You are on page 1of 5

MABEZA V NLRC

HELD:
PETITIONER: Norma Mabeza o YES.
RESPONDENTS: NLRC o Note: Unfair labor practice on the part of
Peter Ng the employer is alleged WON the employer
Hotel Supreme has exerted pressure, in the form of
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. 118506 restraint, interference or coercion, against
PROMUL. DATE: April 18, 1997 his employees right to institute concerted
PONENTE: Kapunan, J. action for better terms and conditions of
employment.
FACTS o The act of compelling employees to sign an
Norma Mabeza contends that around 1st week of instrument indicating that the employer
May 1991, she and her co-employees at the HOTEL observed labor standards provisions of law
SUPREME in Baguio City were asked by the mgmt to WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE NOT, together with
sign an instrument attesting to the hotels compliance the act of terminating or coercing those who
with minimum wage and other labor standard refuse to cooperate with the employers
provisions of law. scheme CONSTITUES UNFAIR LABOR
Norma signed the affidavit but refused to the OCP to PRACTICE.
swear to its veracity. Said affidavit was nevertheless o The LAs contention that the reason for the
submitted on the same day to the Regional Office of monetary benefits received by the petitioner
the DOLE in Baguio. b/w 1981-1987 were less than the minimum
Normas further allegations: wage was because petitioner did not factor in
o When she refused to proceed to the OCP, she meals, lodging, electric consumption, and
was ordered by the hotel mgmt to turn over water she received during the period of
the keys to her living quarters and to remove computations. Such facilities could not be
her belongings from the hotel premises. deducted without the employer complying
(Mgmt strongly scolded her re: her refusal to first with certain legal requirements.
go to the OCP.) o Private respondent failed to present any
o So she reluctantly filed a LOA from her job, company policy to show that the meal and
which was denied by the mgmt. lodging were part of the salary.
May 10, 1991 she attempted to return to work, o It is therefore evident that petitioner is entitled
Margarita Choy (hotel cashier) informed her that she to the payment of deficiency of her wages
should not report to work and just continue with her equivalent to the full wage applicable from
unofficial LOA. May 13, 1988 up to the date of her illegal
May 13, 1991 Norma filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
dismissal before Arbitration branch of NLRC CAR o Additionally, petitioner is entitled to payment of
Baguio City. SIL pay, emergency cost of living
o Underpayment of wages allowance, NSD pay, and 13th month pay for
o Non-payment of holiday pay, SIL, 13th month, the periods alleged by the petitioner as the
NSD, and other benefits. private respondent has never been able to
adduce proof that petitioner was paid the
Respondent Peter Ngs allegations, in response to aforestated benefits.
o However, the Court DEPARTS from the settled
Normas complaint:
o Norma surreptitiously left her job without rule that an employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work normally should be
notice to the management, and that she
reinstated without loss of seniority rights and
actually abandoned her work.
other privileges. Owing to the strained
o There was no basis for the money claims for
relations between petitioner and private
underpayment and other benefits as these
respondent, allowing the former to return to
were paid in the form of facilities to petitioner
her job would only subject her to possible
and the hotels other employees.
harassment and future embarrassment.
o He submitted a supplemental answer 11
Separation pay equivalent to one months
months after the original complaint for illegal salary for every year of continuous service
dismissal was filed. There, he raised a new with the private respondent would be
ground, loss of confidence, which was proper, starting with her job at Belfront
supported by a criminal complaint for Qualified Hotel.
Theft he filed before OCP Baguio on July 4, o In addition to separation pay, backwages are
1991.
in order. Petitioner is entitled to full
backwages from the time of her illegal
LABOR ARBITER FELIPE PATIS DECISION: May dismissal up to the date of the
14, 1993 promulgation of this decision without
o Dismissed the petitioners complaint for illegal qualification or deduction.
dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence. o The dismissal of petitioner without the benefit
o Basis was the criminal complaint of QT filed by of notice (re: the complaint of qualified theft)
Peter Ng against Norma. and hearing prior to her termination violated
her constitutional right to due process. Under
NLRC DECISION: April 28, 1994 the circumstances, an award of PhP1,000.00
o Affirmed the LA decision, dismissing the on top of payment of the deficiency in wages
petition. and benefits for the period aforestated would
be proper.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal by the private respondent o The Resolution of the NLRC dtd April 24, 1994
(Peter Ng) of the petitioner (Norma Mabeza) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, with costs.
constitutes an unfair labor practice
8. Our Haus filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
propounding a new theory that there is a distinction
between deduction and charging
- a written authorization is necessary only if the
OUR HAUS REALTY v. PARIAN facility's value will be deducted from the wage
Petitioner: Our Haus Realty Development Corporation - it should not be needed if it will merely be
Respondent: Alexander Parian, charged or included in the computation of wages
Jay C. Erinco, - CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the
Alexander Canlas, NLRC's rulings in toto, finding that there is no distinction
Bernard Tenedero, and between deduction and charging and that the legal
Jerry Sabulao requirements before any deduction or charging can be
Citation: G.R. No. 204651 made, apply to both
Date of Promulgation: August 6, 2014
Ponente: Brion, J. ISSUE
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of
FACTS discretion in its decision favoring the laborers.
1. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation is a
company engaged in the construction business where HELD
respondents are employed at. The SC denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of
2. The respondents' respective employment records and the CA. The NLRC did not abuse its discretion in its
daily wage rates from 2007-2010 are as follows: Decision.

