SUMMARY
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court reaffirmed a Court of Appeals (CA) and the Pasay Regional Trial Court decision that said that the Philippine National Bank (PNB) should pay its former and incumbent officers and current employees their cost of living allowance (COLA) and special amelioration allowance.
The PNB was found liable to pay the employees 40% of the COLA and 10% amelioration allowance of their basic salary covering the period of July 1, 1989 to May 26, 1996. The SC junked the the appeal of the PNB questioning the CA decision, saying there was no actual basis.
“PNB was given several opportunities to show how respondents were not entitled to their monetary claims, or how it has no duty to pay the same. However, instead of using these opportunities to present evidence, PNB insisted on employing delays, filing unnecessary pleadings, and asking for several postponements,” the SC decision read.
“In fact, PNB’s prayer in the instant petition for the remand of the case to the RTC appears to be another futile attempt to delay the payment of respondents’ monetary claims. To the Court’s mind, PNB could no longer be allowed to assert that no evidence has been presented when such is due to its own fault,” the SC added.
The Higher Court also said that the employees were able to prove their entitlement to their COLA and other allowances. In their petition, they argued that prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the “Salary Standardization Law” they were receiving allowances and COLA equivalent to 40% of their basic salary, or P300 whichever is higher.
In response, the PNB said the allowances had already been integrated into their basic salary, even prior to the issuance of of Department of Budget and Management-Corporate Compensation Circular (DBM-CCC) No. 10.
The SC said it found no reason to disturb the RTC’s ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus, given that respondents were able to prove their clear legal right, and PNB’s corelative duty to satisfy their claims for the payment of COLA and other allowances. – Rappler.com
Add a comment
How does this make you feel?
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.