Hacienda Luisita Compromise Deal

 It seems the problem on Hacienda Luisita is not yet solved with the compromise deal reached by the management and the representatives of the labor unions.

Excerpt of the news:

More than a third of the 10,502 farmer-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita Inc. have chosen to retain their stocks in the corporation instead of land parcels as of Saturday afternoon. However, an agrarian reform official warned that the previous government already revoked the stock distribution option (SDO), now the subject of a Supreme Court case.

Some 6,000 have yet to make their choice.

More than 4,000 farmer-beneficiaries from five barangays in the hacienda have so far chosen to stick with the SDO while only 41 signed up for actual land distribution, according to farmer Eldifonso Pingol.

Agrarian Reform Undersecretary Narciso Nieto meanwhile said he was personally “surprised" at the figures apparently showing that more farmers prefer to keep their stocks in the corporation than acquire their own land.

“Hindi ba (Didn't) the PARC [Presidential Agrarian Reform Council] order the SDO to be revoked in 2005 because of clamor of the farmers? Then all of sudden, mukhang nanalo ang SDO (it now turns out that SDO won)," he told GMANews.TV in a separate interview.

He however declined to comment further on the referendum, saying majority of the farmers have not yet participated in the signing.

Luisita Mill Owners ordered to use original formula for computing 13th month pay

 The Supreme Court sided with the farmers on the issue about the reduction of their 13th month pay by the Central Asucarera de Tarlac.

Here is the news from GMA7

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that Central Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT), the sugar milling company owned by the family of President Benigno Aquino III, acted in bad faith when it reduced the 13th month pay of its employees, following a strike in 2004 that ended in violence and killed at least seven people.

The High Court, in affirming the 2009 decision by the Court of Appeals (CA), ordered CAT to revert to its original formula in computing the mandatory benefit for its workers in 2006.

“This act of petitioner in changing the formula at this time cannot be sanctioned, as it indicates a badge of bad faith," read the 10-page decision, penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Nachura of the SC’s Second Division.

Concurring with Nachura were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Diosdado Peralta and Roberto Abad.

The SC dismissed CAT’s position that the change in formula was due to an “error" in the computation of the benefit, supposedly discovered only by the management when the CAT Labor Union questioned the formula used for computing the employees’ 13th month pay for 2006.

The SC decision also noted that the CAT management had been using the same formula for 30 years, then changed it only following the labor dispute with its employees.

The High Court cited Article 100 of the Labor Code, or the Non-Diminution Rule, which provides that once benefits are given, they become part of an employment contract, whether written or unwritten, and as such cannot be taken back or reduced by the employer.

“As correctly ruled by the CA, the practice of petitioner in giving 13th month pay based on the employees’ gross annual earnings which included the basic monthly salary, premium pay for work on rest days and special holidays, night shift differential pay and holiday pay continued for almost 30 years and has ripened into a company policy or practice which cannot be unilaterally withdrawn," the Court said.

While exemptions may be secured, the Court said the CAT failed to obtain authorization from the labor secretary and hence cannot say the reduction was due to financial losses.

Records showed that before 2006, CAT granted its employees the mandatory 13th month pay since 1975, computed by dividing the total basic annual salary by 12.