3R.

epublit of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme QCourt
:l}lllanila

SECOND DIVISION

FERNAND 0. MATERNAL, G.R. No. 218010

RAYMUNDO VINOYA, ERWIN S.
CONSTANTINO, EDILBERTO F.
CARZON, LOURDES V.
ALIBUDBUD, GLORIA BATHAN,
DIOSCORO MARLA,
FELICISIMO ARTICONA,
JOSEPH E. CALINGASIN,
LORETA D. APARATO,
CORAZON ORIENDA, DANNY
BALUNES, JOY OCADO, RONNIE
PALENTINOS, REYNANTE C.
BASINANG, RAMIL DURAN,
VICTORINO 0 . ATIENZA, JR.,
ALLAN B. MIOLE, WILBERT
BANAYO, CHRISTIAN CANTOS,
ARNALDO P. BATIS, REYNALDO
R. ORIEL, WILFREDO A. DE
LEON, WILFREDO S.
MORALEDA, EDWARD R.
REGOCERA, CHRISTOPHER
CARULLO, ANDY BARONA,*
RENATO PAG-ONG,* RICHARD
E. RJNON,* REYNALDO H.
ARLATA, JR., TEODORIC.O F.
FORTUNO, PETER M . POCOY,
JULIANA G. DOMINE,
CHRISTIAN C. MANUBAG,
VIVIAN M . CAPARAS, MARK
ZUNIGA, WARLINITO GUNO,
EDUEL AGUILA, ROGELIO
BONGATO, ART NABATILAN,
JUAN ENTENA, JR., GILBERT
GASAPOS, NICANOR*

Also spelled as Barona in some parts of the rollo.

Also spelled as Pag Ong in some parts of tlte rolio.
A lso spelled as Renion in some parts ot the ro//o.
A lso spelled as N ickanor in some parts of the ,·v//r,.
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 2 180 IO and
248662

BORROMEO, CHRIS MANIQUIS,

ALFRED DE GUZMAN, RICO D.
PAZ, JOSELITO M.
PAGCALIWAGAN; CRIS'' R. SAN
PEDRO, LARRY B. TABURA,
EMILIO T. GENADA, EDZ~L C.
NOBLE, HELEN T. ERASGA,
MENCHITO B. RECARO,· ARIEL
T. RONCESVALLES, MAURO M.
VILLADIEGO, MANUEL A.
CANTILLAN, LIBRADO L.
LANDI CHO, FERDINAND
SANTIAGO, ERIBERTO P.
PALENCIA, ARIEL C. LUMIO,
ARNEL D. ALCANTARA,
CRISPULO DEL MUNDO,
CASTOR B. ISIANG, ELVIN G.
PACUMO,* MAXIMO M. TUIZA,
JOSE U. VILLAPANDO,* ELMO L.
CAMALIG, ROMMEL
TORRENTE, NATHANIEL A.
HERNANDEZ, LEO A. SIOSON,
JUANITO D. BEATO, MARVIN M.
RODAS, TRISTAN HERNANDEZ,
RANDY B. MEDIANERO, RAFAEL
CEAZAR C. VARGAS,ANDREW
SARMIENTO, GLEN A. AZUELO,
RODERICK PEREZ, DEXTER
CORACHEA, ROLAN BALO,
RUBEN LAZO, DENNIS
EUGENIO, ELMER GUIBAO,
ADELO VERGARA, MONICO
MARASIGAN, HENRY B. LOPEZ,
MARIANO G. AGUILAR, JR.,
AUGUST B. BUENAVENTURA,
HENRY N. SUMAGUE, EDWIN R.
CELZO, PRUDENCIO J.
ZURBITO, JR., MARLON L.
GAMlLLA, JOHNNY* A.
MAJERANO, LEVIE B. ARGON,
DIONISIO R. MABALOT,
GLIENDON J. GARCIA, REGINO
P. BATERJSNA, ELVIN A. MANE

Also spelled as Pagkaliwagan in some parts of the ml/o.

A lso spelled as Cri in sorne parts ofrhe rollo.
Also spelled as Pacuno in some parts of the rollo.
A lso spel led as Villa Pando in som e parts of the rolio.
A lso spdled '.IS Jhonny in som e parts of the ml/o.
Decision 3 G .R. Nos. 2 180 10 and
248662

AND RANDY M. QUERUELA,

Petitioners,

-versus-

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.,

INC. (NOW KNOWN AS COCA-
COLA FEMSA PHILS., INC.),*
Respondent.

x--------------------------------------·--x

FERNAND 0. MATERNAL, G.R. No. 248662

RAYMUNDO VINOYA, ERWIN S.
CONSTANTINO, EDILBERTO F. Present:
CARZON, LOURDES V. LEON EN, J., Chairperson,
ALIBUDBUD, GLORIA BATHAN, INTING **
'
DIOSCORO MARLA, GAERLAN ***
'
FELICISIMO ARTICONA, LOPEZ, J. Y., and
JOSEPH E. CALINGASIN, KHO, JR., JJ. :
LORETA D. APARATO,
CORAZON ORIENDA, Promulgated:
REYNALDO R. ORIEL,
WILFREDO A. DE LEON
WILFREDO S. MORALEDA,
EDWARD R. REGOCERA,
CHRISTOPHER CARU_LLO,
ANDY BARONA, RENATO PAG-
ONG, RICHARD E. RINON,
REYNALDO H. ARLATA, JR.,
TEODORICO F. FORTUNO,
PETER M. POCOY, JULIANA G.
DOMINE, CHRISTIAN C.
MANUBAG, VIVIAN M.
CAPARAS, MARK ZUNIGA,
WARLINITO GUNO, EDUEL
AGUILA, ROGELIO BONGATO,
ART NABATILAN, JUAN
ENTENA, JR., GILBERT
GASAPOS, NI CAN OR
BORROMEO, CHRIS MANIQUIS,
ALFRED DE GUZMAN, RICO D.
PAZ, JOSELITO M.
PAGCALIWAGAN, CRIS R .. SAN

Also referred to as Coca Cola 13ottlers Phi ls., Inc. (formerly known as Coca Cola FEMSA PHILS.,
INC.) in some parts of the rollo.
·• Designated additional member per Raffle dated September 13, 2022.
Designated additional member per Raffle dated Septe,nber 13 , 2022.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 2 18010 and
248662

PEDRO, LARRY B. TABURA,

EMILIO T. GENADA, EDZEL C.
NOBLE, HELEN T. ERASGA,
MENCHITO B. RECARO, ARIEL
T. RONCESVALLES, MAURO M.
VILLADIEGO, MANUEL A.
CANTILLAN, LIBRADO L.
LANDI CHO, FERDINAND
SANTIAGO, ERIBERTO P.
PALENCIA, ARIEL C. LUMIO,
ARNEL D. ALCANTARA,
CRISPULO DEL MUNDO,
CASTOR B. ISIANG, ELVIN G.
PACUMO, MAXIMO M. TUIZA,
JOSE U. VILLAPANDO, ELMO L.
CAMALIG, ROMMEL
TORRENTE, NATHANIEL A.
HERNANDEZ, LEO A. SIOSON,
JUANITO D. BEATO, MARVIN M.
RODAS, TRISTAN HERNANDEZ,
RAFAEL CEAZAR C. VARGAS,
ANDREW SARMIENTO, GLEN A.
AZUELO, RODERICK PEREZ,
DEXTER CORACHEA, ROLAN
BALO, RUBEN LAZO, DENNIS
EUGENIO, ELMER GUIBAO,
ADELO VERGARA, MONICO
MARASIGAN, HENRY B. LOPEZ,
MARIANO G. AGUILAR, JR.,
AUGUST B. BUENAVENTURA,
HENRY N. SUMAGUE, EDWIN R.
CELZO,
Petitioners,

-versus-

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES
PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI)
formerly known as Coca-Cola
FEMSA Philippines, Inc. (CCFPI),
Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

LOPEZ, J., J.:

This Court resolves the two consolidated Petitions for Review on

Certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision,2
and the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126819,
and the Decision4 and Reso lution 5 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 137718. In
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 126819 and 13771 8, the CA separately declared that the
rank-and-file employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc, (CCBPI) are not
entitled to the benefits they are claiming.

