MIP 3 GUIDELINES

Ms. Sonia/Batman: Please help us obtain a copy of EO No. 13, series of 2008 entitled "Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the Merit Increase Program". We have a member of LBPEA here who was not able to receive the benefit released on Feb. 14 this year and he wants to be enlightened on the entitlement to this particular benefit. We have tried to retrieve a copy from the IDRARS but the EO is not posted nor a copy provided in our office. Tried requesting a copy from Personnel Dep't thru phone but they require a written request.

Thank you for the preferential attention!

nagpahanap na po sir. i-padala ko po bukas pag naibigay na po sakin. i-post ko rin po dito. thanks po.

Maraming salamat Sir Batman sa agad na attention sa request!

For Madam SONIA : Query lang po, kung ang isang empleyado ay nabigyan ng "Admonition" from AAC, is he/she not entitled for the MIP3? Expecting for your convincing explanation Madam. Thank you!

For Gary:

The basis of our management for not granting the MIP3 to those who received admonition is Executive Order No. 13 series of 2008 entitled Revised Guidelines on the Merit Increase Program (MIP).

I suggest you write a letter for reconsideration to the Personnel Department containing request for the release of your MIP3 citing your justifications.

Should you wish to be assisted further, please do not hesitate to ask from your LBPEA Regional Governor or LBPEA National Director in Region 12 Sir Jaime Prado.

Ms. Sonia is speaking of EO 13 as the basis in not granting the MIP 3 to employees. Does this mean that LBPEA has already obtained a copy of the said EO? We were asking for a copy of this EO since last week but none is available up to this date. I think ang issue na ito ay hindi lang dun sa mga affected - na antayin muna ang formal na reklamo nila bago pagtuunan ng pansin ng LBPEA officers. I suppose that a mere knowlege on this is sufficient ground to raise the issue with PAD. It is good that Sir Batman is taking the right move in addressing the matter by inquiring with PAD.

Ano pala reason na di na circularize yung sinasabing EO? Internal policy ito na affecting all of us, it is therefore incumbent upon LBP to inform us of the said EO. How can the said EO bind all of us if in the first place, we were not informed of it?

It is understandable that there are fellow landbankers who are now coming out in the open asking for the reason why they did not receive the MIP 3 because they are not informed of the existence of the EO governing the grant of the benefit. Sana ma clear ang issue na ito.

For Madam Sonia, Sir Batman & LBPEA NEB :

Request lang po, I believe, it's the right venue to review/discuss EO 13 s. 2008 during the Exec. Board Meeting. I still believe that "Admonition" is not a "Conviction" depende sa nature and justification. It is a "Warning/Reprimand." However, it is very unjust for an employee to be denied by his rightful privileges/benefits like MIP3 just because he was admonished. Thank you.

Atty. James:

i posted this yesterday for sir GARY "pasensya na po. hinihintay ko po ung copy ng EO13s.2008 para maaral po natin. nagfollow up na po ako sa PAD at nagpatulong na rin po ako kay Atty. Cervantes. pag nakuha ko na po ay sasagutin po natin agad ang katanungan nyo.
salamat po."

Sir Gary:

don't worry sir. we'll include it in our NEB meeting tomorrow. and rest assured that it will also be discussed in our 2012 annual convention so that evrybody will be clarified and duly knowledgable about the matter.

for the info of everybody:

Atty. Cervantes txted me yesterday that he was in nueva vzcaya but will be back today. he said that he will check it with PAD and AVP Pablo. and I have reminded him about my request just this morning.

let's wait for further update.

salamat po.

semaj501 wrote:

Ms. Sonia is speaking of EO 13 as the basis in not granting the MIP 3 to employees. Does this mean that LBPEA has already obtained a copy of the said EO? We were asking for a copy of this EO since last week but none is available up to this date. I think ang issue na ito ay hindi lang dun sa mga affected - na antayin muna ang formal na reklamo nila bago pagtuunan ng pansin ng LBPEA officers. I suppose that a mere knowlege on this is sufficient ground to raise the issue with PAD. It is good that Sir Batman is taking the right move in addressing the matter by inquiring with PAD.

Ano pala reason na di na circularize yung sinasabing EO? Internal policy ito na affecting all of us, it is therefore incumbent upon LBP to inform us of the said EO. How can the said EO bind all of us if in the first place, we were not informed of it?

It is understandable that there are fellow landbankers who are now coming out in the open asking for the reason why they did not receive the MIP 3 because they are not informed of the existence of the EO governing the grant of the benefit. Sana ma clear ang issue na ito.

