1

st
SET
1.Metropolitan Bank vs NWPC (2007) G.R. 1!22
"a#ts$ On October 1995, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, Region II, Tuguegarao, Cagayan
RTWPB!, by virtue o" Republic #ct $o% &'(' R%#% $o% &'('!, other)ise *no)n as the Wage Rationali+ation #ct,
issued Wage Order $o% R,(-,. Wage Order!, as "ollo)s/ 0ection 1% 1pon e2ectivity o" this Wage Order, all
e3ployees4)or*ers in the private sector throughout Region II, regardless o" the status o" e3ploy3ent are
granted an across-the-board increase o" P15%,, daily%
The Wage Order )as published in a ne)spaper o" general circulation on 5ece3ber (, 1995 and too* e2ect on
6anuary 1, 199&% Its I3ple3enting Rules )ere approved on 7ebruary 18, 199&% Per 0ection 1. o" the Wage Order,
any party aggrieved by the Wage Order 3ay 9le an appeal )ith the $ational Wages and Productivity
Co33ission $WPC! through the RTWPB )ithin 1, calendar days "ro3 the publication o" the Wage Order%
Ban*er:s Council in a letter in;uiry to $WPC re;uested "or ruling to see* e<e3ption "ro3 coverage o" the )age
order since the 3e3bers ban* are paying 3ore than the regular )age% $WPC replied that the 3e3ber ban*s
are covered by the )age order and does not "all )ith the e<e3ptible categories% In another letter in;uiry,
=etroban* as*ed "or the interpretation o" the applicability o" the )age order% $WPC re"erred it to RTWPB% RTWPB
in return clari9ed that establish3ents in Region ( are
%ss&e$ WO$ the )age order is void thus it has no legal e2ect and the RTWPB acted in e<cess o" its >urisdiction%
'el($ 0ection 1, Wage Order $o% R,(-,. is void inso"ar as it grants a )age increase to e3ployees earning 3ore
than the 3ini3u3 )age rate? and pursuant to the separability clause o" the Wage Order, 0ection 1 is declared
valid )ith respect to e3ployees earning the prevailing 3ini3u3 )age rate%
The po)ers o" $WPC are enu3erated in #RT% 1(1% Po)ers and 7unctions o" the Co33ission% - The Co33ission
shall have the "ollo)ing po)ers and "unctions/ d! To revie) regional )age levels set by the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Boards to deter3ine i" these are in accordance )ith prescribed guidelines and national
develop3ent plans? "! To revie) plans and progra3s o" the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to
deter3ine )hether these are consistent )ith national develop3ent plans? g! To e<ercise technical and
ad3inistrative supervision over the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards%
R%#% $o% &'(' declared it a policy o" the 0tate to rationali+e the 9<ing o" 3ini3u3 )ages and to pro3ote
productivity-i3prove3ent and gain-sharing 3easures to ensure a decent standard o" living "or the )or*ers and
their "a3ilies? to guarantee the rights o" labor to its >ust share in the "ruits o" production? to enhance
e3ploy3ent generation in the countryside through industrial dispersal? and to allo) business and industry
reasonable returns on invest3ent, e<pansion and gro)th%
In line )ith its declared policy, R%#% $o% &'(' created the $WPC, vested )ith the po)er to prescribe rules and
guidelines "or the deter3ination o" appropriate 3ini3u3 )age and productivity 3easures at the regional,
provincial or industry levels? and authori+ed the RTWPB to deter3ine and 9< the 3ini3u3 )age rates applicable
in their respective regions, provinces, or industries therein and issue the corresponding )age orders, sub>ect to
the guidelines issued by the $WPC% Pursuant to its )age 9<ing authority, the RTWPB 3ay issue )age orders
)hich set the daily 3ini3u3 )age rates, based on the standards or criteria set by #rticle 1(8 o" the @abor Code%
The Court declared that there are t)o )ays o" 9<ing the 3ini3u3 )age/ the ABoor-)ageA 3ethod and the
Asalary-ceilingA 3ethod% The ABoor-)ageA 3ethod involves the 9<ing o" a deter3inate a3ount to be added to
the prevailing statutory 3ini3u3 )age rates% On the other hand, in the Asalary-ceilingA 3ethod, the )age
ad>ust3ent )as to be applied to e3ployees receiving a certain deno3inated salary ceiling% In other )ords,
)or*ers already being paid 3ore than the e<isting 3ini3u3 )age up to a certain a3ount stated in the Wage
Order! are also to be given a )age increase%
In the present case, the RTWPB did not deter3ine or 9< the 3ini3u3 )age rate by the ABoor-)age 3ethodA or
the Asalary-ceiling 3ethodA in issuing the Wage Order% The RTWPB did not set a )age level nor a range to )hich
a )age ad>ust3ent or increase shall be added% Instead, it granted an across-the-board )age increase o" P15%,,
to all e3ployees and )or*ers o" Region (% In doing so, the RTWPB e<ceeded its authority by e<tending the
coverage o" the Wage Order to )age earners receiving 3ore than the prevailing 3ini3u3 )age rate, )ithout a
deno3inated salary ceiling% #s correctly pointed out by the O0C, the Wage Order granted additional bene9ts not
conte3plated by R%#% $o% &'('%
2. S)) %NTERN*T%+N*) C*B)ES SPEC%*)%ST vs N*T%+N*) )*B+R RE)*T%+NS C+MM%SS%+N
G.R. No. 1721,1 Mar#- 2. 2011
S)) %NTERN*T%+N*) C*B)ES SPEC%*)%ST an( S+NN/ ). )*G+N. Petitioners. vs. N*T%+N*) )*B+R
RE)*T%+NS C+MM%SS%+N. t- 0%1%S%+N. R+)0*N )+PE2. E0G*R0+ 234%G* an( 0*N%)+
C*4ETE. Respon(ents.