CCBPI is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing,

and distributing carbonated drinks and other beverages in the Philippines. 1t
was under the management of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) until Coca-
Cola Amatil Ltd. of Australia acquired it on July 1, 1997. In 2001, SMC
reacquired CCBPI. However, SMC again transferred management thereof to
the Coca-Cola Company in 2007 after the former sold 65% of its shares in
CCBPI to the latter. 6

Between 1997 and 2007, the regular and permanent employees of

CCBPI were given bonuses in varying amounts. These bonuses were
designated different names such as (1) One-time Grant; (2) One-time
Economic Assistance; (3) One-time Gift; and (4) One-time Transition
Bonuses. These were granted upon approval of the managing company at the
time, i.e., Coca-Cola Amatil Ltd. and thereafter, SMC, and were implemented
through a set of guidel ines. 7 The details of the bonuses are quoted below :8

DATE BONUS AMOUNT RECIPIENT

Rollo (G.R. No. 2 180 I 0), pp.80 1-834; Rollo (G.R. No. 248662), pp. 23-41.
Rollo (G.R. No. 218010), pp. 29-44. The August 19, 2014 Decision in CA-G. R. SP No. 126819
was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida. T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concu1Ted in by Associate Justices
Jane Aurora C . Lantion and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) of the Special
Fourteenth Divis ion, Court of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 24-27. The March 17, 20 15 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 126819 was penned by Associate
Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion
a nd Amy C. Lazaro-Jav ier (now a Member of this Court) of the Former Special Fourteenth Division,
Court of Appeals, Mani la.
Rollo (G.R. No. 248662), pp. 76- 89. The November 14, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 137718 was
penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, and concurred in by Assoc iate Justices
Apo linario D. Bruse las, Jr. and Rona ldo Roberto 8 . Martin of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals,
Manila.
Rollo (G.R. No. 248662), pp. 16- 19. The July 26, 20 19 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 1377 18
was penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, and concurred in by Associate Justices
Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin of the Fonner Tenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Man ila.
Rollo (G.R. No. 2 180 I0), p. 30.
Id. at 3 1- 33 .
Id. at 81 2- 815.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 2180 IO and
248662

DATE BONUS AMOUNT RECIPIENT

November 26, 1997 One-Time For monthly-paid, Non-
Grant· non-commission Comm ission
earning personal: 80% and
of the basic salary Commission-
rate; For Sales Office Earn ing
in Charge: 80% of the Monthly and
basic salary rate; For Daily Paid
monthly-paid Personnel of
comm1ss10n earnmg CCBPI.
personnel: 80% of
basic salary rate plus
80% of average
monthly sales
comm1ss1on for the
past 12 months
immediately
preceding month of
the grant of incentive;
For daily paid
personnel: 80% of
resulting monthly rate
after conversion of
daily rate.
July 13, 200 I One-Time One half ( 1/2) of the All Regular
Economic basic sala ry or [PHP] CCBPI
Assistance 40,000.00, whichever Employees
is lower. except
Officers and
those holding
the position of
Asst. Vice
Pres. & above.
June 2, 2002 One-Time Seventy-five (50%) Al l
Economic [sic] of basic salary or Employees/
Assistance [PHP] 40,000.00 Personnel of
whichever is lower. CCBPI
whether
Commission
or Non-
Comm ission
Based.
November 5, 2002 One-Time Seventy-five (75%) of All
Gift basic salary. Employees/
Personnel of
CCBPI
whether
Comm ission
or Non-
Commission.
June 27, 2003 One-Time Fifty Thousand Pesos All Regular
Economic ([PHP] 50,000.00) or CCBPl
Assistance 50% of basic salary, Employees
wh ichever is lower except
Officers and
 Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 2180 IOand
248662

those holding
the position of
Asst. Vice
Pres. & above.
June 25, 2004 One-Time Twenty Thousand All
Economic Pesos (P20,000.00) or Philippine-
Assistance one-half of the basic based Regular
salary, whichever 1s Employees of
lower. San M iguel
Group of
Companies
which then
included
CCBPI.
December 2, 2004 One-Time Five Thousand Pesos A ll
Gift (PS,000.00) worth of Philippine-
SMC Gift Certificates based Regular
and Cash amounting Employees of
to seventy-five San Miguel
percent (75%) of basic Group of
pay Companies
wh ich then
included
CCBPI.
December 2, 2005 One-Time Seven Thousand All
Christmas Pesos (P7,000.00) Philippine-
Gift worth of SMC Gift based Regular
Ce1t ificates and Cash Employees of
amounting to fifty San Miguel
percent (50%) of basic Group of
pay or Fifty Thousand Companies
Pesos (P50,000.00), which then
whichever is smaller. inc luded
CCBPI.
November 17, 2006 One-Time E ight Thousand Pesos All
Gift (P8,000.00) worth of Philippine-
SMC Gift Certificates based Regular
and Cash amounting Employees of
to fifty percent (50%) San M iguel
of basic pay. Group of
Companies
which then
included
CCBPI.
December 7, 2007 One-Time One Month pro-rated All CCBPI
Trans ition base pay. Associates
Bonus who were
regular 111
status as of
regular
emplovee. 9

9
Id. at 8 12- 8 15.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 2180 10 and
248662

Thereafter, in 2008, the new management of CC BPI stopped granting bonuses

other than the 13 th month pay and performance-based incentive bonuses. This
prompted regular rank-and-file employees and their collective bargaining
agent, Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union, to file several complaints
for the nonpayment of bonuses and attorney's fees against CCBPI and its
president, Bill Schultz . These complaints were consolidated into two cases
docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV-09-5179-10-L and NLRC Case No.
SRAB-IV-09-5156-10-L, and these were j o intly heard. 10

Then, the labor arbiter rendered a Decision, 11 the dispositive portion of

which states:

W HE REFORE, premises considered, CCBPI is ORDERED to pay

each of the compla inants their yearly bonuses from 2008 to 20 I 0, each
yearly bo nus e qui vale nt to the ir respective mo nthly pay multipl ied by three
or the number of years it re mained unpa id , thus:

This Office a lso DIRECTS CCBPI to pay compla inants' a tto rney's
fees equiva lent to 10% percent of the mone ta ry award in the a mount of
[PHP] 469,245.10.

lt is unde rstood tha t legal inte rest shall run until thi s decisio n
becomes final and executory.

The complaints of DANNY BALUN ES, JOY OCADO, RONN IE

PALENTINOS, REYNANT E C . BASl1 ANG, RAMIL DURAN,
VICTORJNO 0 . ATIENZA, .I R. f,] ALLAN 8. MOLE, W ILBERT
BANAYO, CHRlSTlAN CANTOS [,] ARNALDO P. BATIS are dismi ssed
for fai lure to s ubstantiate the same.

SO O RDERED. 12

The labor arbiter rul ed that the grant of yearly bonuses by CC BPI was
uninterrupted and continuous fo r several years and has become a company
practice. 13 It held that the workers, except for Danny Balunes, Joy Ocado,
Ronnie Palentinos, Reynante C. Basinang, Rami l Duran, Victorino 0.
Atienza, Jr., Allan B . M'ole, Wilbe1t Banayo, Chri stian Cantos, and Arnaldo P.
Batis, should be awarded their yearly bonuses fro m 2008 to 201 0 equivalent
to their monthly salaries per year based on the last cash g ift received in 2007. 14

Aggrieved, CCBPI appealed to the National Labor Relations

Commission, reiterating its stance that the bonuses granted to the workers
neither formed part of their salary nor amounted to a long-stand ing company
J(l
Id. a l 33 .
II
Id. at 69- 93. T he April 18, 2011 Decision was penned by Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A. Guan.
12
Id. at 90--93 .
Id. at 81 - 82
Id. at 88- 89.
Decision 9 G .R. Nos. 2 18010 and
248662

practice. On the other hand, the workers filed a separate appeal contending
that the 10 excluded workers are also entitled to bonuses. 15

Afterwards, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered its

Decision, 16 dismissing both appeals for lack of merit. 17

The National Labor Relations Commission held that there was no

evidence that would show that the grant of the bonuses was subject to certain
conditions. It ruled that since the bonuses from 1997 to 2007 were given
w ithout any condition, these formed part of the workers' wages. As it had been
implemented for 10 years, the National Labor Relations Commission
concluded that it has already ripened into a long-standing company practice
that may no longer be unilaterally withdrawn. Even if the amounts of the
bonuses vari ed each year, it is considered fixed as the com putation is based
on a certain percentage of the income or for a fixed amount applied uniformly
to all the rank-and-file employees. 18

Anent the exclusion of the IO workers in the award, the National Labor
Relations Commission affirm ed the dismissal of their case for failure to
substantiate their respective clairns. 19

Then, in a Resolution?> the National Labor Relations Commission

reiterated that the bonuses have ripened into a regular yearly grant.
Nonetheless, it modified the basis of the bonus from one month pay for each
year to the average of the yearly benefits g iven from 200 1 to 2007 or 2/3 of
basic monthly pay fo r the years that such has remained unpaid. 2 1 The
dispositive portion of the Resolution states:

WHEREfORE, the D ecision of the Labor Arbiter is modified in that

the amount of yearly bonus from 2008 to 2010, be equivalent to 2/3 of basic
mo nthly pay.

