Case Digest: Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 131247, January 25, 1999

Labor Law | Art. 125

Facts:

• In 1993, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of Region V issued Wage Order No. RB 05-03, establishing Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) rates for workers in different categories within the Bicol Region.
• Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of Region VII also issued Wage Order No. RB VII-03 directing the integration of COLA and increasing minimum wage rates for workers in various regions of the Philippines.
• Prudential Bank implemented these wage orders, granting different COLA rates and salary increases to employees in different branches based on the respective regional orders.
• Respondent Prubankers Association raised concerns about wage distortion resulting from this regional implementation, requesting discussions and arbitration to address the issue.

• Court of Appeals: Ruled that there was no wage distortion and that the variances in salary rates across regions were justified by RA 6727, emphasizing that regional wage orders were issued to address the unique economic situations and needs in each region, preserving distinctions among employee groups within the region and maintaining increases in the minimum wage rate.

Issue:

WoN the Court of Appeals committed grave error in law when it ruled that wage distortion exists only within a region and not nationwide. NO

Held:

Wage distortion involves four elements:

1. An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates
2. A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one
3. The elimination of the distinction between the two levels
4. The existence of the distortion in the same region of the country

In the present case, it is clear that no wage distortion resulted when respondent implemented the subject Wage Orders in the covered branches. In the said branches, there was an increase in the salary rates of all pay classes. Furthermore, the hierarchy of positions based on skills, length of service and other logical bases of differentiation was preserved. In other words, the quantitative difference in compensation between different pay classes remained the same in all branches in the affected region. Put differently, the distinction between Pay Class 1 and Pay Class 2, for example, was not eliminated as a result of the implementation of the two Wage Orders in the said region. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a wage distortion.

Petitioner argues that a wage distortion exists, because the implementation of the two Wage Orders has resulted in the discrepancy in the compensation of employees of similar pay classification in different regions. Hence, petitioner maintains that, as a result of the two Wage Orders, the employees in the affected regions have higher compensation than their counterparts of the same level in other regions. Several tables are presented by petitioner to illustrate that the employees in the regions covered by the Wage Orders are receiving more than their counterparts in the same pay scale in other regions.

The Court is not persuaded. A wage parity between employees in different rungs, is not at issue here, but a wage disparity between employees in the same rung but located in different regions of the country.

Contrary to petitioner's postulation, a disparity in wages between employees holding similar positions but in different regions does not constitute wage distortion as contemplated by law. As previously enunciated, it is the hierarchy of positions and the disparity of their corresponding wages and other emoluments that are sought to be preserved by the concept of wage distortion. Put differently, a wage distortion arises when a wage order engenders wage parity between employees in different rungs of the organizational ladder of the same establishment. It bears emphasis that wage distortion involves a parity in the salary rates of different pay classes which, as a result, eliminates the distinction between the different ranks in the same region.

Petitioner's claim of wage distortion must also be denied for one other reason. The difference in wages between employees in the same pay scale in different regions is not the mischief sought to be banished by the law. In fact, Republic Act No. 6727 (the Wage Rationalization Act), recognizes "existing regional disparities in the cost of living." 

A disparity in wages between employees with similar positions in different regions is necessarily expected. In insisting that the employees of the same pay class in different regions should receive the same compensation, petitioner has apparently misunderstood both the meaning of wage distortion and the intent of the law to regionalize wage rates.

It must be understood that varying in each region of the country are controlling factors such as the cost of living; supply and demand of basic goods, services and necessities; and the purchasing power of the peso. Other considerations underscore the necessity of the law. Wages in some areas may be increased in order to prevent migration to the National Capital Region and, hence, to decongest the metropolis. Therefore, what the petitioner herein bewails is precisely what the law provides in order to achieve its purpose.

Petitioner claims that it "does not insist that the Regional Wage Boards created pursuant to RA 6727 do not have the authority to issue wage orders based on the distinctive situations and needs existing in each region. So also, . . . it does not insist that the [B]ank should not implement regional wage orders. Neither does it seek to penalize the Bank for following Wage Order VII-03. . . . What it simply argues is that it is wrong for the Bank to peremptorily abandon a national wage structure and replace the same with a regionalized structure in violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. And, it is wrong to say that its act of abandoning its national wage structure is mandated by law."

As already discussed above, we cannot sustain this argument. Petitioner contradicts itself in not objecting, on the one hand, to the right of the regional wage boards to impose a regionalized wage scheme; while insisting, on the other hand, on a national wage structure for the whole Bank. To reiterate, a uniform national wage structure is antithetical to the purpose of RA 6727.

The objective of the law also explains the wage disparity in the example cited by petitioner: Armae Librero, though only in Pay Class 4 in Mabolo, was, as a result of the Wage Order, receiving more than Bella Cristobal, who was already in Pay Class 5 in Subic. 12 RA 6727 recognizes that there are different needs for the different situations in different regions of the country. The fact that a person is receiving more in one region does not necessarily mean that he or she is better off than a person receiving less in another region. We must consider, among others, such factors as cost of living, fulfillment of national economic goals, and standard of living. In any event, this Court, in its decisions, merely enforces the law. It has no power to pass upon its wisdom or propriety.