"*CTS$ Private Respondents )ere hired by @agon as apprentice or trainee cable4line3an and )ere paid the "ull
3ini3u3 )age and other bene9ts? they did not report to )or* regularly, since they are trainees, but ca3e in
substitutes "or other regular )or*ers% #"ter their training, they )ere engaged as Pro>ect D3ployees in di2erent
parts o" the Country Bohol, #nitpolo, Bulacan and Caloocan! upon )hich they have to re-apply a"ter every
co3pletion% 7aced )ith econo3ic proble3s, @agon )as constrained to cut do)n the overti3e )or* o" its
)or*ers% Thus, )hen private respondents re;uested to )or* overti3e, @agon re"used% Private respondents )ent
ho3e to Cebu and 9led a co3plaint "or illegal dis3issal, non-pay3ent o" )ages, holiday pay, 1.th 3onth pay
and service incentive leave pay as )ell as da3ages and attorney:s "ees%
Petitioners ad3itted private respondents: e3ploy3ent but clai3ed that the latter )ere only pro>ect e3ployees
"or their services )ere 3erely engaged "or a speci9c pro>ect or underta*ing and the sa3e )ere covered by
contracts duly signed by private respondents% #nd since the )or*places o" private respondents )ere all in
=anila, the co3plaint should be 9led there% Thus, petitioners prayed "or the dis3issal o" the co3plaint "or lac* o"
>urisdiction and utter lac* o" 3erit%
The @# clai3ed that his oEce had >urisdiction under R1@D 8 0DC 1 o" the $@RC R1@D0 because the A)or*place,A
as de9ned in the said rule, included the place )here the e3ployee )as supposed to report bac* a"ter a
te3porary detail, assign3ent or travel, )hich in this case )as Cebu% #s to the status o" their e3ploy3ent, the
@# opined that private respondents )ere regular e3ployees because they )ere repeatedly hired by petitioners
and they per"or3ed activities )hich )ere usual, necessary and desirable in the business or trade o" the
e3ployer%
@# "ound that private respondents )ere underpaid% It ruled that the "ree board and lodging, electricity, )ater,
and "ood en>oyed by the3 could not be included in the co3putation o" their )ages because these )ere given
)ithout their )ritten consent% Fo)ever, petitioners )ere not liable "or illegal dis3issal% The @# vie)ed private
respondents: act o" going ho3e as an act o" indi2erence )hen petitioners decided to prohibit overti3e )or*%
The $@RC aEr3ed the @#:s decision% It noted that no single report o" pro>ect co3pletion )as 9led )ith the
P1B@IC D=P@OG=D$T oEce as re;uired by 5O@D% The C# aEr3ed both the @#:s and $@RC:s decisions and
considered that petitioners "ailure to co3ply )ith the si3ple but co3pulsory re;uire3ent to sub3it a report o"
ter3ination to the nearest Public D3ploy3ent OEce every ti3e private respondents: e3ploy3ent )as
ter3inated )as proo" that the latter )ere not pro>ect e3ployees but regular e3ployees%
%SS3E$ WO$ private respondents are entitled to be paid the 3ini3u3 )age%
'E)0$ GD0% #s a general rule, on pay3ent o" )ages, a party )ho alleges pay3ent as a de"ense has the burden
o" proving it% 0peci9cally )ith respect to labor cases, the burden o" proving pay3ent o" 3onetary clai3s rests on
the e3ployer, the rationale being that the pertinent personnel 9les, payrolls, records, re3ittances and other
si3ilar docu3ents are not in the possession o" the )or*er but in the custody and absolute control o" the
e3ployer%
In this case, petitioners, aside "ro3 bare allegations that private respondents received )ages higher than the
prescribed 3ini3u3, "ailed to present any evidence, such as payroll or payslips, to support their de"ense o"
pay3ent% Thus, petitioners utterly "ailed to discharge the onus probandi%
Private respondents, on the other hand, are entitled to be paid the 3ini3u3 )age, )hether they are regular or
non-regular e3ployees%
On )hether the value o" the "acilities should be included in the co3putation o" the A)agesA received by private
respondents, 0ection 1 o" 5O@D =e3orandu3 Circular $o% ( provides that an e3ployer 3ay provide subsidi+ed
3eals and snac*s to his e3ployees provided that the subsidy shall not be less that .,H o" the "air and
reasonable value o" such "acilities% In such cases, the e3ployer 3ay deduct "ro3 the )ages o" the e3ployees
not 3ore than ',H o" the value o" the 3eals and snac*s en>oyed by the latter, provided that such deduction is
)ith the )ritten authori+ation o" the e3ployees concerned%
=oreover, be"ore the value o" "acilities can be deducted "ro3 the e3ployees: )ages, the "ollo)ing re;uisites
3ust all be attendant/ 9rst, proo" 3ust be sho)n that such "acilities are custo3arily "urnished by the trade?
second, the provision o" deductible "acilities 3ust be voluntarily accepted in )riting by the e3ployee? and
9nally, "acilities 3ust be charged at reasonable value% =ere avail3ent is not suEcient to allo) deductions "ro3
e3ployees: )ages%
These re;uire3ents, ho)ever, have not been 3et in this case% 0@@ "ailed to present any co3pany policy or
guideline sho)ing that provisions "or 3eals and lodging )ere part o" the e3ployee:s salaries% It also "ailed to
provide proo" o" the e3ployees: )ritten authori+ation, 3uch less sho) ho) they arrived at their valuations% #t
any rate, it is not even clear )hether private respondents actually en>oyed said "acilities%
"a#ilities 1S S&pple5ents
A0upple3ents,A there"ore, constitute e<tra re3uneration or special privileges or bene9ts given to or received by
the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or )ages% A7acilities,A on the other hand, are ite3s o"
e<pense necessary "or the laborers and his "a3ilyIs e<istence and subsistence so that by e<press provision o"
la), they "or3 part o" the )age and )hen "urnished by the e3ployer are deductible there"ro3, since i" they are
not so "urnished, the laborer )ould spend and pay "or the3 >ust the sa3e%
In short, the bene9t or privilege given to the e3ployee )hich constitutes an e<tra re3uneration above and over
his basic or ordinary earning or )age is supple3ent? and )hen said bene9t or privilege is part o" the laborersI
basic )ages, it is a "acility% The distinction lies not so 3uch in the *ind o" bene9t or ite3 "ood, lodging, bonus or
sic* leave! given, but in the purpose "or )hich it is given% In the case at bench, the ite3s provided )ere given
"reely by 0@@ "or the purpose o" 3aintaining the eEciency and health o" its )or*ers )hile they )ere )or*ing at
their respective pro>ects
!. Spe#ial Steel Pro(&#ts vs 1illareal (200) G.R. 1!!0
"a#ts$ 0pecial 0teel Products, Inc%, is a do3estic corporation engaged in the principal business o" i3portation,
sale, and 3ar*eting o" BOF@DR steel products% Respondents )or*ed "or petitioner as assistant 3anager and
sales3an% Jillareal obtained a car loan "ro3 Ban* o" Co33erce )ith petitioner as surety )herein they are
>ointly and severally agreed to pay the ban* in install3ent basis% In 6anuary 199', Jillareal resigned and >oined
Fi-Crade Industrial and Technical Products as D<ecutive vice-president%
Respondent 0o )as sponsored by petitioner to attend a training course in Kap"enberg, #ustria conducted by
BOF@DR% It re)arded 0o:s outstanding sales per"or3ance% When 0o returned, the petitioner as*ed respondent 0o
to sign a 3e3orandu3 to )or* "or the co3pany "or three years% #"ter ( years and 8 3onths, 0o resigned "ro3
the co3pany% Petitioner ordered respondents an accounting o" the various Christ3as givea)ays they received%
In return, respondents also de3anded pay3ent o" their separation bene9ts, co33issions, 3onetary bene9ts but
petitioner re"used and )ithheld the 1.
th
3onth pay and other bene9ts%
%ss&e$ WO$ the e3ployer can )ithhold its e3ployee:s )ages and bene9ts as lien to protect its interest as
surety in the car loan and "or e<penses in the training abroad%
'el($ The e3ployer cannot )ithhold respondent:s 1.