3. In May 2010, the company experienced financial Our Haus explains that in deduction, the amount of the
distress and suspended its construction projects and wage (which may already be below the minimum) would
asked its affected workers, including respondents, to take still be lessened by the facilitys value, thus needing the
vacation leaves. employees consent. On the other hand, in charging, there
4. When the respondents were asked to report back to is no reduction of the employees wage since the facilitys
work, instead of doing so they filed with the Labor Arbiter a value will just be theoretically added to the wage for
complaint for underpayment of their daily wages. purposes of complying with the minimum wage
- except for Tenedero, their wages were below the requirement
minimum rates prescribed in the following wage orders - No substantial distinction between deducting and
from 2007 to 2010. charging a facility's value from the employee's wage; the
- Wage Order No. NCR-13 (August 28, 2007 - legal requirements for creditability apply to both.
June 13, 2008): P362.00 daily minimum wage for non-
agriculture sector The requirements for creditability set by law to apply
- Wage Order No. NCR-14 (June 14, 2008 - June are:
30, 2010): P382.00 daily minimum wage for non- a. proof must be shown that such facilities are
agriculture sector customarily furnished by the trade;
- they also alleged that petitioner failed to pay b. the provision of deductible facilities must be
them their holiday, service incentive leave, 13th month and voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and
overtime pays c. the facilities must be charges at a fair and
5. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner. reasonable value
- petitioner claimed that the respondents' wages
complied with the laws minimum requirement because Our The Purpose Test
Haus: Under the law, only the value of the facilities may be
a. subsidized their meals deducted from the employee's wages but not the value of
b. gave them free lodging supplements.
- in determining the total amount of the - facilities include articles or services for the
respondents' daily wages, the value of these benefits benefit of the employee or his family
should be considered in line with Article 97(f) of the Labor - supplements are paid to employees on top of
Code their basic pay (may not be included in the determination
- respondents contended that the value of their of wage compliance)
meals should not be considered in determining their
wages' total amount since the requirements set under The Court made a distinction between "facilities" and
Section 413 of DOLE Memorandum Circular No. 215 were "supplements". It is of the view that the food and lodging
not complied with were not facilities but supplements.
6. The NLRC reversed the decision in favor of the
respondents. In Atok-Big Wedge Assn. v. Atok-Big Wedge Co., it was
- the laborers did not authorize Our Haus in writing held that "Supplements", therefore, constitute extra
to charge the values of their board and lodging to their remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to
wages or received by the laborers over and above their
- the laborers are entitled to their 13th month ordinary earnings or wages.
payments for 2010 and SIL payments for at least 3 years "Facilities", on the other hand, are items of expense
- maintained the Labor Arbiter's decision that necessary for the laborer's and his family's existence
laborers are not entitled to overtime pay since the exact and subsistence so that by express provision of law
dates and times when they rendered overtime work had (Sec. 2[g]), they form part of the wage and when
not been proven furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom,
7. Our Haus moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC's since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend
Decision and submitted new evidence (the five and pay for them just the same.
kasunduans) to show that the respondents authorized Our
Haus in writing to charge the values their meals and The Court concluded, under the purpose test, that the
lodging to their wages. subsidized meals and free lodging provided by Our Haus
- NLRC denied this motion. are supplements.
- Our Haus is engaged in the construction
business, a labor-intensive enterprise. The success of its
projects is largely a function of the physical strength, cessation of employment for more than six months was
vitality and efficiency of its laborers. Its business will be patent and the employer has the burden of proving that the
jeopardized if its workers are weak, sickly, and lack the termination was for a just or authorized cause. Even
required energy to perform strenuous physical activities. assuming arguendo that the cessation of employment on
