G.R. No. 195297.  December 5, 2018.*

 
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.,
petitioner, vs. ILOILO COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES
LABOR UNION (ICCPELU), as represented by
WILFREDO L. AGUIRRE, respondent.

Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Words and

Phrases; A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer
concerning wages, hours of work, and all other terms and
conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.—A CBA is the
negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and
the employer concerning wages, hours of work, and all other
terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. It
incorporates the agreement reached after negotiations between
the employer and the bargaining agent with respect to terms and
conditions of employment. It is axiomatic that the CBA comprises
the law between the contracting parties, and compliance
therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. The literal
meaning of the stipulations of the CBA, as with every other
contract, control if they are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties. Thus, where the CBA is clear
and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and
compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the
law. Moreover, it is a familiar rule in interpretation of contracts
that the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted
together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may
result from all of them taken jointly. Consequently, in this case,
recourse to the CBA between CCBPI and the respondent as
regards the hours of work is essential. In Article 10 of the CBA,
the company work week is elaborated while also defining how a
Saturday is treated and in fact delineating the same from the
other days of the work week.
Same; Same; If Saturday was part of the regular work week
and not dependent on management’s decision to schedule work,
there would be no need to give additional compensation to
employees who

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
  
 
237

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 237

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

report to work on that day.—If Saturday was part of the

regular work week and not dependent on management’s decision
to schedule work, there would be no need to give additional
compensation to employees who report to work on that day. The
CA erred in taking into account that employees required to work
on that day but who would fail to report, would be marked down
as having gone on leave. The Court agrees with CCBPI that such
conclusion is non sequitur and that the markings merely indicated
the fact that they did not report for work (even if required) and
the reasons for their absence, whether legitimate or not. This
understanding is bolstered by the fact that not all daily-paid
workers were required to report for work, which and if indeed
Saturday was to be considered a regular work day, all these
employees should have been required to report for work.
Civil Law; Contracts; Interpretation of Contracts; In sum, by
not taking these provisions into account, the Court of Appeals (CA)
ignored the well-settled rule that the various stipulations of a
contract must be interpreted together.—In sum, by not taking
these provisions into account, the CA ignored the well-settled rule
that the various stipulations of a contract must be interpreted
together. The Court finds that relying on the interpretation of the
CA would result in the patent absurdity that the company would
have to look for work for the employees to do even if there is none,
on the Saturday as stated. Even if one were to downplay the lack
of logic with this assertion, as mentioned the CBA provisions are
clear and unambiguous, leaving no need for a separate
interpretation of the same.
Labor Law; Diminution of Benefits; In order for there to be
proscribed diminution of benefits that prejudiced the affected
employees, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) should
have unilaterally withdrawn the fifty percent (50%) premium pay
without abolishing Saturday work.—In order for there to be
proscribed diminution of benefits that prejudiced the affected
employees, CCBPI should have unilaterally withdrawn the 50%
premium pay without abolishing Saturday work. These are not
the facts of the case at bar. CCBPI withdrew the Saturday work
itself, pursuant, as already held, to its management prerogative.
In fact, this management prerogative highlights the fact that the
scheduling of the Saturday work was actually made subject to a
condition, i.e., the prerogative to provide
  
 
238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

the company’s employees with Saturday work based on the

existence of operational necessity.
Same; Same; When the grant of a benefit is made subject to a
condition and such condition prevails, the rule on non-diminution
finds no application.—Even assuming arguendo that the
Saturday work involved in this case falls within the definition of a
“benefit” protected by law, the fact that it was made subject to a
condition (i.e., the existence of operational necessity) negates the
application of Article 100 pursuant to the established doctrine
that when the grant of a benefit is made subject to a condition and
such condition prevails, the rule on non-diminution finds no
application. Otherwise stated, if Saturday work and its
corresponding premium pay were granted to CCBPI’s employees
without qualification, then the company’s policy of permitting its
employees to suffer work on Saturdays could have perhaps
ripened into company practice protected by the non-diminution
rule.
Same; Wages; The age-old rule governing the relation between
labor and capital, or management and employee, of a “fair day’s
wage for a fair day’s labor” remains the basic factor in
determining employees’ wages.—The age-old rule governing the
relation between labor and capital, or management and employee,
of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” remains the basic factor
in determining employees’ wages. If there is no work performed
by the employee, there can be no wage. In cases where the
employee’s failure to work was occasioned neither by his
abandonment nor by termination, the burden of economic loss is
not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his
own loss. In other words, where the employee is willing and able
to work and is not illegally prevented from doing so, no wage is
due to him. To hold otherwise would be to grant to the employee
that which he did not earn at the prejudice of the employer. In the
case at bar, CCBPI’s employees were not illegally prevented from
working on Saturdays. The company was simply exercising its
option not to schedule work pursuant to the CBA provision which
gave it the prerogative to do so. It therefore follows that the
principle of “no work, no pay” finds application in the instant case.

