The Petition is barren of merit.

Preliminarily, it bears emphasis that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. Only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, or that such factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record will this Court step in and proceed to make its own independent evaluation of the facts.20 This rule does not apply, however, where there is no unanimity of factual findings below because the NLRC's and the Labor Arbiter's findings differ.21

In the case at bench, We are constrained to review the factual findings of the NLRC vis-a-vis that of the Labor Arbiter as the latter's ruling merited no approbation from the former. Of necessity, We must thus make an infinitesimal scrutiny of the records and evidence.

Petitioners intransigently postulate that petitioner Samson is entitled to wage differentials. They assert that absent a clear criteria or a set of guidelines in the grant of salary/merit increases, then fairness and equity dictate that FOMS who receive the same rating should also receive the same amount of salary/merit increases. By parity of reasoning, petitioner Samson should receive the same rate of increase given to

20 See Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation v. NLRC, 364 SCRA 606, 622 (7 September 2001). 21 See Alcazaren v. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc., 475 SCRA 636, 650 (22 November 2005).

052400

Nacionales, another FOM of junior rank, since both of them obtained the same rating of "Very Good" for the 2002-2003 performance appraisal period.22

Petitioners' postulation carries no conviction.

Well-settled is the rule that matters of salary increases are part of management prerogative.23 Thus, to concede to such arguments would cause Us to delve into what is clearly an exercise of a management prerogative which is obviously contrary to law. Time and again, it has been ruled that

courts will not interfere with business

judgments of employers, provided they do not violate the law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.24

We have sieved through the records of the instant case and found no violation of any law, collective bargaining agreements, and even the general principles of fair play and justice. The fact that petitioner Samson and Nacionales got the same performance rating does not perforce merit the same salary increase. As explicated by private respondent Tibayan, the salary adjustment was not solely made on the basis of the performance rating. Rather, the employee's place employee's place in the current salary scale for FOMS is likewise taken into account.25 At this juncture, We echo the findings of the NLRC which are in accord with the evidence on record, viz:

"Unlike the Labor Arbiter before Us, We rule that (petitioner) does not merit payment of his awarded claim for salary differentials representing 7.5% or P3,533.00 his alleged salary deficiency of the 18% total merit increase he is allegedly entitled to or P8,480.00 from August 1, 2003 to October 7, 2004, the date he was terminated.

22 Rollo, p. 20.

23 See Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172, 180 (22 February 2000).

24 See Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban, 433 SCRA 756, 758 (7 July 2004).

25 Rollo, p. 78.

In the case of FOM Joel Nacionales, he was only receiving Php33,913.00 per month

"Very Good", it does not mean that he could claim equal application of a merit increase given to another employee with the same rating. In the exercise of its management prerogative, the company determines the adjustment for an employee base of (sic) not only his performance but also on his place in the current salary scale. There are other factors being considered by the company in the grant of salary increases. Hence, two employees with the same performance rating do not automatically get the same salary adjustments. Their position in the salary scale visà-vis pay levels of employees holding similar position in other companies are also be considered. Thus, Mr. Noli O. Tibayan, SPS's former HR Manager, in his letter to the (petitioner) dated October 20, 2003, (Annexes "5", RespondentsAppellants Position Paper) explained that his salary was adjusted on the basis of his performance in relation to his place in the current salary scale for Field Operations Managers (FOMs).

As the Employee Handbook under the item on Job Performance/Merit Increase provides:

"Every effort is made to ensure that each employee is paid a fair rate in relation to other employees within the company and in comparison with workers holding similar jobs in other companies.

On the basis of a job evaluation program, a salary structure has been established for each job. On a regular basis, the requirements of job and pay levels are reviewed and compared with other companies to assure fair wages for employees.

Supervisors periodically report on their employees' job performance, and if warranted, recommend pay increase in accordance with the company's salary policy." (Underscoring Supplied) (Annex "1", ibid)

There are other factors being considered by the company in the grant of salary increases. Hence, two employees with the same performance rating, do not automatically get the same salary adjustments. Their position in the salary scale vis-à-vis pay levels of employees holding similar positions in other companies are also be considered.

2003. (Annex "3", Respondents-Appellants' Compliance). As alleged by the former HR Manager in his marginal note on the Performance Appraisal Report of FOM Nacionales, "P40,000 is a proper minimum for fully competent FOM". Indeed, the 18% increase given to that FOM was not based only on his rating of "Very Good", but also on his place in the current salary scale of FOMS.

