Backwages should include CBA benefits
Had private respondent not been unlawfully ousted from the union and unjustly terminated from work, he would have been entitled to benefits being regularly received by the employees
Respondent Victoriano B. Valmores was hired by petitioner United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UCCI) as its senior utilities inspector with a monthly salary of P11,194.
He became a member of the United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. Employees’ Labor Organization (UELO) until his expulsion sometime in 1995. Due to the expulsion, UELO formally demanded that UCCI terminate the services of the respondent pursuant to the union security clause of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). UCCI dismissed him on Feb. 22, 1996. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed his complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA decision. It found UCCI liable for illegal dismissal and ordered them to reinstate respondent to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from the date of dismissal on Feb. 22, 1996 to the date of actual reinstatement. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of NLRC.
UCCI filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. It argued that the basis for computing respondent’s backwages should be his basic salary at the time of his dismissal excluding prospective increases in wages as well as the benefits provided in the CBA.
Does this argument find merit?
Ruling: No.
CBA allowances and benefits that the respondent was regularly receiving before his illegal dismissal on Feb. 22, 1996 should be added to the base figure of P11,194.
This is because Article 279 of the Labor Code decrees that the backwages shall be “inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent.” Considering that the law does not distinguish between the benefits granted by the employer and those granted under the CBA, he should not be denied the latter benefits.
Nonetheless, the respondent still had to prove his entitlement to the benefits by submitting proof of his having received the same at the time of his illegal dismissal. In BPI Employees’ Union-Metro Manila, the claim for CBA benefits such as the signing bonus, medical and doctor’s allowance, and dental allowance was denied because the employee was unable to prove that he was receiving such benefits at the time of the illegal dismissal. To do so, therefore, the respondent must have submitted before the Labor Arbiter sufficient evidence establishing his receiving meal subsidy, SOFA, financial grant, medical assistance, built-in overtime and night shift differential, rice subsidy, uniform allowance, Christmas package, vacation and sick leave at the time he was dismissed.
Yet, the respondent was unable to discharge his burden because the relevant documents, including the CBA, had been in UCCI’s exclusive possession and custody.
Unfortunately, the Labor Arbiter did not rule on his motion to compel the production of the documents by subpoena duces tecum because, as the NLRC put it:
The Labor Arbiter did not recognize the CBA benefits which complainant alleged should have been included in the computation because the complainant failed to prove the same. On 2 June 2008, the complainant filed a motion xxxx for computation of backwages and issuance of subpoena to the personnel manager/payroll officer or any employee of respondent employer-company to bring documents as well as the Collective Bargaining Agreement in force related to the latest salary/benefits of a Senior Utilities Operator and to testify thereon. This motion was not resolved by the Labor Arbiter. xxxx On 1 July 2008, respondent [UCCI] in its personnel action form xxx admitted complainant’s re-instatement salary to be P26,614.00 per month. The difference or disparity between the amount of P11,194 allegedly complainant’s salary at the time of his dismissal on 26 February 2006 and P26,614.00 salary of complainant for the month of July 2008 should have prompted the Labor Arbiter to dig deeper into the allegations of complainant that he is entitled to other benefits under the CBA, the same to form part of the full backwages awarded to him.
The observations of the CA on this are adopted with approval, to wit:
In the case at bench, it is undisputed that private respondent was a regular employee of petitioner UCCI and a member of UELO. A perusal of the records also shows that his expulsion from the union was deemed unjustified. This was the finding of the Former Sixth Division of this Court in its Decision dated January 18, 2002. Had private respondent not been unlawfully ousted from the union and unjustly terminated from work, he would have been entitled to the benefits being regularly received by the employees of petitioner UCCI who are members of the bargaining unit. As aptly noted by the NLRC, petitioner UCCI failed to submit the documents providing the details of benefits granted to its employees from the time of private respondent’s dismissal on February 22, 1996 up to the date of his reinstatement. The presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced thus applies. Consequently, We sustain the NLRC’s ruling that private respondent’s full backwages should be re-computed in order to include the benefits regularly given to petitioner UCCI’s employees under the CBA. (Bersamin, J., SC 3rd Div., United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. v. Victoriano B. Valmores, G.R. No. 201018, July 12, 2017).