Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 192601 June 3, 2013
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION (JEU, !OR ITS UNION MEM"ER, MICHAEL
AL!ANTE, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
"ERSAMIN, J.:
The covera"e of the ter# le"al dependent as used in a stipulation in a collective bar"ainin"
a"ree#ent $!%&' "rantin" funeral or bereave#ent benefit to a re"ular e#plo(ee for the death of
a le"al dependent, if the !%& is silent about it, is to be construed as si#ilar to the #eanin" that
conte#poraneous social le"islations have set. This is because the ter#s of such social
le"islations are dee#ed incorporated in or adopted b( the !%&.
The decision of the !ourt of &ppeals $!&' under revie) su##ari*es the factual and procedural
antecedents, as follo)s+
!o#plainant ,udith Pulido alle"ed that she )as hired b( respondent as proofreader on -.
,anuar( -//-0 that she )as receivin" a #onthl( basic salar( of P1-2,3/4.55 plus P1-22...
lon"evit( pa( plus other benefits provided b( la) and their !ollective %ar"ainin" &"ree#ent0
that on 6- Februar( 6..4, as union president, she sent t)o letters to President 7loria &rro(o,
re"ardin" their co#plaint of #is#ana"e#ent bein" co##itted b( PI, e8ecutive0 that so#eti#e
in Ma( 6..4, the union )as furnished )ith a letter b( Secretar( Silvestre &fable, ,r. head of
Presidential Mana"e#ent Staff $PMS', endorsin" their letter1co#plaint to O#buds#an Si#eon
V. Marcelo0 that respondents too9 offense and started harass#ents to co#plainant union
president0 that on 4. Ma( 6..4, co#plainant received a letter fro# respondent Fundador
Soriano, International dition #ana"in" editor, re"ardin" co#plainant:s attendance record0 that
co#plainant sub#itted her repl( to said #e#o on .6 ,une 6..40 that on .5 ,une 6..4,
co#plainant received a #e#orandu# of repri#and0 that on .3 ,ul( 6..4, co#plainant received
another #e#o fro# Mr. Soriano, for not )earin" her co#pan( ID, )hich she replied the ne8t
da( .2 ,ul( 6..40 that on .3 &u"ust 6..4, co#plainant a"ain received a #e#o re"ardin"
co#plainant:s tardiness0 that on .2 &u"ust 6..4, co#plainant received another #e#orandu#
as9in" her to e8plain )h( she should not be accused of fraud, )hich she replied to on .; &u"ust
6..40 and that on the sa#e da( bet)een 4+.. to 3+.. P.M., Mr. rnesto <ston"< San &"ustin, a
staff of =RD handed her ter#ination paper.
!o#plainant added that in her thirteen $-4' (ears )ith the co#pan( and after so #an( chan"es in
its #ana"e#ent and e8ecutives, she had never done an(thin" that )ill cause the# to issue a
#e#orandu# a"ainst her or her )or9 attitude, #ore so, reasons to ter#inate her services0 that
she "ot dis#issed because she )as the >nion President )ho )as ver( active in defendin" and
pursuin" the ri"hts of her union #e#bers, and in fi"htin" a"ainst the abuses of respondent
!orporate Officers0 and that she "ot the ire of respondents )hen the e#plo(ees filed a co#plaint
a"ainst the !orporate Officers before Malaca?an" and )hich )as later indorsed to the Office of
the O#buds#an.
