Universal corn products vs NLRC

Facts
Sometime in May, 1972, the petitioner and the Universal Corn Products Workers Union entered
into a collective bargaining agreement in which it was provided, among other things, that
The COMPANY agrees to grant all regular workers within the bargaining unit with at least one
(1) year of continuous service, a Christmas bonus equivalent to the regular wages for seven (7)
working days, effective December, 1972. The bonus shall be given to the workers on the second
week of December.
The agreement had a duration of three years, effective June 1, 1971, or until June 1, 1974.
On account however of differences between the parties with respect to certain economic issues,
the collective bargaining agreement in question expired without being renewed. On June 1, 1979,
the parties entered into an "addendum" stipulating certain wage increases covering the years
from 1974 to 1977. Simultaneously, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the
years from 1979 to 1981. Like the "addendum," the new collective bargaining agreement did not
refer to the "Christmas bonus" theretofore paid but dealt only with salary adjustments. According
to the petitioner, the new agreements deliberately excluded the grant of Christmas bonus with the
enactment of Presidential Decree No. 851
4
on December 16, 1975. It further claims that since
1975, it had been paying its employees 13th-month pay pursuant to the Decree.
The petitioner failed of the petitioner to pay the seven-day Christmas bonus for 1975 to 1978 in
accordance with the 1972 CBA.
Issue : 1. W/N the petitioner should still pay its employees seven -day Christmas bonus for 1975
to
1978 even he started paying them their 13
th
month pay from 1975.
2. W/N petitioners reliance on PD 851 is proper.

Ruling : 1. Yes. It is clear that the company implemented the afore quoted provision of the CBA
in
1972, 1973 and 1974.
2. No. The SC held that the 13th-month pay law, does not cover employers already
paying their employees an "equivalent" to the 13th month pay.



San Miguel Corporation vs Inciong
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed on January 3, 1977 by Cagayan Coca-Cola Free Workers Union against San Miguel
Corporation (Cagayan Coca-Cola Plant) for the alleged failure or refusal of the latter to include in the computation
of 13th- month pay such items as sick, vacation or maternity leaves, premium for work done on rest days and
special holidays, including pay for regular holidays and night differentials.

ISSUE :
Whether or not in the computation of the 13th-month pay under Presidential Decree851, payments for sick,
vacation or maternity leaves, premium for work done on rest days and special holidays, including pay for regular
holidays and night differentials should be considered.

HELD :
Citing certain provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines specifically
Art. 87 on overtime work performed beyond 8 hours a day is paid as additional compensation equivalent to a
regular wage plus 25% hereof and Art 93 on work performed on any special holiday as an additional
compensation of at least 30% of the regular wage of the employee, clearly, additional compensation is
categorically excluded from the definition of basic salary under the Supplementary Rules and Regulations
Implementing Presidential Decree 851. Therefore, additional compensation shall not be considered in the
computation of the 13th- month pay










Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs. NLRC
(Labor Standards Commissions included in the computation of 13
th
month pay)

Facts: Petitioner Corporation pays its salesmen a small fixed or guaranteed wage; the greater
part of the latters wages or salaries being composed of the sales or incentive commissions
earned on actual sales of duplicating machines closed by them. Thus the sales commissions
received for every duplicating machine sold constituted part of the basic compensation or
remuneration of the salesmen of the Philippine Duplicators for doing their job.
The Labor Arbiter directed Petitioner Duplicators to pay 13
th
month pay to private respondent
employees computed on the basis of their fixed wages plus sales commission.
Sec. 4 of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 (Revised
Guidelines Implementing 13
th
Month Pay) provides that overtime pay, earning and other
remuneration which are not part of the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of
the 13
th
month pay.
Petitioner Corporation contends that their sales commission should not be included in the
computation of the 13
th
month pay invoking the consolidated cases of Boie-Takeda Chemicals,
Inc. vs Hon. Dionisio dela Serna and Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. vs Hon. Crecencio Trajano,
were the so-called commissions of medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals and rank-
and-file employees of Fuji Xerox Co. were not included in the term basic salary in computing
the 13
th
month pay.

Issue: WON sales commissions comprising a pre-determined percent of the selling price of the
goods are included in the computation of the 13
th
month pay.

Held: Yes. These commission which are an integral part of the basic salary structure of the
Philippine Duplicators employees-salesmen, are not overtime payments, nor profit-sharing
payments nor any other fringe benefit. Thus, salesmens commissions comprising a pre-
determined percent of the selling price of the goods were properly included in the term basic
salary for purposes of computing the 13
th
month pay.
Commissions of medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals and rank-and-file employees
of Fuji Xerox Co. were not included in the term basic salary because these were paid as
productivity bonuses which is not included in the computation of 13
th
month pay.