AT LEAST 200 retired employees of Philippine National Bank (PNB) on Wednesday gathered outside the Supreme Court (SC) to criticize the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for its alleged delaying tactics in connection with their 20-year-old class suit seeking to recover an estimated amount of at least P1 billion representing unpaid allowances for the period of 1989 to 1996.
Lawyer Goldelio Rivera, former PNB branch manager and counsel of the retired PNP employees, lamented that they have been engaged in a legal battle against the bank since 2006 when they filed the class suit by way of a petition for mandamus.
Among the petitioners were then 60 incumbent officers and rank and file employees and 15 former employees of PNB.
In their petition for mandamus filed in April 2006, the petitioners argued that prior to the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758, otherwise known as the ‘Salary Standardization Law,’ they were receiving allowances and cost of living allowance (COLA) equivalent to 40 percent of their basic salary, or P300.00, whichever is higher.
However, after the enactment of R.A. No. 6758 and the consequent issuance of Department of Budget and Management-Corporate Compensation Circular (DBM-CCC) No. 10, PNB discontinued the payment of their COLA and other allowances, despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit that DBM-CCC No. 10 is ineffective and unenforceable due to its non-publication
Rivera noted that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City have ruled in their favor on May 15, 2008 and ordered PNB to pay the petitioners and its former and incumbent employees and officers the back pay of their COLA and special amelioration allowance of 40 percent and 10 percent respectively of their basic salary covering the period of July 1, 1989 to May 26, 1996 or up to their separation from service whichever comes first.
The trial court also directed PNB to pay petitioners and its former and incumbent employees the sum equivalent to 10 percent of the back pay of their COLA and amelioration allowance as and by way of attorney’s fees.
The lawyer added that the Pasay RTC ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a decision issued on June 16, 2016.
This prompted PNB to elevate the issue before the SC.
The High Tribunal, in a decision issued on March 29, 2023, affirmed the trial court and the CA rulings.
It also castigated PNB for employing delaying tactics by filing unnecessary pleadings and asking for several postponements of the proceedings before the trial court.
The SC also said PNB’s prayer for the remand of the case to the trial court can be considered as another attempt to delay the payment of respondents’ monetary claims.
PNB has filed a motion for reconsideration of the 2023 ruling which is still pending before the High Court.
‘The retirees just wanted to express their sentiment against the delaying tactics of the Philippine National Bank. No less than the Supreme Court has ruled that PNB is engaged in delaying tactics,’ Rivera said in an interview.
‘Our message to PNB is to stop its delaying tactics and I just hope that the Supreme Court will resolve PNB’s motion for reconsideration very soon,’ he added.
Rivera added that around 8,000 retired and active employees of PNB stand to benefit once the SC’s judgment becomes final and executory.
Marlo DV Soria, also a former employee of PNB and one of the petitioners in the case, said petitioners are praying for the immediate resolution of the case as some of them are already old and suffering from various illnesses.
‘We are hoping that the resolution of the case will be expedited. Some of us urgently need money for maintenance medications and other medical expenses,’ Soria said.