For semaj501:
I did not categorically stated that I have copy of EO 13 nor have I any allusion to that affect. I was being responsive to the question of Gary as to what is the basis for management in denying him of the MIP3.

The bank has more than 2000 Executive Orders, LBPEA cannot preempt as to which of these EOs are disadvantageous to the ranks. Unless there is a written complaint or negative reaction to certain EO brought to the attention of LBPEA, we could respond and act appropriately on such situation by raising the issue to the proper department.

I would like to thank you, Atty. Semaj501 for your concern to the ranks by raising significant issues calling for LBPEA's action. Likewise, our gratitude goes to you for generously sharing us your legal expertise.

Please include these issues in your incoming meeting :
1. ACA/PERA;
2. Matrix of our IPP and bases of step increase;
3. HMO;
4. Compliance to the covenants contained in the newly ratified CNA esp. to the new provision/s

Fellow LBPEAns, please suggest other matters that may be taken up in their meeting this Thursday. Thx!

thanks sir BLITZ. we will include it for sure.

To SEMAJ501

I for one was admonished last 2009 and was not able to receive the MIP3. I immediately called PAD for clarification and they told me that persons who were admonished are excluded from receiving the MIP3, d na rin ako nag pa elaborate since its in the guidelines daw.....Tama si gary admonition is only a reprimand not a conviction and we should not be deprived of the said benefits....sayang din yong 40k last year

Fellow LBPEAns, please suggest other matters that may be taken up in their meeting this Thursday. Thx!

*** IF POSSIBLE CAN THE RANK & FILE AVAIL A CAR LOAN CHARGEABLE TO FUTURE BENEFITS TOO, SAY A MONTHLY AMORTIZATION OF 6,500 FOR 2ND HAND VEHICLE WORTH 400,000. WHICH IS 78K A YEAR AND PAYABLE IN 6 YEARS... COULD THIS BE POSSIBLE TO THOSE WHO WISH TO HAVE AND YET COULD NOT MEET THE REQUIRED MONTHLY NET TAKE HOME PAY.

POSSIBLE SOURCE: MIP,13 & 14 MO., DVDND, GROCERY ALLOWANCE

@Joncel: You should have have pushed further and not just relied on the phone conversation with PAD. I think it is not yet too late. Pwede mo ulit hingin ang MIP 3 mo sa mgmt by formally demanding its release.

Our internal rule specifically EO 43, series of 2006 (Rules on Administrative Disciplinary Cases) is clear on this, under item M, No. 4 on Effect of Pendency of Administrative Cases, it states that:

a. Pendency of the administrative case shall disqualify the respondent from promotion but shall entitle him/her to the following:
-Salary
-PERA/ACA
-RATA
-Year-end bonus
-Cash Gift

b. Benefits granted by the Bank which are non-statutory shall be withheld during the pendency of administrative case except those charged with light offenses. Benefits are withheld upon the issuance/signing of the Formal Charge.

Take note of the underscored portion of the provision, ang intindi ko dito, pag ang empleyado ng banko ay may administrative charge na light offense ang nature, during the pendency of the case, he is entitled to receive all monetary benefits whether statutory or non-statutory. MIP 3 falls within the category of the latter. Therefore, with more reason that those who were merely admonished, who were not even charged administratively, as in your case, should be entitled to the MIP 3.

Yung sinasabi na EO 13 na nagsasabi "daw" (kasi wala namang nacircularize or wala nakakaalam/nakakabasa nito), na ang mga empleyado daw na admonish ay hindi entitled makareceive ng MIP 3 should not prevail for the simple reason that it was not circularized and that it entirely contravenes with the spirit of the rule above cited.

LBPEA should look on this matter.

I have invited Atty. Cervantes yesterday in our NEB meeting to discuss the EO13 s. 2008. He favors our request and will come today 10-11am together with PAD Head Atty. Vallada and ERD Head AVP Pablo.

we'll inform the body later about the discussion.

thanks po.

thank you semaj501 your opinion is 100% correct, since i was not formally charge i think LBPEA NEB should look into this EO13.. Hinde man din na with hold ang benefits ko and salary, only the MIP3 ..

It came to our attention that the request for a copy of EO 13, series of 2008, which sets forth the policy on our entitlement to merit incentives (MIP 2 and 3) was not favorably acted upon by management on premise that the said EO is allegedly “confidential” in nature.

