PETITIONER Ricardo E. Vergara Jr. worked an employee of respondent Coca-Cola ottlers P!ilippines" Inc.

from
#ay $%&' (ntil !e retired on Jan. )$" *++* as a district sales
s(per,isor -.//0 for 1as Pi2as City" #etro #anila.
P(rs(ant to t!e respondent company3s Retirement Plan R(les and Reg(lations at t!e time" t!e 4nn(al Performance
Incenti,e Pay of .//s s!all 5e considered in t!e comp(tation of retirement 5enefits.
Claiming !is entitlement to an additional P!P676"&++ as sales management incenti,es and to t!e amo(nt of
P6%&"+$&.&7 t!at t!e company allegedly ded(cted illegally" Vergara filed a complaint 5efore t!e National 1a5or
Relations Commission -N1RC0 on J(ne $$" *+$*. 8e asked for !is 9f(ll retirement 5enefits" merit increase"
commission:incenti,es" lengt! of ser,ice" act(al" moral and e;emplary damages" and attorney3s fees.<
.id !is claims prosper=
R(ling> No.
?pon re,iew of t!e entire case records" t!e /(preme Co(rt fo(nd no s(5stantial e,idence to pro,e t!at t!e grant of
sales management incenti,es to all retired .//s" regardless of w!et!er or not t!ey @(alified for t!e same" !ad
ripened into company practice.
.espite more t!an s(fficient opport(nity gi,en !im w!ile !is case was pending 5efore t!e N1RC" t!e Co(rt of
4ppeals and e,en t!is Co(rt" t!e petitioner (tterly failed to add(ce proof to esta5lis! !is allegation t!at t!e incenti,e
!as 5een consistently" deli5erately and ,ol(ntarily granted to all retired .//s wit!o(t any @(alification or conditions
w!atsoe,er.
T!e only two pieces of e,idence t!at !e st(55ornly presented t!ro(g!o(t t!e entirety of t!is case are t!e sworn
statements of Renato C. 8idalgo and Ramon V. VelaA@(eA" former .//s of respondent w!o retired in *+++ and
$%%'" respecti,ely. T!ey claimed t!at t!e sales management incenti,e was incl(ded in t!eir retirement package e,en
if t!ey did not meet t!e sales and collection @(alifiers. 8owe,er" B(;taposing t!ese wit! t!e e,idence presented 5y
respondent wo(ld re,eal t!e frailty of t!eir statements.
; ; ;
T!e respondent3s isolated act of incl(ding t!e sales management incenti,e in t!e retirement package of VelaA@(eA
co(ld !ardly 5e classified as a company practice t!at may 5e considered an enforcea5le o5ligation.
To repeat" t!e principle against dimin(tion of 5enefits is applica5le only if t!e grant or 5enefit is fo(nded on an
e;press policy or !as ripened into a practice o,er a long period of time t!at is consistent and deli5erate. It
pres(pposes t!at a company practice" policy and tradition fa,ora5le to t!e employees !as 5een clearly esta5lis!edC
and t!at t!e payments made 5y t!e company p(rs(ant to it !a,e ripened into 5enefits enBoyed 5y t!em.
Certainly" a practice or c(stom is" as a general r(le" not a so(rce of a legally demanda5le or enforcea5le rig!t.
Company practice" B(st like any ot!er fact" !a5its" c(stoms" (sage or patterns of cond(ct m(st 5e pro,en 5y t!e
offering party" w!o m(st allege and esta5lis! specific" repetiti,e cond(ct t!at mig!t constit(te e,idence of !a5it or
company practice -Ricardo E. Vergara" Jr. ,s. Coca-Cola ottlers P!ilippines" Inc." D.R. No. $7&%'E" 4pril $" *+$)0.
--
Labor law; non-diminution of benefits. [T]he principle against diminution of benefits is applicable only
if the grant or benefit is founded on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long
period of time which is consistent and deliberate; it presupposes that a company practice, policy and
tradition favorable to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by
the company pursuant to it have ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. Company practice, just like
any other fact, habits, customs, usage or patterns of conduct, must be proven by the offering party
who must allege and establish specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit or
company practice. Certainly, a practice or custom is, as a general rule, not a source of a legally
demandable or enforceable right.