In Maynilad Water Supervisors Association v. Maynilad Water Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) was effectively integrated into the standardized salary rates of employees following Republic Act No. 6758. This decision clarified that employees absorbed by Maynilad from MWSS post-privatization were not entitled to receive COLA as a separate benefit, as it was already factored into their base pay. The Court emphasized that the terms of the Concession Agreement between MWSS and Maynilad did not include COLA as a distinct benefit, thereby negating the employees’ claim for its continued payment.

Privatization and Paychecks: Did Maynilad Absorb MWSS’s COLA Commitment?

The central question in this case revolves around whether Maynilad Water Services, Inc. was obligated to continue paying the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to former Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) employees after privatization. The employees, under the Maynilad Water Supervisors Association (MWSA), argued that COLA should have been maintained as a benefit, given a prior Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (CCC No. 10) due to lack of proper publication. This circular had initially discontinued COLA payments, and the MWSA contended that its invalidation reinstated their right to the allowance. The core of the dispute lies in interpreting the Concession Agreement between MWSS and Maynilad, specifically whether it encompassed the continuation of COLA as a distinct employee benefit.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the Concession Agreement to determine the extent of Maynilad’s obligations to the absorbed employees. The agreement stipulated that Maynilad should offer employment terms with salaries and benefits “at least equal to those enjoyed by such Employee on the date of his or her separation from MWSS.” However, Exhibit “F” of the agreement, which detailed the specific benefits to be granted, did not list COLA as one of them. This omission proved critical in the Court’s analysis. Building on this, the Court emphasized that the failure to publish DBM CCC No. 10 did not automatically create a right to demand COLA from Maynilad because the employment relationship was governed by the Concession Agreement, which outlined a separate compensation package.

Moreover, the Court highlighted the enactment of Republic Act No. 6758, the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, which consolidated various allowances, including COLA, into standardized salary rates. Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 explicitly states:

Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. – All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. x x x

This provision indicated a clear legislative intent to integrate COLA into the standardized pay, except for specific exclusions like representation and transportation allowances. The Supreme Court referenced its prior ruling in Gutierrez v. DBM, where it affirmed the inclusion of COLA in standardized salary rates, underscoring that COLA was not an allowance intended to reimburse expenses but a benefit to cover increases in the cost of living. From this legal framework, the Court concluded that at the time of the MWSS privatization, COLA was already integrated into the employees’ monthly salaries, regardless of the DBM CCC No. 10’s publication status.

The Court further clarified that granting COLA to the petitioners would result in an incongruous situation, providing them with an additional benefit already accounted for in their basic salary. This would create an unfair advantage over their former colleagues and other government employees from whom COLA had been disallowed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Labor Arbiter’s decision to incorporate COLA into the employees’ monthly compensation was flawed because the employees’ contracts with MWSS had been terminated, and their new employment was governed by the terms of the Concession Agreement.

This principle is supported by prior jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that labor contracts are in personam and binding only between the parties unless expressly assumed by a transferee. As the Court stated in Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation:

[t]he agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties’ rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties. Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement between the parties and their successors in interest.

In this case, Maynilad’s commitment was limited to providing a compensation package no less favorable than what the employees received at MWSS, as specified in Exhibit “F.” Having fulfilled this obligation, Maynilad could not be compelled to pay an allowance that was not part of the agreement. The Court also addressed the issue of the appeal bond posted by Maynilad, finding that the NLRC correctly allowed a reduction of the bond due to Maynilad’s rehabilitation proceedings and the Stay Order issued by the Rehabilitation Court. The Court emphasized that the bond requirement could be relaxed in meritorious cases, particularly when there is substantial compliance with the rules and a willingness to post a partial bond.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The main issue was whether Maynilad was obligated under the Concession Agreement to continue paying COLA to former MWSS employees after privatization.
What is the significance of Exhibit F in the Concession Agreement?	Exhibit F listed the specific benefits that Maynilad was required to provide, and COLA was not included, which was a key factor in the Court’s decision.
How did R.A. No. 6758 affect the COLA issue?	R.A. No. 6758, the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, consolidated COLA into the standardized salary rates, meaning it was already part of the base pay.
Why did the Court reject MWSA’s argument based on the non-publication of DBM CCC No. 10?	The Court stated that the employment relationship with Maynilad was governed by the Concession Agreement, which provided a separate compensation package, regardless of the DBM circular.
What was the Court’s view on granting COLA to the petitioners?	The Court held that granting COLA would result in an unfair advantage, as the allowance was already integrated into their basic salary, thus creating an incongruous situation.
What principle did the Court invoke regarding labor contracts and transferees?	The Court invoked the principle that labor contracts are in personam, meaning they are binding only between the parties unless expressly assumed by a transferee.
How did the Court justify the NLRC’s decision to reduce the appeal bond?	The Court stated that the bond requirement could be relaxed in meritorious cases, especially when there is substantial compliance with the rules and a willingness to post a partial bond.
What was Maynilad’s commitment under the Concession Agreement regarding employee compensation?	Maynilad committed to providing a compensation package no less favorable than what the employees received at MWSS, as specified in Exhibit “F” of the agreement.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Maynilad Water Supervisors Association v. Maynilad Water Services, Inc. underscores the importance of contractual terms in determining employee benefits post-privatization. The ruling clarifies that absent an express assumption of liability, a transferee company is not obligated to continue benefits not explicitly included in the agreement. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of clearly defined compensation packages and the impact of legislative acts on employee entitlements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MAYNILAD WATER SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION VS. MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 198935, November 27, 2013