Metrobank Union and Balinang v.

NLRC and Metrobank

FACTS:
-

On 25 May 1989, Metrobank entered into a CBA with MBTCEU, granting a

wage increases for the following years:
o

P900 effective 1 January 1989

P600 effective 1 January 1990

P200 effective 1 January 1991

The Union bargained for the inclusion of probationary employees in the list of
employees who would benefit for the P900 increase but Metrobank refused

As a result, only regular employees benefited from the 1989 wage increase

A month later, Congress passed R.A. 6727 or the Wage Rationalization Act
which provides
o

Sec. 4. (a) Upon the effectivity of this Act, the statutory minimum wage
rates of all workers and employees in the private sector, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural, shall be increased by twenty-five pesos
(P25) per day, . . .: Provided, That those already receiving above the
minimum wage rates up to one hundred pesos(P100.00) shall also
receive an increase of twenty-five pesos (P25.00) per day, . . .
xxx xxx xxx

(d) If expressly provided for and agreed upon in the collective

bargaining agreements, all increase in the daily basic wage rates
granted by the employers three (3) months before the effectivity of
this Act shall be credited as compliance with the increases in the wage
rates prescribed herein, provided that, where such increases are less
than the prescribed increases in the wage rates under this Act, the
employer shall pay the difference. Such increase shall not include
anniversary wage increases, merit wage increase and those resulting
from the regularization or promotion of employees.

Where the application of the increases in the wage rates under this
Section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the wage
structure within an establishment and gives rise to a dispute therein,
such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and
in the event of a deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through
compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) having jurisdiction over the workplace.

It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continous hearings and

decide any dispute arising under this Section within twenty (20)
calendar days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it for
arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion
shall not in any way delay the applicability of the increase in the wage
rates prescribed under this Section.

Pursuant to the above provisions, the bank:

o

gave the P25 increase per day (P750/ month) to its probationary
employees and to those who had been promoted to regular or
permanent status before 01 July 1989 but whose daily rate was P100
and below 7 (Group I)

refused to give the same increase to its regular employees who were
receiving more than P100 per day and recipients of the P900 CBA
increase (Group II)

MBTCEU argues that a wage distortion existed

Metrobank petitioned the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over the case or to

certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration; they eventually agreed to
refer the issue for compulsory arbitration

The Labor Arbiter ruled: restore P900 wage gap, i.e. grant Group II a P750
wage increase
o

Since the intentional quantitative difference in wage rates is not based

purely on skills or length of service but also on other logical bases of
differentiation as gleaned from the CBA, such difference in treatment
deserves protection from any distorting statutory wage increase

Bank appealed to NLRC

NLRC: LA decision set aside

a wage distortion can arise only in a situation where the salary structure is
characterized by intentional quantitative differences among employee groups
determined or fixed on the basis of skills, length of service, or other logical
basis of differentiation and such differences or distinction are obliterated

in the new wage salary structure, the wage gaps between Level 6 and 7
levels 5 and 6, and levels 6 and 7 (sic) were maintained. While there is a
noticeable decrease in the wage gap between levels 2 and 3, Levels 3 and 4,
and Levels 4 and 5, the reduction in the wage gaps between said levels is
not significant as to obliterate or result in severe contraction of the intentional
quantitative differences in salary rates between the employees groups.

Moreover, there is nothing in the law which would justify an across-the-board

adjustment of P750.00 as ordered by the labor Arbiter

asd

ISSUE(s):
w/n the statute of non-claims (ROC 86.5 in relation to) bars the claim of the
government for unpaid taxes
HOLDING AND RATIO:
No. ROC 86.5 makes no mention of claims for monetary obligations of a decedent
which are created by law such as taxes. The claim of the Commissioner is of a
different character from the enumeration in the Rules of Court, to wit:
a. All claims for money against the decedent arising from contract, express or
implied, whether the same be due, not due or contingent;
b. All claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the
decedent; and
c. Judgment for money against the decedent.
Under the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, anything not mentioned is
excluded from its operation and effect.
Moreover, the assessment, collection and recovery of taxes, as well as the matter of
prescription thereof are governed by the provisions of the National Internal revenue
Code, particularly Sections 331 and 332 thereof, and not by other provisions of law. In

Pineda v. CFI of Tayabas, it was even held that taxes assessed against the estate of
a deceased person ... need not be submitted to the committee on claims in the
ordinary course of administration. In the exercise of its control over the administrator,
the court may direct the payment of such taxes upon motion showing that the taxes
have been assessed against the estate.
Also, under the NIRC 315, payment of income tax shall be a lien in favor of the
Government of the Philippines from the time the assessment was made by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue until paid with interests, penalties, etc. By virtue
of such lien, this court held that the property of the estate already in the hands of an
heir or transferee may be subject to the payment of the tax due the estate. A
fortiori before the inheritance has passed to the heirs, the unpaid taxes due the
decedent may be collected, even without its having been presented as a claim in
estate proceedings.
Even assuming that the claim for taxes must be filed within the time prescribed in
ROC 86.2, the claim in question may be filed even after the expiration of the time
originally fixed therein based on the last sentence.
Section 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. - In the notice provided in
the preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims
against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six
(6) months after the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at any
time before an order of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor
who has failed to file his claim within the time previously limited the court
may, for cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to
be filed within a time not exceeding one (1) month.
Here, Commissioner Vera filed the Motion before an order of the distribution is
entered, even though it was after the expiration of the time previously limited.
Others:
Recall taxes as lifeblood; SC said claim for taxes due from the estate, x x x in effect
represents a claim of the people at large.