Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page | 1
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
2.
3.
HELD:
1.NO. In times of acute unemployment, the people,
urged by the instinct of self-preservation, go from place to
place and from office to office in search for any employment,
regardless of its terms and conditions, their main concern in
the first place being admission to some work. Specially for
positions requiring no special qualifications, applicants would
be good as rejected if they ever try to be inquisitive about the
hours of work or the amount of salary, or ever attempt to
dictate their terms. The petitioner's watchmen must have
railroaded themselves into their employment, so to speak,
happy in the thought that they would then have an income on
which to subsist. But, at the same time, they found themselves
required to work for twelve hours a day. True, there was an
agreement to work, but can it fairly be supposed that they had
the freedom to bargain in any way, much less to insist in the
observance of the Eight Hour Labor Law? . . . "A contract of
employment, which provides for a weekly wage for a
specified number of hours, sufficient to cover both the
statutory minimum wage and overtime compensation, if
computed on the basis of the statutory minimum, and which
makes no provision for a fixed hourly rate or that the weekly
wage includes overtime compensation, does not meet the
requirements of the Act." Moreover, we note that after the
petitioner had instituted the strict eight hour shifts, no
reduction was made in the salaries which its watchmen
received under the twelve hour arrangement. Indeed, as
admitted by the petitioner, "when the members of the
respondent union were placed on strict eight hour shifts, the
lowest salary of all the members of respondent union was
P165 a month, or P5.50 daily, for both day and night shifts."
Although it may be argued that the salary for the night shift
was somewhat lessened, the fact that the rate for the dayshift
was increased in a sense tends to militate against the
contention that the salaries given during the twelve hour shifts
included overtime compensation.
2.NO. The foregoing pronouncements are in point.
The Ask sociation cannot be said to have impliedly waived the
right to overtime compensation, for the obvious reason that
they could not have expressly waived it." The principle of
estoppel and laches cannot well be invoked against the
Page | 2
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 3
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 4
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 5
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 6
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 7
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the
fact that the employees performance is unsupervised by the
employer. As discussed above, field personnel are those who
regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of
business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Thus, in order to conclude whether an employee is a field
employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of
work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty
by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to
whether or not the employees time and performance are
constantly supervised by the employer.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Bus Drivers and Conductors; A
bus driverconductor, not being a field personnel but a regular
employee who performs tasks usually necessary and desirable
to the usual trade of the companys business, is entitled to the
grant of service incentive leave.As observed by the Labor
Arbiter and concurred in by the Court of Appeals: It is of
judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by these bus
companies, there are its inspectors assigned at strategic places
who board the bus and inspect the passengers, the punched
tickets, and the conductors reports. There is also the
mandatory once a week car barn or shop day, where the bus is
regularly checked as to its mechanical, electrical, and
hydraulic aspects, whether or not there are problems thereon
as reported by the driver and/or conductor. They too, must be
at specific place as [sic] specified time, as they generally
observe prompt departure and arrival from their point of origin
to their point of destination. In each and every depot, there is
always the Dispatcher whose function is precisely to see to it
that the bus and its crew leave the premises at specific times
and arrive at the estimated proper time. These, are present in
the case at bar. The driver, the complainant herein, was
therefore under constant supervision while in the performance
of this work. He cannot be considered a field personnel. We
agree in the above disquisition. Therefore, as correctly
concluded by the appellate court, respondent is not a field
personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually
necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioners
business. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the grant of
service incentive leave.
FACTS:
Since 24 May 1995, respondent Antonio Bautista has
been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems,
Inc. (Autobus), as driverconductor with travel routes
ManilaTuguegarao via Baguio, BaguioTuguegarao via Manila
and ManilaTabuk via Baguio. Respondent was paid on
commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross
income per travel, on a twice a month basis. On 03 January
2000, while respondent was driving Autobus No. 114 along
Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, the bus he was driving accidentally
bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. 124, as the latter
vehicle suddenly stopped at a sharp curve without giving any
warning.
Respondent averred that the accident happened
because he was compelled by the management to go back to
Roxas, Isabela, although he had not slept for almost
twentyfour (24) hours, as he had just arrived in Manila from
Roxas, Isabela. Respondent further alleged that he was not
Page | 8
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
...
(d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is
unsupervised by the employer including those who are
engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or
those who are paid in a fixed amount for performing work
irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof;
A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result
in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has
been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not
explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. According to the
Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply
to employees classified as field personnel. The phrase other
employees whose performance is unsupervised by the
employer must not be understood as a separate classification
of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be
granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the
interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the
Labor Code as those whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
What must be ascertained in order to resolve the issue
of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave to
respondent is whether or not he is a field personnel. According
to Article 82 of the Labor Code, field personnel shall refer
to nonagricultural employees who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of business or branch
office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the
field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. This
definition is further elaborated in the Bureau of Working
Conditions (BWC), Advisory Opinion to Philippine
TechnicalClerical Commercial Employees Association which
states that: As a general rule, [field personnel] are those whose
performance of their job/service is not supervised by the
employer or his representative, the workplace being away
from the principal office and whose hours and days of work
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they
are paid specific amount for rendering specific service or
performing specific work. If required to be at specific places
at specific times, employees including drivers cannot be said
to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing
work away from the principal office of the employee.
[Emphasis ours]
To this discussion by the BWC, the petitioner differs
and postulates that under said advisory opinion, no employee
would ever be considered a field personnel because every
employer, in one way or another, exercises control over his
employees. Petitioner further argues that the only criterion that
should be considered is the nature of work of the employee in
that, if the employees job requires that he works away from
the principal office like that of a messenger or a bus driver,
then he is inevitably a field personnel.
We are not persuaded. At this point, it is necessary to
stress that the definition of a field personnel is not merely
concerned with the location where the employee regularly
performs his duties but also with the fact that the employees
performance is unsupervised by the employer.
