39. Philippine Veterans Bank vs NLRC (1999) G.R.

130439
Facts In 1983, petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank was placed under receivership by the
Bangko Sentral Petitioner was subse!uently placed under li!uidation on 1" #une 198"
$onse!uently, its e%ployees, including private respondent &r #ose 'eodorico V (olina, were
ter%inated )ro% work and given their respective separation pay and other bene)its 'o assist in
the li!uidation, so%e o) petitioner*s )or%er e%ployees were rehired, a%ong the% (olina, whose
re+e%ploy%ent co%%enced on 1" #une 198" ,n 11 (ay 1991, (,-I./ )iled a co%plaint
against %e%bers o) the li!uidation tea% 'he co%plaint de%anded the i%ple%entation o) 0age
,rders .os .$1+21 and .$1+23 4herea)ter 0, 1 and 0, 35 as well as %oral da%ages and
attorney*s )ees in the a%ount o) P322,222
(eanwhile, 0, 1 took e))ect on .ove%ber 1992, prescribing a P16+increase in the
daily wage o) e%ployees whose %onthly salary did not e7ceed P3,82328 ,n the other hand,
0, 3 beca%e %andated a P13+increase in the daily wage o) e%ployees whose %onthly salary
did not e7ceed P8,31919 (olina clai%ed that his salary should have been ad:usted in
co%pliance with said wage orders 'he li!uidation tea% countered that (,-I./ was not
entitled to any salary increase because he was already receiving a %onthly salary o) P9,9"892
broken down as )ollows; P3,6"892 as basic co%pensation, P3,222 as representation and
transportation allowance 41/'/5, and a special allowance o) P922
-abor /rbiter re:ected the 3919 )actor used by the li!uidators in co%puting the daily
wage o) (,-I./, adopting instead the )actor o) <39" days= $onse!uently, they were ordered
to pay (olina the wage di))erentials due hi% under 0, 1 and 0, 3 ,n appeal, the .-1$
sustained the labor arbiter*s ruling a)ter concluding that (olina was a regular e%ployee o)
petitioner with a basic %onthly salary o) P3,6"892 at the ti%e o) his dis%issal on 31 #anuary
1993 >e was, there)ore, entitled to the wage increases %andated by the a)oresaid wage orders
.-1$ &ecision; 0>?1?@,1?, the li!uidation tea% are hereby directed to pay
(,-I./ the total su% o) P113,"2132 broken down as )ollows;
0age &i))erential;
0,A .$1+21 4.ov 1992 B #an 31, 1993 + 1" %os5
P1622 7 39" C 13 D P"1628 7 1" %os + P6,6"932
0,A .$1+23 4#an 8, 1991 B #an 31, 1993 + 13 %os5
P1322 7 39" C 13 D P39"22 7 13 %os + P8,68"22
'otal 0age &i))erential P13,"2132
(oral &a%ages E /ttorneyFs @ees P122,22222
','/- /0/1& P113,"2132
.-1$ denied petitionerFs (otion )or 1econsideration pro%pting the latter to )ile the instant
petition with a prayer )or the issuance o) a te%porary restraining order and writ o) preli%inary
in:unction
!r"#$ents;
Petiti%ner; Petitioner insists that when it was placed under li!uidation, it lost its :uridical
personality, such that it could no longer enter into contracts or transact business /ll its assets and
liabilities were turned over to the $entral Bank (,-I./Fs co%plaint pertained to acts
co%%itted during li!uidation and so was correctly )iled against the li!uidation tea% Its
substitution as party+respondent was clearly erroneous Petitioner e%phasiGes that he was rehired
only to assist in the li!uidation process /t that %o%ent, the e%ployer+e%ployee relationship
between petitioner and (,-I./ ceased to e7ist Petitioner reiterates the argu%ents raised by the
original respondents, particularly that the )actor o) 3919 should have been applied in
deter%ining (,-I./Fs daily wage &oing so would show that (,-I./Fs daily pay e7ceeded
the %ini%u% wage and, there)ore, was beyond the scope o) the wage orders Petitioner also
avers that the award o) P122,222 in %oral da%ages and attorneyFs )ees was inappropriate since
the co%plaint did not speci)y the sa%e, and it was clearly e7cessive, considering that the case
was decided based on the pleadings and without the bene)it o) trial In any event, %oral da%ages
%ay only be recovered in labor cases when the dis%issal is attended by bad )aith or )raud, or
when it constitutes an act oppressive to labor or co%%itted in a %anner contrary to good %orals,