th
3onth pay and other 3onetary bene9ts%
#rticle 11& o" the @abor Code, as a3ended, provides/
LWithholding o" )ages and *ic*bac*s prohibited% MIt shall be unla)"ul "or any person, directly or indirectly, to
)ithhold any a3ount "ro3 the )ages and bene9ts! o" a )or*er or induce hi3 to give up any part o" his )ages
by "orce, stealth, inti3idation, threat or by any other 3eans )hatsoever )ithout the )or*er:s consent%N
The above provision is clear and needs no "urther elucidation% Indeed, petitioner has no legal authority to
)ithhold respondents: 1.
th
3onth pay and other bene9ts% What an e3ployee has )or*ed "or, his e3ployer 3ust
pay% Thus, an e3ployer cannot si3ply re"use to pay the )ages or bene9ts o" its e3ployee because he has either
de"aulted in paying a loan guaranteed by his e3ployer? or violated their 3e3orandu3 o" agree3ent? or "ailed to
render an accounting o" his e3ployer:s property%
. E6&ita7le PC% Bank vs Sa(a# (200,) G.R. 1,772
"a#ts$ Ricardo 0adac )as appointed JP o" the @egal 5epart3ent o" petitioner Ban* e2ective #ugust 19O1, and
subse;uently Ceneral Counsel thereo" on 5ece3ber 19O1% On 6une 19O9, nine la)yers o" petitioner Ban*:s @egal
5epart3ent, in a letter-petition to the Chair3an o" the Board o" 5irectors, accused respondent 0adac o" abusive
conduct and ulti3ately, petitioned "or a change in leadership o" the depart3ent% On the ground o" lac* o"
con9dence in 0adac, under the rules o" client and la)yer relationship, petitioner Ban* instructed respondent
0adac to deliver all 3aterials in his custody in all cases in )hich the latter )as appearing as its counsel o"
record% In reaction thereto, 0adac re;uested "or a "ull hearing and "or3al investigation but the sa3e re3ained
unheeded% On $ove3ber 19O9, respondent 0adac 9led a co3plaint "or illegal dis3issal )ith da3ages against
petitioner Ban* and individual 3e3bers o" the Board o" 5irectors thereo"% #"ter learning o" the 9ling o" the
co3plaint, petitioner Ban* ter3inated the services o" respondent 0adac% 7inally, on #ugust 19O9, 0adac )as
re3oved "ro3 his oEce%
@abor #rbiter rendered decision that 0adac:s ter3ination )as illegal and entitled to reinstate3ent and pay3ent
o" "ull bac* )ages% $@RC aEr3ed the decision upon appeal by the Ban*% 0adac 9led "or e<ecution o" >udg3ent
)here it gave its co3putation )hich a3ounted to P &%,. = representing his bac* )ages and the increases he
should have received during the ti3e he )as illegally dis3issed% The Ban* opposed to 0adac:s co3putation% The
@abor #rbiter "avor 0adac:s co3putation% $@RC, upon appeal by the ban*, reversed the decision% C# reversed
the decision o" $@RC%
%ss&e/ WO$ the co3putation o" bac* )ages shall include the general increases%
'el($ Respondent 0adac cannot ta*e e<ception by arguing that >urisprudence spea*s only o" )age and not
salary, and there"ore, the rule is inapplicable to hi3% It is respondent 0adac:s stance that he )as not paid at the
)age rate nor )as he engaged in so3e "or3 o" 3anual or physical labor as he )as hired as Jice President o"
petitioner Ban*% Fe cites Caa v% Court o" #ppeals )here the Court distinguished bet)een )age and salary%
The reliance is 3isplaced% The distinction bet)een salary and )age in Caa )as "or the purpose o" #rticle 1',O o"
the Civil Code )hich 3andates that, APtQhe laborer:s )age shall not be sub>ect to e<ecution or attach3ent,
e<cept "or debts incurred "or "ood, shelter, clothing and 3edical attendance%A In labor la), ho)ever, the
distinction appears to be 3erely se3antics% Para3ount and Dvangelista 3ay have involved )age earners, but
the petitioner in Dspe>o )as a Ceneral =anager )ith a 3onthly salary o" P9,,,,%,, plus privileges% That )age
and salary are synony3ous has been settled in 0ongco v% $ational @abor Relations Co33ission% We said/
Broadly, the )ord AsalaryA 3eans a reco3pense or consideration 3ade to a person "or his pains orindustry in
another 3an:s business% Whether it be derived "ro3 Asalariu3, Aor 3ore "anci"ully "ro3 Asal,A the pay o" the
Ro3an soldier, it carries )ith it the "unda3ental idea o" co3pensation "or services rendered% Indeed, there is
e3inent authority "or holding that the )ords A)agesA and AsalaryA are in essence synony3ous Words and
Phrases, Jol% .O Per3anent Ddition, p% 88 citing Fop*ins vs% Cro3)ell, O5 $%G%0%O.9, O81, O9 #pp% 5iv% 8O1? .O
#3% 6ur% 89&!% A0alary,A the ety3ology o" )hich is the @atin )ord Asalariu3,A is o"ten used interchangeably )ith
A)ageA, the ety3ology o" )hich is the =iddle Dnglish )ord A)agenA% Both )ords generally re"er to one and the
sa3e 3eaning, that is, a re)ard or reco3pense "or services per"or3ed% @i*e)ise, ApayA is the synony3 o"
A)agesA and AsalaryA Blac*:s @a) 5ictionary, 5
th
Dd!% < < <
8. *#e B&il(ers an( *rnol( 3. *9&r vs. :ose *. Tal(e. G.R. No. 1;7200. Ma< 8. 2010.