As discussed above, field personnel are those who
regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of
business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Thus, in order to conclude whether an employee is a field
Page | 9
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
LA:
In a Decision dated July 27, 1994, Labor Arbiter
Santos made the following determination: xxxAnent the
charge that there was underpayment of wages, the evidence
points to the contrary. The enumeration of complainants
wages in their consolidated Affidavits of merit and position
paper which implies underpayment has no leg to stand on in
the light of the fact that complainants admission that they
are piece workers or paid on a pakiao [basis] i.e. a certain
amount for every thousand pieces of cheese curls or other
products repacked. The only limitation for piece workers or
pakiao workers is that they should receive compensation
no less than the minimum wage for an eight (8) hour work
[sic].
On appeal, the NLRC, in its Resolution dated 29
March 1995, affirmed in toto the decision of Labor Arbiter
Santos. the claims for underpayment of wages were without
basis as complainants were admittedly pakiao workers and
paid on the basis of their output subject to the lone limitation
that the payment conformed to the minimum wage rate for an
eight hour workday; and (d) petitioners were not underpaid.
ISSUE:
WON labor arbiter & NLRC erred in declaring that
piece workers or pakiao workers are not entitled to benefits
provided by the labor code.
HELD:
In finding that petitioner employees abandoned their
work, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC relied on the testimony
of Security Guard Rolando Cairo that on January 21, 1991,
petitioners refused to work. As a result of their failure to work,
the cheese curls ready for repacking on said date were spoiled.
The failure to work for one day, which resulted in the
spoilage of cheese curls does not amount to abandonment of
work. In fact two (2) days after the reported abandonment of
work or on January 23, 1991, petitioners filed a complaint for,
among others, unfair labor practice, illegal lockout and/or
illegal dismissal. In several cases, this Honorable Court held
that one could not possibly abandon his work and shortly
thereafter vigorously pursue his complaint for illegal
dismissal
In his first decision, Labor Arbiter Santos expressly
directed the reinstatement of the petitioner employees and
admonished the private respondents that any harassment,
intimidation, coercion or any form of threat as a result of this
immediately executory reinstatement shall be dealt with
accordingly.
In his second decision, Labor Arbiter Santos did not
state why he was abandoning his previous decision directing
the reinstatement of petitioner employees. By directing in his
first decision the reinstatement of petitioner employees, the
Labor Arbiter impliedly held that they did not abandon their
work but were not allowed to work without just cause.
That petitioner employees are pakyao or piece
workers does not imply that they are not regular employees
entitled to reinstatement. Private respondent Empire Food
Products, Inc. is a food and fruit processing company. In
Tabas v. California Manufacturing Co., Inc. (169 SCRA 497),
this Honorable Court held that the work of merchandisers of
Page | 10
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 11
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
ISSUE:
Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private
respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not
less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not leave the
company premises during such time, even to take his meals.
HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision. It said that
the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break.
Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must
take their meals within the company premises. Employees are
not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they
return to their posts on time. Private respondents act,
therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not constitute
abandonment.
Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read:
Art. 83. Normal hours of work.The normal hours
of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8)
hours a day. Health personnel in cities and
municipalities with a population of at least one
million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a
bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold
regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five
(5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except
where the exigencies of the service require that such
personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48)
hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an
additional compensation of at least thirty percent
(30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth
day. For purposes of this Article, health personnel
shall include: resident
physicians,
nurses,
nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers,
laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians,
psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other
hospital or clinic personnel.
Art. 85. Meal periods.Subject to such regulations
as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be
the duty of every employer to give his employees not
less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular
meals.
Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code further states: Sec. 7. Meal and
Rest Periods.Every employer shall give his employees,
regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for
regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal
period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by
the employer provided that such shorter meal period is
credited as compensable hours worked of the employee:
A. Where the work is non-manual work in nature or
does not involve strenuous physical exertion;
B. Where the establishment regularly operates not less
than sixteen hours a day;
C. In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there
is urgent work to be performed on machineries,
equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which
the employer would otherwise suffer; and
D. Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss
of perishable goods.
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty
(20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working
time.
Page | 12
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 13
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 14
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 15
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Additional
Page | 16
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
b.
c.
d.
e.
ISSUE:
WON monthly salaried workers are excluded from
holiday pay- NO
RULING:
Respondent corporation is under legal obligation to
grant its monthly salaried employees holiday pay. As decided
by the court in Insular Bank of Asia and American
Employees Union v Inciong, Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code is null
and void for enlarging the scope of the exclusion provided for
in Art. 94. Art. 82 provides for the inclusion, and Art. 94
provides for exclusion. Taken together, it is clear that
monthly-paid employees are not excluded from payment of
holiday pay. An administrative interpretation which
diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute
delimits or withholds is ultra vires.
Page | 17
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
15.WELLINGTON
INVESTMENT
AND
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, UnderSecretary of Labor
and Employment, ELMER ABADILLA, and 34 others,
respondents.
Labor Law Wages Every worker should be paid his
regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail
and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
(10) workers. Every worker should, according to the Labor
Code, be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays,
except in retail and service establishments regularly
employing less than ten (10) workers; this, of course, even if
the worker does no work on these holidays. The regular
holidays include: New Years Day, Maundy Thursday, Good
Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June,
the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twentyfifth of
Page | 18
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Petitioners argument:
Petitioner asserts that Article 3(3) of Presidential
Decree No. 1083 provides that (t)he provisions of this Code
shall be applicable only to Muslims x x x. However, there
should be no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as
regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays.
Ruling:
Issue:
Issue:
Page | 19
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to
payment of their service incentive leave despite findings that
they are not entitled to minimum wage.
HELD:
CASE SUMMARY:
Labor Standards; Private respondents are not
entitled to service incentive leave pay and holiday pay because
as piece-rate workers they fall under the exceptions set forth
in the implementing rules.On the other hand, while private
respondents are entitled to Minimum Wage, COLA and 13th
Month Pay, they are not entitled to service incentive leave pay
because as piece-rate workers being paid at a fixed amount for
performing work irrespective of time consumed in the
performance thereof, they fall under one of the exceptions
stated in Section 1(d), Rule V, Implementing Regulations,
Book III, Labor Code. For the same reason private
respondents cannot also claim holiday pay (Section 1(e), Rule
IV, Implementing Regulations, Book III, Labor Code).