 
 
239
 VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 239
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

Same; It is well-entrenched in the deluge of our jurisprudence

on labor law and social legislation that the scales of justice usually
tilt in favor of the workingman. Such favoritism, however, has not
blinded the Supreme Court (SC) to the rule that justice is, in every
case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and applicable law and doctrine.—The Court
cannot emphasize enough that its primary role as the vanguard of
constitutional guaranties charges it with the solemn duty of
affording full protection to labor. It is, in fact, well-entrenched in
the deluge of our jurisprudence on labor law and social legislation
that the scales of justice usually tilt in favor of the workingman.
Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule
that justice is, in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in
the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine.
The law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of
the employer. Management also has its own rights, which, as
such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play. After all, social justice is, in the eloquent words
of Associate Justice Jose P. Laurel, “the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at
least be approximated.”

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Viesca, Dones & Malang Law Offices for petitioner.
 Jagna-an, Belloga, Agot & Associates for respondent.

 
A. REYES, JR.,  J.:
 
Challenged before this Court via this Petition for Review
on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the
Deci-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 20-61.

 
 
240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

sion2 dated June 23, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA), and

its Resolution3  dated October 19, 2010 which reversed the
Decision4  dated September 7, 2006 of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), Regional
Branch No. 6, Iloilo City, in Case No. PAC-613-RB6-02-01-
06-2006.
 
The Antecedent Facts
 
Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI)
is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling of leading nonalcoholic products
and other beverages.5 It operates a manufacturing plant in
Ungka, Pavia, Iloilo City, where the aggrieved former
employees herein, as represented by respondent Iloilo
Coca-Cola Plant Employees Labor Union (respondent),
worked as regular route drivers and helpers.6
The conflict arose due to the CCBPI’s policy involving
Saturday work. In the said policy, several of CCBPI’s
employees were required to report for work on certain
Saturdays to perform a host of activities, usually involving
maintenance of the facilities. This prerogative was
supposedly consistent with the pertinent provisions7 in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement

_______________

2  Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate

Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; id.,
at pp. 70-78.
3 Id., at pp. 80-81.
4  Rendered by Atty. Mateo A. Valenzuela as Chairman, with Attys.
Inocencio Ferrer, Jr. and Gloria Arriola as Members; id., at pp. 179-206.
5 Id., at p. 24.
6 Id., at p. 25.
7 Id., at pp. 143-145.
ARTICLE 10
HOURS OF WORK
SECTION  1.  Work Week.—For daily paid workers the normal work
week shall consist of five (5) consecutive days (Monday to

 
 

241

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 241

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
 Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

(CBA) between CCBPI and its employees, which stated

that management had the sole option to schedule, work on
Saturdays on the basis of operational necessity.8
CCBPI later on informed the respondent that, starting
July 2, 2005, Saturday work would no longer be scheduled,
with CCBPI citing operational necessity as the reason for
the decision.9  Specifically, the discontinuance was done
with the purpose of saving on operating expenses and
compensating for the anticipated decreased revenues. As
Saturday work involved maintenance-related activities,
CCBPI would then

_______________

Friday) of eight (8) hours each and one (1) day (Saturday) of four (4) hours.
Provided, however, that any worker required to work on Saturday must
complete the scheduled shift for the day and shall be entitled to the
premium pay provided in Article IX hereof.
SECTION  2.  Changes in Work Schedule.—The present regular
working hours shall be maintained for the duration of this Agreement.
However, it is hereby agreed that the COMPANY may change the
prevailing working hours, if in its judgment, it shall find such change or
changes advisable or necessary either as a permanent or temporary
measure, provided at least twelve (12) hours notice in advance is given of
such change or changes, and provided, further, that they are in accordance
with law.
 
ARTICLE 11
OVERTIME, NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL, SATURDAY, SUNDAY AND
HOLIDAY PAY
SECTION  1.  Definitions.—
(a) An “Ordinary Day” is one that is neither a regular holiday, a
special holiday, a Saturday nor the worker’s scheduled rest day.
x x x x
(b)  Saturdays.—Saturday is a premium day but shall not be
considered as a rest day or equivalent to a Sunday. It is further agreed
that management has the option to schedule work on Saturdays on the
basis of operational necessity.
8  Id., at p. 26.
9  Id., at p. 87.

 
 
242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)
only schedule the day’s work as the need arose for these
particular undertakings, particularly on some Saturdays
from September to December 2005.10
On July 1, 2005, the parties met, with CCBPI’s
Manufacturing Manager setting forth the official proposal
to stop the work schedule during Saturdays.11  This
proposal was opposed and rejected by the officers and
members of the respondent who were present at the
meeting. Despite this opposition, CCBPI pushed through
with the non-scheduling of work on the following Saturday,
July 2, 2005.
As a result of the foregoing, the respondent submitted to
CCBPI its written grievance, stating therein that CCBPI’s act of
disallowing its employees to report during Saturday is a violation
of the CBA provisions, specifically Section 1, Article 10
thereof.12 Along with the submission of the written grievance, the
respondent also requested a meeting with CCBPI to discuss the
issue. CCBPI response to the request, however, was to merely
send a letter reiterating to the respondent that under the set of
facts, management has the option to schedule work on Saturday
on the basis of operational necessity.13  Further letters on the
part of the respondent were responded to in the same way by
CCBPI.
Respondent thus brought its grievances to the office of the
NCMB, and on June 9, 2006, the parties pursuant to the
provisions of their CBA submitted the case for voluntary
arbitration.14  The panel comprised of three (3) voluntary
arbitrators (the Panel of Arbitrators), was charged with resolving
two issues: First, whether or not members of the respondent were
entitled to receive their basic pay during Saturdays under the
CBA even if they would not report for work, and second,