%lle=al (is5issal> separation pay% In instances )here reinstate3ent is no longer "easible because o" strained
relations bet)een the e3ployee and the e3ployer, separation pay is granted% In e2ect, an illegally dis3issed
e3ployee is entitled to either reinstate3ent, i" viable, or separation pay i" reinstate3ent is no longer viable, and
bac* )ages% The nor3al conse;uences o" respondentsR illegal dis3issal, then, are reinstate3ent )ithout loss o"
seniority rights, and pay3ent o" bac *)ages co3puted "ro3 the ti3e co3pensation )as )ithheld up to the date
o" actual reinstate3ent% Where reinstate3ent is no longer viable as an option, separation pay e;uivalent to one
1! 3onth salary "or every year o" service should be a)arded as an alternative% The pay3ent o" separation pay
is in addition to pay3ent o" bac* )ages% The accepted doctrine is that separation pay 3ay avail in lieu o"
reinstate3ent i" reinstate3ent is no longer practical or in the best interest o" the parties% 0eparation pay in lieu
o" reinstate3ent 3ay li*e)ise be a)arded i" the e3ployee decides not to be reinstated% Colden #ce Builders and
#rnold 1% #+ur vs% 6ose #% Talde, C%R% $o% 1O'(,,, =ay 5, (,1,%
8. Gol(en *#e B&il(ers vs. :ose *. Tal(e
GR No. 1;7200> Ma< 8. 2010
"a#ts$ 6ose Tadle )as hired in 199, as a carpenter by petitioner Colden #ce Builders% In 7ebruary 1999,
petitioner, alleging the unavailability o" construction pro>ects, stopped giving )or* assign3ents to respondent,
pro3pting the latter to 9le a co3plaint "or illegal dis3issal% The @abor #rbiter ruled in "avor o" Talde and his
i33ediate reinstate3ent )ithout loss o" seniority rights and other privileges, and )ith pay3ent o" "ull bac*
)ages% Pending appeal )ith the $@RC and in co3pliance )ith the @abor #rbiter:s decision, petitioner advised
Talde to report "or )or* in the construction site% Talde ho)ever sub3itted a a 3ani"estation to the @abor #rbiter
that actual ani3osities e<isted bet)een hi3 and petitioners and there had been threats to his li"e and his
"a3ily:s sa"ety, hence, he opted "or the pay3ent o" separation pay%
The $@RC dis3issed the appeal holding that respondent )as a regular e3ployee and not a pro>ect e3ployee,
and that there )as no valid ground "or the ter3ination o" his services% The petitioner and Talde )ere then
re"erred to the 7iscal D<a3iner o" the $@RC "or the reco3putation o" the a3ount due to Talde% The $@RC ruled
that since respondent did not appeal the 5ecision o" the @abor #rbiter granting hi3 only reinstate3ent and
bac*)ages, not separation pay in lieu thereo", he 3ay not be a2orded aEr3ative relie"? and since he re"used to
go bac* to )or*, he 3ay recover bac*)ages only up to =ay (,, (,,1, the day he )as supposed to return to the
>ob site%
The C# set aside the Resolution o" the $@RC holding that Talde is entitled to both bac*)ages and separation pay,
even i" separation pay )as not granted by the @abor #rbiter, the latter in vie) o" the strained relations bet)een
the parties%
%ss&e$ Is Talde entitled to separation payS
R&lin=$ Ges% The basis "or the pay3ent o" bac*)ages is di2erent "ro3 that "or the a)ard o" separation pay%
0eparation pay is granted )here reinstate3ent is no longer advisable because o" strained relations bet)een the
e3ployee and the e3ployer% Bac*)ages represent co3pensation that should have been earned but )ere not
collected because o" the un>ust dis3issal% The basis "or co3puting bac*)ages is usually the length o" the
e3ployee:s service )hile that "or separation pay is the actual period )hen the e3ployee )as unla)"ully
prevented "ro3 )or*ing%
1nder #rticle ('9 o" the @abor Code and as held in a catena o" cases, an e3ployee )ho is dis3issed )ithout >ust
cause and )ithout due process is entitled to bac*)ages and reinstate3ent or pay3ent o" separation pay in lieu
thereo"% The accepted doctrine is that separation pay 3ay avail in lieu o" reinstate3ent i" reinstate3ent is no
longer practical or in the best interest o" the parties% 0eparation pay in lieu o" reinstate3ent 3ay li*e)ise be
a)arded i" the e3ployee decides not to be reinstated%
1nder the doctrine o" strained relations, the pay3ent o" separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative
to reinstate3ent )hen the latter option is no longer desirable or viable% On one hand, such pay3ent liberates
the e3ployee "ro3 )hat could be a highly oppressive )or* environ3ent% On the other hand, it releases the
e3ployer "ro3 the grossly unpalatable obligation o" 3aintaining in its e3ploy a )or*er it could no longer trust%
0trained relations 3ust be de3onstrated as a "act, ho)ever, to be ade;uately supported by substantial
evidence% In the present case, the @abor #rbiter "ound that actual ani3osity e<isted bet)een petitioner and
Talde as a result o" the 9ling o" the illegal dis3issal case% 0uch 9nding, especially )hen aEr3ed by the appellate
court as in the case at bar, is binding upon the Court%
Clearly then, respondent is entitled to bac*)ages and separation pay as his reinstate3ent has been rendered
i3possible due to strained relations% #s correctly held by the appellate court, the bac*)ages due respondent
3ust be co3puted "ro3 the ti3e he )as un>ustly dis3issed until his actual reinstate3ent, or "ro3 7ebruary
1999 until 6une .,, (,,5 )hen his reinstate3ent )as rendered i3possible )ithout "ault on his part%
#s to the co3putation o" separation pay, petitioner )as hired in 199,, ho)ever, and he 3ust be considered to
have been in the service not only until 1999, )hen he )as un>ustly dis3issed, but until 6une .,, (,,5, the day
he is dee3ed to have been actually separated his reinstate3ent having been rendered i3possible! "ro3
petitioner co3pany or "or a total o" 15 years% Thus, Talde is entitled to separation pay "or 15 years%
2n( Set o? Cases
1. G.R. No. @8@ *&=&st !0. 1@@0
E1E)/N C'3*AB3*. vs% '+N. :*C+B+ C. C)*1E. in -is #apa#it< as Presi(ential ECe#&tive *ssistant.
an( T*/ T3NG '%G' SC'++). %NC.. respondents%
"*CTS$ The case )as about an a2air and 3arriage o" ., years old teacher Dvelyn Chua in Tay Tung Figh 0chool
in Bacolod City to her 1& years old student% The petitioner teacher )as suspended )ithout pay and )as
ter3inated o" his e3ploy3ent L"or #busive and 1nethical Conduct 1nbeco3ing o" a 5igni9ed 0chool TeacherN
)hich )as 9led by a public respondent as a clearance "or ter3ination%
%SS3E$ Was her dis3issal validS
'E)0$ The 0upre3e Court declared the dis3issal illegal saying/
Private respondent Tthe schoolU utterly "ailed to sho) that petitioner T.,-year old lady teacherU too* advantage
o" her position to court her student T1&-year oldU% I" the t)o eventually "ell in love, despite the disparity in their
ages and acade3ic levels, this only leads substance to the truis3 that the heart has reasons o" its o)n )hich
reason does not *no)% But, de9nitely, yielding to this gentle and universal e3otion is not to be so casually
e;uated )ith i33orality% The deviation o" the circu3stances o" their 3arriage "ro3 the usual societal pattern
cannot be considered as a de9ance o" conte3porary social 3ores%N
7inding that there is no substantial evidence o" the i3puted i33oral acts, it "ollo)s that the alleged
violation o" Code o" Dthics governing school teachers )ould have no basis% Private respondent utterly "ailed to
sho) that petitioner too* advantage o" her position to court her student% The deviation o" the circu3stances o"
their 3arriage "ro3 the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a de9ance o" conte3porary social 3ores%
Petition "or certiorari granted, private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner bac* )ages e;uivalent to
three years )ithout deduction and separation pay o" one 3onth "or every year o" service%
2. G.R. No. 1,7217 "e7r&ar< . 200;
P.%. M*N3"*CT3R%NG. %NC+RP+R*TE0 vs% P.%. M*N3"*CT3R%NG S3PER1%S+RS *N0 "+REM*N
*SS+C%*T%+N an( t-e N*T%+N*) )*B+R 3N%+N.
