Scribd
Upload
134 views2 pages

Davao Fruits Corp Vs Associated Labor Union

This case involved a dispute between Davao Fruits Corporation and its employees' labor union, the Associated Labor Union, over the exclusion of certain pay items from the computation of the employees' 13th month pay in 1982. While Philippine law excludes those items, the company had included them in 13th month pay computations from 1975 to 1981. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the union, finding that the long-standing practice of including those items constituted a unilateral and voluntary act that could not be reduced or eliminated under Philippine labor law. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the favorable practice had ripened into an enforceable benefit for the employees.

Uploaded by

Maricris Galinggana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views2 pages

Davao Fruits Corp Vs Associated Labor Union

This case involved a dispute between Davao Fruits Corporation and its employees' labor union, the Associated Labor Union, over the exclusion of certain pay items from the computation of the employees' 13th month pay in 1982. While Philippine law excludes those items, the company had included them in 13th month pay computations from 1975 to 1981. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the union, finding that the long-standing practice of including those items constituted a unilateral and voluntary act that could not be reduced or eliminated under Philippine labor law. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the favorable practice had ripened into an enforceable benefit for the employees.

Uploaded by

Maricris Galinggana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Davao Fruits Corp vs Associated Labor Union

Petitioner: DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION


Respondents: ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU) for in behalf of all the rank-
and-file workers/employees of DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION and NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 85073 August 24, 1993

Facts:

Respondent Associated Labor Union (ALU alleged that on the computation of


the 1982 13th month pay, petitioner excluded therein the equivalent of their sick,
vacation and maternity leaves, premium for work done on rest days and special
holidays, and pay for regular holidays which the petitioner used to include since
1975. Thus, respondent instituted a complaint to recover the 13 th month pay
differential.

In its answer, petitioner claimed that it erroneously included items subject of the
complaint in the computation of the thirteenth month pay for the years prior to 1982.
According to petitioner, this mistake was discovered only in 1981 after the
promulgation of the Supreme Court decision pertinent to the issue raised at bar.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the ALU and ordered respondent to pay the 1982
13th month pay differential to all its rank-and-file workers/employees herein
represented by complainant Union which the NLRC affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not in the computation of the thirteenth month pay given by employers to
their employees under P.D.No. 851, payments for sick, vacation and maternity
leaves, premiums for work done on rest days and special holidays, and pay for
regular holidays may be excluded in the computation and payment thereof,
regardless of long-standing company practice.

Ruling:

Yes. As early as January 16, 1976, when the Supplemental Rules and Regulations
was issued, it put to rest all doubts in the computation of the thirteenth month pay.
Aside from fringe benefits of allowances expressly mentioned in the first
Implementing Rules such as ECOLA and profit sharing agreements, said
Supplemental Rules and Regulations are very emphatic in declaring that
overtime pay, earnings and other renumerations shall be excluded in
computing the thirteenth month pay.

In other words, whatever compensation an employee receives for an eight-hour work


daily or the daily wage rate is the basic salary. Any compensation or remuneration
other than the daily wage rate is excluded. It follows therefore, that payments for
sick, vacation and maternity leaves, premium for work done on rest days special
holidays, as well as pay for regular holidays, are likewise excluded in computing the
basic salary for the purpose of determining the thirteen month pay.

However, in the case at bar, petitioner had freely, voluntarily and continuously
included in the computation of its employees' thirteenth month pay from 1975 to
1981 the payments for sick, vacation and maternity leaves, premiums for work done
on rest days and special holidays, and pay for regular holidays. The considerable
length of time the questioned items had been included by petitioner indicates a
unilateral and voluntary act on its part, sufficient in itself to negate any claim of
mistake.

Thus, a company practice favorable to the employees had indeed been established
and the payments made pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.
And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer, by virtue of Section
10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851, and Article 100 of the
labor of the Philippines, which prohibit the diminution or elimination by the employer
of the employees' existing benefits. Thus the ruling of the NLRC is hereby affirmed
and respondents are entitled to their 13th month pay differentials.

You might also like