_______________

10 Id.
11 Id., at p. 182.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id., at p. 179.

 
 
243

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 243

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

whether or not CCBPI could be compelled by the

respondent to provide work to its members during
Saturdays under the CBA.15
After the presentation of evidence and the subsequent
deliberations, the Panel of Arbitrators ruled in favor of
CCBPI, the dispositive part of the decision reading:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Panel of

Arbitrators, rules on the first issue, that the Complainant’s
Union members are nary entitled to receive their Basic Pay
during Saturdays under the CBA if they are not reporting
for work, under Section I, Article 10, and Sections 1(c) and
3(c) Article II of the CBA.
On the second issue, the PANEL, rules that [CCBPI]
cannot be compelled by the Complainant Union to provide
works to its members during Saturdays under the CBA, for
lack of legal and factual basis.
SO ORDERED.16

 
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration to the Panel of
Arbitrators’ ruling was denied for lack of merit on October
24, 2006.17
Unwilling to accept the findings of the Panel of
Arbitrators, the respondent elevated its case to the
CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. After a review of the same, the CA subsequently
rendered a Decision18  dated June 23, 2010 granting the
respondent’s Petition for Review and reversing the decision
of the Panel of Arbitrators. The dispositive portion of the
CA’s decision reads, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

GRANTED. The assailed Decision, dated 07 September

_______________

15 Id.
16 Id., at p. 206.
17 Id., at pp. 223-224.
18 Id., at pp. 70-78.

 
 
244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

2006, and, Order, dated 24 October 2006, respectively, by

the panel of voluntary arbitrators, namely: Atty. Mateo A.
Valenzuela, Atty. Inocencio Fener, Jr., and Gloria Aniola, of
 the NCMB. Regional Branch No. 6, Iloilo City, are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A NEW judgment is rendered
ORDERING CCBPI to:
1.  COMPLY with the CBA provisions respecting its
normal work week, that is, from Monday to Friday for eight
(8) hours a day and on Saturdays for four (4) hours;
2.  ALLOW the concerned union members to render
work for four (4) hours on Saturdays; and
3.  PAY the corresponding wage for the Saturdays work
which were not performed pursuant to its order to do so
commencing on 02 July 2005, the date when it actually
refused the concerned union members to report for work,
until the finality of this decision. The rate for work rendered
on a Saturday is composed of the whole daily rate (not the
amount equivalent to one-half day rate) plus the
corresponding premium.
No Costs.
SO ORDERED.19

 
CCBPI’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the
CA in a Resolution20  dated October 19, 2010 received on
January 28, 2011. On appeal to this Court, on February 11,
2011, CCBPI filed Motion for Extension and requested for
an additional period of 30 days from February 12, 2011, or
until March 14, 2014, within which to file its Petition
for  Certiorari, which was granted by this Court in a
Resolution21 dated February 21, 2011.

_______________

19 Id., at p. 35.
20 Id., at pp. 80-81.
21 Id., at p. 17.

 
 
245

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 245

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

Hence, this Petition, to which the respondent filed a

Comment22 to on June 11, 2011, the latter pleading
responded to by CCBPI via Reply23 on September 6, 2011.
 
The Issues of the Case
 
A perusal of the parties’ pleadings will show the
following issues and points of contention:
 First, whether or not the CA erred in ruling that under
the CBA between the parties, scheduling Saturday work for
CCBPI’s employees is mandatory on the part of the
Company.
Second, whether scheduling Saturday work has ripened
into a company practice, the removal of which constituted a
diminution of benefits, to which CCBPI is likewise liable to
the affected employees for, including the corresponding
wage for the Saturday work which was not performed
pursuant to the policy of the Company to remove Saturday
work based on operational necessity.

 
The Arguments of the Parties
 
It is the contention of CCBPI that the CA erred in
reversing the decision of the Panel of Arbitrators and
finding that the CBA gave the employees the right to
compel CCBPI to give work on Saturdays, that the
scheduling of work on a Saturday had ripened into a
company practice, and that the subsequent withdrawal of
Saturday work constituted a prohibited diminution of
wages. CCBPI states that this ruling is contrary to fact and
law and unduly prejudiced CCBPI as the company was
ordered to allow the affected employees to ren-

_______________

22 Id., at pp. 316-327.

23 Id., at pp. 339-354.

 
 
246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

der work for four hours on Saturdays.  CCBPI was also

ordered to pay the corresponding wage for the Saturday
work which were not performed pursuant to its order to do
so, the said amount corresponding to the date when the
company actually refused the affected employees to report
for work, until the finality of this decision.24
CCBPI argues that based on the provisions of its CBA,
specifically Article 10, Section 1, in relation with, Article
11, Section 1(c) and Section 2(c), it is clear that work on a
Saturday is optional on the part of management,25  and
constitutes a legitimate management prerogative that is
entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play.26 CCBPI likewise posits that the option to
schedule work necessarily includes the prerogative not to
schedule it. And, as the provisions in the CBA are
unmistakable and unambiguous, the terms therein are to
be understood literary just as they appear on the face of the
contract.27
For CCBPI, permitting the workers to suffer work on a
Saturday would render the phrase “required to work’’ in
Article 10, Section 1 and Article II, Section 2(c)
meaningless and superfluous, as while the scheduling of
Saturday work would be optional on the part of
management, the workers would still be required to render
service even if no Saturday work was scheduled.28
Aside from the clear and unambiguous provisions of the
CBA, CCBPI states that the evidence on record negates the
finding that Saturday work is mandatory.29 The evidence