"a#ts/ In 19O', the President signed into la) Republic #ct R#! $o% &&8, providing, a3ong others, an increase in
the statutory 3ini3u3 )age and salary rates o" e3ployees and )or*ers in the private sector% Therea"ter, P%I%
=anu"acturing Incorporated P%I!, petitioner, and P%I% =anu"acturing 0upervisors and 7ore3en #ssociation
PI=#017#!, respondents, entered into a ne) Collective Bargaining #gree3ent19O' CB#! )hereby the
supervisors )ere granted an increase o" Php &(5 per 3onth and the "ore3en, Php 8'5 per 3onth% In 19O9,
PI=#017# and the $ational @abor 1nion 9led a co3plaint )ith the $ational @abor Relations Co33ission $@RC!
charging P%I% )ith violation o" R# $o% &&8,, contending that the i3ple3entation o" the said statute had resulted
in a )age distortion%
The @abor #rbiter rendered a 5ecision in "avor o" PI=#017#, ordering P%I% to pay all the 3e3bers o" PI=#017#
across the board! )age increases e;uivalent to 1.%5Ho" their basic pay% On appeal, the $@RC rendered a
Resolution aEr3ing the @abor #rbiterIs >udge3ent% Therea"ter, P%I% 9led a petition "or Certiorari )ith this Court,
)hich the Court re"erred to the C#% The C# rendered a 5ecision aEr3ing that o" the $@RCIs )ith 3odi9cation by
raising the 1.%5H )age increase to 1O%5H% # 3otion "or reconsideration )as 9led by P%I% but it )as denied%
%SS3E$ Whether the i3ple3entation o" R# $o% &&8, resulted in a )age distortion and )hether such distortion
)as cured or re3edied by the 19O' CB#
'E)0$ Wage distortion 3eans the disappearance or virtual disappearance o" pay di2erentials bet)een lo)er
and higher positions in an enterprise because o" co3pliance )ith a )age order%
In this case, the Court o" #ppeals correctly ruled that a )age distortion occurred due to the i3ple3entation o"
R%#% $o% &&8,% $otably, the i3ple3entation o" R%#% $o% &&8, resulted in the increase o" P1,%,, in the )age rates
o" #lcantara, supervisor, and =orales and 0alvo, both "ore3en% They are petitioner:s lo)est paid supervisor and
"ore3en% #s a conse;uence, the increased )age rates o" "ore3en =orales and 0alvo e<ceeded that o"
supervisor Buencuchillo% #lso, the increased )age rate o" supervisor #lcantara e<ceeded those o" supervisors
Buencuchillo and 5el Prado% Conse;uently, the P9%'9 gap or di2erence bet)een the )age rate o" supervisor 5el
Prado and that o" supervisor #lcantara )as eli3inated% Instead, the latter gained a P%(1 lead over 5el Prado% @i*e
a do3ino e2ect, these gaps or di2erences bet)een and a3ong the )age rates o" all the above e3ployees have
been substantially altered and reduced% It is there"ore undeniable that the increase in the )age rates by virtue
o" R%#% $o% &&8, resulted in )age distortion or the eli3ination o" the intentional ;uantitative di2erences in the
)age rates o" the above e3ployees%
Fo)ever, )hile )e 9nd the presence o" )age distortions, )e are convinced that the sa3e )ere cured or
re3edied )hen respondent PI=#017# entered into the 19O' CB# )ith petitioner a"ter the e2ectivity o" R%#% $o%
&&8,% The 19O' CB# increased the 3onthly salaries o" the supervisors by P&(5%,, and the "ore3en, by
P8'5%,,, e2ective =ay 1(, 19O'% These increases re-established and broadened the gap, not only bet)een the
supervisors and the "ore3en, but also bet)een the3 and the ran*-and-9le e3ployees% 0igni9cantly, the 19O'
CB# )age increases al3ost doubled that o" the P1,%,, increase under R%#% $o% &&8,% The P&(5%,,43onth 3eans
P(8%,. increase per day "or the supervisors, )hile the P8'5%,,43onth 3eans P1O%(& Increase per day "or the
"ore3en%
.% G.R. No. 10,;@ "e7r&ar< 17. 200
B*ND*R0 EMP)+/EES 3N%+NAW+RDERS *))%*NCE TR*0E 3N%+NS vs. N*T%+N*) )*B+R RE)*T%+NS
C+MM%SS%+N an( B*ND*R0. %NC
"*CTS$ Ban*ard, Inc% classi9es its e3ployees according to level/ @evel I, @evel II, @evel III, @evel IJ and @evel J
0ee $ote V1 "or corresponding salary rates!% On =ay (O, 199., the directors o" respondent Ban*ard, Inc%
approved a ne) salary scale "or the purpose o" 3a*ing its hiring rate co3petitive in the labor 3ar*et% The ne)
salary scale increased the hiring rates o" ne) e3ployees, to )it/ @evels I and J )ere increased by P1,,,,%,,
)hile @evels II, III and IJ )ere increased by P9,,%,, see $ote V 1!% The salaries o" e3ployees )ho "ell belo) the
ne) 3ini3u3 rates )ere also ad>usted accordingly to reach such rates under their levels% #s a result, Ban*ard
D3ployees 1nion-Wor*ers #lliance Trade 1nions Ban*ard 1nion! de3anded "or salary increase o" its old, regular
e3ployees% Ban*ard re"used on the ground that it had no obligation to grant all its e3ployees the sa3e
increase% Ban*ard 1nion 9led a $otice o" 0tri*e on the ground o" discri3ination and other acts o" 1n"air @abor
Practice% This )as initially treated as a preventive 3ediation case on the ground that the issues raised )ere not
stri*able% 1pon the second notice o" stri*e, the dispute )as certi9ed "or co3pulsory arbitration% The $@RC
dis3issed the case "or lac* o" 3erit, 9nding no )age distortion% The C# denied the sa3e "or lac* o" 3erit%
Fence, this petition%
%SS3E$ Whether the unilateral adoption by an e3ployer o" an upgraded salary scale that increased the hiring
rates o" ne) e3ployees )ithout increasing the salary rates o" old e3ployees resulted in )age distortion )ithin
the conte3plation o" #rticle 1(8 o" the @abor Code%
R3)%NG/ No. The Court held that )age distortion does not e<ist in this case as all the ele3ents )ere not 3et%
There are "our ele3ents o" )age distortion 0ee note V(!, na3ely/ 1! #n e<isting hierarchy o" positions )ith
corresponding salary rates, (! a signi9cant change in the salary rate o" a lo)er pay class )ithout a conco3itant
increase in the salary rate o" a higher one, .! the eli3ination o" the distinction bet)een the t)o levels and 8!