good custo%s or public policy (,-I./Fs dis%issal was %ade in the ordinary course o)
business
Resp%n&ent ('%lina5; (,-I./ pri%arily asserts that upon petitionerFs rehabilitation it
assu%ed all the rights and obligations o) the li!uidator, including the .-1$Fs %onetary award
arising )ro% the labor co%plaint he )iled against the li!uidation tea%
(ss#e ; 415 /re 0, 1 and 0, 3 applicable to (,-I./H
435 Is (,-I./ entitled to %oral da%ages and attorneyFs )eesH
435 I) so, who is liable to pay (,-I./Fs clai%sH
)el& 0, 1 e7pressly states that e%ployees having a %onthly salary o) not %ore than
P3,82328 are entitled to receive the %andated wage increase Indeniably, (,-I./ was
receiving a %onthly salary o) P3,6"892 'his )act alone leaves no doubt that he should bene)it
)ro% said wage order ,n the other hand, 0, 3 raised the ceiling )or entitle%ent to the wage
increase I) (,-I./ was covered by the earlier wage order, with %ore reason should the later
wage order apply to hi%
'he $ourt noted that the .ational 0ages $ouncil rendered an opinion on the !uery o) the
Philippines Veterans Bank 1etained ?%ployees that it is clear that they are entitled to the wage
increase under 1/ 9882 co%puted on the basis o) 39" paid days and to the corresponding
salary di))erentials as a result o) the application o) this )actor 'he Bank has been consistently
using the )actor o) 39" days in co%puting the !uivalent %onthly salary prior to its being placed
under receivership by the $entral Bank 'his is evident in the wage and allowance increases
granted under previous Presidential &ecrees and 0age ,rders >owever, when 1/ 9982 went
into )orce, the Bank unilaterally reduced the )actor to 393 instead o) %aintaining )actor 39" as
was the practiceJpolicy long be)ore the e))ectivity o) the /ct /nd when 1/ 9636 took e))ect,
the Bank reverted to the old practiceJpolicy o) using )actor 39" days in co%puting your
e!uivalent %onthly rate salary 'he old practice o) the bank in using )actor 39" days in a year in
deter%ining your e!uivalent %onthly salary cannot unilaterally be changed by your e%ployer
without the consent o) the e%ployees, such practice being now a part o) the ter%s and conditions
o) your e%ploy%ent
/n e%ploy%ent agree%ent, whether written or unwritten, is a bilateral contract and, as
such other party thereto cannot change or a%end the ter%s thereo) without the consent o) the
other party thereto 'o abandon such policy and revert to its old practice o) using the 3919 )actor
would be a di%inution o) a labor bene)it, which is prohibited by the -abor $ode
(,-I./ is entitled to %oral da%ages and attorneyFs )ees >e %ay have o%itted such
clai%s in his co%plaint, but he certainly included the% in his position paper 'he .-1$,
however, did not distinguish between attorneyFs )ees and %oral da%ages in a))ir%ing the award
o) P122,222 to (,-I./ /wards )or %oral da%ages and attorneyFs )ees cannot be consolidated
)or they are di))erent in nature and each %ust be separately deter%ined Since the -abor $ode
li%its attorneyFs )ees to ten percent o) the wages awarded,
1*
and the total wage di))erential due
(,-I./ was co%puted at P13,"2132, only P1,3"213 should have been awarded as attorneyFs
)ees @or %oral da%ages, however, to be awarded, the clai%ant %ust satis)actorily prove its
)actual basis and causal connection with the respondentFs acts In this, (,-I./ )ailed, )or
which reason the award o) %oral da%ages %ust be deleted
@inally, pay%ent o) (,-I./Fs clai%s devolves upon petitioner, not the li!uidation tea%
In both receivership and li!uidation proceedings the bank retains its :uridical personality
notwithstanding the closure o) its businessK in )act, the bank %ay even be sued Ipon its
rehabilitation, petitioner assu%ed the rights and obligations o) the receiver and li!uidator 'his
includes (,-I./Fs clai% )or unpaid wages It %ust be borne in %ind that all the acts o) the
receiver and li!uidator pertain to petitioner, both having assu%ed petitionerFs corporate e7istence
Petitioner cannot disclai% liability by arguing that the non+pay%ent o) (,-I./Fs :ust wages
was co%%itted by the li!uidators during the li!uidation period