_______________

24 Id., at p. 78.
25 Id., at p. 27.
26  Id., at p. 46, citing Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corporation,
240 Phil. 373, 377; 156 SCRA 392, 396 (1987).
27 Id., at p. 43, citing Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of
North America, 523 Phil. 677, 689; 490 SCRA 286, 296 (2006).
28 Id.
29 Id., at p. 44.

 
 

247

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 247

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

shows that only some, and not all the same daily-paid
employees reported for work on a Saturday, and the
number of the daily-paid employees who reported for work
on a Saturday always depended on the CCBPI’s operational
necessity.30  The optional nature of the work on the
Saturday is also highlighted by the fact that, subject to the
fulfillment of certain conditions, the employees who were
permitted to suffer work on such day are compensated with
a premium pay.31  This means that work on a Saturday is
part of the normal work week, as there would be no reason
why employees who reported for work on such date should
be given additional compensation or premium pay.
CCBPI also disagrees with the CA that the scheduling of
work on a Saturday had ripened into a company practice
and that the withdrawal of Saturday work constitutes a
prohibited diminution of wages.32  CCBPI maintains that
work on a Saturday does not amount to a benefit as a
result of a long-established practice. CCBPI states that in
several analogous cases involving overtime work,  Manila
Jockey Club Employees Labor-Union-PTGWO v. Manila
Jockey Club, Inc.33  and  San Miguel Corporation v. Layoc,
Jr.,34  the Court has already ruled that the work given in
excess of the regular work hours is not a “benefit” and the
previous grant thereof cannot amount to a “company
practice.” CCBPI particularly cites the  Layoc  case which
held that there is no violation of the rule on non-diminution
of benefits as the nature of overtime work of the
supervisory employees would show that these are not freely
given by the employer, and that on the contrary, the

_______________

30 Id., at p. 383.
31 Id.
32 Id., at p. 48.
33 546 Phil. 531; 517 SCRA 707 (2007).
34 562 Phil. 670; 537 SCRA 77 (2007).

 
 
248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

payment of overtime pay is made as a means of

compensation for services rendered in addition to the
regular hours of work.35
CCBPI likewise cites several cases involving overtime
work, there the Court ruled that the work given in excess
of the regular work hours is not a “benefit” and the
previous grant thereof cannot amount to a “company
practice.”36  As a premium day, that Saturday would have
the effect of being a holiday wherein the employees are
entitled to receive their pay whether they reported for work
or not.37
For CCBPI, the previous grant of Saturday work cannot
amount to a benefit that cannot be withdrawn by the
Company. Contrary to the nature of “benefits” under the
law, CCBPI did not freely give payment for Saturday work,
instead paying the employees the corresponding wage and
premium pay as compensation for services rendered in
addition to the regular work of eight (8) hours per day from
Mondays to Fridays.38
On the other hand, the respondents argue that CCBPI
failed to regard the express provision of the CBA which
delineates CCBPI’s normal work week which consists of
five (5) consecutive days (Monday to Friday) or eight (8)
hours each and one (1) day (Saturday) of four (4)
hours.39 The highlighted provision reads as follows:

_______________

35 Rollo, p. 387.
36 Id., citing Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO v.
Manila Jockey Club, Inc., supra note 33 at p. 638; p. 713; and San Miguel
Corporation v. Layoc, Jr., supra note 34 at p. 679; p. 92.
37 Id., at p. 184.
38 Id., at p. 389.
39 Id., at p. 323.

 
 

249

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 249

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

ARTICLE 10
HOURS OF WORK
 
SECTION  1.  Work Week.—For daily paid workers the
normal work week shall consist of five (5) consecutive days
(Monday to Friday) of eight (8) hours each find one (1) day
(Saturday) of four (4) hours. Provided, however, That any
worker required to work on Saturday must complete the
scheduled shift for the day and shall be entitled to the
premium pay provided in Article IX hereof.