SO ORDERED.22

15 Id. at 36.
16 Id. at 58-66. The February 29, 20 12 Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard
E. Mabi log, and concurred in by Commissioners l sabei G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and N ieves E. V ivar-
De Castro.
17
Id. at 66.
IX
Id. at 64- 65.
19
Id. at 65.
20 Id. at 53- 56. The July 25, 20 12 Resolution was penned by Presiding Comm issioner Joserh Gerard E.
Mabilog, and concurred in by Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nieves E. Vivar-
De Castro.
11 Id. at 55- 56.
'.!2
Id. at 56.
 Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 2180 10 and
248662

CCBPI fil ed a petition for certiorari with an extremely urgent motion

for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/ or a writ of pre! iminary
injunction with the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
126819.23 In the interim, the workers filed a motion for a writ of execution
before the labor arbiter. 24

Subsequently, the labor arbiter issued an order directing the issuance of

a writ of execution. CCBPI fil~d a Motion to Quash/ Lift the Writ of
- ')
Execution.-)

Thereafter, CCBPI fil ed with the National Labor Relations Commission

a petition for annulment, with an extremely urgent motion for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order and/ or writ of preliminary injunction of the
January 22, 20 13 Order of the labor arbiter. 26

T he labor arbiter issued an Order denying CCBPI's urgent motion to

quash/ lift the writ of execution. Consequently, CCBPI complied with the writ
of execution and released to the sheriff, two manager's checks representing
the monetary award and execution fees amounting to PHP 3,677,577.40 and
PI-IP 36,275 .77,· respectively.27

In the meantime, the National Labor Relations Commission issued a

Resolution denying CCBPI's petition for annulment. 28 CCBPI filed a motion
for reconsideration that was also denied by the National Labor Relations
Commission. 29

The labor arbiter issued an Order,30 the dispositive portion of which

reads :

Thereafter, the decis ion is considered fully satis fi ed and the above-
entitled cases are closed and tenninated for all intents and purposes.
Consequently, any notice/s of garni shment and writ of execution issued with
respect to the execution of the decision arc CANCELLED/ LI FTED.

SO ORDERED. 31

'.?3
Rollo (G. R. No. 248662), pp 30, 80- 8 1.
Id
25
Id at 81.
26
Id
27
/d.at30&81.
28
Id at 81.
29
Id
JO
Id at 8 1- 82. Dated March 11. 20 13.
31
Id. at 81 --82.
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

Subsequently, the employees filed another motion for a writ of

execution for the payment of their bonuses in 2011 and 2012 in the total
amount of PHP 2,857,250.00. 32

The labor arbiter issued an Order33 granting the employees' motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution for the collection of their bonuses for 2011
and 2012, attorney's fees, and legal interest in the total amount of PHP
2,907,901.25. 34

The labor arbiter emphasized that the directive in its Apri I I 8, 2011
Decision was to enforce the payment of the workers' yearly bonuses from
2008 to 20 I 0, each yearly bonus. equivalent to their respective monthly pay
multiplied by three or the number of years it remained unpaid. It was stated
that apart from the bonuses for the years 2008 to 2010 that was already
executed, CCBPI should also pay the bonuses for 2011 and 2012. 35

Then, CCBPI ft led with the National Labor Relations Commission a

petition for annulment of the November 11 , 20 13 Order of the labor arbiter. 36

The National Labor Relations Commission issued a temporary

restraining order against the execution of the November 11, 20 l 3 Order of the
labor arbiter. However, considering that the garnished amount was already
released to the workers, CCBPI did not post a bond anymore. Instead, CCBPI
filed on March 20, 20 14 a manifestation and motion. 37

The National Labor Relations Commission rendered its Resolution, 38

the dispositive portion of which r~ads:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment is

GRANTED and the Order dated November 11 , 2013 of public respondent
Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A . Guan in NLRC Case Nos. SRAB-IV-09-
5179-10-L and 09-5186-10-L is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. All
respondents in these cases, their assigns and successors and a lI persons
acting on their behalf o r at their behest, including the Sheriffs of the NLRC,
are ordered to DESIST from enforcing any and all Writs of Execution
emanating from the aforesaid docketed cases, and from selling, disposing,
garnishing or encumbering the funds or properties of petitioner Coca-Cola

32
i d. at 82.
)J
Id. at 46-53 . The November 11, 2013 Order in NLRC Case Nos. SRAB-1V-09-5 179- 10-L and 09-5 186-
10-L was penned by Labor Arbiter Melchisedek A. Guan.
J.1
Id. at 52- 53.
35
Id. at 49-50.
36 Id. at 54- 79 & 82.
37
Id. at 82.
3R
Id. at 3 1-44. The June 23, 20 14 Reso lu tion in NLRC LER No. 12-342- I 3, NLRC SRA B IV Case No.
09-5179-10-L, and N LRC SRAB IV Case No. 09-5 186- 10-L was penned by Presiding Commissioner
Herminio V. Suelo, and concurred in by Commissioners Angelo Ang Palana and Numeriano D. Villena
of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Quezon City.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 2 18010 and
248662

Bottlers Phi ls., Inc.

SO ORDERED. 39

CCBPI fi led a manifes tation and motion fo r immediate restitution.40

The employees fi led a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
National Labor Relations Commission in its Resol ution." 1 Hence, the
employees filed a petition fo r certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 1377 18
with the Court of Appeals.42

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision43 in CA-G.R.

SP No. 1268 19, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, We GRANT the instant Petition for Certiorari and

DECLARE as VOTO the Decision dated February 29, 2012 and Reso lution
dated July 28, 20 12 of the National Labor Relations Commission (Sixth
Division) in NLRC LAC Case No. 07-001838-11/NLRC Case No. SRAB
IV-09-5 179-10-L, NLRC Case No. SRAB IV-09-5186-10-L.

SO ORDERED. 44

The CA declared that the bonuses granted to the workers did not amount
to a demandable right and that fo rcing CCBPJ to continue distributing the
same wou ld constitute a punishment for its past generosity. 45

In granting the petition of CCBPI, the CA pointed out that the grant of
bonuses denominated as one-time grant, one-t ime gift, one-time econom ic
assistance, or one-time transition bonus was not incorporated into the
collective bargaining agreement, ifthere is an existing one. Furthermore, there
was no express agreement whereby CCBPI prom ised to give a yearly bonus.
For the CA, the absence of such an express agreement showed that CCBPI did
not intend to provide a yearly bonus to its employees.46

The CA also emphas ized that the grant of the bonuses did not qualify
as a regular practice of the company as bonuses were not consistently and
deliberately given. It noted that no bonus was granted in 1998 to 200 l. A lso,
there were instances when two bonuses were given within a year, upon the

3')
Id. at 43-44 .
Id. at 83.
Id. at 463-465. The July 31, 2014 Resolution in NLRC LER No. 12-342- 13, NLRC SRAB IV Case
No. 09-5179- 10-L, and NLRC SRAB I V Case No. 09-5 186- 10-L was penned by Presiding
Commissioner Hermin io V. Suelo, and concurred in by Commissioners Angelo Ang Palana and
Numcri ano D. Villena of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth Division, Quezon City.
Id. at 439-454.
Rollo (G.R. No. 2 180 I 0), p. 29-44. Dated A ugust 19, 20 14.
Id. at 43.
Id. at 41-42.
Id. at 40.
 Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

discretion of the management. For instance, in 2002 to 2004, the workers

received economic assistance in June and a one-time gift in December.
Meanwhile, economic assistance was not given in 1997 and in 2005 to 2007.
The CA reasoned that if the workers tru ly believed that these bonuses were
intended as additional remuneration, they should have immediately
questioned their withdrawal at the most opportune time, but they did not. 47

