G.R. No. 218390, February 28, 2018
Case Parties: [Petitioner not named in provided text] vs. [Respondent not named in provided text]

FACTS

This case involves a Petition for Review questioning a Court of Appeals ruling that validated a bank’s requirement for an external credit check prior to approving an employee salary loan, despite this requirement not being stipulated in the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The ponencia accorded primacy to the CBA over a Financial Assistance Plan approved by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The dissenting opinion of Justice Leonen argues against this primacy, contending that a CBA cannot supersede laws and regulations, particularly in the banking industry which is imbued with public interest.
The core legal conflict is whether the terms of a CBA between a bank and its employees can override regulatory requirements imposed by the BSP on the bank’s fringe benefits and financial assistance programs. The bank implemented a credit check requirement as part of its BSP-approved Financial Assistance Plan. The employees argued this violated the CBA, which did not contain such a stipulation for salary loans.

ISSUE

Whether a Collective Bargaining Agreement can prevail over a Financial Assistance Plan approved by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, which imposes regulatory conditions on employee loans.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, argues that the Petition should be denied. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that while a CBA is a binding contract establishing the law between the parties, it is not absolute and remains subject to and limited by existing laws, morals, good customs, public order, and public policy as mandated by Article 1306 of the Civil Code. A CBA cannot amend or contravene laws and regulations.
This limitation is especially critical in industries impressed with public interest, such as banking. The State has a declared policy under the General Banking Law to promote a stable and efficient banking system, recognizing its fiduciary nature and vital role in the national economy. Consequently, the BSP, as the central monetary authority, exercises regulatory powers to ensure the soundness of bank operations, including the management of fringe benefit programs and internal credit accommodations to officers and employees.
The BSP’s regulations, which may include requirements like external credit checks, are exercises of the State’s police power to safeguard the banking system and protect public deposits. These regulations form part of public policy. Therefore, any provision in a CBA that conflicts with such valid BSP regulations must yield. The dissenting opinion concludes that the CBA cannot reign supreme where it is inconsistent with laws and public policy designed to ensure the stability and integrity of the banking industry. The bank’s compliance with BSP rules is not a violation of the CBA but a mandatory legal obligation.