 
As such, the respondent advocates that the various
stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, and
that assuming there is any ambiguity in the CBA, this
ambiguity should not prejudice respondents under the
principle that any doubt in all labor legislation and all
labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and
decent living for the laborer.40 According to the respondent,
Article 11, Section 1(c) merely grants to CCBPI the option
to schedule work on Saturdays on the basis of operational
necessity, and by contrast nothing in the CBA allegedly
allows or grants CCBPI the right or prerogative to
unilaterally amend the duly established work week by
eliminating Saturday work.41
Respondent also alleges that CCBPI was obliged to
provide work on Saturday, not only due to the apparent
mandate in the CBA, but also as the same ripened into an
established company practice, as CCBPI’s practice of
providing Saturday work had been observed for several
years.42  Respondent thus contends that the unilateral
abrogation of the same would squarely tantamount to
diminution of benefits, especially as the CBA itself
expressly provides that Saturday is part of CCBPI’s normal
work week, hence the same cannot be unilat-

_______________

40 Id.
41 Id., at p. 335.
42 Id.

 
 

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

erally eliminated by CCBPI,43  and that the option granted

by the CBA to CCBPI is merely to schedule Saturday work,
not eliminate it entirely. Thus, to eliminate the Saturday
work allegedly would amount to diminution of benefits
because the affected employees are ultimately deprived of
their supposed salaries or income for that day.44
In its Reply45  to the counter-arguments posited by the
respondent in its Comment, CCBPI alleges that if indeed
Saturday work is mandatory under the CBA and all the
workers are obliged to render work on a Saturday, then the
phrase “required to work” under Article 10, Section 1 and
Article 11, Section 2(c) would be meaningless and
superfluous.46 Also, CCBPI takes stock in the fact that the
compensation for work on Saturday is not freely given.
Under the scheme followed by the parties under the
CBA,  i.e., if the daily-paid employees were permitted to
suffer work on a Saturday, they are given additional
compensation or premium pay amounting to 50% of their
hourly rate for the first eight (8) hours, and 75% of their
hourly rate for the work rendered in excess thereof under
Article 11, Section 2(c) of the CBA.47
 
Ruling of the Court
  
The petition is impressed with merit.
 
As to whether or not the CBA
between the parties mandates
that CCBPI schedule Saturday
work for its employees.

_______________

43 Id., at p. 326.
44 Id.
45 Id., at pp. 339-351.
46 Id., at p. 341.
47 Id., at p. 345.

 
 
251

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 251

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

A CBA is the negotiated contract between a legitimate

labor organization and the employer concerning wages,
hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of
employment in a bargaining unit.48 It incorporates the
agreement reached after negotiations between the
employer and the bargaining agent with respect to terms
and conditions of employment.49
It is axiomatic that the CBA comprises the law between
the contracting parties, and compliance therewith is
mandated by the express policy of the law.50  The literal
meaning of the stipulations of the CBA, as with every other
contract, control if they are clear and leave no doubt upon
the intention of the contracting parties. Thus, where the
CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between
the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the
express policy of the law.51 Moreover, it is a familiar rule in
interpretation of contracts that the various stipulations of a
contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them
taken jointly.52
Consequently, in this case, recourse to the CBA between
CCBPI and the respondent as regards the hours of work is
essential. In Article 10 of the CBA, the company work week
is elaborated while also defining how a Saturday is treated
and in fact delineating the same from the other days of the
work week:
_______________

48  Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Benson

Industries, Inc., 740 Phil. 670, 679; 732 SCRA 318, 328 (2014).
49 Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC, 328 Phil. 470, 483-484; 259
SCRA 161, 172 (1996).
50  Marcopper Mining Corporation v. NLRC, 325 Phil. 618, 632; 255
SCRA 322, 332 (1996).
51 Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Journal Employees Union (JEU), 710
Phil. 94, 103; 697 SCRA 103, 114 (2013).
52 Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1374.

 
 
252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

ARTICLE 10
Hours of Work
 
SECTION 1.  Work Week.—For daily paid workers, the
normal work week shall consist of five (5) consecutive days
(Monday to Friday) of eight (8) hours and each and one (1)
day (Saturday) of four (4) hours, provided, however, That
any worker required to work on Saturday must complete
the scheduled shift for the day and shall be entitled to the
premium pay provided in Article IX hereof.
x x x x
(c)  Saturdays.—Saturday is a premium day but shall
not be considered as a rest day or equivalent to a Sunday. It
is further agreed that management has the option to
schedule work on Saturdays on the basis of operational
necessity.

 
Section 5 of Article 9 of the CBA, explicitly referred to in
Article 10 states:

SECTION  5.  Special Bonus.—When a regular employee

goes out on his route on a Saturday, Sunday, or Legal
Holiday, either because he is so required by District Sale
Supervisor or because, after securing approval from the
District Sales Supervisor he voluntarily chooses to do so he
shall be entitled to a special bonus of P280.00.

 
In making its decision, the CA reasoned that had it
really been the intention that Saturday work, by itself, is
optional on CCBPI’s part, then there would have been no
need to state under the CBA that Saturday is part of the,
normal work week together with the Monday to Friday
schedule, and that if Saturday work is indeed optional,
then it would have expressly stipulated the same.53
According to the CA’s interpretation, the provision wherein
CCBPI had the option to sched-

_______________

53 Rollo, p. 74.

 
 

