Philippines
National
SC orders PNB to pay cost-of-living, special amelioration allowances of officers, employees
SC orders PNB to pay cost-of-living, special amelioration allowances of officers, employees
The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to pay its former and incumbent officers and employees of their 40 percent cost-of-living allowance (COLA) and 10 percent special amelioration allowance based on their basic pay from July 1, 1989 to May 26, 1996.
In a resolution promulgated on March 29, 2023 and made public last Aug. 14, the SC denied the petition filed by PNB against the 2016 rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the order issued by the regional trial court (RTC) on May 15, 2008.
In their petition filed before the RTC, the PNB officers and employees – led by Goldelio G. Rivera – said that prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 6758, the Salary Standardization Law, they were receiving allowances and COLA equivalent to 40 percent of their basic salary, or P300.00 whichever is higher.
But they said that after the enactment of RA 6758 and the issuance of Department of Budget and Management-Corporate Compensation Circular (DBM-CCC) No. 10, PNB discontinued the payment of their COLA and other allowances.
They pointed out that PNB stopped the payment despite the SC’s rulings in two cases which declared that DBM-CCC No. 10 is ineffective and unenforceable due to its non-publication.
PNB insisted that COLA and other allowances had already been integrated into their basic salary, even prior to the issuance of DBM-CCC No. 10.
In its SC petition, PNB said that the rulings of both the RTC and the CA have no factual basis.
In resolving PNB’s petition, the SC said that the two previous cases it decided – the De Jesus and Philippine Ports Authority cases -- share the same factual circumstances as the PNB case, thus, “the doctrine of stare decisis should be made to apply in the instant case.”
The rule of stare decisis “is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court.”
The SC said:
“The instance case involves a similar set of facts as those in the De Jesus case and the PPA case. Thus, applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the ruling thereon -- that the employees are entitled to the payment of COLA and other allowances during the time DBM-CCC No. 10 was invalidly enforced -- should likewise be made to apply in the instant case.
“The Court, therefore, finds no reason to disturb the RTC' s ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that respondents (PNB officers and employees) are entitled to a writ of mandamus, given that respondents were able to prove their clear legal right, and PNB's corelative duty to satisfy their claims for the payment of COLA and other allowances.
“On another note, the Court finds it proper to discuss PNB' s argument with respect to the supposed lack of evidence in this case. To recall, PNB stated in its petition that the RTC' s ruling is not based on substantial evidence, or any evidence at all. These arguments are untenable.
“The records glaringly reveal that PNB's failure to adduce any evidence to support its case is due to its own failure to appear in the conferences that the RTC scheduled, which conferences were initiated by PNB itself. PNB was given several opportunities to show how respondents were not entitled to their monetary claims, or how it has no duty to pay the same. However, instead of using these opportunities to present evidence, PNB insisted on employing delays, filing unnecessary pleadings, and asking for several postponements.
“In fact, PNB' s prayer in the instant petition for the remand of the case to the RTC appears to be another futile attempt to delay the payment of respondents' monetary claims.
“To the Court's mind, PNB could no longer be allowed to assert that no evidence has been presented when such is due to its own fault.
“In stark contrast, the Court finds that respondents were able to establish and prove their claims as to their entitlement to their COLA and other allowances.
“All things considered, the Court affirms the ruling of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, directing PNB to pay respondents their monetary claims.
“Wherefore, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated Dec. 5, 2016 filed by Philippine National Bank is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 16, 2016 and the Resolution dated Oct.13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117697 are affirmed. So ordered.”