The second co#plainant Michael @. &lfante alle"ed that he started to )or9 )ith respondents as
co#puter technician at Mana"e#ent Infor#ation S(ste# under #ana"er Neri Torreca#po on -5
Ma( 6...0 that on -2 ,ul( 6..-, he )as re"ulari*ed receivin" a #onthl( salar( of P/,.;.... plus
other #onetar( benefits0 that so#eti#e in 6..-, Rico Pa"9alina)an replaced Torreca#po, )hich
)as opposed b( co#plainant and three other co1e#plo(ees0 that Pa"9alina)an too9 offense of
their obAection0 that on 66 October 6..6, co#plainant &lfante received a #e#orandu# fro#
Pa"9alina)an re"ardin" his e8cessive tardiness0 that on -. ,une 6..4, co#plainant &lfante
received a #e#orandu# fro# 8ecutive Vice1President &rnold %anares, reBuirin" hi# to
e8plain his side on the evaluation of his perfor#ance sub#itted b( #ana"er Pa"9alina)an0 that
one )ee9 after co#plainant sub#itted his e8planation, he )as handed his notice of dis#issal on
the "round of <poor perfor#ance<0 and that co#plainant )as dis#issed effective 6C ,ul( 6..4.
!o#plainant &lfante sub#itted that he )as dis#issed )ithout Aust cause.
Respondents, in their position paper, averred that co#plainants Pulido and &lfante )ere
dis#issed for cause and )ith due process.
Dith re"ard to co#plainant Pulido, respondents averred that in a #e#orandu# dated 4. Ma(
6..4, directed co#plainant to e8plain her habitual tardiness, at least ;2 ti#es fro# ,anuar( to
Ma( of 6..4. In a #e#orandu#, dated .5 ,une 6..4, directed co#plainant to observe the 4 p.#.
rule to avoid "ra##atical lapses, use of stale stories Aust to beat the -.+.. p.#. deadline. In the
sa#e #e#orandu# co#plainant )as "iven the )arnin" that an( repeated violation of the rules
shall be dealt )ith #ore severel(. Once a"ain, in a #e#orandu#, dated .3 &u"ust 6..4,
co#plainant Pulido )as reBuired to e8plain )h( no disciplinar( action should be ta9en a"ainst
her for habitual tardiness E -C ti#es out of the 64 reportin" da(s durin" the period fro# 6; ,une
E 6; ,ul( 6..4 and on .2 &u"ust 6..4, co#plainant )as directed to e8plain in )ritin" )h(
co#plainant should not be ad#inistrativel( sanctioned for co##ittin" fraud or atte#ptin" to
co##it fraud a"ainst respondents. Respondents found co#plainant:s e8planations
unsatisfactor(. On .; &u"ust 6..4, respondents dis#issed co#plainant Pulido for habitual
tardiness, "ross insubordination, utter disrespect for superiors, and co##ittin" fraud or
atte#ptin" to co##it fraud )hich led to the respondents: loss of confidence upon co#plainant
Pulido.
In case of co#plainant &lfante, respondents averred in defense that co#plainant )as dis#issed
for <poor perfor#ance< after an evaluation b( his superior, and after bein" fore)arned that
co#plainant #a( be re#oved if there )as no sho)in" of i#prove#ent in his s9ills and
9no)led"e on current technolo"(.
In both instances, respondents #aintained that the( did not co##it an( act of unfair labor
practices0 that the( did not co##it acts tanta#ount to interferin", restrainin", or coercin"
e#plo(ees in the e8ercise of their ri"ht to self1or"ani*ation.
Respondents den( liabilities as far as co#plainants: #onetar( clai#s are concerned. !oncernin"
violations of the provision on )a"e distortion under Da"e Order No. /, respondents stressed that
co#plainants )ere not affected since their salar( is )a( over the #ini#u# )a"e.
Dith respect to the alle"ed non1adAust#ent of lon"evit( pa( and burial aid, respondent P,I
pointed out that it co#plies )ith the provisions of the !%& and that both co#plainants have not
clai#ed for the burial aid.
Respondents put for)ard the infor#ation that the alle"ed nonpa(#ent of rest da(s E ever(
Monda( for the past three $4' (ears is a #atter that is still at issue in N@R! !ase No. .61
.3.6/;41/4, )hich case is still pendin" before this !o##ission.
