7.

Explain the concept in labor law of “NON DIMINITION OF

BENEFITS”.
The general rule is that, nothing in the Labor Code shall be construed to eliminate or in
any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of
promulgation of this Code (Art. 100, Labor Code).
Albeit Article 100 is clear that the principle of non-elimination and non-diminution of
benefits apply only to the benefits being enjoyed “at the time of the promulgation” of the
Labor Code, the Supreme Court has consistently cited Article 100 as being applicable even to
benefits granted after said promulgation. It has, in fact, been treated as the legal anchor for the
declaration of the invalidity of so many acts of employers deemed to have eliminated or
diminished the benefits of employees.
The 2014 case of Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Wesleyan University-Philippines
Faculty and Staff Association,1 succinctly pointed out that the Non-Diminution Rule found in
Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing
thebenefits received by their employees. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit is based
on any of the following:
(1) An express policy;
(2) A written contract; or
(3) Company practices.
There is not much controversy if the benefit involved is provided for under Nos. 1 and
2 above. Thus, if it is expressly laid down in a written policy unilaterally promulgated by the
employer, the employer is duty-bound to adhere and comply by its own policy. It cannot be
allowed to renege from its commitment as expressed in the policy.
If the benefit is granted under a written contract such as an employment contract or a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the employer is likewise under legal compulsion to
comply therewith.
On No. 3 above, Company practice is a custom or habit shown by an employer’s
repeated, habitual customary or succession of acts of similar kind by reason of which, it gains
the status of a company policy that can no longer be disturbed or withdrawn.
To ripen into a company practice that is demandable as a matter of right, the giving of
the benefit should not be by reason of a strict legal or contractual obligation but by reason of
an act of liberality on the part of the employer.
8. Provide the instances when an employee may be required to
render overtime work?
1. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been
declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive;
2. When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of
imminent danger to public safety due to actual or impending emergency in the locality
caused by serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, epidemic or other
disasters or calamities;
3. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations or equipment,
or in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other causes of
similar nature;
4. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods;
5. When the completion or continuation of work started before the 8th hour is
necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of
the employer; and
6. When overtime work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental
conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent thereon.