FACTS:
Respondents herein, have been working for petitioner
Makati Haberdashery, Inc. as tailors, seamstress, sewers,
basters (manlililip) and plantsadoras. They are paid on a
piece-rate basis except Maria Angeles and Leonila Serafina
who are paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piecerate, they are given a daily allowance of three (P3.00) pesos
provided they report for work before 9:30 a.m. everyday.
Respondents work from or before 9:30 a.m. up to
6:00 or 7:00 p.m. from Monday to Saturday and during peak
periods even on Sundays and holidays.
Consequently, the Sandigan ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, a labor organization of the respondent workers, filed
a complaint docketed as NLRC for underpayment of basic
wage, living allowance and non-payment of service incentive
and other benefits.
During the pendency of the case, private respondent
Dioscoro Pelobello left with Salvador Rivera, a salesman of
petitioner Haberdashery, an open package which was
discovered to contain a jusi barong tagalog. Pelobello
replied that the same was ordered by respondent Casimiro
Zapata for his customer. Zapata allegedly admitted that he
copied the design of petitioner Haberdashery. Both denied the
allegations and they were eventually dismissed.
The NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the
respondents and found Makati Haberdashery guilty of illegal
dismissal. The decision of the NLRC was affirmed on appeal,
but limited the backwages awarded the Dioscoro Pelobello
Page | 20
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
FACTS:
The 99 persons named as petitioners in this
proceeding were rank-and-file employees of respondent
Empire Food Products, which hired them on various dates.
Petitioners filed against private respondents a complaint for
payment of money claim[s] and for violation of labor
standard[s] laws with the Labor Arbiter. They also filed a
petition for direct certification of petitioner Labor Congress of
the Philippines as their bargaining representative.
On October 23, 1990, petitioners represented by LCP
President Benigno B. Navarro, Sr. and private respondents
Gonzalo Kehyeng and Evelyn Kehyeng in behalf of Empire
Food Products, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement which provided, among others, the following:
Status of LCP as sole and exclusive Bargaining
Agent and Representative for all rank and file
employees of the Empire Food Products regarding
"wages, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment";
With regard to the NLRC complaint, all parties
agree to resolve the issues during the Collective
Bargaining Agreement;
Page | 21
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
ISSUES:
1.
2.
HELD:
1.
Page | 22
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
2.
Page | 23
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 24
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Issue:
Whether or not Client is liable for the dismissal of the
complainants?
Held:
The Client did not, as it could not, illegally dismiss the
complainants. Thus, it should not be held liable for separation
pay and back wages. But even if the Client is not responsible
for the illegal dismissal of the complainants, it is jointly and
severally liable with the Agency for the complainants service
incentive leave pay. Notwithstanding the service contract
between client and the security agency, the two are solidarily
liable for the proper wages prescribed by the Labor Code
pursuant to Art. 106, 107, 109 under which the indirect
employer who is the client in the case at bar, is jointly and
severally liable with the contractor for the workers wages in
the same manner and extent that it is liable to its direct
employees. This liability of the Client covers the payment of
the service incentive leave pay of the complainants during the
time they were posted at the Cebu Branch of the Client. As
service had been rendered, the liability accrued, even if the
complainants were eventually transferred or reassigned. The
service incentive leave is expressly granted by Art. 95 and
under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Code, an unused service incentive leave is commutable to its
money equivalent as stated under Sec. 5 Treatment of
benefit.The service incentive leave shall be commutable to
its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the
year.
20. Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs. Bautista
G.R. No. 156367. May 16, 2005
Labor Law; Service Incentive Leave; Field Personnel; Words
and Phrases; The phrase other employees whose
performance is unsupervised by the employer in Section
1(D), Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code must
not be understood as a separate classification of employees to
which service incentive leave shall not be grantedrather, it
serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the
definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those
whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty; Employees engaged on task or
contract basis or paid on purely commission basis are not
automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive
leave, unless, they fall under the classification of field
personnel.A careful perusal of said provisions of law will
result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive
leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those
employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V.
According to the Implementing Rules, Service Incentive
Leave shall not apply to employees classified as field
personnel. The phrase other employees whose performance
is unsupervised by the employer must not be understood as a
separate classification of employees to which service incentive
leave shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification
of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under
the Labor Code as those whose actual hours of work in the
Page | 25
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Held:
A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result in the
conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has been
delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly
excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. According to the
Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply
to employees classified as field personnel. The phrase other
employees whose performance is unsupervised by the
employer must not be understood as a separate classification
of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be
granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the
interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the
Labor Code as those whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The same is true with respect to the phrase those who are
engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis.
Said phrase should be related with field personnel, applying
the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms
are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they
follow. Hence, employees engaged on task or contract basis or
paid on purely commission basis are not automatically
exempted from the grant of service incentive leave, unless,
they fall under the classification of field personnel. As such
petitioners contention that respondent is not entitled to the
grant of service incentive leave just because he was paid on
purely commission basis is misplaced and the CA correctly
ruled that respondent is a regular employee who performs
tasks usually and necessary and desirable to the usual trade of
petitioners business.
Article 291 of the Labor Code states that all money claims
arising from employer-employee relationship shall be filed
within three (3) years from the time the cause of action
accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred. It can be
conscientiously deduced that the cause of action of an entitled
employee to claim his service incentive leave pay accrues
from the moment the employer refuses to remunerate its
monetary equivalent if the employee did not make use of said
leave credits but instead chose to avail of its commutation.
Accordingly, if the employee wishes to accumulate his leave
credits and opts for its commutation upon his resignation or
separation from employment, his cause of action to claim the
whole amount of his accumulated service incentive leave shall
arise when the employer fails to pay such mount at the time of
his resignation or separation from employment.
Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this
peculiarity of the service incentive leave, we can conclude that
the three (3) year prescriptive period commences, not at the
end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the
commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time
when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after
demand of commutation or upon termination of the
employees services, as the case may be.
In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his service
incentive leave nor demanded for its commutation until his
employment was terminated by petitioner. Neither did
petitioner compensate his accumulated service incentive leave
pay at the time of his dismissal. It was only upon his filing of a
Page | 26
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
complaint for illegal dismissal, one month from the time of his
dismissal, that respondent demanded from his former
employer commutation of his accumulated leave credits. His
cause of action to claim the payment of his accumulated
service incentive leave thus accrued from the time when his
employer dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulated
leave credits.
Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for
service incentive leave pay only commenced from the time the
employer failed to compensate his accumulated service
incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. Since
respondent had filed his money claim after only one month
from the time of his dismissal, necessarily, his money claim
was filed within the prescriptive period provided for by Article
291 of the Labor Code.
21.
PHILIPPINE
FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, and ODIN SECURITY
AGENCY, as representative of its Security Guards,
respondents.
G.R. No. 94825. September 4, 1992
Labor Laws; Job contracting; National Labor Relations
Commission; Jurisdiction; Employer includes government-owned or controlled corporations.Notwithstanding that the
petitioner is a government agency, its liabilities, which are
joint and solidary with that of the contractor, are provided in
Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code. This places the
petitioners liabilities under the scope of the NLRC.
Moreover, Book Three, Title II on Wages specifically
provides that the term employer includes any person acting
directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation
to an employee and shall include the Government and all its
branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government
owned or controlled corporations and institutions as well as
nonprofit private institutions, or organizations (Art. 97 [b],
Labor Code) The NLRC, therefore, did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction to set aside the
Order of dismissal by the Labor Arbiter.
FACTS:
The petitioner is a government-owned or controlled
corporation created by P.D. No. 977. On November 11, 1985,
it entered into a contract with the Odin Security Agency for
security services of its Iloilo Fishing Port Complex in Iloilo
City. The Security Group of the AGENCY will be headed by a
detachment commander whose main function shall consist of
the administration and supervision control of the AGENCYs
personnel in the FISHING PORT COMPLEX. There shall be
one supervisor per shift who shall supervise the guards on
duty during a particular shift. The contract for security
services also provided for a one year renewable period unless
terminated by either of the parties. On October 24, 1987, and
during the effectivity of the said Security Agreement, the
private respondent requested the petitioner to adjust the
contract rate in view of the implementation of Wage Order
No. 6 which took effect on November 1, 1984 which states
that in the case of contracts for construction projects and for
security, janitorial and similar services, the increases in the
minimum wage and allowance rates of the workers shall be
Page | 27
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 28
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
HELD:
23.AKLAN
ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE
INCORPORATED (AKELCO), vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(Fourth
Division),
RODOLFO M. RETISO and 165 OTHERS
323 SCRA 259 (2000)
Page | 29
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Issue:
Whether or not public respondent NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or want of jurisdiction
when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter that private
respondents refused to work under the lawful orders of the
petitioner AKELCO management; hence they are covered by
the no work, no payprinciple and are thus not entitled to
the claim for unpaid wages.
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner was able to show that private respondents did
not render services during the stated period. Pieces of
evidence show that on January 22, 1992, their Board of
Directors passed a resolution ordering the temporary transfer
of their Office from Lezo, Aklan to Amon Theater, Kalibo,
Aklan on the ground that the office at Lezo was dangerous and
unsafe. NEA Administrator even requested for military
assistance for maintaining peace and order in the cooperatives
coverage area and in retrieving and transferring their
equipments from Lezo to Kalibo. This establishes the fact that
the continuous operation of the petitioners business office in
Lezo Aklan would pose a serious and imminent threat to
petitioners officials and other employees, hence the necessity
of temporarily transferring the operation of its business office
from Lezo to Kalibo. Thus private respondents allegations
that they continued to report for work at Lezo to support their
claim for wages has no basis.
The allegation of private respondents that petitioner had
already approved payment of their wages is also without basis.
The General Managers offer to recommend the payment of
private respondents wages is hardly approval of their claim
for wages. It is just an undertaking to recommend payment.
Moreover, the offer is conditional. It is subject to the condition
that petitioners Board of Directors will give its approval and
that funds were available. The General Managers reply to
Page | 30
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Ruling:
1. No. Constructive dismissal is defined as an
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a
diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to an employee.
Page | 31
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 32
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 33
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 34
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
OF
THE
Facts:
Petitioners (116) occupied the positions of Technical
Staff, Unit Manager, Section Manager, Department Manager,
Division Manager and Vice President in the mill site of
respondent Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines
(PICOP) in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. In 1992 PICOP suffered a
major financial setback brought about by the restrictive
government regulations on logging and the economic crisis.
To avert further losses, it retrenched and terminated the
services of petitioners. The petitioners received separation
pay of one (1) month basic pay for every year of service.
Believing
however
that
the
allowances
they
allegedly regularly received on a monthly basis during their
employment should have been included in the computation
thereof they filed a complaint for separation pay differentials.
The allowances in question 1. Staff/Manager's Allowance -Due to the shortage of
facilities, it granted Staff allowance to those who live in rented
houses outside. But the allowance ceases whenever a vacancy
occurs in the company's housing facilities since grantee is
directed to fill the vacancy.
2. Transportation Allowance - Granted to key officers and
Managers assigned in the mill site who use their own vehicles
in the performance of their duties. The recipients are
required to liquidate by submitting a report with a detailed
enumeration of expenses incurred.
3. Bislig Allowance -Given to Division Managers and
corporate officers assigned in Bislig on account of the hostile
environment prevailing therein. But once the recipient is
transferred elsewhere outside Bislig, the allowance ceases.
The labor arbiter ordered PICOP to pay petitioners
P4,481,000.00 representing separation pay differentials.
Applying Art.,97, par. (f), of the Labor Code which defines
wage," -the allowances, being customarily furnished by
respondent PICOP and regularly received by petitioners,
formed part of the latter's wages.
Issue:
Whether or not the above mentioned allowances be included
in the computation of their separation pay
Ruling:
No. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses, Art. 283 of the
Labor Code imposes on the employer an obligation to grant to
the affected employees separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year
of service, whichever is higher.
Meaning of PAY in Art. 97 and WAGE in Art. 283 generally
refer to one and the same meaning, i.e., a reward or
recompense for services performed. "Wage" is defined in
letter (f) as the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
Page | 35
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 36
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 37
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 38
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 39
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 40
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
on
its
part,
sufficient
in
itself
to
negate
any claim of mistake.