The CA also stressed that the bonuses were not automatically given to
the workers as these were subject to the CCBPI management's approval. It
added that the implementation of each bonus was in accordance with the
guidelines delineating the purpose, the formula for the computation of the
amount, and the employees covered by the particular bonus.48 The Court of
Appeals also highlighted that the amount of bonuses was not fixed. They
varied from year to year, depending on the guidelines approved by the
management. It observed that, except for the one-time transition bonus in
2007, there was a downtrend in the value of the bonuses. 49

The CA also took into consideration a case docketed as CA-G.R. SP

No. 124227 that was instituted by members of the San Fernando Coca-Cola
Rank and F ile Union (SACORU) against CCBPI involving the same issue. In
the said case, it held that the one-time bonuses or gifts were not part of the
employees' wages and the distribution of these during the previous years d id
not give rise to an established company practice. The union members of
SACORU elevated the case to th is Court through a Petition for Review on
Certiorari docketed as G.R No. 206506. The CA noted that on July 10, 2013,
a Resolution 50 was issued denying the Petition for fai lure to show any
reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution to warrant the
exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Petit ion was
eventually denied with finality and an entry of judgment was issued. 5 1
Following the principle of stare decisis, the CA held that the ruling of this
Court in G.R. No. 206506 is binding and applicable to the present case. 52

In a Resolution, 53 the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by

the workers for lack of merit. 54 Hence, the instant Petition docketed as G.R.
No. 2 18010.

Subsequently, in the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 1377 18, the CA

issued a Decision55 d ismissing the Petition of the workers. 56 The CA held that
~7
Id.
48
Id. at 40--41.
Id.at 4 1.
50
Id at 858.
51
Id.
52
Rollo (G.R. No. 2 180 I0), pp. 42--43.
5,
Id. at 24- 27. Dated March 17, 20 15.
54
Id. at 26.
55
Rollo (G.R. No. 248662), pp. 76- 89. Dated November 14, 2018.
56
Id at 89.
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

the labor arbiter went beyond the terms of the April 18, 2011 Decision when
it ordered the issuance of a writ of execution directing the payment of bonuses
for the years 2011 and 2012 to the employees. 57 The CA also noted that the
November 11, 2013 Order of the labor arbiter had already been set aside in a
Decision by the Former Fourteenth Division of the CA in the case docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 126819 that was promulgated on August 19, 2014. 58

60
In a Resolution, 59 the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed
by the workers. 61

Hence, they filed a Petition docketed as G.R. No. 248662.

In a Resolution dated January 11, 2023 , the Petition in G.R. No. 248662
was consolidated with the Petition in G.R. No.218010.

In the Petition docketed as G.R. No. 218010,62 the workers argued that:
( 1) the bonuses formed part of their wage as these were given voluntarily,
consistently, and without any condition; 63 (2) the varying amount of benefit
and the different names given to the bonuses should not be used as grounds to
allow employers to unilaterally deny the workers the enjoyment of the benefit
which has already ripened into a demandable right; 64 (3) the unifonnity in the
name of the bonus or purpose is not a requirement before a bonus can ripen
into a demandable right as the law does not mandate such requirement;65 and
(4) in the recent Resolutions dated October 15, 2014 and February 11, 2015,
in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippin~s, Inc. v. Mario G. Ustaris et al. (Ustaris)
docketed as G.R. No. 214149, this Court already ruled with finality that the
subject bonuses constitute a demandable right of the workers. 66

On July 8, 2015, CCBPI filed a Manifestation 67 informing that several

Resolutions have been issued by this Court resolving to deny the petitions
separately filed by the workers of CCBPI which challenged the separate
rulings of the Court of Appeals declaring that the grant of the same bonuses
did not ripen into a company practice and is not a demandable benefit. These
cases are as follows: (1) SACORU and CCBPI San Fernando Plant
Employees, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. docketed as G.R. No.
206506 (SACORU); 68 (2) Jeffrey Nido, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers

57
Id. at 88.
58 Id. at 88- 89.
59 Id. at 16- 19. Dated July 26, 20 19 .
60 Id at 126- 132.
61
Id. at 19.
62 Rollo (G .R. No. 2 I 80 l 0), pp. 80 1-834.
Id. at 8 18- 820.
Id. at 82 1.
65 Id. at 824- 83 I.
66
Id. at 831-833.
67
Id. at 848- 85 1.
08 Id. at 853- 854.
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

Philippines, Inc., et al. docketed as G.R. No. 214996 (Nido); 69 and (3) Coca-
Cola Workers Union-Bicol Region, Lorenzo B. Deris, et al. v. Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. docketed as G.R. No. 215681 (Deris). These cases
involved substantially the same subject matter. The Court of Appeals similarly
resolved in each case that the grant of bonus has not ripened into a demandable
benefit in favor of the workers. When bruught to this Court via separate
petitions for review on certiorari, these were all denied and the assailed Court
of Appeals decisions were affirrned.70

In its Cornment,71 CCBPI maintained that: ( 1) the various grants it gave

to the workers remain to be mere bonuses over which they have no right to
demand;72 and (2) this Court has already ruled with finality in similar cases
that the so-called annual year-end bonus premised on the previous grant of
"one-time" economic assistance,.Christmas gift or transition bonus did not
ripen into a company practice and is thus, not a demandable right. 73

ln their Reply,74 the workers reiterated the arguments in their petition.

In addition, the workers posited that the case should be elevated to the en bane
to establish the rule on the identical claims of the workers of CCBPI for the
payment of bonus. 75

On the other hand, in the Petition 76 docketed as G.R. No. 248662, the
workers argued that their right to a yearly bonus must be upheld. They contend
that only the computation of the monetary consequences of this right is
affected but this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final
j udgments.77 They also contended that the April 18, 2011 Decision of the labor
arbiter that was affirmed in the National Labor Relations Commission's
February 29, 2012 Decision and July 25 , 2012 Resolution, cannot be modified
nor nullified at the execution stage by a mere resolution based on a Petition
for Certiorari. 78

In CCBPI's Comment7 9 to the Petition docketed as G.R. No. 248662, it

insisted that the July 25, 20 I 2 Resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission had already been set aside by the CA in its August 19, 2014
Decision in the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 126819, and it is now settled
°
that the employees are not entitled to the year-end bonus. 8 CCBPI highlighted

69
Id. at 855.
70
Id. at 853, 855, & 857.
71
Id. at. 864- 879.
72
Id. at 870- 874.
7.1
Id. at 875-878.
74 Id. at 997- 1005.
75
Id. at 1004.
7(,
Rollo (G.R. No. 248662). pp. 23- 4 I.
77 Id. at 39.
78 Id. at 39-40.
79 Rollo (G .R. No. 248662), pp. 638- 668.
80 Id. at 65:S-658. .
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 2180 10 and
248662

the SACORU case docketed as G .R. No. 206506, the N ido case docketed as
G.R. No. 214996, the Deris case docketed as G .R. No. 215681, and Ricardo
Briones et al. v. Coca Cola Bott/ers Philippines, Inc. (Briones) docketed as
G .R. No. 225144. CCBPI argued that in the said cases, it had a lready been
settled that the so-called annual year-end bonus prem ised on the previous
grant of "one-time" economic ass istance, C hristmas gift, or bonus has not
ripened into a company practice and is thus not a demandabl e right. 81

In their Reply,82 the workers restated their arguments in their Petition

docketed as G.R. No. 248662. In addition, the employees maintain that the
SACORU case and the other cases c ited by CCBPI are not applicable to the
present case because they do not involve identical facts and issues. They
opined that the controversy in G .R. No. 248662 is not whether the workers
are entitled to a yearly bonus but whether the National Labor Relations
Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Order of
the labor arb iter executing a decision that had al ready been affirmed with
final ity. 83 They added that even if this Court wi ll decide the main case in favor
of CCBPI, the employees' right to a year-end bonus for the years 2011 to 2021
remains as this has already been declared final and executory. 84

Issues

I.
Whether this Court is bound by the minute resolutions in G .R.
Nos. 206506, 214996, 2 15681, and 214149;

II.
Whether the discontinuation of the bonus in the form of one-t ime
economic assistance, grant, gift, or transition bonus constitutes
d iminution of benefits proscribed under Article 100 of the Labor
Code;

II l.
Whether the entitlement to a year-end bonus of the employees in
G .R. No. 248662 had already been declared final and executory
and may no longer be reviewed by this Court; and

IV.
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission comm itted
grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Order of the labor
arbi ter executing a deci.sion that had already been affirmed with

SI
Id at 658-667.
82 Id. at 723- 75 1.
8~
Id at 749- 750.
8~
Id. at 750- 75 I.
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

finality.