253

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 253

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

ule work on Saturdays on the basis of operational

necessity, simply meant that CCBPI could schedule the
mandated four (4) hours work any time within the 24-hour
period on that day, but not remove the hours entirely.54
   For the CA, to interpret the phrase “option to schedule’’
as limited merely to scheduling the  time  of work on
Saturdays and not the option to allow or disallow or to
grant or not to grant the Saturday work itself, is more
consistent with the idea candidly stated in the CBA
regarding the work week which is comprised of five (5)
consecutive days (Monday to Friday) of eight (8) hours each
and one (1) day (Saturday) of four (4) hours. The foregoing
interpretation, as held by the CA, is in harmony with the
context and the established practice in which the CBA is
negotiated,55  and that, based on the foregoing, CCBPI
should comply with the provisions respecting its normal
work week, that is, from Monday to Friday of eight (8)
hours a day and on Saturdays for four (4) hours. CCBPI
thus should allow the concerned union members to render
work for four (4) hours on Saturday.56
The Court disagrees with the interpretation of the CA.
In the perusal of the same, the Court finds that a more
logical and harmonious interpretation of the CBA
provisions wherein Saturday work is optional and not
mandatory keeps more with the agreement between the
parties.
To note, the CBA under Article 11, Section 1(c), clearly
provides that CCBPI has the option to schedule work on
Saturdays based on operational necessity. There is no
ambiguity to the provision, and no other interpretation of
the word “work” other than the work itself and not the
working hours. If the parties had truly intended that the
option would be to change only the working hours, then it
would have so specified that

_______________

54 Id., at p. 75.
55 Id.
56 Id., at p. 77.

 
 

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

whole term “working hours” be used, as was done in other

provisions of the CBA. By comparison, there is a provision
in Article 10 that states:
 

SECTION  2.  Changes in Work Schedule.—The present

regular working hours shall be maintained for the duration
of this Agreement. However, it is hereby agreed that the
COMPANY may change the prevailing working hours, if in
its judgment, it shall find such change or changes advisable
or necessary either as a permanent or temporary measure,
provided at least twelve (12) hours notice in advance is
given of such change or changes, and Provided, further,
That they are in accordance with law.

 
Here, hours are specified as that which can be changed
regarding the work schedule. The Court compares this to
Article 11, where it is expressly stated that management
has the option to schedule work on Saturdays on the basis
of operational necessity. To emphasize, if it is only the
hours that management may amend, then it would have
been so stated, with that specific term used instead of just
merely “work,” a more general term.
Also, as correctly pointed out by CCBPI, if Saturday
work is indeed mandatory under the CBA, the phrase
“required to work on a Saturday” in Article 10, Section 1
would be superfluous. The same phrase is also found in
Article 11, Section 2(c) which provides that “a worker paid
on daily basis required to work on a Saturday shall be paid
his basic hourly rate plus fifty (50%) percent thereof.”
For the Court, the phrase “schedule work on Saturdays
based on operational necessity,” by itself, is union
recognition that there are times when exigencies of the
business will arise requiring a manning complement to
suffer work for four additional hours per week. Necessarily,
when no such exigencies exist, the additional hours of work
need not be rendered.
 
 

255

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 255

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

As such, the provisions’ tenor and plain meaning give

company management the right to compel its employees to
suffer work on Saturdays. This necessarily includes the
prerogative not to schedule work. Whether or not work will
be scheduled on a given Saturday is made to depend on
operational necessity. The CBA therefore gives CCBPI the
management prerogative to provide its employees with
Saturday work depending on the exigencies of the business.
This reading of the CBA is made even more apparent by
the fact that workers who are required to work on
Saturdays are paid a premium for such work. Notably, in
the section on Premium Pay, it is stated:

(c)  Saturdays. Even though Saturday is not his rest day

— a worker paid on daily basis required to work on a
Saturday shall be paid his basic hourly rate plus fifty
percent (50%) thereof for each hour worked not in excess of
eight hours; if he is required to work more than eight (8)
hours, he shall be paid his basic hourly rate plus seventy-
five percent (75%) thereof for each hour worked in excess of
eight (8) hours.

 
If Saturday was part of the regular work week and not
dependent on management’s decision to schedule work,
there would be no need to give additional compensation to
employees who report to work on that day. The CA erred in
taking into account that employees required to work on
that day but who would fail to report, would be marked
down as having gone on leave.57 The Court agrees with
CCBPI that such conclusion is non sequitur and that the
markings merely indicated the fact that they did not report
for work (even if required) and the reasons for their
absence, whether legitimate or not.58 This understanding is
bolstered by the fact that not all daily-paid workers were
required to report for work, which 
_______________

57 Id., at p. 390.
58 Id.

 
 
256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

and if indeed Saturday was to be considered a regular work

day, all these employees should have been required to
report for work.59
In sum, by not taking these provisions into account, the
CA ignored the well-settled rule that the various
stipulations of a contract must be interpreted together. The
Court finds that relying on the interpretation of the CA
would result in the patent absurdity that the company
would have to look for work for the employees to do even if
there is none, on the Saturday as stated. Even if one were
to downplay the lack of logic with this assertion, as
mentioned the CBA provisions are clear and unambiguous,
leaving no need for a separate interpretation of the same.
 
As to whether scheduling
Saturday work has ripened

into a company practice,

the removal of which con-

stituted a diminution of

benefits.