A company practice favorable to the employees had
indeed been established and the payments made pursuant
thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. And any
benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees
cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by
the employer, by virtue of Section 10 of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851, and Article 100 of
the Labor Code of the Philippines, which prohibit the
diminution or elimination by the employer of the employees
existing benefits.
Page | 41
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Wage
order
is
valid.
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General. It noted
Page | 42
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 43
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
PETITIONERS ARGUMENT:
The implementation of the wage orders resulted in
the discrepancy in the compensation of the employees of
similar pay claasification in different regions. Hence, the wage
orders increase the compensation of the employees in a given
region than their counters parts in the other regions.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT:
There exist no wage distortion since the distinction
between employee groups in a particular region are
maintained.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a wage distortion resulted from
respondents implementation of the aforecited Wage Orders.
RULING:
There exist no wage distortion. Wage distortion shall
mean a situation where an increase in prescribed wage results
in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional
quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and
among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure
based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of
differentiation.Wage distortion presupposes a classification
of positions and ranking of these positions at various levels.
One visualizes a hierarchy of positions with corresponding
ranks basically in terms of wages and other emoluments.
Where a significant change occurs at the lowest level
ofpositions in terms of basic wage without a corresponding
change in the other level in the hierarchy of positions,
negating as a result thereof the distinction between one level
of position from the next higher level, and resulting in a parity
between the lowest level and the next higher level or rank,
between new entrants and old hires, there exists a wage
distortion.
Wage distortion involves four elements: An existing
hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates,
significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class
without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher
one, elimination of the distinction between the two levels and
the existence of the distortion in the same region of the
country.
In the present case, it is clear that no wage distortion resulted
when respondent implemented the subject Wage Orders in the
covered branches. In the said branches, there was an increase
in the salary rates of all pay classes. Furthermore, the
hierarchy of positions based on skills, length of service and
other logical bases of differentiation was preserved. In other
words, the quantitative difference in compensation between
different pay classes remained the same in all branches in the
affected region.
Disparity in wagesbetween employees holding
similar positions but in different regions does not constitute
wage distortion as contemplated by law. As previously
enunciated, it is the hierarchy of positions and the disparity of
their corresponding wages and other emoluments that are
sought to be preserved by the concept of wage distortion. Put
Page | 44
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
38.BANKARD
EMPLOYEES
UNION-WORKERS
ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BANKARD,
INC., respondents.
423 SCRA 148 (2004)
Labor Law; Wage Distortion; In a problem dealing
with wage distortion, the basic assumption is that there
exists a grouping or classification of employees that
establishes distinctions among them on some relevant or
legitimate bases.
Same; Same; For purposes of determining the
existence of wage distortion, employees cannot create their
own independent classification and use it as a basis to demand
an across-the-board increase in salary.
Same; Same; The formulation of a wage structure
through the classification of employees is a matter of
management judgment and discretion.
FACTS:
Bankard Inc., classifies its employees to Level I to
Level V. The Board of Directors approved a new salary
schedule for purpose of making its hiring competitive in the
market. The new salary scale increase the compensation of
Level I and V employees by P1,000 and Level II to IV by 900.
Accordingly, the salaries of employees who fell below the
minimum rates were adjusted to reach such rates under their
levels. The move of Bankard preempt the Union to press for
the salary increased of the old and regular employees. Due to
the nature of the case and the probability of strike, the case
was certified by the Secretary of Labor for compulsary
arbitration.
PETITIONERS ARGUMENT:
Petitioner maintains that for purposes of wage distortion, the
classification is not one based on levels or ranks but on
two groups of employees, the newly hired and the old, in each
and every level, and not between and among the different
levels or ranks in the salary structure. Petitioner legally
obligate Bankard to correct the alleged wage distortion as
the increase in the wages and salaries of the newly-hired
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT:
Bankard took the position, however, that there was no wage
distortion and that there exost no obligation on the part of the
management to grant to all its employees the same increase in
an across-the-board manner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there exist a wage distortion and, if
any, may Bankard be compelled to grant all employees the
same increase to cure such distortion.
RULING:
There exist no wage distortion. Prubankers
Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Company laid down
Page | 45
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
EMPLOYER
AND
EMPLOYEE;
STEVEDORING;
CONTRACT TO PERFORM SERVICE BY A GROUP;
PAYMENT OF WAGES TO LEADER OF GROUP NOT A
VIOLATION OF DIRECT PAYMENT.The work of
stevedoring was undertaken by the laborers, not in their
individual capacities, but as a group. The contract to perform
the service was made by the leader of the group, for and in
behalf of the latter, not for each and every one of them
individually. As the group undertook to render service for
vessels other than those of the respondent company, it was
necessary that some sort of leadership be instituted in the
group to determine which of the members will work for one
vessel and which for another. Leadership is essential not only
to secure work for the group but to determine which laborers
are to perform the service. The leadership must be paid for
and it was not shown that the head of the groups got the lion's
share of the cost of the services rendered. Held: The provision
of law on direct payment of wages has not been violated. If
racketeering was employed by the leaders, the remedy can not
be found in this court; it is for the group to organize into a
closely knitted union which will secure the privileges that the
members desire thru the selection of officers among
themselves who would not exploit them.
FACTS: Petitioners instituted this action before the Court of
Industrial Relations on August 5, 1952, praying for, among
others, direct payment of wages to the laborers instead of
through the union. The court found that there was no reason
for changing the practice of apportioning the wages for their
joint labor and sharing therein, because of the 150 members
only 5 were dissatisfied.
Petitioners argue before us that the decision violates the law
on direct payment of wages. The law relied upon by them is
Section 10, par. (b) of Republic Act No. 602, which
provides as follows:
Page | 46
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
41.APODACA v NLRC
172 SCRA 442 (1989)
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed in respondent corporation. On
August 28, 1985, respondent Jose M. Mirasol persuaded
petitioner to subscribe to 1,500 shares of respondent
corporation at P100.00 per share or a total of P150,000.00. He
made an initial payment of P37,500.00. On September 1,
1975, petitioner was appointed President and General
Manager of the respondent corporation. However, on January
2, 1986, he resigned.
On December 19, 1986, petitioner instituted with the
NLRC a complaint against private respondents for the
payment of his unpaid wages, his cost of living allowance, the
balance of his gasoline and representation expenses and his
bonus compensation for 1986. Petitioner and private
respondents submitted their position papers to the labor
arbiter.