Instead of the full texts of the EO, we were furnished with a copy of “Excerpts on MIP Rules” from LBPEA. Reading on the excerpts, a provision caught our interest, specifically on items:

1. Rule for officers/employees who are found responsible for acts of irregularities, anomalies, violations of rules/regulations and are admonished by the AAC:
• Those who have been involved in acts of irregularities, anomalies, violations on rules/regulations and are found by the AAC to have liability/responsibility, and are admonished, shall not be entitled to the MIP’s 2nd and 3rd components during the Performance Year (PY) in review when the AAC rendered resolution. xxx

6. Rules to govern after the final resolution of the case (provided the officer/employee is not rated Marginal during the PY in review)
• In case of exoneration or penalty of reprimand, any withheld MIP during the pendency of the case shall be paid.

Implication of these provisions

Employees who were admonished by AAC shall not receive MIP 2 & 3 during the year when the admonition is rendered. This will occur even if no formal charge for administrative case was made. On the other hand, should an employee, who was charged for an administrative offense, was meted out with a penalty of reprimand by the tribunal clothed with authority to hear and decide the case (not AAC because it is not a tribunal clothed with authority to hear and decide the admin case), the MIP 2 & 3 withheld shall be paid.

The question that comes to mind:

1. Why is it that when an employee who was merely admonished, he/she is not entitled to receive MIP 2 & 3 components; while when one is charged and imposed a penalty of reprimand which is more severe than admonition, he will receive the MIP 2 & 3 that were withheld?
2. Why treat the EO as confidential?

Opinion/Legal Bases

Setting aside the issue on the legality of the EO per se (because it conflicts with CSC’s MC No. 19 or the URAC, specifically on the Effects of a Pending Administrative Case), cited provisions seem not in order.

What is the basis in saying this? Philippine Law Dictionary by Federico B. Moreno defines admonition and reprimand as follows:

• Reprimand – A public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he belong. It is more than just a warning or admonition.
A reprimand is an administrative penalty although it may be a slight form of penalty. It is a disciplinary punishment (Tobias vs Veloso, L-40224, 100 SCRA 184, Sept. 23, 1980)

• Admonition – A gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning. It is not considered as an administrative penalty (Tobias vs Veloso, L-40224, 100 SCRA 184, Sept. 23, 1980).

With the given definitions, it is clear that and admonition is lower in severity than reprimand. As stated, admonition is not even considered as administrative penalty. On the other hand, a reprimand is considered as a penalty. This is further supported by the provision of URAC, Rule IV, Sec. 52.C, which sets the penalties for Light Offenses as:
1st Offense – Reprimand
2nd Offense – Suspension 1 -30 days
3rd Offense – Dismissal
Nothing in URAC could we find a penalty of “admonition” because as earlier pointed out, it is not considered as an administrative penalty.

Further, our internal rule states that benefits granted by the Bank which are non-statutory shall be withheld during the pendency of administrative case except those charged with light offenses (item M, No. 4.b., EO 43, 2006). It is clear therefore that when one is charged with light offense, he is entitled to the MIP components because these fall under the category of non statutory benefits. In the same token, when one is not charged of any administrative offense, he/she must by all means receive the MIP components.

On the second question, EO 13 is a personnel policy that concerns and affects our rights and welfare as employees of the Bank. As provided for in our CNA under “Right to Information”, the Bank shall provide LBPEA an e-mail address (Lotus Notes), subject to existing policy on proper use of the Bank’s e-mail system. Through this e-mail address, the LBPEA shall be furnished with:
d. copies of the approved bank rules and regulations or personnel policies concerning and affecting the rights and welfare of rank-and-file employees, as well as updates thereof, as practicable, prior to effectivity.

It must be emphasized that the CNA is a negotiated contract between LBPEA and management concerning terms and conditions of employment and improvements thereof that are not fixed by law. Provisions of which should be faithfully complied with by the parties, otherwise, any violation thereof will constitute unfair labor-management practices. If this occurs, the heads of offices and other officers of the agency as well as officers and members of an employees’ organization, who participate in or authorize an unfair labor-management practice shall be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or such other administrative offenses as maybe warranted (Rule XVI, last par., IRR of EO 180).

HATS OFF ATTY JAMES YOU'RE THE MAN

Medyo mahaba yung naipost ko...whew

it is true that LBPEA was not given a copy of the EO13s.2008 instead, we were given the excerpts on MIP rules. however, the LBPEA NEB were given the full authority to visit ERD to see the said EO to anytime for refeerence and guidance.

thank you atty. james.