This Court's Ruling

The Petition must be denied.

This Court is not bound by the minute

resolutions in G.R. Nos. 206506,
214996, 215681, and 214149

At the outset, this Court must address the binding effect of the minute
resolutions in G.R. Nos. 206506, 214996, 215681, and 214149 which
involved the same subject matter as the present case, albeit filed by a different
set of workers of CCBPI. The workers insist that this Court is bound by its
Resolutions dated October 15, 2014 and February 11, 2015 in the Ustaris case
docketed as G.R. No. 214149, wherein this Court upheld the ruling that the
subject bonuses constitute a demandable right of the workers. 85 On the other
hand, the respondent invokes the binding effect of the separate Resolutions of
this Court in the SACORU case docketed as G.R. No. 206506, Nido case
docketed as G.R. No. 214996, and Deris case docketed as G.R. No. 215681,
all denying the claim for payment of bonuses instituted by other workers of
CCBPI. 86

In this regard, it is worthy to point out the ruling of this Court in Phil.
Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue87 where a
minute resolution was differentiated from a decision. In discussing the binding
effect of a minute resolution, this Comt explained:

Petitioner argues that the dismissal of G.R. No. 148680 by minute

resolution was a judgment on the merits; hence, the Court should apply the
CA ruling there that a health care agreement is not an insurance contract.

It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our

dismissal of the petition was a disposition of the merits of the case. When
we dismissed the petition, we effectively affim1ed the CA ruling being
questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final.
When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to
comply with formal and substantive requirements, the challenged decision,
together with its findings of_ fact and legal conclusions, are deemed
sustained. But what is its effect on other cases?

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues
concerning the same parties, it constitutes res judicata. However, if other
parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is
involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. Thus, in CIR v.

85
Id. at 83 1- 833.
86
i d. at 848- 851.
87
6 I6 Phil. 387 (2009) [Per J. Corona, Special First Division].
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 2 18010 and
248662

Baier-N icke l, the Court noted that a previo us case, C f R v . Baier-

N ickel involving the same parties and the same issues, was previo usly
disposed of by the Court thru a minute resol ution dated February 17, 2003
sustain ing the ruling of the CA. Nonetheless, the Court rul ed that
the previous case "ha(d) no bearing" o n the latter case because the two
cases involved different subj ect matters as they were concerned with the
taxable income of differe nt taxable years.

Accordingly, since petitioner was not a party in G.R. No. 148680

and since petitio ner's liability for DST on its health care agreement was not
the subj ect matter o fG.R. No. 148680. petitioner cannot success full y invoke
the m inute resolution in that case (which is not even binding precedent) in
its favor. Nonetheless, in view of the reasons a lready discussed, th is does
not detract in any way from the fact that pet itio ner' s health care agreements
are not subject to DST.88 (Emphasis in the origi nal ; citatio ns omitted)

Similarly, in the case of Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Poras, 89 this Court

exp!icitly stated that:

[A] lthough the Court's dismissal of a case via a minute resolutio n

constitutes a dispositio n on the merits, the same could not be treated as a
bind ing precedent to cases involving other persons who are not parties to
the case, or another subj ect matter that may or may not have the same parties
and issues. In other words, a minute reso lutio n docs not necessari ly bind
non-parties to the action even if it amounts to a fina l action o n a case.90
(Citations omitted)

It appears from the records that the workers were not made parties to
the cases of Ustaris, SACORU, Nido, and Deris. Applying the principle laid
down in Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. and Philippine Pizza, Inc. to
the present case, it is clear that both parties cannot invoke the minute
resolutions in G.R. Nos. 206506, 2 14996, 21568 1, and 214 149 as these are
not binding precedents. Considering that the workers who instituted it were
not impleaded and did not participate in any way in the cases of Ustaris,
SACORU, Nido , and Deris , the dictates of clue process and fa irness permit this
Court to resolve the present case independently.

T he Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine of stare decisis in

ruling that the cases of SACOR U, Nido, and Der is are binding to the present
case. To recall, the doctrine of stare decisis refers to the judicial policy that:

[E]njoins adhe rence to j udicial precedents. lt requires courts in a co untry to

fol low the rule establi shed in a dec ision or
the Supreme Court thereof. That

Id. at 420-422.
s•> 839 Phil. 38 1 (20 18) [Per J. Perl as-Bernabe, Second Div ision].
90 Id. at 390, citing Read-Rite f'/,i/ippi11es, / 11.:. , ·. F, ancisco. 8 16 Ph1I. 85 1 (20 17) rPer J . Leonardo-De
Castro, First Division].
Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 2 180 I O and
248662

' .
decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by
all courts in the land. The doclrine of swre decisis is based on the principle
that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be
deemed settled and closed to further arg ument. 9 1 (Citations omitted)

Indeed, the issues and facts in SACORU, Nido, and Deris are all
identical to the present case, albeit instituted by different groups of workers
of the respondent. However, it bears to stress that the application of the
doctrine of stare decisis presupposes the existence of a decision in the
previous case settled by this Court.

There are marked differences between a decision and a minute

resolution. Relevant to this discussion are the distinctions between the two
issuances of this Court with respect to the content and the binding effect of
these issuances to other cases. fn Philippine H ealth Care Providers, Inc. , this
Couti distinguished the two issuances as follows:

[T]here are substantial , not simply formal, distinctions between a minute

resolution and a decision. The constitutional requirement under the first
parag raph of Section 14, A11icle Vlll of the Constitution that the facts and
the law o n which the judg me nt is based must be expressed clearly and
distinctly applies on ly to decisions, not to minute reso lutions. A minute
resolution is signed only by the clerk of court by authority of the justices,
unlike a decision. It does not require the _certification of the Chief Justice.
Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the
Philippine Reports. Finally, the provi so of Sectio n 4(3) of Article Vlll
speaks of a decision. Indeed, as a rule, this Court lays down doctrines or
principles of law which constitute binding precedent in a decision duly
signed by the members of the Court and certified by the C hief .Justice. 92
(Citation omitted)

This Court's Minute Resolutions in G .R. Nos. 206506, 214996,

215681 , and 214149 are bereft of complete statements of the facts, and the
discuss ion of the legal justifications app lied by this Cou1i in resolving the
cases. Therefore, similar to the ruling of this Court in Philippine Pizza, inc. ,
the doctrine of stare decisis does not app ly. 93

The discontinuation of the bonus in the

form of one-time economic assistance,
grant, gift, or transition bonus does not
constitute a diminution of henefits
proscribed under Article 100 of the
Labor Code

91 Castillo v. Sandiganha,van. -127 Phil. 785. 793. (2002) [Per J. Buena, Secom! Di vis ion].
92 Phil. Health Care Providers, rnpra note 86, at 421-422.
Philippine l'iz:a, Inc., .rnp;a :iote 88.
Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 2 180 l 0 and
248662

Having settled that this Court is not bound by the pronouncements in

the M inute Resolutions in G.R. Nos. 206506, 214996, 2 1568 1, and 2 14 149,
this Court shall now resolve the main issue in this case-whether the subject
bonus formed part of the wage bf the workers that cannot be unilaterally
withdrawn by CCBPI.

The State has a constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers

and promote their welfare"94 and "to afford labor fu ll protection." 95 In carrying
out these duties, among the features introduced by the Congress in the Labor
Code of the Philippines is the principle of non-diminution of benefits. A1ticle
100 of the same Code states: -

Article. l 00. Prohibition against Elimination or Diminution of Benefits .