the e<istence o" the distortion in the sa3e region o" the country% In a proble3 dealing )ith A)age distortion,A the
basic assu3ption is that there e<ists a grouping or classi9cation o" e3ployees that establishes distinctions
a3ong the3 on so3e relevant or legiti3ate bases% Jarious "actors such as the degrees o" responsibility, the
s*ills and *no)ledge re;uired, the co3ple<ity o" the >ob, or other logical basis o" di2erentiation are involved in
such classi9cations%
#ccording to the $@RC, to deter3ine the e<istence o" )age distortion, the AhistoricalA classi9cation o" the
e3ployees prior to the )age increase 3ust be established% In this case, the e3ployees o" Ban*ard have been
LhistoricallyN classi9ed into levels I-J!, and not on the basis o" their length o" service% $e) e3ployees are
auto3atically placed under any o" these levels upon their entry% This is the )age structure "or3ulated by
Ban*ard, a recogni+ed 3anage3ent prerogative )hich Ban*ard 1nion 3ay not encroach upon by creating their
o)n independent classi9cation ie, based on ne)ly hired and old e3ployees! to use as a basis "or de3anding an
across-the-board salary increase% #ccording to established >urisprudence, the "or3ulation o" a )age structure
through the classi9cation o" e3ployees is a 3atter o" 3anage3ent >udg3ent and discretion%
Based on the )age structure, there is no hierarchy o" positions bet)een the ne)ly hired and regular e3ployees
o" Ban*ard since it is a structure )hich is based on level, not seniority% The 9rst ele3ent o" )age distortion is
there"ore lac*ing%
0econd, the third ele3ent o" )age distortion ie the eli3ination o" the distinction bet)een the t)o levels, is also
3issing% Dven i" there )as indeed a resulting decrease in the )age gap bet)een the salary o" the old and ne)
e3ployees, the gap )as held to be insigni9cant as to result in severe contraction o" the intentional ;uantitative
di2erences in the salary rates bet)een the e3ployee group as the classi9cation under the )age structure is
based on ran*, and not seniority%
Third, pursuant to #rticle 1(8 o" the @abor Code, Ban*ard cannot be legally obligated to correct the alleged
L)age distortionN, should it have e<isted in this case, because the in#rease in t-e Ea=es an( salaries o?
t-e neEl<A-ire( Eas not (&e to a pres#ri7e( laE or Ea=e or(er. The 9<ing o" hiring rates )hich resulted
to )age increases )as a voluntary and unilateral increasesW 3ade by Ban*ard%
The Court held that #rt 1(8 is to be construed in relation to 3ini3u3 )age 9<ing, the intention o" the la) being
that in case o" an increase o" 3ini3u3 )age, the distinctions in the )age structure )ill be preserved%
7urther3ore, Ban*ard:s right to increase its hiring rate, to establish 3ini3u3 salaries "or speci9c >obs, and to
ad>ust the rates o" e3ployees a2ected is e3bodied under the parties: CB#% The CB# is a valid and legally
en"orceable source o" rights bet)een the parties and as such, )ill not be inter"ered )ith by the Courts absent
any bad "aith on the part o" the e3ployer% The present petition is hereby 5D$ID5%
8% METR+P+)%T*N B*ND F TR3ST C+MP*N/ EMP)+/EES 3N%+NA*)3AT3CP an( *NT+N%+ 1.
B*)%N*NG vs% N*T%+N*) )*B+R RE)*T%+NS C+MM%SS%+N (2n( 0ivision) an( METR+P+)%T*N B*ND
an( TR3ST C+MP*N/
G.R. No. 102,!, Septe57er 10. 1@@!
"*CTS$ On (5 =ay 19O9, the ban* entered into a collective bargaining agree3ent )ith the =BTCD1, granting a
3onthly P9,, )age increase e2ective ,1 6anuary 19O9, P&,, )age increase ,1 6anuary 199,, and P(,, )age
increase e2ective ,1 6anuary 1991% The =BTCD1 had also bargained "or the inclusion o" probationary e3ployees
in the list o" e3ployees )ho )ould bene9t "ro3 the 9rst P9,, increase but the ban* had ada3antly re"used to
accede thereto% Conse;uently, only regular e3ployees as o" ,1 6anuary 19O9 )ere given the increase to the
e<clusion o" probationary e3ployees%
# 3onth later, Republic #ct &'(', Aan act to rationali+e )age policy deter3ination be establishing the
3echanis3 and proper standards thereo", % % % 9<ing ne) )age rates, providing )age incentives "or industrial
dispersal to the countryside, and "or other purposes,A too* e2ect% Its provisions, pertinent to this case, state/
0ec% 8% a! 1pon the e2ectivity o" this #ct, the statutory 3ini3u3 )age rates o" all )or*ers and
e3ployees in the private sector, )hether agricultural or non-agricultural, shall be increased by t)enty-9ve pesos
P(5! per day, % % %/ Provided, That those already receiving above the 3ini3u3 )age rates up to one hundred
pesosP1,,%,,! shall also receive an increase o" t)enty-9ve pesos P(5%,,! per day, % % %
%SS3E$ WO$ a )age distortion e<ists as a conse;uence o" the grant o" a )age increase to certain e3ployees%
'E)0/ Ges, the 3a>ority o" the 3e3bers o" the $@RC, as )ell as its dissenting 3e3ber, agree that there is a
)age distortion arising "ro3 the ban*Is i3ple3entation o" the P(5 )age increase% They di2er, ho)ever, on the
e<tent o" the distortion that can )arrant the adoption o" corrective 3easures re;uired by la)%
The de9nition o" A)age distortion,A sho)s that such distortion can so e<ist )hen, as a result o" an
increase in the prescribed )age rate, an Aeli3ination or severe contraction o" intentional ;uantitative di2erences
in )age or salary ratesA )ould occur Abet)een and a3ong e3ployee groups in an establish3ent as to
e2ectively obliterate the distinctions e3bodied in such )age structure based on s*ills, length o" service, or other
logical bases o" di2erentiation%A In 3andating an ad>ust3ent, the la) did not re;uire that there be an eli3ination
or total abrogation o" ;uantitative )age or salary di2erences? a severe contraction thereo" is enough% #s has
been aptly observed by Presiding Co33issioner Ddna Bonto-Pere+ in her dissenting opinion, the contraction
bet)een personnel groupings co3es close to eighty-three O.H!, )hich cannot, by any stretch o" i3agination,
be considered less than severe%
In *eeping then )ith the intend3ent o" the la) and the agree3ent o" the parties the3selves, along )ith
the o"ten repeated rule that all doubts in the interpretation and i3ple3entation o" labor la)s should be resolved
in "avor o" labor, )e 3ust appro<i3ate an acceptable ;uantitative di2erence bet)een and a3ong the CB#
agreed )or* levels%
WFDRD7ORD, 9nding 3erit in the instant petition "or certiorari, the sa3e is CR#$TD5 51D PROCD00, the
;uestioned $@RC decision is hereby 0DT #0I5D and the decision o" the labor arbiter is RDI$0T#TD5 sub>ect to the
=O5I7IC#TIO$ that the )age distortion in ;uestion be corrected in accordance )ith the "or3ula e<pressed in the
dissenting opinion o" Presiding Co33issioner Ddna Bonto-Pere+% This decision is i33ediately e<ecutory%
5% 0@@ please re"er to 1
st
set o" cases!
