Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v.

Abarquez
G.R. No. 102132
March 19, 1993

Facts:
Petitioner Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services (petitioner-company)
and private respondent ATU-TUCP, entered into a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) on October 16, 1985. Under sections 1 and 3, Article VIII thereof, sick leave with
pay benefits shall be provided for employees who have rendered at least one (1) year
of service with the company. During the effectivity of the CBA until three (3) months
after its renewal on April 15, 1989, or until July 1989 (a total of three (3) years and nine
(9) months), all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor
pool and the present regular extra labor pool who had rendered at least 750 hours up
to 1,500 hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits. Any unused portion thereof
at the end of the current year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said
one-year period pursuant to Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII of the CBA. The commutation
of the unused portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of the intermittent workers or
its conversion to cash was, however, discontinued or withdrawn when the petitioner
hired a new assistant manager, Mr. Benjamin Marzo who stopped the payment of its
cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under
Sections 1 and 3 of the 1989 CBA. The union alleges that the discontinuation of the
benefits being granted would violate the principle in labor laws that benefits already
extended shall not be taken away and that it would result in discrimination between
the non-intermittent and the intermittent workers of the petitioner-company.

Issue:
Whether or not the benefits given by the petitioner have not yet ripened into
an established company practice and can therefore be withdrawn.

Ruling:
No, the benefits given by the petitioner to its employees have already
ripened into an established company practice and therefore cannot be withdrawn.
The employer cannot unilaterally withdraw the existing privilege of
commutation or conversion to cash, given to the said workers and as also noted that
the employer had in fact granted and paid said cash equivalent of the unused portion
of the sick leave benefits to some intermittent workers. Well-settled is it that the said
privilege of commutation or conversion to cash, being an existing benefit, the
petitioner may not diminish such benefits. Under the circumstances, these may be
deemed to have ripened into company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily
withdrawn.