Locsin II v Mekeni Food Corporation, G.R. No. 192105, December, 9, 2013 CASE DIGEST

 Facts:

    The respondent offered the petitioner a position in its organization. In addition to a compensation and benefits package, the respondent offered a car plan, under which one-half of the cost of the vehicle is to be paid by the respondent company and the other half to be deducted from the petitioner's salary. The offer was contained in an Offer Sheet. The petitioner began his work on 17 March 2004 and was furnished by the respondent company with a used car valued at Php 280,000.00. The petitioner paid for his share through salary deductions of Php 5,000.00 each month. The petitioner resigned on 25 February 2006, in his resignation letter he made an offer to purchase his service vehicle by paying the outstanding balance thereon. Both parties could not agree on the terms of the proposed purchase, thus the vehicle was returned on 2 May 2006. The petitioner made personal and written follow-ups regarding his unpaid salaries, commissions, benefits, and offer to purchase his service vehicle. The respondent replied that the company car plan benefit applied only to employees who have been with the company for five years; for this reason, the balance that the petitioner should pay on his service vehicle stood at Php 116,380.00 if he opts to purchase the same. On 3 May 2007, the petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of monetary claims and recovery of monthly salary deductions which were earmarked for his cost-sharing in the car plan.

Issue:

    WoN the salary deductions made on the service vehicle (the car plan) can be considered as rentals?

Ruling:

(Article 1160; 2142)

    No, the salary deductions made on the service vehicle cannot be considered as rentals.

    From the evidence on record, it is seen that the respondent's car plan offered to the petitioner was subject to no other term or condition than that the respondent company shall cover one-half through deductions from his monthly salary. The respondent has not shown by documentary evidence to suggest that if the petitioner failed to completely cover one-half of the cost of the vehicle, then all the deductions from his salary going to the cost of the vehicle will be treated as rentals for his use thereof while working with the respondent company, and shall not be refunded.