Respondents asserted that the respondents &rturo Dela !ru*, %obb( !apco, &rnold %anares,
Rub( Rui*1%runo and Fundador Soriano should not be held liable on account of co#plainants:
dis#issal as the( #erel( acted as a"ents of respondent P,I.
-
>pon the fore"oin" bac9drop, @abor &rbiter !ora*on !. %orbolla rendered her decision on
March 6/, 6..5, disposin" thusl(+
D=RFOR, fore"oin" pre#ises considered, Aud"#ent is hereb( rendered, findin"
co#plainant ,udith Pulido to have been ille"all( dis#issed. &s such, she is entitled to
reinstate#ent and bac9)a"es fro# .; &u"ust 6..4 up to her actual or pa(roll reinstate#ent. To
date, co#plainant:s bac9)a"es is P6/3,4;/.23.
Respondent Philippine ,ournalist, Inc. is hereb( ordered to pa( co#plainant ,udith Pulido her
bac9)a"es fro# .; &u"ust 6..4 up to her actual or pa(roll reinstate#ent and to reinstate her to
her for#er position )ithout loss of seniorit( ri"ht.
Respondent is further ordered to sub#it a report to this Office on co#plainant:s reinstate#ent
ten $-.' da(s fro# receipt of this decision.
The char"e of ille"al dis#issal b( Michael &lfante is hereb( dis#issed for lac9 of #erit.
The char"e of unfair labor practice is dis#issed for lac9 of basis.
SO ORDRD.
6
!o#plainant Michael &lfante $&lfante', Aoined b( his labor or"ani*ation, ,ournal #plo(ees
>nion $,>', filed a partial appeal in the National @abor Relations !o##ission $N@R!'.
4
In the #eanti#e, on Ma( -., 6..5, petitioner and ,udith Pulido $Pulido', the other co#plainant,
Aointl( #anifested to the N@R! that the decision of March 6/, 6..5 had been full( satisfied as to
Pulido under the follo)in" ter#s, na#el(+ $a' she )ould be reinstated to her for#er position as
editorial staff#e#ber, or an eBuivalent position, )ithout loss of seniorit( ri"hts, effective Ma(
-2, 6..50 $b' she )ould "o on #aternit( leave, and report to )or9 after "ivin" birth0 $c' she
)ould be entitled to bac9)a"es of P-4.,......0 and $d' she )ould e8ecute the Buitclai# and
release on Ma( --, 6..5 in favor of petitioner.
3
This left &lfante as the re#ainin" co#plainant.
On ,anuar( 4-, 6..;, the N@R! rendered its decision dis#issin" the partial appeal for lac9 of
#erit.
,> and &lfante #oved for the reconsideration of the decision, but the N@R! denied their
#otion on &pril 63, 6..;.
Thereafter, ,> and &lfante assailed the decision of the N@R! before the !& on certiorari
$!.&.17.R. SP No. //3.;'.
On Februar( 2, 6.-., the !& pro#ul"ated its decision in !.&.17.R. SP No. //3.;,
;
decreein"+
D=RFOR, pre#ises considered, the instant petition is P&RT@F 7R&NTD.
The t)in Resolutions dated ,anuar( 4-, 6..; and &pril 63, 6..;, respectivel(, of the Third
Division of the National @abor Relations !o##ission $N@R!', in N@R! N!R !& No. .3C;C21
.5 $N@R! N!R !ase No. ..1-.1--3-41.3', are MODIFID insofar as the funeral or
bereave#ent aid is concerned, )hich is hereb( 7R&NTD, but onl( after sub#ission of
conclusive proofs that the deceased is a parent, either father or #other, of the e#plo(ees
concerned, as )ell as the death certificate to establish the fact of death of the deceased le"al
dependent.
The rest of the findin"s of fact and la) in the assailed Resolutions are hereb( &FFIRMD.
SO ORDRD.
%oth parties #oved for reconsideration, but the !& denied their respective #otions for
reconsideration on ,une 6, 6.-..