Noth ing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way dimini sh
supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of
promulgation of this Code. (Emphasis in the origina l)

In resolv ing the issue p1:esented in this case, it is imperative to

determine the nature of the bonus being demanded by the workers. In the case
of Producers Bank ofthe Phils. v: NLRC, 96 th is Cou1t defined a bonus as:

[A]n amount granted and paid to an emp loyee for hi s industry and loyalty
which contributed to the success of the employer's business and made
possible the realization of profits. ft is an act of generosity granted by an
enlightened employer to spur the employee to greater efforts for the
success of the business and realization of bigger profits. The
granting of a bonus is a management prerogative, something given in
addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient. Thus,
a bonus is not a demandable and enfo rceable obligation, except when it is
made part of the wage, salary[,l or compensation of the employee.97
(Citations omitted)

Based on the foregoing definition, it is clear that whether the grant of a

bonus is a demandable obl igation on the part of the employer w ill depend on

94
CONST, an. 11, sec. 18: The State affirms labor as a primary social economic fo rce. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
95 CONST., art. X II I. sec. 3: The State sha ll afford ful l protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorgani zed, and promote full employment and equal ity of employment opportunities
for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organi zation, collective bargaining and negoti ations,
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate
in policy and decis ion-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shal l promote the principle of shared responsi bility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settli ng disputes. including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industria l peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers. recognizing the right of labor to
its j ust share in the fruits of product ion and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments,
and to expansion and growth.
96 407 Phil. 804 (7.00 I) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Th ird Division].
97
/d.atSl'.2- 813.
 Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

the circumstances and conditions imposed for its payment. In Vergara, Jr. v.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,98 this Court explained that the
prohibition against diminution of benefits applies "only if the grant or benefit
is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long
period of time which is consistent and deliberate." 99 Here, there is no CBA or
employment contract granting the benefits. Instead, the workers claim that the
grant of bonus has ripened into a company practice.

As a rule, practice or custom is "not a source of a legally demandable

or enforceable right." 100 To invoke the prohibition against diminution of
benefits under the premise that the grant of bonus has ripened into a company
practice, it presupposes the existence of a company practice favorable to the
employees has been clearly established. 10 1 The onus lies on the employee to
prove such company practice. 102

In the present case, the CA correctly ruled that CCBPI ' s act of giving
bonuses for several years, for different purposes, and in varying amounts, did
not g ive rise to a company practice that may no longer be discontinued or
w ithdrawn.

The claim of the workers that CCBPI had continuously and deliberately
g iven yearly bonuses to its employees is inaccurate. As aptly underscored by
the CA, granting bonuses denomi_nated as one-time grant, one-time g ift, one-
time economic assistance, or one-time transition bonus did not qualify as a
regular practice of the company as these were not consistently and deliberately
given. A careful scrutiny of the various bonuses wo uld show that the
frequ ency and consistency of the grant were among the critical factors in
arriving at the conclusion that it has not ripened into a company practice. It
must be stressed that no bonus was granted in 1998 to 2001. Also, there were
instances when two bonuses were given within a year, and these were granted
upon the discretion of the management.

To illustrate the lack of pattern and consistency that bolsters the view
that there was no intention to give the bonus regularly, this Cou1i highlights
the observation of the CA that in 2002 to 2004, the workers received economic
assistance in June and a one-time g ift in December. However, the economic
assistance was not given in 1997 and in 2005 to 2007. This hardly qualifies as
a company practice, continuously and deliberately given by the employer. As
correctly concluded by the CA, if the workers truly believed that these
bonuses were intended as additional remuneration that formed paii of their

98
707 Phil. 255 (20 I 3) [ Per J. Pera lta, Thi rd Divis ion] .
99
Id. at 262.
uxi Id. (C itation omi tted)
Verg ara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola fJot1ler.1· Philippines, Inc. , id at 265 .
102
Home Credit Mutual Building v. Prudente, G .R. No. 2000 I0, Aug ust 27, 2020 [Per J. Lopez, J., Firs t
Divis ion] at 4-5 . T his pinpo int c itatio n refers to the copy of this Decisio n uploaded to the S upreme
Court website.
...
Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

respective wages, they should have immediately questioned the withdrawal at

the most opportune time. 103 Thus, the workers failed to show that the benefit
claimed was given regularly, continuously, and without any interruption for a
considerable length of time.

This Comi also cannot ignore the fact that the bonuses previously
granted were not unconditionally granted. The grant of these bonuses was
subject to the approval of the management and the implementation was can-ied
out through a series of guidelines prepared by the management outlining the
purpose, the formula for the computation of the amount, and the employees
covered by the particular bonus. 104 Clearly, the "one-time" bonus, economic
assistance, or gift previously given were merely acts of generosity of
respondent that are beyond what is required by law to be given to the workers.

In support to the claim of the workers that they are entitled to the bonus,
they argue that the amount of the bonuses they previously received was fixed.
This is erroneous. As noticed by the CA, the amounts varied from year to year,
depending on guidelines approved by the management. In fact, except for the
one-time transition bonus in 2007, there was a downtrend in the value of the
bonuses. 105

It was incorrect for the workers to invoke the cases of Metropolitan

Bank and Trust Company v. NLRC 106 and MERALCO v. Sec. Quisumbing107 in
arguing that even when the bonuses differed in amount and were given
different titles, these still ripened into a demandable benefit. 108 These cases
are not on all fours as in the present case.

The workers failed to take into consideration that in Metrobank, the

employer therein consented, as reflected in at least four memoranda
coinciding with the approval of the four collective bargaining agreements, to
grant benefits such as retirement benefits to its rank-and-file employees and
bank officers. Such circumstance is not present in the case at bar since there
is no memorandum or any other document reflecting CCBPI's deliberate
intention to grant bonuses as a company practice. There is no provision in the
collective bargaining agreement that would substantiate this arrangement with
the company. Hence, the cited case is not applicable to the present case.

Even the ruling in Mera/co finds no application to the case at bar as it

does not share the same factual milieu as the present case. In the cited case,
this Court ruled that granting a Christmas bonus ripened into a company

Rollo (G .R. No.218010), p. 40.

IO•
Id. at 40-4 1.
105
Id. at 4 1.
106
607 Phil. 359 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
7
t0 36 I Phil. 845 ( 1999) [Per J. A ustria-Marti nez, F irs t D ivision].
108
Rollo (G .R. No. 2180 I 0), p. 82 1.
 Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 2 l 8010 and
248662

practice as it had been consistently given for a considerable length of time

even if the amount varied. For several years, the purpose of the bonus had
remained constant. It was an additional remuneration given in t he spirit of
Christmas. However, in the present case, it was not only the amount of the
bonus that varied but also the name, purpose, and scope of the bonus. It also
bears to stress that the bonus CCBPI awarded was not always given in cash.
In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the cash.grant was accompanied with gift certificates
in varying amounts. Furthermore, in Meralco, the company did not make it
explicitly clear that the Christmas bonus was only temporary. Meanwh ile, in
the present case, CCBPI made it explicitly clear that all the grants, when
awarded, were only "one-time" acts of generosity.

The issues raised in the petition

docketed as G.R. No. 248662 have
already been rendered moot and
academic

To recall, the issues raised by the workers in the Petition docketed as

G.R. No. 248662 are essentially anchored on the premise that the labor arbiter
and the National Labor Relations Commission awarded them "bonuses from
2008 to 20 l 0, each yearly bonus equivalent to their respective monthly pay
multiplied by three or the number ofyears it remained unpaid." 109 The issues
of whether the decision awardiFlg the workers' year-end bonus has been
declared final and executor-y, and whether the National Labor Relations
Commission committed a grave error in reversing the Order of the labor
arbiter at the execution stage presupposes the existence of a final and
executory decision in favo r of the workers. However, as discussed above, the
bonus given to the workers did not ripen into a company practice. Hence, they
are not entitled to these bon uses.

Noticeably, the Petition in G.R. No. 248662 includes parties, majority

of whom are also the same workers who fi led the Petition in G.R. No. 218010 .
Moreover, the decision of the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations
Commission in favor of the workers had already been ove1iurned by the
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in the case docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 137718. The declarations of the Court of Appeals in the said
decision and resolution that the workers are not entitled to the bonus was a
result of the exercise of its power to review decisions of the labor tribunals,
which this Court affirms. As such,. there is no monetary award based on a final
and executory decision in favor of the workers that can be implemented.

