[45] PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. V.

DE GUZMAN employees are not covered by any provision of the law or agreement
GR No. 208027 | April 1, 2019 | Right to Retirement Benefits | dela Cuesta
b.
Petitioner: PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., ROLAND DE JESUS, FE
SISCAR, EUGENIA ABANIA, SARAH BUAN, FRANCIS RIVADELO,
and MICHAEL MOSQUEDA
Respondents: ERIKA MARIE R. DE GUZMAN AND EDNA QUIRANTE
FACTS:
Recit-Ready: De Guzman was employed as a taker/account executive while
Quirante was HRD Supervisor by Philippine Journalists Inc. (PJI). They
informed PJI of their intention to avail of the company’s optional retirement
plan as embodied in the CBA. PJI said that respondents were not entitled to
these retirement benefits as they were not rank and file employees and as
such, not part of the bargaining unit.
The LA ruled that the respondents were not entitled to optional retirement
benefits. The NLRC reversed the decision. On the otherhand, the CA ruled
that De Guzman and Quirante can still avail of these optional retirement
benefits since it has been a company practice of PJI to grant retirement
benefits to its employees.
Did the CA err in ruling that PJI’s grant of optional retirement benefits to its
managerial employees and executive staff had ripened into a company
practice? NO
The Court found the CA pronouncement tenable as it appeared that the
petitioner’s denial of respondent’s application for optional retirement was
unfair as it granted the same privilege to others previously. The CA’s ruling
was also correct in light of PJI pursuing a scheme to reduce its personnel by
any means necessary, which is both unfair and prejudicial to the interests of
labor. Respondents were under the honest belief that they could avail of the
optional retirement scheme that PJI allowed before but, instead, were declared
separated from the company by voluntary resignation; there is no payment of
benefits. In summary, the grant of optional retirement benefits to two
management employees in the past was voluntary, deliberate, and done with
sufficient regularity as would indicate that this had become a company
practice within PJI.
requiring payment thereof.
Article 100 of the Labor Code. Prohibition against elimination or
diminution of benefits. – Nothing in this Book 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.
1. De Guzman and Quirante were both employees of Philippine
Journalists Inc. (PJI)
a. De Guzman started on May 11, 1994 and left the company
on Nov. 15, 2008. She worked as a Taker/Account
Executive with a salary of Php 23,000 + commission.
b. Quirante started on Sept. 5, 1989 and was the HRD
Supervisor at the time of the cessation of her employment on
Mar. 15, 2009 with a salary of Php 25,522.20
2. On Oct. 28, 2008 and Jan. 23, 2009, respectively, they (through
separate letters) informed PJI of their desire to avail of the company’s
optional retirement plan as embodied in the CBA.
3. Respondents filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, money
claims, nonpayment of optional retirement benefits and service
incentive leave against PJI and its corporate officers because PJI
failed and refused to process the payment of the optional retirement
benefits due them.
4. Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The CBA
categorized certain positions as managerial and are excluded from the
bargaining unit; respondents are not rank and file employees and are
not entitled to retirement benefits
5. NLRC: Found for the Respondents
a. An approved optional retirement plan exists1
b. Respondents argued that even if there are categories of
employees2 excluded from the coverage of the CBA, the
company as a matter of practice, has extended benefits under
the CBA to those excluded.
c. Respondents cited cases of former employees (Trinidad,
Hernandez, and Madera) who were granted optional
retirement benefits despite being managerial employees

Doctrines:
a. To be considered company practice, the employee must prove by
substantial evidence that the giving of the benefit is done over a long
period of time and made consistently and deliberately. While there is no
hard fast rule as to the length of time, the common denominator appears
to be the regularity and deliberateness of the grant of benefits over a
period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer
agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said
1
Section 3, Article XIV of the CBA. Optional Retirement. — A regular employee who [h]as
continuously rendered five (5) years of service, may optionally retire from employment with
the COMPANY. A qualified employee who avails himself an optional retirement shall
receive optional retirement pay computed on the basis of the approved Retirement Plan.