C
,> and &lfante appealed to the !ourt $7.R. No. -/63;C' to challen"e the !&:s dispositions
re"ardin" the le"alit( of+ $a' &lfante:s dis#issal0 $b' the non1co#pliance )ith Mini#u# Da"e
Order No. /0 and $c' the non1pa(#ent of the rest da(.
/
On &u"ust -C, 6.-., the !ourt denied due course to the petition in 7.R. No. -/63;C for failure
of petitioners to sufficientl( sho) that the !& had co##itted an( reversible error to )arrant the
!ourt:s e8ercise of its discretionar( appellate Aurisdiction.
-.
The !ourt denied )ith finalit( ,> and &lfante:s ensuin" #otion for reconsideration throu"h the
resolution of Dece#ber C, 6.-..
--
The entr( of Aud"#ent in 7.R. No. -/63;C issued in due
course on Februar( -, 6.--.
-6
On its part, petitioner li9e)ise appealed $7.R. No. -/65.-', see9in" the revie) of the !&:s
disposition in the decision of Februar( 2, 6.-. on the "rantin" of the funeral and bereave#ent
aid stipulated in the !%&.
In its petition for revie), petitioner #aintained that under Section 3, &rticle GIII of the !%&,
funeral and bereave#ent aid should be "ranted upon the death of a le"al dependent of a re"ular
e#plo(ee0 that consistent )ith the definition provided b( the Social Securit( S(ste# $SSS', the
ter# le"al dependent referred to the spouse and children of a #arried re"ular e#plo(ee, and to
the parents and siblin"s, -C (ears old and belo), of a sin"le re"ular e#plo(ee0
-4
that the !%&
considered the ter# dependents to have the sa#e #eanin" as beneficiaries, as provided in
Section 2, &rticle GIII of the !%& on the pa(#ent of death benefits0
-3
that its earlier "rantin" of
clai#s for funeral and bereave#ent aid )ithout re"ard to the fore"oin" definition of the le"al
dependents of #arried or sin"le re"ular e#plo(ees did not ripen into a co#pan( polic( )hose
unilateral )ithdra)al )ould constitute a violation of &rticle -.. of the @abor !ode,
-2
the la)
disallo)in" the non1di#inution of benefits0
-5
that it had approved onl( four clai#s fro# -/// to
6..4 based on its #ista9en interpretation of the ter# le"al dependents, but later corrected the
sa#e in 6...0
-;
that the "rant of funeral and bereave#ent aid for the death of an e#plo(ee:s
le"al dependent, re"ardless of the e#plo(ee:s civil status, did not occur over a lon" period of
ti#e, )as not consistent and deliberate, and )as partl( due to its #ista9e in appreciatin" a
doubtful Buestion of la)0 and that its denial of subseBuent clai#s did not a#ount to a violation of
the la) a"ainst the non1di#inution of benefits.
-C
In their co##ent,
-/
,> and &lfante countered that the !%& )as a bilateral contractual
a"ree#ent that could not be unilaterall( chan"ed b( an( part( durin" its lifeti#e0 and that the
"rant of burial benefits had alread( beco#e a co#pan( practice favorable to the e#plo(ees, and
could not an(#ore be reduced, di#inished, discontinued or eli#inated b( petitioner.
Issue
In vie) of the entr( of Aud"#ent issued in 7.R. No. -/63;C, ,> and &lfante:s sub#issions on
the ille"alit( of his dis#issal, the non1pa(#ent of his rest da(s, and the violation of Mini#u#
Da"e Order No. / shall no lon"er be considered and passed upon.
The sole re#ainin" issue is )hether or not petitioner:s denial of respondents: clai#s for funeral
and bereave#ent aid "ranted under Section 3, &rticle GIII of their !%& constituted a di#inution
of benefits in violation of &rticle -.. of the @abor !ode.
Rulin"
The petition for revie) lac9s #erit.