&% *S%* BREWER/. %NC (*B%) v. T3N*/ N* P*GD*D*%S* NG MG* M*NGG*G*W* S* *S%* (TPM*) G.R.
Nos. 1718@A@,. Septe57er 1;. 201!
"*CTS$ TP=# is a legiti3ate labor organi+ation, certi9ed as the sole and e<clusive bargaining agent o" all
regular ran* and 9le e3ployees o" #BI% The petitioner - #BI, on the other hand, is a co3pany engaged in the
3anu"acture, sale and distribution o" beer, shandy, glass and bottled )ater products% It e3ploys about 1,5,,
)or*ers and has e<isting distributorship agree3ents )ith at least 1. co3panies%
The parties had been negotiating "or a ne) CB# "or the years (,,.-(,,& since the old CB# e<pired last 6uly
(,,.% 1nable to reconcile their di2erences on their respective positions on 3ost ite3s, particularly on )ages
and other econo3ic bene9ts, TP=# declared a deadloc*% TP=# 9led a notice o" stri*e )ith the $ational
Conciliation and =ediation Board $C=B! ho)ever, the parties did not co3e to ter3s even be"ore the $C=B%
On $ove3ber 1O, (,,., TP=# conducted a stri*e vote% Out o" the O8, union 3e3bers, '&O voted in "avor o"
holding a stri*e%
#BI then petitioned the 0ecretary o" the 5O@D to assu3e >urisdiction over the parties: labor dispute, invo*ing
#rticle (&. g! o" the @abor Code% TP=# opposed the assu3ption o" >urisdiction, reasoning therein that the
business o" #BI is not indispensable to the national interest% But the public respondent, through 1ndersecretary4
#cting 0ecretary =anuel C% I3son, issued an order assu3ing >urisdiction over the labor dispute bet)een the
parties%
In 3odi"ying the arbitral a)ard o" the 0ecretary o" @abor, the C# ruled that/ 1! The e2ectivity o" the CB# should
be #ugust 1, (,,. because this is the date agreed upon by the parties and not 6anuary 1, (,,8 as decreed by
the 0ecretary o" @abor? (! The co3putation o" )age increase should be re3anded to the 0ecretary o" @abor
because the co3putation )as based on petitioner corporation:s unaudited 9nancial state3ents, )hich have no
probative value pursuant to the ruling in Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, and )as done in contravention o"
5O@D #dvisory $o% 1, 0eries o" (,,8, )hich contained the guidelines in resolving bargaining deadloc*s? and .!
The health bene9ts should be P1,.9,%,, per covered e3ployee because petitioner corporation had already
agreed to this a3ount and the sa3e cannot be altered or reduced by the 0ecretary o" @abor%
%SS3ES$ 1. Whether the C# erred )hen it re3anded to the 0ecretary o" @abor the issue on )age increase%
2. Whether the C# erred )hen it a)arded P1,.9,%,, as pre3iu3 pay3ent "or each covered e3ployee%
'E)0$
1. The remand of this case to the Secretary of Labor as to the issue of wage increase was proper.
The 0ecretary o" @abor gravely abused her discretion )hen she relied on the unaudited 9nancial state3ents o"
petitioner corporation in deter3ining the )age a)ard because such evidence is sel"-serving and inad3issible%
$ot only did this violate the 5ece3ber 19, (,,. Order o" the 0ecretary o" @abor hersel" to petitioner corporation
to sub3it its co3plete audited 9nancial state3ents, but this 3ay have resulted to a )age a)ard that is based
on an inaccurate and biased picture o" petitioner corporationIs capacity to pay X one o" the 3ore signi9cant
"actors in 3a*ing a )age a)ard% #BI has o2ered no reason )hy it "ailed and4or re"used to sub3it its audited
9nancial state3ents "or the past 9ve years relevant to this case% This only "urther casts doubt as to the veracity
and accuracy o" the unaudited 9nancial state3ents it sub3itted to the 0ecretary o" @abor%
Jerily, 0C cannot countenance this procedure because this could unduly deprive labor o" its right to a
>ust share in the "ruits o" production and provide e3ployers )ith a 3eans to understate their pro9tability in
order to de"eat the right o" labor to a >ust )age%
In cases o" co3pulsory arbitration be"ore the 0ecretary o" labor pursuant to #rticle (&.g! o" the labor
Code, the 9nancial state3ents o" the e3ployer 3ust be properly audited by an e<ternal and independent
auditor in order to be ad3issible in evidence "or purposes o" deter3ining the proper )age a)ard%
(% The modifcation of the arbitral award on health benefts from P1,300.00 to P1,30.00 was
proper. The last proposal or petitioner corporation relative thereto )as to allot P1,.9,%,, as pre3iu3 pay3ent
per covered e3ployee provided that it petitioner corporation! )ould not shoulder the pre3iu3 pay3ents o" the
e3ployeeIs dependents% 7or its part, respondent union accepted the proposal provided that the pre3iu3
pay3ent )ould be renegotiated on the second and third years o" the CB#% Conse;uently, both parties agreed at
the 3ini3u3 that the pre3iu3 pay3ent shall be P1,.9,%,, per covered e3ployee and the re3aining point o"
contention )as )hether the pre3iu3 pay3ent could be renegotiated on the second and third years o" the CB#%
It )as, thus, grave abuse o" discretion on the part o" the 0ecretary o" @abor to reduce the a)ard to P1,.,,%,,
)hich is belo) the 3ini3u3 o" P1,.9,%,, previously agreed upon by the patties% We also note that in the
proceedings be"ore the C#, respondent union only pleaded "or the a)ard o" the P1,.9,%,, pre3iu3 pay3ent per
covered e3ployee
..
