission agreement before the Office for Voluntary
Arbitration. After 13 days, the parties simultaneously filed their respective position
papers with the VA, NCMB and DOLE. Angel Ancheta, assigned as VA(or), rendered
decision stating the Company is not guilty of violating Art 100 of the Labor Code (for
withdrawing the said benefits and entitlement). A motion for reconsideration was
filed by both unions where they alleged that the Voluntary Arbitrator manifestly
erred in finding that the company did not violate Art. 100 of LC when it unilaterally
withdrew the subject benefits, and when no promotional increase was granted to
the affected employees. The VA issued an order stating that they found no cogent
reason to change, modify, or disturb said decision. DRU made an appeal before the
CA averring that Ancheta erred in finding that the company did not violate Art. 100
of LC. Further, they assert oluntary Arbitrator erred in adopting the companys
unaudited Revenues and Profitability Analysis for the years 1996-2000 in justifying
the latters withdrawal of the questioned benefits. CA denied the petition and
affirmed the VAs decision and order. MR was filed contending that CA
misappreciated the facts of the case, and that it committed serious error when it
ruled that the unaudited financial statement bears no importance in the instant
case but was denied.
The petitioner instituted a civil action for certiorari citing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether CA guilty of violating Article 100 of the Labor Code, as amended,
when the benefits/ entitlements given to the members of petitioner union were
withdrawn
Held: NO. It is obvious that the benefits/entitlements subjects of the instant case are
all bonuses which were given by the private respondent out of its generosity and
munificence. The additional 35% premium pay for work done during selected days
of the Holy Week and Christmas season, the holding of Christmas parties with raffle,
and the cash incentives given together with the service awards are all in excess of
what the law requires each employer to give its employees. Since they are above
what is strictly due to the members of petitioner-union, the granting of the same
was a management prerogative, which, whenever management sees necessary,

may be withdrawn, unless they have been made a part of the wage or salary or
compensation of the employees. A bonus is an act of generosity granted by an
enlightened employer to spur the employee to greater efforts for the success of the
business.
For a bonus to be enforceable, it must have been promised by the employer and
expressly agreed upon by the parties,[30] or it must have had a fixed amount[31] and
had been a long and regular practice on the part of the employer. [32]
The benefits/entitlements in question were never subjects of any express
agreement between the parties. They were never incorporated in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). As observed by the Voluntary Arbitrator, the records
reveal that these benefits/entitlements have not been subjects of any express
agreement between the union and the company, and have not yet been
incorporated in the CBA.
China Banking Corporation v Borromeo
G.R. No. 156515
Facts:
Respondent Mariano Borromeo was Assistant Vice-President of the Branch Banking
Group of China Banking Corporation for the Mindanao Area.
Without authority from the Executive Committee or Board of Directors of the bank,
he approved several DAUD/BP (Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits/Bills Purhcased)
accommodations a total of ten out-of-town checks (7 pcib checks and 3 ucpb
checks) of various dates amounting to P2,441,375 in favour of Joel Maniwan. Such
checks, which are not sufficiently funded by cash, are generally not honoured by
banks. This came to the knowledge of the bank authorities. A memorandum was
issued to the Mariano seeking clarification relative to the matter. This includes:
efforts made in establishing th identity of the alleged drawer; the branch
compliance on operation procedure on verification with the drawee bank; exceeding
of the limit granted to clients [500K]; bouncing of checks) The respondent accepted
full responsibility for committing an error in judgment and abuse of discretion.
Mariano resigned from the Bank and apologized for all the trouble I have caused
because of the Maniwan case. The respondent, however, vehemently denied
benefitting therefrom.
His acts having constituted violation of the Banks Code of Ethics, the respondent
was directed to restitute the amount of P1,507,736.79 representing 90% of the total
loss of P1,675,263.10 incurred by the Bank. However, in view of his resignation and
considering the years of service in the Bank, the management earmarked only
P836,637.08 from the respondents total separation benefits or pay. The said
amount would be released upon recovery of the sums demanded from Maniwan in a
civil case filed against him by the bank with the RTC in Cagayan de Oro City.

The respondent made a demand on the bank for the payment of his separation pay
and other benefits, but the bank maintained its position to withhold the sum of
P836,637.08. Thus, Mariano filed with the NLRC a complaint for payment of
separation pay, mid-year bonus, profit share and damages against the bank.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the bank. Respondent appealed to the NLRC but
it affirmed in toto the findings of the Labor Arbiter. The CA, however, alleging that
respondent was denied his right to due process, set aside the NLRC decision and
ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further
hearings on the factual issues involved.
The bank filed a motion for reconsidered but denied the same. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the bank has the prerogative/right to impose on the respondent
what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its
company rules and regulations.
Held:
The petition is meritorious.
The bank was left with no other course but to impose the ancillary penalty of
restitution. It was certainly within the banks prerogative to impose on the
respondent what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances
pursuant to its company rules and regulations.
The petitioners bank business is essentially imbued with public interest and owes
great fidelity to the public it deals with. It is expected to exercise the highest degree
of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. As a corollary, and
like all other business enterprises, its prerogative to discipline its employees and to
impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and
regulations must be respected. The law, in protecting the rights of labor, authorized
neither oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is
possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect.
Significantly, the respondent is not wholly deprived of his separation benefits. As
the Labor Arbiter stressed in his decision, the separation benefits due the
complainant were merely withheld. Even the petitioner bank itself gives the
assurance that as soon as the bank has satisfied a judgment in the civil case, the
earmarked portion of his benefits will be released without delay.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the CA is reversed and set
aside. The Resolution of the NLRC is reinstated.