As regards the amount that may have been already executed, the same
is governed by Section 18, Ru le XI of the 20 11 National Labor Relations
Commission Ru les of Procedure, as amended, which states:

109
Id. at 90.
Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 2180 10and
248662

SECTION 18. RESTITUTION. - Where the executed judgment is totall y

or pa1iially reversed or annulled by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court with finality and restitution is so ordered, the Labor Arbiter shall, on
motion, issue such order of restitution of the executed award , except
reinstatement wages paid pending appeal. (Emphasis in the original)

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
126819, and the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 1377 18 are AFFIRMED. The petitioners who are the employees
of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (now known as Coca-Cola Femsa Phils.),
are NOT ENTITLED to the bonuses subject of the instant case.

SO ORDERED.

JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: ¼f ~ di<;,f,U,{T
-r/4
MARVIC M.V.F.
~ Senior Associate Justice

HENR . INTING SAMUE~~AN

Associate Justice

~~/ /~-< ~
~ON«)T. KHO, JR. ~
-----
Associate Justice
Decision 25 G.R. Nos. 218010 and
248662

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13 , Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court' s Division.

~
ief Justice
 SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 218010 - FERNAND O. MATERNAL, et al., Petitioners v.

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (now known as COCA-COLA
FEMSA PHTLS., INC.),* Responde nt.

G.R. No. 248662 - FERNAND 0. MATERNAL, et al., Petitioners v.

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCBPI) formerly
known as COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCFPI),
Respondent.

Promulgated:

FEBO 6 2023 ~~-

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DISSENTING OPINION

LEONEN, J.:

I humbly beg the indulge1ice of my esteemed colleague but I must

dissent from hi s ponencia, which found that an annual bonus regularly
rece ived by the employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. for
at least seven years had not ripened into a company practice.

A bonus is an act of generosity from an employer that aims to

recogni ze the employees' contribution to the realization of profits or to
encourage them to perform better. The grant of a bonus is a management
prerogative and is not demandable, unless it has become part of the
employee's wage or compensation. 1 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission 2 instructs when a bonus is considered
part of an employee's wage and when it is not:

Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the

circumstances and conditi ons for its payment. if it is additional
co111pensation which the employer promised and agreed to give without
any conditions imposed for it.,· payment, such as success of business or
greater production or output, then ii is part ofthe wage. But if it paid only
if profits are realized or ff a certain level of productivity is achieved, ii
cannot be considered part (?/. the wage. Where it is not payable to all but
on ly to some employees and on ly whe n their labor becomes more efficient
or more productive, it is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize

A lso relerr<!d to as '·Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (form erly known as Coca-Cola FEMSA Phils.,
Inc.)"
1
Producers !h111k <?f'il,e Philippines v. Nu1io11al Labor Re/al ions Co111111ission, 407 Phil. 804, 8 13 (200 I)
[Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes. Third Division].
315 Phil. 860 ( 1995) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
Dissenting Opinion 2 G . R. Nos. 2180 I O and 248662

the refore, no l a part of the wage. 3 (Emphasis in the original)

lvletropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor Relations

Comm ission 4 then explains that "to be considered a company practice, the
giving of the benefits should have been done over a long period of time, and
must have been show n to have been consistent and deliberate.'' 5

There is no hard-and-fast ru le as regards the length of time needed for

an act to constitute a company practice. Instead, what needs to be proven
with substantial evidence is th:3-t the em ployer granted benefits over a
significant period of time and that this was done w ith regularity and
de! iberateness. 6

The facts are not disputed. Petitioners, as respondent's employees,

received annual bonuses, which were released either mid-year or end of the
year in 1997 and in 2001 to 2007. The details of the bonuses received are as
follo ws :7

DATE BONUS AMOUNT RECIPIENT

November 26, 1997 O ne-T ime For monthly-paid, no n- Non-Commission and
Grant commission earning Commission-Earning
lpe rsonne l] : 80% of the Monthly and Daily
basic sa lary rate; For Paid Personnel of
Sales Office in C harge: CCBP I
80% or the basic salary
rate; For monthly-paid
.comm ission earning
personnel: 80% of basic
salary rate p lus 80% of
average month ly sales
commission for the past
12 months immediate ly
preceding month of the
grant of incentive; For
daily paid personnel:
80% of resulting
monthly rate after
conversion of daily
rate.
July 13, 200 I One-T ime O ne half ( 1/2) o f Lhe A ll Regular CCBPJ
Economi c basic salary or Employees except
Assistance P40,000.00, w hichever Officers and those
is lower holding the position of
Asst. Vice Pres. &

Metro 7,·unsit Organi::.mion, Inc. v. NatiOIJal Labor Relations Commission, 3 15 Phil. 860, 87 1 ( 1995)
[Per J. fe liciano, Thi rd Division].
607 Ph il. 359 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, firs t Division].
Metropolitan Bank and 7)-w;t Company E National Labor Relations Commission, 607 Phil. 359, 370
(2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
Vergarn 1~ Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. Inc., 707 Phi l. 255, 262-263 (20 I 3) [Per J. Pera lta, Th ird
Division].
l'onencia, pp. 4-5 .
Dissenti ng Opinion 3 G. R. Nos. 2 180 IO and 248662

above
June 2, 2002 One-Time Seventy-five (50%) All Employees/
Economi c [sic] of basic salary or Personne l of CCBPI
Assistance P40,000.00 whichever whether Commission
is lower or Non-Commi ssion
Based
November 5, 2002 One-Time Seventy-fi ve (75%) of All Empl oyees/
Gift bas ic salary Personnel of CCBPI
whether Comm ission
or Non-Commission
June 27, 2003 One-Time Fifty Thousand Pesos Al l Regular CCBPI
Economic (P50,000.00) or 50% of Emp loyees except
Assistance basic salc1ry, whichever Officers and those
is lower holding the position of
Asst. Vice Pres. &
above
June 25, 2004 One-Time Twenty Thousand Pesos All Philippine-based
Econom ic .(P20,000.00) or one- Regular Employees of
Assistance half of the bas ic salary, San Miguel Group of
whichever is lower Companies which then
included CCBPI
December 2, 2004 One-Time Five Thousand Pesos All Philippine-based
Giti (P5,000.00) worth of Regular Employees of
SMC Gift Certificates San M iguel Group of
and Cash amounting to Compan ies which then
seventy-five percent included CCBPI
(75%) of basic oav
December 2, 2005 One-Time Seven Thousand Pesos All Philippine-based
Christmas (P7,000.00) worth of Regular Employees of
Gift SMC GiR Certificates San Miguel G roup of
and Cash amounting to Companies which then
fifty percent (5 0%) of included CCBPI
basic pay or Fifty
Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00),
whichever is smaller
November 17, 2006 O ne-Time Eight Thousand Pesos All Philippine-based
Gift .(P8,000.00) worth of Regular Employees of
SMC Gift Certificates San Miguel Group of
and Cash amounting to Companies which then
fifty percent (50%) of included CCBPI
basic pay
December 7, 2007 One-Time One Month pro-rated All CCBPf Associates
Transition base pay who were regular 111
Bonus status as of regu lar
employee

In 2007, respondent announced that beginni ng 2008, all bonuses, save

for the I 3 th month pay, woul d be based on individual perform ance and/or
departm ent performance. However, respondent failed to release any
performance- based bonus or incentives in 2008 and 2009, prompting
petitioner employees to fi le a claim for payment of the annual bonus. 8

Rollo (G .R. No. 2 180 I0). p. 54.

Dissenting Opinion 4 G . R. Nos. 2 180 IO and 248662

O n April 18, 20 11 , the labor arbiter9 found that the annual bonus had
ri pened into a company practice and awarded petitioners a yearly bonus
equivalent to their monthly pay. T he dispositive portion of the labor
arbiter's Decis ion reads: ·

WHEREFORE, premi ses considered, CCBPI is ORDERED to pay

each of the complainants their yearly bonuses from 2008 to 20 I 0, each
yearl y bonus equi vale nt lo their respective monthly pay multiplied by
three or the numbe r of years it remained unpaid, thus :

Thi s Office also DIRECTS CCBPI to pay complainants attorney's

fees equiva lent to I 0% percent of the monetary award in the amount of
P469,245. I 0 .

ft is understood that legal inte rest shall run until th is decision

becomes fi nal and executory.

