356 Phil. 399
PURISIMA, J.:
P1,860.00 - basic salarySometime in June, 1988, the private respondents were promoted to Avionics Mechanic C with a basic pay of P2,300.00 a month plus a CBA wage increase of P400.00, thereby making their monthly gross pay P2,700.00.
400.00 - CBA wage increase
304.00 - wage increase under RA 6640
P2,564.00 - gross pay per month
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to integrate to the monthly salary of the covered employees the amount of P304.00 and to pay them salary differentials from the date same was withdrawn from them, plus the legal rate of interest. In addition, the respondent is directed to pay ten (10%) percent of the total award as attorney’s fees.Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed its appeal for want of merit; holding, that:
The other claims are dismissed for lack of sufficient basis.
SO ORDERED."
"A benefit, repeatedly granted by the employer, cannot just be withdrawn as such repeated granting of benefit breeds a vested right on the part of an employee to look forward to and receive the same. An argument that a statutory wage increase repeatedly enjoyed by an employee (at least on monthly basis) be scrapped because such a ‘Forced Statutory Increment’ (under R.A. 6640) ‘was never meant to act as a permanent fixture’ and that the ‘moment the employees got better rates by reason of promotion’ there results ‘no more need for the law’, would all the more be ABSURD. By the fact alone that the wage increase provided for by R.A. 6640 was not defined and intended as a temporary benefit, much less effective only until an employee gets promoted (and correspondingly gets an increase), respondent’s argument that we make it temporary would clearly tantamount to its pleading to us that we rule beyond the limit of our jurisdiction.Dissatisfied with the adverse disposition below, petitioner found its way to this Court, posing the questions:
We thus cannot but adopt the Arbiter’s conclusion:
‘Even following, therefore, the contention of respondent in that the wage increase under RA 6640 is a personal right and does not attach to the position, still complainants are entitled to same as they have been enjoying already the same. In sum, complainants are entitled to the basic salary carried by their position, the wage increase under the CBA and the salary adjustment they are presently enjoying under RA 6640. To rule otherwise would defeat not only the spirit of RA 6640 but also the very purpose of the promotion of the complainants.’ (Record, p. 65)"[3]
Petitioner theorizes that the salary increases under RA 6640 "are not of such a permanent character that they can no longer be offset by substantial salary increases that employees receive on account of a promotional movement in their careers"; that the provision of Section 2 of RA 6640 granting higher salaries is a mere mechanism to address wage distortions, so that in the absence of any wage distortion to address, Section 2 does not apply; and that public respondent Commission has jurisdiction and is competent to resolve a question of law submitted for its consideration, like declaring as temporary in nature the salary increases provided for in RA 6640.I
WHETHER RA 6640 WAS MEANT TO GRANT PERMANENT WAGE INCREASES THAT MUST BE MAINTAINED BY AN EMPLOYER AS A FIXED COMPONENT OF AN EMPLOYEE’S MONTHLY SALARY THROUGHOUT THE LATTER’S CAREER GROWTH AND REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PROMOTIONAL INCREASES THAT THE EMPLOYEE CORRESPONDINGLY RECEIVED.II
WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO RULE UPON PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION OF AN ISSUE OVER A QUESTION OF LAW.
Section 2 of RA 6640, reads:Petitioner interprets the underscored proviso of Section 2 supra as a wage distortion mechanism, such that when there is no more wage distortion to address, application of the said provision of law would cease.
"SEC. 2. The statutory minimum wage rates of workers and employees in the private sector, whether agricultural or non-agricultural, shall be increased by ten pesos (P10.00) per day, except non-agricultural workers and employees outside Metro Manila who shall receive an increase of eleven pesos (P11.00) per day: Provided, That those already receiving above the minimum wage up to one hundred pesos (P100.00) shall receive an increase of ten pesos (P10.00) per day. Excepted from the provisions of this Act are domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another." (underscoring ours)
SEC. 3. Where the application of the minimum wage increase prescribed under Section 2 results in distortions in the wage structure within an establishment which gives rise to a dispute therein, such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a deadlock, such dispute shall finally be resolved through compulsory arbitration by the National Labor Relations Commission’s arbitration branch having jurisdiction over the workplace.If the intention of the framers of the law were to make Section 2 a mechanism for wage distortion, they would have deleted Section 3 and instead, incorporated in Section 2 the relevant provisions of Section 3. As currently phrased, however, there is nothing in Section 2 which refers to wage distortion. We discern no sustainable basis for petitioner’s submission that the underscored proviso of Section 2 has become functus oficio because of its alleged compliance with the law.
It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide any dispute arising under this section within thirty (30) days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability of the wage increase covered by this Act.
For the purpose of this Act, wage distortion shall mean a situation where a legislated increase in minimum wages results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinction embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical basis of differentiation."
"A benefit, repeatedly granted by the employer, cannot just be withdrawn as such repeated granting of benefit breeds a vested right on the part of an employee to look forward to and receive the same. An argument that a statutory wage increase repeatedly enjoyed by an employee (at least on monthly basis) be scrapped because such a ‘Forced Statutory Increment’ (under R.A. 6640) ‘was never meant to act as a permanent fixture’ and that the ‘moment the employees got better rates by reason of promotion’ there results ‘no more need for the law’, would all the more be ABSURD. By the fact alone that the wage increase provided for by R.A. 6640 was not defined and intended as a temporary benefit, much less effective only until an employee gets promoted (and correspondingly gets an increase), respondent’s argument that we make it temporary would clearly tantamount to its pleading to us that we rule beyond the limit of our jurisdiction. (underscoring ours)The underscored disquisition by respondent Commission should only be taken to mean that it could not grant the relief prayed for by petitioner; otherwise, it would be acting beyond the limit of its jurisdiction. The underscored ratiocination should not be deemed as a disinclination on the part of respondent Commission to exercise its power to pass upon an issue within its jurisdiction to resolve.