The nature and force of a !%& are delineated in =onda Phils., Inc. v. Sa#ahan n" Mala(an"
Man""a"a)a sa =onda,
6.
thus)ise+
& collective bar"ainin" a"ree#ent $or !%&' refers to the ne"otiated contract bet)een a
le"iti#ate labor or"ani*ation and the e#plo(er concernin" )a"es, hours of )or9 and all other
ter#s and conditions of e#plo(#ent in a bar"ainin" unit. &s in all contracts, the parties in a
!%& #a( establish such stipulations, clauses, ter#s and conditions as the( #a( dee#
convenient provided these are not contrar( to la), #orals, "ood custo#s, public order or public
polic(. Thus, )here the !%& is clear and una#bi"uous, it beco#es the la) bet)een the parties
and co#pliance there)ith is #andated b( the e8press polic( of the la).
&ccordin"l(, the stipulations, clauses, ter#s and conditions of the !%&, bein" the la) bet)een
the parties, #ust be co#plied )ith b( the#. The literal #eanin" of the stipulations of the !%&,
as )ith ever( other contract, control if the( are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contractin" parties.
66
=ere, a conflict has arisen re"ardin" the interpretation of the ter# le"al dependent in connection
)ith the "rant of funeral and bereave#ent aid to a re"ular e#plo(ee under Section 3, &rticle GIII
of the !%&,
64
)hich stipulates as follo)s+
S!TION 3. FuneralH%ereave#ent &id. The !OMP&NF a"rees to "rant a funeralHbereave#ent
aid in the follo)in" instances+
a. Death of a re"ular e#plo(ee in line of dut( E P2.,...
b. Death of a re"ular e#plo(ee not in line of dut( E P3.,...
c. Death of le"al dependent of a re"ular e#plo(ee E P-2,.... $#phasis supplied'
Petitioner insists that not)ithstandin" the silence of the !%&, the ter# le"al dependent should
follo) the definition of it under Republic &ct $R.&.' No. C6C6 $Social Securit( @a)',
63
so that in
the case of a #arried re"ular e#plo(ee, his or her le"al dependents include onl( his or her spouse
and children, and in the case of a sin"le re"ular e#plo(ee, his or her le"al dependents include
onl( his or her parents and siblin"s, -C (ears old and belo)0 and that the ter# dependents has the
sa#e #eanin" as beneficiaries as used in Section 2, &rticle GIII of the !%&.
De cannot a"ree )ith petitioner:s insistence.
Social le"islations conte#poraneous )ith the e8ecution of the !%& have "iven a #eanin" to the
ter# le"al dependent. First of all, Section C$e' of the Social Securit( @a) provides that a
dependent shall be the follo)in", na#el(+ $a' the le"al spouse entitled b( la) to receive support
fro# the #e#ber0 $b' the le"iti#ate, le"iti#ated, or le"all( adopted, and ille"iti#ate child )ho is
un#arried, not "ainfull( e#plo(ed and has not reached 6- of a"e, or, if over 6- (ears of a"e, is
con"enitall( or )hile still a #inor has been per#anentl( incapacitated and incapable of self1
support, ph(sicall( or #entall(0 and $c' the parent )ho is receivin" re"ular support fro# the
#e#ber. Secondl(, Section 3$f' of R.&. No. ;C;2, as a#ended b( R.&. No. /63-,
62
enu#erates
)ho are the le"al dependents, to )it+ $a' the le"iti#ate spouse )ho is not a #e#ber0 $b' the
un#arried and une#plo(ed le"iti#ate, le"iti#ated, ille"iti#ate, ac9no)led"ed children as
appearin" in the birth certificate0 le"all( adopted or step1children belo) 6- (ears of a"e0 $c'
children )ho are 6- (ears old and order but sufferin" fro# con"enital disabilit(, either ph(sical
or #ental, or an( disabilit( acBuired that renders the# totall( dependent on the #e#ber of our
support0 and $d' the parents )ho are 5. (ears old or older )hose #onthl( inco#e is belo) an
a#ount to be deter#ined b( the Philippine =ealth Insurance !orporation in accordance )ith the
"uidin" principles set forth in &rticle I of R.&. No. ;C;2. &nd, thirdl(, Section 6$f' of
Presidential Decree No. --35, as a#ended b( R.&. No. C6/-,dependent for support upon the
