GR 86200; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86200 February 25, 1992
APEX MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, represented by RANULFO PEDRERA, President, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent union filed a claim for Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA) differential against petitioner Apex Mining. The union alleged that from November 1, 1984, to March 28, 1985, Apex paid a daily ECOLA of only P15.00, which was P2.00 short of the P17.00 mandated by Wage Order No. 6. Apex defended its compliance, asserting it had credited a P2.00 daily increase in basic salary, granted effective February 1, 1984, pursuant to its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), against the ECOLA increases required by Wage Orders Nos. 5 and 6. The union countered that this CBA increase was separate and could not be applied to offset the statutory ECOLA obligations.
ISSUE
Whether the P2.00 daily increase in basic salary granted by Apex under the CBA could lawfully be credited as compliance with the ECOLA increases mandated by Wage Orders Nos. 5 and 6.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC decision. The legal logic rests on the explicit creditability provisions within the Wage Orders themselves. Both Wage Order No. 5 (Section 7) and Wage Order No. 6 (Section 4) expressly allowed employers to credit wage or allowance increases granted to employees within specified periods prior to each order’s effectivity as compliance with the mandated ECOLA adjustments. The Court emphasized that this creditability mechanism serves a vital public policy: to encourage employers to voluntarily grant increases above the statutory minimum. The P2.00 increase was granted on February 1, 1984, which fell within the relevant period for crediting under Wage Order No. 5 (effective June 16, 1984) and, by extension, affected the cumulative compliance calculation for Wage Order No. 6. The Court distinguished the cited precedent, Franklin Baker Company, as inapplicable, noting its discussion on the issue was obiter and did not involve striking down these creditability clauses. Consequently, Apex’s application of the CBA increase was lawful, and no ECOLA differential was due.