Ano na po update s napagmitingan ng NEB especially about the PERA/ACA issues, MIP 3, COLA/BEP?

MAY TAMA c atty semaj501....... mabuhay ka atty................

As manifested by Atty James, I hope NEB will do something for us deprived of the recent MIP3. The meaning of Admonition is very clear as quoted by Atty. James.

CONGRATZ GARY.....PERO MAS MAGANDA PA RIN KUNG MAKUHA MO YUNG MIP3, DAPAT MAY RESOLUTION SILA SA RULE 1 AND RULE 6 OF E013 S2008, KASI NAKAKALITO.......

@playboy69....... cguro mahilig ka na girls mahilig ka sa boy....... jokE!!!!!!!

sir batman/madam sonia:

tanung ko lang kung ano na kaya ang response nang PAD tungkol sa request nung mga kasamahan natin for the release of his/her MIP3, di ba dapat sagutin nila ito within fifteen days, "positive or negative"....

mana lang ako sa iyo doods......

pablow-out tayo kay sir gary....

King Saviour wrote:

sir batman/madam sonia:

tanung ko lang kung ano na kaya ang response nang PAD tungkol sa request nung mga kasamahan natin for the release of his/her MIP3, di ba dapat sagutin nila ito within fifteen days, "positive or negative"....

oo nga naman....may punto si king saviour

Mam sonia,

Is it true wla na raw 2nd & 3rd tranche sa profit sharing???

jean grey:
It is not true that we will not have profit sharing anymore. The next tranche would depend upon the result of COA Audit. The result would determine exactly how much net income LANDBANK was able to have last 2011 to be able to compute how much profit sharing we are entitled to receive.

Mam Sonia,

yung ni report na P9B, hindi pa yun final ncome ng LBP?

how about yung case na kasamahan natin na hindi nakareceive dahil na-adminished sila.....

ano na nga pala ang update dito....baka pupuwede naman na iconsider yung rule 6 of eo 13 s2008 sa case nila....

atty james:

please dont be mad at me, last Feb 27, 2012, I wrote a letter addressed to HRMG Head Atty. Mon Cervantes quoting your opinion regarding the issue (without citing your name and area of course). i asked for their response about it. Yesterday i received a letter from ERD informing me that they have referred my letter to PAD for further study and they will inform me as soon as it is available.

thank you.

No problem Batman, it is good that you have brought the matter to the attention of management because that is in fact my intention in posting the opinion in this blog. Just hoping that the outcome will be positive considering that the subject in issue has a great impact on all of us Landbankers. We appreciate the action that you have initiated!

batman wrote:

atty james:

please dont be mad at me, last Feb 27, 2012, I wrote a letter addressed to HRMG Head Atty. Mon Cervantes quoting your opinion regarding the issue (without citing your name and area of course). i asked for their response about it. Yesterday i received a letter from ERD informing me that they have referred my letter to PAD for further study and they will inform me as soon as it is available.

thank you.

sir batman,

any update sa opinion ni atty semaj

Our management has not yet given statement on the legal argument raised by Atty James on "admonition" because they are still studying the matter as it involves legal issue. Rest assured we will provide you update should there be one.

kelan kaya ang 2nd tranche ng MIP3?..hehe..nagtatanong lang po...

By April daw as usual...sana true...

april? anong year? hehehe..

may 2nd and 3rd tranche pa kaya ng MIP3?

Mam Sonia,

Kelan kaya 2nd tranche ng MIP3?

LBPEA NEB will still request for the 2nd tranche pay out of MIP 3 this April 2012. We will inform you as soon as we have update on this regard.

I hope talaga na matuloy ang 2nd tranche this April, 2012. By the way Ms. Sonia, can you kindly text me....kasi nawala yung number mo sa akin....tuloy di na ako makapag send ng Gospel Reflections sa yo....hehehe....

May update na po ba sa 2nd tranche ng MIP3?

oo nga po. any updates on the 2nd tranche of mip3?

Per latest information today-April 13 from our LBPEA Sec Gen Weng Leones, we do not have any update yet regarding MIP3 and the reorganization.

LBPEA will be holding its Annual National Convention next week so for sure we will be able to provide you information on matters which would be of interest to all of us.

mas masaya ang convention ng LBPEA if may pabaon sa kanila pagpunta ng HO...sana irelease na ang 2nd trance this week before the convention...any update on this?

tama mas masaya kung may pabaon lahat

payyam mu Blackman!