Private respondents admitted that there is due to
petitioner the amount of P17,060.07 but this was applied to the
unpaid balance of his subscription in the amount of
P95,439.93.
Petitioner questioned the set-off alleging that there
was no call or notice for the payment of the unpaid
subscription and that, accordingly, the alleged obligation is not
enforceable.
In a decision dated April 28, 1987, the labor arbiter
sustained the claim of petitioner for P17,060.07 on the ground
that the employer has no right to withhold payment of wages
already earned under Article 103 of the Labor Code. Upon the
appeal of the private respondents to public respondent NLRC,
the decision of the labor arbiter was reversed in a decision
dated September 18, 1987. The NLRC held that a stockholder
who fails to pay his unpaid subscription on call becomes a
debtor of the corporation and that the set-off of said obligation
against the wages and others due to petitioner is not contrary
to law, morals and public policy.
ISSUE:
WON The NLRC has jurisdiction to determine such
intra-corporate dispute between stockholder and corporation.
WON Employer has no right to withhold payment of
wages already earned.
RESOLUTION:
Firstly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to determine
such intra-corporate dispute between the stockholder and the
corporation as in the matter of unpaid subscriptions. This
controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Secondly, assuming arguendo that the NLRC may
exercise jurisdiction over the said subject matter under the
circumstances of this case, the unpaid subscriptions are not
due and payable until a call is made by the corporation for
payment. Private respondents have not presented a resolution
of the board of directors of respondent corporation calling for
the payment of the unpaid subscriptions. It does not even
appear that a notice of such call has been sent to petitioner by
the respondent corporation.
What the records show is that the respondent
corporation deducted the amount due to petitioner from the
amount receivable from him for the unpaid subscriptions. No
doubt such set-off was without lawful basis, if not premature.
As there was no notice or call for the payment of unpaid
subscriptions, the same is not yet due and payable.
Lastly, assuming further that there was a call for
payment of the unpaid subscription, the NLRC cannot validly
set it off against the wages and other benefits due petitioner.
Article 113 of the Labor Code allows such a deduction from
the wages of the employees by the employer, only in three
instances, to wit:
ART. 113. Wage Deduction. No employer, in his own
behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction
from the wages of his employees, except:
(a) In cases where the worker is insured with his
consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense
the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the
insurance;
(b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the
worker or his union to checkoff has been recognized by the
employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker
concerned; and
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law
or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
The petition is GRANTED and the questioned
decision of the NLRC dated September 18, 1987 is hereby set
aside and another judgment is hereby rendered ordering
private respondents to pay petitioner the amount of
P17,060.07 plus legal interest computed from the time of the
Page | 47
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 48
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 49
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
The position of the petitioners that the refund of the cash bond
filed by the private respondents is improper inasmuch as the
proceeds of the same had already been given to a certain
carinderia to pay for the outstanding accounts of the private
respondents therein.
Facts:
Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon
were hired by the petitioners as taxi drivers and,
as such, they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24hour shifting
schedule. Aside from the daily boundary of P700.00 for
airconditioned taxi or P450.00 for nonairconditioned taxi, they
were also required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to
further make a P15.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in
their boundary, for every actual working
day. In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an
extra driver by the petitioners, he already failed to report
for work for unknown reasons. Later, petitioners learned that
he was working for Mine of Gold Taxi Company. With
respect to Sabsalon, while driving a taxicab of petitioners on
September 6, 1983, he was held up by his armed passenger
who took all his money and thereafter stabbed him. He was
hospitalized and after his discharge,
he went to his home province to recuperate. In January, 1987,
Sabsalon was readmitted By petitioners as a taxi driver under
the same terms and conditions as when he was first employed,
but his working schedule was made on an alternative basis,
that is, he drove only every other day. However, on several
occasions, he failed to report for work during his schedule. On
September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to remit his boundary
of P700.00 for the previous day. Also, he abandoned his
taxicab in Makati without fuel refill worth P300.00. Despite
repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for work, he
adamantly refused. Afterwards it was revealed that he was
driving a taxi for Bulaklak Company. Sometime in 1989,
Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his
daily cash deposits for 2 years, but herein petitioners told him
that not a single centavo was left of his deposits as these were
not even enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs of
the taxi he was driving. This was allegedly the practice
adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the
repair of their taxicab units. When Maldigan insisted on the
refund of his deposit, petitioners terminated his services.
Sabsalon, on his part, claimed that his termination from
employment was effected when he refused to pay for the
washing of his taxi seat covers. Private respondents filed for
illegal dismissal and illegal deductions with the Manila
Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
Doctrine:
Labor Code; Article 114; Deposits; The P15.00 daily deposits
to defray shortage in boundary is violative of Article 114 of
Page | 50
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Facts:
Sometime in January of 1983, complaints for nonpayment of emergency cost of living allowances were filed by
46 workers, Tosoc, et als., against SOUTH MOTORISTS
before the Naga City District Office of Regional Office No. 5
of the then Ministry of Labor. On 10 January 1983 a Special
Order was issued by the District Labor Officer directing its
Labor Regulation Officers to conduct an inspection and
verification of SOUTH MOTORISTS' employment records.
On the date of the inspection and verification,
SOUTH MOTORISTS was unable to present its employment
records on the allegation that they had been sent to the main
office in Manila. The case was then set for conference on 25
January 1983 but had to be reset to 8 February 1983 upon the
request of SOUTH MOTORISTS to enable it to present all the
employment records on such date. However, on 7 February
1983 SOUTH MOTORISTS asked for another deferment to
16 February 1983 due to its lawyer's tight schedule. On 16
February 1983, SOUTH MOTORISTS again requested for a
resetting to 3 March 1983 because of the alleged voluminous
records it had to locate and its desire to submit a memorandum
regarding complainants' claims. On 2 March 1983, SOUTH
MOTORISTS once again requested an extension of 30 days
on the ground that the documents were still being prepared
and collated and that a formal manifestation or motion would
follow. Nothing did.