The compla ints o f DANNY BALUNES, .JOY OCADO, RONNIE

PALENTINOS, R EYNANTE C. BASINANG, RAMIL DURAN,
V ICTORINO 0. A[TIENZAJ. JR., ALLAN B. MOLE, WILBERT
13AN!\ YO, C HRI ST IAN CANTOS , and fAR]NALDO P. BATIS are
d ismi ssed for failure to substantiate the same.

SO ORDERED. ,o

Both parties partia lly appealed the labor arbiter's Decision to the
Nationa l Labor Relations Commission, but their appeals were dismissed. 11
T he di spos itive portion of the Nati ona l Labor Re lations Commission 's
February 29, 20 12 Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judg me nt is hereby rendered

D ISM ISS ING both a ppeals for lack of merit. T he decision of the Labor
Arbite r elated April 18, 20 11 is he reby AFFIRMED .

SO ORDERED. 12

Upon respondent's Motion fo r Reconsideration, the National Labor

Re lations Comm ission modifi ed 13 its earlier Decision and changed the
amount of the an nual bonus to two-th irds of the basic monthly pay. The
dispositive portio n of its July 25, 2012 Resol ution reads:

•i Id. at 69- 93. The Decision docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB- IV-09-5179-10-L was penned by Labor
Arbiter Melchisedek A. Guan.
1
" Id. at 90- 93 .
11
Id. at 58- 67. The Dec is ion docketed as NLRC Case No. 07-00 1838-11 (N LRC Case No. SRAB IV
09-5179-10-L, NLRC Case No. SRAB IV 09-5186-10-L) was penned by Presiding Commissioner
Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and concurred in by Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-O11iguerra and
Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro of the Sixth Divis ion, National Labor Re lations Commission, Quezon City.
11
Id. at 66.
" Id. at 53- 56. The Resolution was penned by Presiding Commiss ioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and
concurred in by Commissioners Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra and Nie ves E. Vivar- De Castro of the
Sixth Divis ion, National Labor Relations Commission. Quezon City.
 Dissenting Opinion 5 G.R. Nos. 2 18010 and 248662

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is modified in

that the amount of yearly bonus from 2008 to 2010, be equivalent to 2/3 of
basic monthly pay.

SO ORDERED.t 4

A lleging grave abuse of drscretion on the part of the labor tribunals,

respondent fil ed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Court of Appeals 15 granted the Petition and
reversed the labor tribunals. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, We GRANT the instant Petition for Certiorari and

DECLARE as VOID the Decision dated February 29, 20 12 and Resolution
dated July 28, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (Sixth
Divi sion) in NLRC LAC Case No. 07-001838 - 11/ N LRC Case No. SRAB
IV-09-5179-10-L, NLRC Case No. SRAB IV-09-5 186- 10-L.

SO ORDERED. 16

Petitioners moved fo r the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals

Decision but their motion was denied on March 17, 2015. 17 The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeals Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, We DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack

or merit.
SO ORDERED. t8

T he ponencia upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals, but I believe

that the appellate court erred in reversing the labor tribunals. Contrary to the
findings of the Court of Appeals, the facts substantially show that the annual
bonus had already ripened into a company practice, making it a demandable
right and its non payment a violation of Article l 00 of the Labor Code. 19

11
· Id. at 56.
15
Id at 29-44. The Decis ion docketed as .CA-G.R. SP No. 1268 I9 was penned by Associate Justice
Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Amy
C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) of the Special Fourteenth Div ision, Court of Appeals of
Manila.
1
" Id. at 4 3.
17
Id. at 24- 27. The Resolution was penned by by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and
concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Amy C. Lazaro-Jav ier (now a member
of this Court) of th e Former Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals of Manila.
ix Id. at 26.
1
'' /\RT. 100. Prohi bit ion against e limination or dim inut ion of benelits. Noth ing in this Book sha ll be
constru ed to e liminate or in any way d iminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed
at the time of promulgation or this Code.
... ' Dissenting O pinion 6 G. R. Nos. 2 18010 and 248662

It is not di sputed that in 1997 and in 200 I to 2007, respondent handed

out a "one-time" bonus at least once a year, re leased either middle of the
year or end of the year, which was based on a fixed percentage of the
employees' basic monthly salary. The Court of Appeals pointed to the gap
between 1997 and 200 l to support its findin g that there was no consistency
or del iberateness in the granting of the annual bon uses.20 However, it
convenientl y omitted the seven-year period where respondent regularly gave
out at a bonus at least once a year. As the labor arbiter correctly observed,
even limiting the evidence to the bonuses re leased from 200 1 to 2007 would
still lead to a company practice. 2 1

Further, a careful review of. the memoranda22 re lated to the conferment

of the bonus in 1997 and in 2001 to 2007 shows that the annual bonuses
were ne ithe r an ind ucement for the employees to improve their performance
nor we re they contingent on the success of respondent's business or
profitability. Instead, the subject bonuses were " intended to provide
meani ngfu l help" to respondent's regular employees.23 The labor arbiter
thus observed :

The evidence for respondents reveals that they did not offer a
reason or purpose for the payment of the" 1997 O ne-Time G rant" . There is
no thing in the g uidelines w hich show that the grant was in the fo rm of a
profit-sharing bonus. The 2002 "One-Time Economic Assistance" is no
different, a lthough this ti me, CCBPl stated that the ·' monetary assistance is
intended to provide meaningful help in meeting the financial needs of (the)
employees especially at the time of year. Th is line was re peated in the
memoranda on the granting of bonuses in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 and
2006, respondents abandoned this line and simply thanked the employees
fo r the ir s upport and dedication for the years past. In 2007, respondents
awarded the ir employees w ith ·one-time transitio n bonus for their "extra
e !To rts ."

C learly, the giving of bonuses in CCBPI was not dependent on

respondents capac ity to pay in a g iven year." 24

The la bor arbiter 's finding was echoed by the National Labor
Relations Commission:

In th is case, there is not one iota or evidence to show that the

bonuses g iven were paid on the basis of certain conditions such as
realization of profits for a particular year or even maybe having savings
because of impleme ntation of certain programs o r because of meritorious
perfo rmance. The g itls were not given as incentives. The memoranda
earl ier than 2007 covering the grant o f such bonuses do not contain any
condi tio n that would qualify the same (Records, pp. 83, 87, 90, 9 1, 93,
94 ). In contrast, the memorandum for the 2007 g ift ex pressly provided that
10
l?ol/o (G.R. No. 2 180 I0). p. 40.
21
/d.at81 - 82.
Id. a t 30- 33.
~~ Id. nt 3 1- 32.
11
· !cl. at 83- 84.
Dissenting Opinion 7 G.R. Nos. 2 18010 and 248662

"beginning 2008 al l bonuses o ther than the I 3 th month payment w ill be

replaced by an individual and/or department incentive program based on
specific performance metrics" (Reco rds, p. 95) which was likewi se
mentioned in the 2008 memorandum (Records, p. 96). This clearly
bol sters the linding that the giHs/ bonuses from 1997 to 2007 were given
without any condition. Having been given to the employees w ithout any
condition the gifts form part of the employees' wages and since this was
done for IO years it has already ri pened into a long standing company
">S
practice .-·

It is well-settled that if supported by substantial evidence, find ings of

fact of quasi-jud icial and ad ministrative tribunals should be accorded great
respect and even finality by the courts.26

C learly, despite the different names bestowed on the bonuses,

respondent regularly and deli berately gave an annual bonus at least once a
year from 200 1 to 2007. These fjxed 27 bonuses were based on a percentage
of the employees' basic monthly pay and were not contingent on the
realization of profits. There was even a year when two bonuses were
distributed, and some years when gift certificates were issued together with
the bonus, but th e fact is that an annual bonus was constantly distributed
year in and year out for seven consecutive years. Thus, I submit that such
benefit had already ripened into a company practice.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.

Senior Associate Justice

.!) Id. at 64 , 64-1.

21
' C u/iii v. Easlern Teleco1111111111irn1ions Philippines, Inc., 657 Phil. 342, 36 I (20 11) [Per J. Leonardo- De
Castro, First Div ision·J.
17
?l,i/ippine t:.ducalion Co., Inc. v. C o11rl 11(!11t!11s1ria/ Re/a/ions, 92 Phil. 38 1 ( 1952) fPer J. Padilla, First
Division].