The Company, as earlier adverted to, rejects the formula insisted upon by the Union because the "factual context" in which the latter was adopted by the Supreme Court in the Metropolitan Bank case is different from what is present in this case. The said formula, in the Company's view, is applicable only to a case where the factual context closely resembles that of the Metropolitan Bank case. We do not share this view. While the Supreme Court indeed stated in the said case that this was "the appropriate measure to balance the respective contentions of the parties in this in-stance," meaning in relation to the dispute before it, it also recognized that the formula had "also been the standard considered by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Commission for correction of pay scale structures in cases of wage distortion." In other words, the Court took note with favor of the use of the formula as a standard for rectifying wage distortion in other cases.5 Moreover, and more importantly, it referred to the formula as also "just equitable." The latter observation, to our mind, is a characterization of the formula per se. and not only in relation to the factual context" of the Metrobank case.
A formula for correcting a wage distortion that earned that kind of accolade from no less than the Supreme Court cannot be treated lightly.
The formula in question takes into account the relationship between the former minimum wage and an employee's actual salary. By dividing the former by the latter, a figure results which reflects that the relationship in terms of percentage, i.e., the former minimum wage was an amount that was a certain percent of the actual salary. Multiplying that certain percent by the amount of the wage increase prescribed by the new wage order produces an amount that is equivalent to what should be the new rate of the same employee as adjusted to correct the distortion. The relationship is thus preserved.
The formula is so devised that, as the actual salary goes higher, the percent relationship gets lower, so that on an upward scale of salaries, the corresponding adjusting rates descend. It is really fair and equitable, as the Supreme Court has described it.
In view of the foregoing, the Voluntary Arbitrator holds that the members of the Union who did not directly benefit from the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-03 are entitled, by way of correction of wage distortion, to wage increases computed on the basis of the formula:
P118 ÷ actual salary x P27.
WHEREFORE, respondent ABC Corporation is hereby ordered to pay its employees, members of complainant XYZ Union, who were not directly benefited by the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-03, their daily wage increases based on the formula stated above.