#e#ber or pensioner0 $b' the le"iti#ate, le"iti#ated, le"all( adopted child, includin" the
ille"iti#ate child, )ho is un#arried, not "ainfull( e#plo(ed, not over the a"e of #aAorit(, or is
over the a"e of #aAorit( but incapacitated and incapable of self1support due to a #ental or
ph(sical defect acBuired prior to a"e of #aAorit(0 and $c' the parents dependent upon the #e#ber
for support.1wphi1
It is clear fro# these statutor( definitions of dependent that the civil status of the e#plo(ee as
either #arried or sin"le is not the controllin" consideration in order that a person #a( Bualif( as
the e#plo(ee:s le"al dependent. Dhat is rather decidedl( controllin" is the fact that the spouse,
child, or parent is actuall( dependent for support upon the e#plo(ee. Indeed, the !ourt has
adopted this understandin" of the ter# dependent in Social Securit( S(ste# v. De @os Santos,
6;

vi*+
Social Securit( S(ste# v. &"uas is instructive in deter#inin" the e8tent of the reBuired
<dependenc(< under the SS @a). In &"uas, the !ourt ruled that althou"h a husband and )ife are
obli"ed to support each other, )hether one is actuall( dependent for support upon the other
cannot be presu#ed fro# the fact of #arria"e alone.
Further, &"uas pointed out that a )ife )ho left her fa#il( until her husband died and lived )ith
other #en, )as not dependent upon her husband for support, financial or other)ise, durin" the
entire period.
Said the !ourt+
In a parallel case involvin" a clai# for benefits under the 7SIS la), the !ourt defined a
dependent as <one )ho derives his or her #ain support fro# another. Meanin", rel(in" on, or
subAect to, so#eone else for support0 not able to e8ist or sustain oneself, or to perfor# an(thin"
)ithout the )ill, po)er, or aid of so#eone else.< It should be noted that the 7SIS la) li9e)ise
defines a dependent spouse as <the le"iti#ate spouse dependent for support upon the #e#ber or
pensioner.< In that case, the !ourt found it obvious that a )ife )ho abandoned the fa#il( for
#ore than -; (ears until her husband died, and lived )ith other #en, )as not dependent on her
husband for support, financial or other)ise, durin" that entire period. =ence, the !ourt denied
her clai# for death benefits.
The obvious conclusion then is that a )ife )ho is alread( separated de facto fro# her husband
cannot be said to be <dependent for support< upon the husband, absent an( sho)in" to the
contrar(. !onversel(, if it is proved that the husband and )ife )ere still livin" to"ether at the
ti#e of his death, it )ould be safe to presu#e that she )as dependent on the husband for support,
unless it is sho)n that she is capable of providin" for herself.
!onsiderin" that e8istin" la)s al)a(s for# part of an( contract, and are dee#ed incorporated in
each and ever( contract,
6C
the definition of le"al dependents under the aforecited social
le"islations applies herein in the absence of a contrar( or different definition #utuall( intended
and adopted b( the parties in the !%&. &ccordin"l(, the concurrence of a le"iti#ate spouse does
not disBualif( a child or a parent of the e#plo(ee fro# bein" a le"al dependent provided
substantial evidence is adduced to prove the actual dependenc( of the child or parent on the
support of the e#plo(ee.
In this re"ard, the differentiation a#on" the le"al dependents is si"nificant onl( in the event the
!%& has prescribed a hierarch( a#on" the# for the "rantin" of a benefit0 hence, the use of the
ter#s pri#ar( beneficiaries and secondar( beneficiaries for that purpose. %ut considerin" that
Section 3, &rticle GIII of the !%& has not included that differentiation, petitioner had no basis to
den( the clai# for funeral and bereave#ent aid of &lfante for the death of his parent )hose
death and fact of le"al dependenc( on hi# could be substantiall( proved.
