G.R. No.

192105
ANTONIO LOCSIN II, PETITIONER, VS. MEKENI FOOD
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

In February 2004, respondent Mekeni Food Corporation (Mekeni) offered

petitioner Antonio Locsin II the position of Regional Sales Manager. In
addition to a compensation and benefit package, Mekeni offered petitioner
a car plan, under which one-half of the cost of the vehicle is to be paid by
the company and the other half to be deducted from petitioner’s salary.
Mekeni’s offer was contained in an Offer Sheet which was presented to
petitioner.
Petitioner started as Regional Sales Manager on March 17, 2004. Mekeni
furnished petitioner with a car valued at P280,000.00. Petitioner paid for his
50% share through salary deductions of P5,000.00 each month.
Subsequently, Locsin resigned and made an offer to buy the car. By then, a
total of P112,500.00 had been deducted from his monthly salary and
applied as part of the employee’s share in the car plan. The parties
negotiated, but could not agree on the terms of the proposed purchase.
Petitioner thus returned the vehicle to Mekeni on May 2, 2006. Petitioner
made personal and written follow-ups regarding his unpaid salaries,
commissions, benefits, and offer to purchase his service vehicle. Mekeni
replied that the company car plan benefit applied only to employees who
have been with the company for five years; for this reason, the balance that
petitioner should pay on his service vehicle stood at P116,380.00 if he opts
to purchase the same.
Petitioner filed aComplaint for the recovery of monetary claims consisting of
unpaid salaries, commissions, sick/vacation leave benefits, and recovery of
monthly salary deductions which were earmarked for his cost-sharing in the
car plan with the NLRC against Mekeni.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund of all the amounts applied to

the cost of the service vehicle under the car plan.

HELD:

Petitioner is entitled to a refund. Mekeni failed to show documentary

evidence or otherwise that there are other terms or conditions governing
the car plan agreement, there is no evidence to suggest that if petitioner
failed to completely cover half of the cost, then all the deduction from his
salary will be considered as rentals. Article 2412 of the Civil Code provides:
“Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the judicial relation
of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or
benefited at the expense of another.”
In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing the car plan, a
quasi-contractual relation was created between them.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The assailed decision

and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED, in that respondent
Mekeni Food Corporation is hereby ordered to REFUND petitioner Antonio
Locsin II’s payments under the car plan agreement in the total amount of
P112, 500.00.
Thus, except for the counterpart or equivalent share of Mekeni Food
Corporation in the car plan agreement amounting to P112,500.00, which is
DELETED, the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is
affirmed in all respects.