This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Analogous to the foregoing is the Court's disquisition in Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association,[34] whereby the employer therein was held liable for the payment of Christmas bonus benefits, considering that the grant thereof was voluntarily and unqualifiedly agreed upon by the parties under the CBA despite the employer's full awareness of its distressed financial position (as Benson in this case), viz.: It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. This principle stands strong and true in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management prerogative, is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or special incentive is made part of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee,[29] or is promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties.[30] By its very definition, bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver,[31] and cannot be considered part of an employee's wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity is achieved. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not accomplished, the bonus does not accrue. | |||||