 
In the decision of the CA, it was held that the fact that
CCBPI had been providing work to its employees every
Saturday for several years, a circumstance that proved
Saturday was part of the regular work week, made the
grant of Saturday work ripen into company practice.
In asking the Court to reverse the ruling of the CA,
CCBPI argues that work on a Saturday is akin to overtime
work because employees who are required to perform such
work are given additional compensation or premium in the
CBA.60 Citing Layoc,61 CCBPI stresses that since overtime
work does not fall within the definition of benefits, the
same is not pro-

_______________

59 Id., at p. 391.
60 Id., at p. 50.
 61 San Miguel Corporation v. Layoc, Jr., supra note 34.

 
 

257

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 257

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

tected by Article 100 of the Labor Code which proscribes

the diminution of benefits. To wit:

First, respondents assert that Article 100 of the Labor

Code prohibits the elimination or diminution of benefits.
However, contrary to the nature of benefits, petitioners did
not freely give the payment for overtime work to
respondents. Petitioners paid respondents overtime pay as
compensation for services rendered in addition to the
regular work hours. Respondents rendered overtime work
only when their services were needed after their regular
working hours and only upon the instructions of their
superiors. Respondents even differ as to the amount of
overtime pay received on account of the difference in the
additional hours of services rendered.
x x x x
Aside from their allegations, respondents were not able
to present anything to prove that petitioners were obliged to
permit respondents to render overtime work and give them
the corresponding overtime pay. Even if petitioners did not
institute a “no time card policy,” respondents could not
demand overtime pay from petitioners if respondents did
not render overtime work. The requirement of rendering
additional service differentiates overtime pay from benefits
such as thirteenth month pay or yearly merit increase.
These benefits do not require any additional service from
their beneficiaries. Thus, overtime pay does not fall within
the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor
Code.62

 
The Court does not agree with the argument of CCBPI.
CCBPI overlooks the fact that the term overtime work has
an established and technical meaning under our labor
laws, to wit:
 

Article  87.  Overtime work.—Work may be performed

beyond eight (8) hours a day provided that the employee

_______________
 62 Id., at pp. 685-686; pp. 92-94.

 
 
258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

is paid for the overtime work, an additional compensation

equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five
percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours
on a holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional
compensation equivalent to the rate of the first eight hours
on a holiday or rest day plus at least thirty percent (30%)
thereof.

 
It can be deduced from the foregoing provision that
overtime work is work exceeding eight hours within the
worker’s 24-hour workday.63 What is involved in this case
is work undertaken within the normal hours of work on
Saturdays and not work performed beyond eight hours in
one day. Under Article 83 of the Labor Code:

Article  83.  Normal hours of work.—The normal hours of

work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.

 
Despite the mistaken notion of CCBPI that Saturday
work is synonymous to overtime work, the Court still
disagrees with the CA’s ruling that the previous practice of
instituting Saturday work by CCBPI had ripened into a
company practice covered by Article 100 of the Labor Code.
To note, it is not Saturday work per se which constitutes
a benefit to the company’s employees. Rather, the benefit
involved in this case is the premium which the company
pays its employees above and beyond the minimum
requirements set by law. The CBA between CCBPI and the
respondent guarantees the employees that they will be paid
their regular wage plus an additional 50% thereof for the
first eight (8) hours of work performed on Saturdays.
Therefore, the benefit, if ever there is one, is the premium
pay given by reason of Saturday work, and not the grant of
Saturday work itself.

_______________

63 Department of Labor Manual, Section 4323-01.

 
  
259

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 259

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

In Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers

Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant,64 the Court had the occasion
to rule that the term “benefits” mentioned in the non-
diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges
given to the employee with monetary equivalents. Stated
otherwise, the employee benefits contemplated by Article
100 are those which are capable of being measured in
terms of money. Thus, it can be readily concluded from past
jurisprudential pronouncements that these privileges
constituted money in themselves or were convertible into
monetary equivalents.65
In order for there to be proscribed diminution of benefits
that prejudiced the affected employees, CCBPI should have
unilaterally withdrawn the 50% premium pay without
abolishing Saturday work. These are not the facts of the
case at bar. CCBPI withdrew the Saturday work itself,
pursuant, as already held, to its management prerogative.
In fact, this management prerogative highlights the fact
that the scheduling of the Saturday work was actually
made subject to a condition, i.e., the prerogative to provide
the company’s employees with Saturday work based on the
existence of operational necessity.
In  Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v.
Eastern Telecoms Employees Union,66 the company therein
allegedly postponed the payment of the 14th, 15th, and
16th month bonuses contained in the CBA, and unilaterally
made the payment subject to availability of funds. Because
of its severe financial condition, the company refused to
pay the subject bonuses. The Court, in holding that such
act violated the proscription against diminution of benefits,
observed that the CBA provided for the subject bonuses
without qualification — their grant was not made to
depend on the existence of profits. Since no conditions were
specified in the CBA for the

_______________

64 709 Phil. 350; 696 SCRA 357 (2013).