On 7 March 1983, the assigned Labor Regulation
Officers submitted an Inspection Report on the basis of which
an Order dated 14 April 1983 was issued by Labor Officer
Domingo Reyes directing SOUTH MOTORISTS to pay
Tosoc, et als., the total amount of One Hundred Eighty Four
Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Nine and 12/100 Pesos
(P184,689.12) representing the latter's corresponding
emergency cost of living allowances.
SOUTH MOTORISTS moved for reconsideration of
the Order, which was denied. On 11 July 1988, the Secretary
of Labor and Employment affirmed the appealed Order. On 28
July 1988, SOUTH MOTORISTS moved for reconsideration
but this proved unsuccessful. A Second Motion for
Reconsideration was filed, which was likewise denied in an
Order dated 7 March 1989.
ISSUE: Wether or not the award for money claims given by
the Secretary of Labor to the employees is valid?
Page | 51
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
CASE SUMMARY:
The legislature intended the exemption in Article
1708 of the New Civil Code to operate in favor of any but
those who are laboring men or women in the sense that their
work is manual. Persons belonging to this class usually look to
the reward of a day's labor for immediate or present support,
and such person are more in need of the exemption than any
others. Petitioner Rosario A. Gaa is definitely not within that
class.
Article 1708 used the word "wages" and not "salary" in
relation to "laborer" when it declared what are to be exempted
from attachment and execution. The term "wages" as
distinguished from "salary", applies to the compensation for
manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and
measured by the day, week, month, or season, while "salary"
denotes a higher degree of employment, or a superior grade of
services, and implies a position of office: by contrast, the term
"wages" indicates considerable pay for a lower and less
responsible character of employment, while "salary" is
suggestive of a larger and more important service (35 Am. Jur.
496).
FACTS:
Respondent Europhil Industries Corporation was
formerly one of the tenants in Trinity Building at T.M. Kalaw
Street, Manila, while petitioner Rosario A. Gaa was then the
building administrator. On December 12, 1973, Europhil
Industries commenced an action (Civil Case No. 92744) in the
Court of First Instance of Manila for damages against
petitioner "for having perpetrated certain acts that Europhil
Industries considered a trespass upon its rights, namely,
cutting of its electricity, and removing its name from the
building directory and gate passes of its officials and
employees" (p. 87, Rollo). On June 28, 1974, said court
rendered judgment in favor of respondent Europhil Industries,
ordering petitioner to pay the former the sum of P10,000.00 as
actual damages, P5,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as
exemplary damages and to pay the costs. The said decision
RULING:
NO. Article 1708 used the word "wages" and not
"salary" in relation to "laborer" when it declared what are to
be exempted from attachment and execution. The term
"wages" as distinguished from "salary", applies to the
compensation for manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at
stated times, and measured by the day, week, month, or
season, while "salary" denotes a higher degree of employment,
or a superior grade of services, and implies a position of
office: by contrast, the term "wages" indicates considerable
pay for a lower and less responsible character of employment,
while "salary" is suggestive of a larger and more important
service (35 Am. Jur. 496). The distinction between wages and
salary was adverted to in Bell vs. Indian Livestock Co. (Tex.
Sup.), 11 S.W. 344, wherein it was said: " 'Wages' are the
compensation given to a hired person for service, and the same
is true of 'salary'. The words seem to be synonymous,
convertible terms, though we believe that use and general
acceptation have given to the word 'salary' a significance
somewhat different from the word 'wages' in this: that the
former is understood to relate to position of office, to be the
compensation given for official or other service, as
distinguished from 'wages', the compensation for labor."
Annotation 102 Am. St. Rep. 81, 95. We do not think that the
legislature intended the exemption in Article 1708 of the New
Civil Code to operate in favor of any but those who are
laboring men or women in the sense that their work is manual.
Persons belonging to this class usually look to the reward of a
day's labor for immediate or present support, and such persons
are more in need of the exemption than any others. Petitioner
Rosario A. Gaa is definitely not within that class.
Page | 52
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 53
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 54
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 55
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 56
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 57
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 58
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 59
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
month pay and service incentive leave pay, and separation pay
in the event that they are not reinstated. It is alleged in the
Complaint and Position Paper accompanying the same that
they were dismissed from the firm for pursuing union
activities.
Petitioners argument:
The petitioners alleged in their Position Paper that the private
respondents were not dismissed from the firm on account of
their union activities. They maintained that the private
respondents abandoned their work without informing the
company about their reasons for doing so and that,
accordingly, the private respondents are not entitled to service
incentive leave pay and separation pay.
The petitioners added that the refund of the cash bond filed by
the private respondents should not have been ordered by the
labor arbiter inasmuch as the proceeds of the same had already
been given by the company to a certain carinderia 5 to pay for
the outstanding accounts of the private respondents therein.
Issue:
WoN the respondents are entitled to refund of cash bond
Held:
The refund of the cash bond filed by the private respondents is
in order. Article 114 of the Labor Code prohibits an employer
from requiting his employees to file a cash bond or to make
deposits, subject to certain exceptions, to witArt. 114. Deposits for loss or damage.- No employer shall
require his worker to make deposits from which deductions
shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to
tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer,
except when the employer is engaged in such trades,
occupations or business where the practice of making
deductions or requiring deposits is a recognized one, or is
necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of
Labor in appropriate rules and regulations.
The petitioners have not satisfactorily disputed the
applicability of this provision of the Labor Code to the case at
bar. Considering further that the petitioners failed to show that
the company is authorized by law to require the private
respondents to file the cash bond in question, the refund
thereof is in order.
The allegation of the petitioners to the effect that the proceeds
of the cash bond had already been given to a certain
carinderia to pay for the accounts of the private respondents
therein does not merit serious consideration. As correctly
observed by the Solicitor General, no evidence or receipt has
been shown to prove such payment.
53. ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
ALBERTO YU and ADRIAN YU, petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
GERONIMO MANUEL, ARNULFO DIAZ, JAIME
CARUNUNGAN and BENJAMIN RINDON, respondents.
G.R. No. 107225. June 2, 1995
Page | 60
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
ISSUES:
1.
2.
HELD:
1.
2.