thereby e2ectively )aiving its proposal on the renegotiation o" the pre3iu3 pay3ent on
the second and third years o" the CB#%
WFDRD7ORD, the Petition is 5D$ID5% The #3ended 5ecision o" the Court or #ppeals is #77IR=D5%
'% %NTERN*T%+N*) P'*RM*CE3T%C*)S. %NC.. vs% '+N. SECRET*R/ +" )*B+R an( *SS+C%*TE0
)*B+R 3N%+N (*)3)
G.R. Nos. @2@;1A;! :an&ar< @. 1@@2
"*CTS$ Prior to the e<piration o" the CB# bet)een petitioner International Phar3aceuticals, Inc% Co3pany! and
the #ssociated @abor 1nion 1nion!, the latter sub3itted to the Co3pany its econo3ic and political de3ands%
These )ere not 3et by the Co3pany, hence a deadloc* ensued%
The 1nion 9led a notice o" stri*e )ith R%O% $o% JII o" the $ational Conciliation and =ediation Board,
5epart3ent o" @abor and D3ploy3ent% #"ter all conciliation e2orts had "ailed, the 1nion )ent on stri*e and the
Co3panyIs operations )ere co3pletely paraly+ed%
=ean)hile, considering that the Co3pany belongs to an industry indispensable to national interest, it
being engaged in the 3anu"acture o" drugs and phar3aceuticals and e3ploying around &,, )or*ers, then
#cting 0ecretary o" @abor, Ricardo C% Castro, invo*ing #rticle (&. g! o" the @abor Code, issued an order dated
0epte3ber (&, 19O9 assu3ing >urisdiction over the a"oresaid case%
0ubse;uently, three other labor cases involving the sa3e parties )ere 9led )ith the $@RC!%
The 1nion 9led a 3otion see*ing the consolidation o" the three $@RC cases $@RC Cases $os% JII-,9-
,O1,-O9, JII-,O-,'15-O9, and JII-,O-,'8(-O9! )ith the 9rst stated case% In an order, 0ecretary o" @abor Ruben 5%
Torres granted the 3otion and ordered the consolidation o" the three $@RC cases%
%SS3E$ WO$ the 0ecretary o" the 5epart3ent o" @abor and D3ploy3ent has the po)er to assu3e >urisdiction
over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies, including un"air labor practice cases, causing or li*ely to
cause a stri*e or loc*out in an industry indispensable to the national interest
'E)0$ In general, the @abor #rbiter in the appropriate #rbitration Branch o" the $@RC has the po)er to
deter3ine ;uestions involving the legality or illegality o" a stri*e or loc*out upon the 9ling o" a proper co3plaint
and a"ter due hearing%
Where the 3atter o" legality or illegality o" a stri*e is raised in the dispute over )hich the 0ecretary
assu3ed >urisdiction or in co3pulsory arbitration, the sa3e 3ay be resolved by the 0ecretary or the
Co33ission, respectively%
In the present case, the 0ecretary )as e<plicitly granted by #rticle (&. g! o" the @abor Code the
authority to assu3e >urisdiction over a labor dispute causing or li*ely to cause a stri*e or loc*out in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, and decide the sa3e accordingly%
*rti#le 2,! (=) o? t-e )a7or Co(e E-i#- (e#lares$
(=) W-en. in -is opinion. t-ere eCists a la7or (isp&te #a&sin= or likel< to #a&se a strike o?
lo#ko&t in an in(&str< in(ispensa7le to t-e national interest. t-e Se#retar< o? )a7or an(
E5plo<5ent 5a< ass&5e G&ris(i#tion over t-e (isp&te an( (e#i(e it or #erti?< t-e sa5e to t-e
Co55ission ?or #o5p&lsor< ar7itration. . .
$ecessarily, this authority to assu3e >urisdiction over the said labor dispute 3ust include and e<tend to
all ;uestions and controversies arising there"ro3, including cases over )hich the labor arbiter has e<clusive
>urisdiction%
There )as an e<isting labor dispute as a result o" a deadloc* in the negotiation "or a collective
bargaining agree3ent and the conse;uent stri*e, over )hich the 0ecretary assu3ed >urisdiction pursuant to
#rticle (&. g! o" the @abor Code% The three $@RC cases )ere >ust o2shoots o" the stale3ate in the negotiations
and the stri*e% We, there"ore, uphold the 0ecretaryIs order to consolidate the $@RC cases )ith the labor dispute
pending be"ore hi3 and his subse;uent assu3ption o" >urisdiction over the said $@RC cases "or hi3 to be able to
co3petently and eEciently dispose o" the dispute in its totality%
There being no grave abuse o" discretion co33itted by the 0ecretary o" @abor and D3ploy3ent, the
petition at bar is hereby 5I0=I00D5% 0O OR5DRD5%
;. M%C'*E) :+'N 2. M*)T+ v. PE+P)E
G.R. No. 1,7!!. Septe57er 21. 2007
"a#ts$ 0o3eti3e during the 3onth o" $ove3ber 199' to 199O, =alto seduced his student at #ssu3ption
College, ###, a 3inor, to indulge in se<ual intercourse several ti3es )ith hi3% Prior to the incident, petitioner
and ### had a L3utual understandingN and beca3e s)eethearts% Pressured and a"raid o" the petitioner:s threat
to end their relationship, ### succu3bed and both had se<ual intercourse%
1pon discovery o" )hat ### under)ent, BBB, ###:s 3other lodged a co3plaint in the OEce o" the City
Prosecutor o" Pasay City )hich led to the 9ling o" Cri3inal Case $o% ,,-,&91%
The petitioner did not 3a*e a plea )hen arraigned% Fence, the trial court entered "or hi3 a plea o" Lnot guilty%N
The trial court "ound the evidence "or the prosecution suEcient to sustain petitioner:s conviction% The trail court
rendered a decision 9nding petitioner guilty and sentenced hi3 to reclusion te3poral and to pay an inde3nity o"
Php% '5,,,, and da3ages o" Php% 5,,,,,%
Petitioner ;uestioned the trial court:s decision in the C#% The C# 3odi9ed the decision o" the trial court% The
appellate court aEr3ed his conviction and ruled that the trial court erred in a)arding Php% '5,,,, civil
inde3nity in "avor o" ### as it )as proper only in a conviction "or rape co33itted under the circu3stances
under )hich the death penalty )as authori+ed by la)%
%ss&e$ Whether the C# erred in sustaining petitioner:s conviction on the grounds that there )as no rape
co33itted since their se<ual intercourse )as consensual by reason o" their Ls)eetheartN relationship
Whether or not the petitioner )as rightly convicted guilty "or violation o" par% ., 0ection 5a!, #rticle III o" R%#%
'&1,%
'el($ $o% The Ls)eetheart theoryN cannot be invo*ed "or purposes o" se<ual intercourse and lascivious conduct
in child abuse cases under R# '&1,% Consent is i33aterial because the 3ere act o" having se<ual intercourse or
co33itting lascivious conduct )ith a child )ho is sub>ected to se<ual abuse constitutes the o2ense% =oreover, a
child is presu3ed by la) to be incapable o" giving rational consent to any lascivious act or se<ual intercourse
$o% The o2ense stated in the In"or3ation )as )rongly designated% 0ec% 5a!, #rt% . o" R%#% '&1, essentially
punishes acts pertaining to or connected )ith child prostitution% In other )ords, the child is abused pri3arily "or
pro9t% On the other hand, 0ec% 5b! covers not only a situation )here a child is abused "or pro9t but also one in
)hich a child, through coercion, inti3idation or inBuence, engages in se<ual intercourse or lascivious conduct%
The In"or3ation against petitioner did not allege anything pertaining to or connected )ith child prostitution% ###
)as induced and4or seduced by petitioner )ho )as her pro"essor to indulge in se<ual intercourse and lascivious
conduct% ### )as a 1'-year old 3inor at that ti3e% 0uch allegation supports a charge "or violation o" paragraph
b!, not paragraph a!, o" 0ection 5, #rticle III, R%#% '&1,%