65 Id., at pp. 357-358; p. 379.
66 681 Phil. 519; 665 SCRA 516 (2012).

 
 
 260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

grant of the subject benefits, the company could not use its
dire financial straits to justify the omission.
As compared to the factual milieu in the Eastern
Telecommunications case, the CBA between CCBPI and the
respondent has no analogous provision which grants that
the 50% premium pay would have to be paid regardless of
the occurrence of Saturday work. Thus, the nonpayment of
the same would not constitute a violation of the diminution
of benefits rule.
Also, even assuming arguendo that the Saturday work
involved in this case falls within the definition of a
“benefit” protected by law, the fact that it was made subject
to a condition (i.e., the existence of operational necessity)
negates the application of Article 100 pursuant to the
established doctrine that when the grant of a benefit is
made subject to a condition and such condition prevails, the
rule on non-diminution finds no application. Otherwise
stated, if Saturday work and its corresponding premium
pay were granted to CCBPI’s employees without
qualification, then the company’s policy of permitting its
employees to suffer work on Saturdays could have perhaps
ripened into company practice protected by the non-
diminution rule.
Lastly, the Court agrees with the assertion of CCBPI
that since the affected employees are daily-paid employees,
they should be given their wages and corresponding
premiums for Saturday work only if they are permitted to
suffer work. Invoking the time-honored rule of “a fair day’s
work for a fair day’s pay,” the CCBPI argues that the CA’s
ruling that such unworked Saturdays should be
compensated is contrary to law and the evidence on record.
The CA, for its part, ruled that the principle of “a fair
day’s work for a fair day’s pay” was irrelevant to the
instant case. According to the appellate court, since
CCBPI’s employees are daily-paid workers, they should be
paid their whole daily rate plus the corresponding premium
pay in the absence of a spe-
 
 

261

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 261

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
 Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

cific CBA provision that directed wages to be paid on a

different rate on Saturdays. This was notwithstanding the
fact that the duration of Saturday work lasted only for four
hours or half the time spent on other workdays.
The CA erred in this pronouncement. The age-old rule
governing the relation between labor and capital, or
management and employee, of a “fair day’s wage for a fair
day’s labor” remains the basic factor in determining
employees’ wages.67 If there is no work performed by the
employee, there can be no wage.68 In cases where the
employee’s failure to work was occasioned neither by his
abandonment nor by termination, the burden of economic
loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party
must bear his own loss.69 In other words, where the
employee is willing and able to work and is not illegally
prevented from doing so, no wage is due to him. To hold
otherwise would be to grant to the employee that which he
did not earn at the prejudice of the employer.
In the case at bar, CCBPI’s employees were not illegally
prevented from working on Saturdays. The company was
simply exercising its option not to schedule work pursuant
to the CBA provision which gave it the prerogative to do so.
It therefore follows that the principle of “no work, no pay”
finds application in the instant case.
Having disposed of the issue on wages for unworked
Saturdays in consonance with the well-settled rule of “no
work, no pay,” this Court deems it unnecessary to belabor
on the CA’s ruling that the concerned employees should be
paid their

_______________

67 Navarro v. P.V. Pajarillo Liner, Inc., 604 Phil. 383, 391; 586 SCRA
489, 498 (2009).
68  Aklan Electric Cooperative, Incorporated v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 225,
244-245; 323 SCRA 258, 277-278 (2000).
69 Tri-C General Services, Inc. v. Matuto, 770 Phil. 251, 264; 771 SCRA
381, 395 (2015), citing MZR Industries   v. Colambot, 716 Phil. 617, 628;
704 SCRA 150, 157 (2013).

 
 
262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)
whole daily rate, and not the amount equivalent to one-half
day’s wage, plus corresponding premium.
On a final note, the Court cannot emphasize enough
that its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional
guaranties charges it with the solemn duty of affording full
protection to labor.70 It is, in fact, well-entrenched in the
deluge of our jurisprudence on labor law and social
legislation that the scales of justice usually tilt in favor of
the workingman.71 Such favoritism, however, has not
blinded the Court to the rule that justice is, in every case
for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and applicable law and doctrine.72 The
law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of
the employer.73 Management also has its own rights,
which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in
the interest of simple fair play.74 After all, social justice is,
in the eloquent words of Associate Justice Jose P. Laurel,
“the humanization of laws and the equalization of social
and economic forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated.”75
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated June 23, 2010, and the Resolution dated October 19,
2010 are  REVERSED  and  SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the National

_______________

70 1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3.

71 Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Nestlé Philippines, Inc. Chapter
(Ice Cream and Chilled Products Division) v. Nestlé Philippines, Inc., 770
Phil. 266, 278; 771 SCRA 397, 409 (2015).
72 Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC, 258 Phil. 384, 391; 177 SCRA
580, 587 (1989).
73 Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 442;
770 SCRA 203, 226 (2015).
74 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Honrado, 652 Phil.
331, 334; 637 SCRA 778, 779 (2010).
75 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726, 734-735 (1940).

 
 
263

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 263

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Iloilo Coca-Cola
Plant Employees Labor Union (ICCPELU)

Conciliation and Mediation Board, Regional Branch No. 6,

Iloilo City dated September 7, 2006, in Case No. PAC-613-
 RB6-02-01-06-2006 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson, Senior Associate Justice), Perlas-

Bernabe, Caguioa and Carandang, JJ., concur.

Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside. That of

National Conciliation and Mediation Board Regional
Branch No. 6, Iloilo City affirmed.

Notes.—The Labor Code prohibits the elimination or

diminution of benefits. (Milan vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 750 SCRA 1 [2015])
Where the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is
clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the
parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the
express policy of the law. (Hongkong Bank Independent
Labor Union [HBILU] vs. Hongkong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Limited, 857 SCRA 1 [2018])

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.