On his part, (petitioner) was already receiving Php47,113.00 prior to his merit increase effective August 1, 2003, in which his monthly salary was further increased to Php52,060.00. At that point in time, he was already receiving the third highest salary among FOMS. (Annex "B", RespondentsAppellants' Position Paper)(.) Even assuming that he also got a rating of "Very Good" like FOM Nacionales, it does not automatically entitle him to the same percentage of salary increase given to Na(c)ionales who was far behind him in the salary scale. Absent any substantial evidence to prove that (petitioner) is entitled to a higher or the same salary increase rate as what was given to Na(c)tionales. We cannot be (sic) any means grant (petitioner's) prayer for salary differential as we cannot uphold social justice if we were to decide in favor of a party merely on the basis of a presentation."

"26

From the foregoing discourse, We find no arbitrariness on the part of private respondents apropos the issue of salary increase. In fact, even the Labor Arbiter herself ruled that there was no wage distortion in this case, which finding was never disputed by petitioners in the proceedings below. We are thus perplexed as to how petitioner could still be entitled to wage differentials when he was already given what was justly due him. Truly, while the law is solicitous of the welfare of the

employees, it does not turn a blind eye to the rights of the employers.

Anent petitioner's assertion for petitioner Samson's entitlement to the cash equivalent

26 Rollo, pp. 41-43.

2001, adjudged that he was not entitled, inter alia, to his unused sick leave credits, for 1994-2000. On appeal, the ruling was modified in that then NLRC Third Division

pronounced that the said leave credits were ordered included in the computation of his back wages from 18 March up to 7 August 1995.29 This being so, it is plain as day that when he was reinstated in 2001, he did not have any sick leave credits. Consequently, when he applied for cash conversion of his unused sick leave credits, the same fell short of the 36 days maximum accumulation required by company rules. In sooth, the NLRC unerringly ruled:

We, moreover, rule that (petitioner) is not entitled to cash conversion of his unused sick leave benefits for the years 2001 and 2002.

In awarding (petitioner's) claim for sick leave benefits for the years 2001 and 2002, the Labor Arbiter below merely quoted the CBA provision on sick leave benefits then and hurriedly ruled that he is entitled to it without even discussing the basis of her ruling.

2. Forty (40%) percent to be accumulated and converted to cash payable upon early or normal retirement due to permanent disability of the employee as defined in the Retirement Plan or separation from service due to redundancy or other causes specified in Section 6, Article VI and Article XII on this Agreement; and;

3. Thirty-six (36%) percent to be commuted to cash and payable on July 15, 2001 and every year thereafter."

Under such provision, in order for (petitioner) to earn cash conversions for his unused sick leave credits, he should have accrued in excess of oneand-a-half (1-1/2) years of sick leave credits, i.e., more than 36 days of unused sick leave.

However, as claimed by (petitioner), there was no need for him to accumulate thirty-six (36) days of sick leave before he could be entitled to the cash equivalent of his unused sick leave benefits for the years 2001 and 2002 (as per company policy) because he did not lose his sick leave credits when he was dismissed in 1994 and subsequently reinstated in April 2001. On the contrary, however, his claim for unused sick leave credits before his reinstatement was already included in the computation of his backwages from March 18, up to August 7, 1995 (p. 121, rollo), thereafter, (petitioner) was already reinstated via payroll (p. 112) which means that the same benefit was already included in his salary. Thus, the reckoning period within which to compute the accrual of his sick leave credit is from the time of

The Department of Science and Technology's Grants-In-Aid (GIA) program aims to harness the country's scientific and technological capabilities to spur and attain a sustainable economic growth and development. Through the funding of relevant science and technology (S&T) undertakings, the GIA program is designed to contribute to productivity improvement and quality of life of Filipinos by generating and promoting appropriate technologies. It also aims. to strengthen the participation of various S&T sectors particularly in research and development (R&D), promotion, technology transfer and utilization, human resources development, information dissemination, advocacy, and linkages.

The GIA program provides grants for the implementation of programs/ projects identified in the current DOST priorities and thrusts and supports S&T activities classified in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The terms herein used shall mean as follows:

2.1 Completion Date-refers to expiration date of a grant after which expenditures may not be charged against the grant, except to meet obligations to pay allowable project costs committed on or before the expiration date. 2.2 Continuing Project-refers to a project where funding agency agrees to provide support for an initial specified time with a statement of intent to provide support/budget for succeeding year, provided that funds are available and achieved results justify further support.

2.3 Cooperating Agency-refers to the agency that supports the project by participating in its implementation as collaborator, co-grantor, committed adopter of resulting technology, or potential investor in technology development.

2.4 Coordinating/Monitoring Agency-refers to the agency that reviews the project proposal and provides technical assistance to the implementing agency. It shall evaluate the feasibility of the project/program and ensure that implementation follows the approved project proposal, lineitem budget, and Memorandum of Agreements.

2.5 Department of Science and Technology (DOST)-refers to DOST singly, or any or all its attached agencies.