Pursuant to &rticle -.. of the @abor !ode, petitioner as the e#plo(er could not reduce, di#inish,
discontinue or eli#inate an( benefit and supple#ent bein" enAo(ed b( or "ranted to its
e#plo(ees. This prohibition a"ainst the di#inution of benefits is founded on the constitutional
#andate to protect the ri"hts of )or9ers and to pro#ote their )elfare and to afford labor full
protection.
6/
The application of the prohibition a"ainst the di#inution of benefits presupposes
that a co#pan( practice, polic( or tradition favorable to the e#plo(ees has been clearl(
established0 and that the pa(#ents #ade b( the e#plo(er pursuant to the practice, polic(, or
tradition have ripened into benefits enAo(ed b( the#.
4.
To be considered as a practice, polic( or
tradition, ho)ever, the "ivin" of the benefits should have been done over a lon" period of ti#e,
and #ust be sho)n to have been consistent and deliberate.
4-
It is relevant to #ention that )e
have not (et settled on the specific #ini#u# nu#ber of (ears as the len"th of ti#e sufficient to
ripen the practice, polic( or tradition into a benefit that the e#plo(er cannot unilaterall(
)ithdra).
46
The ar"u#ent of petitioner that the "rant of the funeral and bereave#ent benefit )as not
voluntar( but resulted fro# its #ista9en interpretation as to )ho )as considered a le"al
dependent of a re"ular e#plo(ee deserves scant consideration. To be sure, no doubtful or
difficult Buestion of la) )as involved inas#uch as the several co"ent statutes e8istin" at the ti#e
the !%& )as entered into alread( defined )ho )ere Bualified as the le"al dependents of another.
Moreover, the voluntariness of the "rant of the benefit beca#e even #anifest fro# petitioner:s
ad#ission that, despite the #e#orandu# it issued in 6...
44
in order to <correct< the
interpretation of the ter# le"al dependent, it still approved in 6..4 the clai#s for funeral and
bereave#ent aid of t)o e#plo(ees, na#el(+ $a' !ecille %ulacan, for the death of her father0 and
$b' !harito !artel, for the death of her #other, based on its supposedl( #ista9en interpretation.
43
It is further )orth( to note that petitioner "ranted clai#s for funeral and bereave#ent aid as earl(
as -///, then issued a #e#orandu# in 6... to correct its erroneous interpretation of le"al
dependent under Section 3, &rticle GIII of the !%&. This not)ithstandin", the 6..-16..3 !%&
42
still contained the sa#e provision "rantin" funeral or bereave#ent aid in case of the death of a
le"al dependent of a re"ular e#plo(ee )ithout differentiatin" the le"al dependents accordin" to
the e#plo(eeIs civil status as #arried or sin"le. The continuit( in the "rant of the funeral and
bereave#ent aid to re"ular e#plo(ees for the death of their le"al dependents has undoubtedl(
ripened into a co#pan( polic(. Dith that, the denial of &lfanteIs Bualified clai# for such benefit
pursuant to Section 3, &rticle GIII of the !%& violated the la) prohibitin" the di#inution of
benefits.
D=RFOR, the !ourt &FFIRMS the decision pro#ul"ated on Februar( 2, 6.- .0 and
ORDRS petitioner to pa( the costs of suit.
SO ORDRD.
LUCAS P. "ERSAMIN
&ssociate ,ustice
D !ON!>R+
MARIA LOUR#ES P. A. SERENO
!hief ,ustice
TERESITA J. LEONAR#O$#E
CASTRO
&ssociate ,ustice
MARTIN S. %ILLARAMA, JR.