2
Article 1, Sec. 1: Appropriate Bargaining Unit. Consequently, positions/job classifications
as of the effectivity of this AGREEMENT enumerated in Annex A hereof are considered as
managerial, probationary, and contractual and are therefore, excluded from the bargaining
unit
 d. If it were not true that it has been a practice for PJI to grant its
employees including managerial/confidential employees optional
retirement benefits in accordance with the CBA, respondents
would not have filed an application for optional retirement.
6. CA: Respondents can still avail of the optional retirement benefits because
it has been a company practice to grant retirement benefits to employees.
a. It is clear that respondents belong to those employees excluded
from the coverage of the CBA [Quirante was also Officer-in-
Charge of the HR Dept.; De Guzman was also the Executive
Security of the Chairman of PJI]
b. As to what constitutes company practice, the case of Phil.
Appliance Corp. v. CA states that, “the test or rationale of this rule
on long practice requires an indubitable showing that the employer
agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said
employees are not covered by the law requiring payment thereof.”
c. PJI has granted benefits to Madera and Fernandez knowing fully
well that they are not entitled under the CBA. It has consistently
granted optional retirement benefits in a considerable length of 2
years (year 2001 and 2003 respectively)
d. Therefore, the grant of these benefits already constitutes voluntary
employer practice which cannot be unilaterally withdrawn or
diminished without violating the spirit and intendment of Art. 100
of the Labor Code regarding the prohibition against elimination or
diminution of benefits.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in ruling that PJI’s grant of optional retirement benefits to
its managerial employees and executive staff had ripened into a company practice?
NO
RATIO:
1. A perusal of the facts show that petitioner’s denial of respondents’
application for optional retirement was unfair as it granted the same
privilege to others previously.
a. It appears that PJI discriminates against its core employees and
favors those in the upper tier.
b. It had been found guilty of illegal dismissal based on an illegal
retrenchment scheme, while upper management continued to enjoy
its perks and privileges. De Guzman and Quirante’s positions,
while not considered rank and file, do not belong to the upper
echelon of PJI management.
2. CA’s ruling was correct in light of PJI pursuing a scheme to reduce its
personnel by any means necessary, which is both unfair and prejudicial
to the interests of labor.
a. Respondents were under the honest belief that they could avail of
the optional retirement scheme that PJI allowed with respect to
other employees in the past. They tendered their resignation letters
on the sole ground that they were availing the optional
retirement package.
b. If petitioners believed that the respondents, were not entitled
to avail of such package, then petitioners should have at
least put their resignations on hold.
c. Instead, PJI declared the respondents separated from the
company by voluntary resignation with its effects such as
non-payment of benefits.
d. PJI did not even take the time to explain that the program
was no longer in effect and give respondents the opportunity
to reconsider their actions. This is tantamount to bad faith.
3. The grant of optional retirement benefits to two management
employees in the past was voluntary, deliberate, and done with
sufficient regularity as would indicate that this had become a
company practice within PJI
a. To be considered company practice, the employee must
prove by substantial evidence that the giving of the benefit is
done over a long period of time and made consistently and
deliberately.
b. While there is no hard fast rule as to the length of time, the
common denominator appears to be the regularity and
deliberateness of the grant of benefits over a period of time.
c. PJI refused to apply the grant of the benefits under the guise
of the company incurring losses. What is clear is that PJI
engaged in unfair labor activities and took an anti-labor
stance at the expense of its employees.
* Additional Info: [Non-entitlement of benefits because PJI was suffering
from losses and the implementation of a retrenchment program in 2005]
- PJI was not suffering from losses as it was compelled to reinstate several
employees it originally fired as a result of a retrenchment program. There were
findings that reservations were being made and that employees were granted
merit increases
* Additional Info: [2005 Memorandum of Understanding]
- PJI’s statement that it had suffered financial reverses is self-serving and
untrue. PJI was unable to rebut/disprove such finding in the case of Philippine
Journalists, Inc. v. NLRC
HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The November 7, 2012
Decision and July 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 123901 are AFFIRMED in toto.