Page | 61
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 62
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
items of compensation not included in the computation of13month pay. (overtime pay, earnings and other remunerations
which are not part of basic salary shall not be included in the
computation of 13th month pay). Pres. Corazon Aquino
promulgated on August 13, 1985 M.O.No. 28, containing a
single provision that modifies P.D. 851 by removing the salary
ceiling of P1,000.00 a month. More than a year later, Revised
Guidelines on the Implementation of the13-month pay law
was promulgated by the then Labor Secretary Drilon, among
other
things,
defined
particularly
what
remunerative items were and were not included in the concept
of 13-month pay, and specifically dealt with employees who
are paid a fixed or guaranteed wage plus commission or
commissions were included in the computation of 13thmonth
pay)
A routine inspection was conducted in the premises o
f petitioner. Finding thatpetitioner had not been including the
commissions earned by its medical representatives in the
computation of their 1-month pay, a Notice of Inspection
Result was served on petitioner to effect restitution or
correction of the underpayment of 13-month pay for the
years, 1986 to1988 of Medical representatives. Petitioner
wrote the Labor Department contesting the Notice
of Inspection
Results,
and expressing the view that the commission paid to its medic
alrepresentatives are not to be included in the computation of
the 13th month pay since the law and its implementing rules
speak of REGULAR or BASIC salary and therefore exclude
all remunerations which are not part of the REGULAR salary.
Regional Dir. Luna Piezas issued an order for the payment of
underpaid 13-month pay for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.
Amotion for reconsideration was filed and the then Acting
labor Secretary Dionisio de la Sema affirmed
affirmed the order with modification that the sales commission
earned of medicalrepresentatives before August 13, 1989 (eff
ectivity date of MO 28 and its implementingguidelines) shall
be excluded in the computation of the 13-month pay.
(G.R. No. 102552) Similar routine inspection was
conducted in the premises of Phil. Fuji Xerox where it was
found there was underpayment of 13th month pay since
commissions were not included. In their almost identicallyworded petitioner, petitioners, through common counsel,
attribute grave abuse of discretion to respondent labor officials
Hon. Dionisio dela Serna and Undersecretary Cresenciano B.
Trajano
.
ISSUE:
Whether or not commissions are included in the
computation of 13th month pay.
FACTS:
(G.R. No. 92174) P.D. No. 851 provides for the
Thirteen-Month Pay Law. Under Sec. 1 of said law, all
employers are required to pay all their employees receiving
basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, regardless of
the nature of the employment, and such should be paid on
December 24 of every year. The Rules and Regulations
Implementing P.D. 851 contained provisions defining 13month pay and basic salary and the employers exempted
from giving it and to whom it is made applicable.
Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. 851
were subsequently issued by Minister Ople which inter alia set
HELD:
NO. Contrary to respondents contention,
Memorandum Order No. 28 did not repeal, supersede or
abrogate P.D. 851. As may be gleaned from the language of
Memorandum Order No. 28, it merely modified Section 1 of
the decree by removing the P1,000.00 salary ceiling. The
concept of 13th Month Pay as envisioned, defined and
implemented under P.D. 851 remained unaltered, and while
entitlement to said benefit was no longer limited to employees
receiving a monthly basic salary of not more than P1,000.00,
said benefit was, and still is, to be computed on the basic
Page | 63
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 64
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 65
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 66
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Issue:
Whether or not Framanlis Farm is required to pay 13th month
pay despite the fact that they had substantially complied with
the requirement by extending yearly bonuses and other
benefits in kind and in cash to the complainants, pursuant to
Section 3(c) of PD 851 which exempts the employer from
paying 13th month pay when its equivalent has already been
given;
Ruling:
Petitioners admitted that they failed to pay their workers 13th
month pay in 1978 and 1979. However, they argued that they
substantially complied with the law by giving their workers a
yearly bonus and other non-monetary benefits amounting to
not less than 1/12th of their basic salary, in the form of:
1. a weekly subsidy of choice pork meat for only P9.00 per
kilo and later increased to P11 per kilo in March 1980, instead
of the market price of P10 to P15 per kilo;
2. free choice pork meat in May and December of every year;
and
3. free light or electricity.
4. all of which were allegedly "the equivalent" of the 13th
month pay.
Unfortunately, under Section 3 of PD No. 851, such benefits
in the form of food or free electricity, assuming they were
given, were not a proper substitute for the 13th month pay
required by law. PD 851 provides:
Section 3. Employees covered The Decree shall apply to all
employees except to:
x x x. x x x x x x
The term 'its equivalent' as used in paragraph (c) hereof shall
include Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, profit-sharing
payments and other cash bonuses amounting to not less than
1/12 of the basic salary but shall not include cash and stock
dividends, cost of living allowances and all other allowances
regularly enjoyed by the employee, as well as non-monetary
benefits.
Where an employer pays less than 1/12 of the employee's
basic salary, the employer shall pay the difference."
Neither may year-end rewards for loyalty and service be
considered in lieu of 13th month pay. Section 10 of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851
provides:
Section 10. Prohibition against reduction or elimination of
benefits-Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize any
employer to eliminate, or diminish in any way, supplements,
or other employee benefits or favorable practice being enjoyed
by the employee at the time of promulgation of this issuance."
The failure of the Minister's decision to identify the pakyaw
and non-pakyaw workers does not render said decision
invalid. The workers may be identified or determined in the
proceedings for execution of the judgment.
Page | 67
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 68
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 69
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 70
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
64.
PHILIPPINE
APPLIANCE
CORPORATION
(PHILACOR), petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA and UNITED
PHILACOR WORKERS UNIONNAFLU, respondents.
G.R. 149434. June 3, 2004.*
Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreements; Signing
Bonus; The signing bonus is a grant motivated by the goodwill
generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated and signed
between the employer and the union.In the case of
MERALCO v. The Honorable Secretary of Labor, we stated
that the signing bonus is a grant motivated by the goodwill
Page | 71
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
Page | 72
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera
considering that the same was given only once, that is, during
the 1997 CBA negotiation.
Page | 73
Gloria//Ramirez//Bernardo//DeMesa//Figueroa//Villardo//Queano//Aonuevo//Cureg//Maramag//Pagarigan//Castillo//Tamaca//Corre/
/Clemente//Violago//Del Pilar//Agutaya//Dimer//Morales//Coronel//Lumabas//Rivera