&ssociate ,ustice
"IEN%ENI#O L. REYES
&ssociate ,ustice
! R T I F I ! & T I O N
Pursuant to Section -4, &rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif( that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case )as assi"ned to the )riter of the
opinion of the !ourtIs Division.
MARIA LOUR#ES P. A. SERENO
!hief ,ustice
!oo&no&e'
-
Rollo, pp. 634163C.
6
Id. at 626.
4
Id. at 62416;5.
3
Id. at 6/616/3.
2
Id. at 6/214.-.
5
Id. at 46-1466.
;
Id. at 231520 penned b( &ssociate ,ustice Franchito N. Dia#ante, )ith the concurrence
of &ssociate ,ustice Mario @. 7uari?a III $retired' and &ssociate ,ustice Sesinando .
Villon.
C
Id. at 5515C.
/
Rollo $7.R. No. -/63;C', p. -4.
-.
Id. at 4/..
--
Id. at 3.2.
-6
Id. at 3.5.
-4
Rollo, p. 3-.
-3
Id. at 3-136.
-2
&rticle -... Prohibition a"ainst eli#ination or di#inution of benefits. E Nothin" in this
%oo9 shall be construed to eli#inate or in an( )a( di#inish supple#ents, or other
e#plo(ee benefits bein" enAo(ed at the ti#e of pro#ul"ation of this !ode.
-5
Rollo, p. 34.
-;
Id. at 34133.
-C
Id. at 32.
-/
Id. at 3;413/..
6.
7.R. No. -3225-, ,une -2, 6..2, 35. S!R& -C5, -/.1-/-.
6-
TSPI! !orporation v. TSPI! #plo(ees >nion $FFD', 7.R. No. -543-/, Februar( -4,
6..C, 232 S!R& 6-2, citin" !entro scolar >niversit( Facult( and &llied Dor9ers
>nion1Independent v. !ourt of &ppeals, 7.R. No. -523C5, Ma( 4-, 6..5, 3/. S!R& 5-,
;6.
66
&rticle -4;., !ivil !ode.
64
Rollo, p. -43.
63
&n &ct Further Stren"thenin" the Social Securit( S(ste# Thereb( &#endin" for this
Purpose Republic &ct No. --5-, &s &#ended, Other)ise Jno)n as the Social Securit(
@a).
62
&n &ct Institutin" a National =ealth Insurance Pro"ra# for &ll Filipinos and
stablishin" the Philippine =ealth Insurance !orporation for the Purpose.
65
&n &ct &#endin" Presidential Decree No. --35, as a#ended, 8pandin" and
Increasin" the !overa"e and %enefits of the 7overn#ent Service Insurance S(ste#,
Institutin" Refor#s Therein and for Other Purposes
6;
7.R. No. -53;/., &u"ust 6/, 6..C, 254 S!R& 5/4, ;.41;.3.
6C
Sulo sa Na(on, Inc. v. Na(on" Pilipino Foundation, 7.R. No. -;./64, ,anuar( 6.,
6../, 2;5 S!R& 522, 555.
6/
astern Teleco##unications Philippines, Inc. v. astern Teleco#s #plo(ees >nion,
7.R. No. -C2552, Februar( C, 6.-6, 552 S!R& 2-5, 244.
4.
%oncodin v. National Po)er !orporation #plo(ees !onsolidated >nion $N!>',
7.R. No. -56;-5, Septe#ber 6;, 6..5, 2.4 S!R& 5--, 56C.
4-
Metropolitan %an9 and Trust !o#pan( v. National @abor Relations !o##ission, 7.R.
No. -26/6C, ,une -C, 6../, 2C/ S!R& 4;5, 4C3.
46
Sevilla Tradin" !o#pan( v. Se#ana, 7.R. No. -26325, &pril 6C, 6..3, 36C S!R&
64/, 63/.
44
Rollo, p. 3-
43
Id. at 3..
42
Id. at -6-1-3..
The @a)phil ProAect 1 &rellano @a) Foundation