Thus, by ensuring that the workers are adequately and April 1997 was merely temporary, it became dismissal by
well fed, the employer is actually investing on its operation of law when petitioners failed to reinstate
business. respondents after the lapse of six (6) months. In their
position paper, they made no mention of any intent to
recall these respondents to work upon completion of the
MAYON HOTEL V ADANA new premises. If it were true that the lay-off was
G.R. No. 157634. May 16, 2005 temporary, but then serious business losses allegedly
Ponente: Puno, J. caused by respondents prevented their reinstatement,
then petitioners should have complied with the
FACTS: Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant is a requirements of written notice. And even assuming that
single proprietor business registered in the name of the closure was due to a reason beyond the control of the
petitioner Pacita O. Po, whose mother, petitioner Josefa Po employer, it still has to accord its employees some relief in
Lam, manages the establishment. There were 16 the form of severance pay.
employees. Hotel operations of the business were MONEY CLAIMS (for computation of award):
suspended on March 31, 1997 due to the expiration and Petitioners claim that the cost of the food and snacks
non-renewal of the lease contract for the rented space provided to respondents as facilities should have been
occupied by the said hotel. The operation of the restaurant included in reckoning the payment of respondents
was continued in its new location at Elizondo wages. Respondents testified that they were required to
Street, Legazpi City, while waiting for the construction of a eat in the hotel and restaurant so that they will not go
new Mayon Hotel & Restaurant at Pearanda home and there is no interruption in the service. As ruled
Street, Legazpi City. Only 9 of the 16 employees continued in Mabeza, food or snacks or other convenience
working in the Mayon Restaurant at its new site. provided by the employers are deemed as
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of labor. NLRC supplements if they are granted for the convenience of
reversed the decisin. Ca upheld LA decisin to provide the employer. The criterion in making a distinction
separation pay, retirement benefits and damages. between a supplement and a facility does not so much lie
in the kind (food, lodging) but the purpose.
ISSUES: We also do not agree with petitioners that the 5% of the
1. WON petitioners sufficiently proved gross income of the establishment can be considered as
Pacita Pos ownership of the business part of the respondents wages. How can the amounts
received by respondents be considered as profit share
2. WON there was ilegal dismissal when it is based on the gross receipt of the hotel? Profits
are realized after expenses are deducted from the gross
income.
RULING: 1. NO. Petitioner Josefa Po Lam is, Petition is denied. LA decision upheld with modification. LA
in fact, the owner of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant. The is ordered to recompute monetary claims.
records of the case belie petitioner Josefa Po Lams claim
that she is merely an overseer. While several documentary
evidences were submitted by Josefa where Pacita was
named as owner of the hotel and restaurant there were
also documentary evidences that were submitted by
Josefa showing her ownership of said enterprise. Josefa
was requested to produce evidence contrary to her
ownership nut none was produced. The labor arbiter relied
also on the testimonies of the witnesses. When the
conclusions of the labor arbiter are sufficiently
corroborated by evidence on record, the same should be
respected by appellate tribunals, since he is in a better
position to assess and evaluate the credibility of the
contending parties.

2. YES. The records are unequivocal that since April


1997, when petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant
suspended its hotel operations and transferred its
restaurant operations in Elizondo Street, respondents have
not been permitted to work for petitioners. Respondent
Alamares, on the other hand, was also laid-off when
the Elizondo Street operations closed, as were all the
other respondents. Since then, respondents have not
been permitted to work nor recalled, even after the
construction of the new premises at Pearanda Street and
the reopening of the hotel operations with the restaurant in
this new site.
Article 286 of the Labor Code is clear there is
termination of employment when an otherwise bona
fide suspension of work exceeds six (6) months. The
Camarin project was not completed on the
scheduled date of completion because of the
delay in the delivery of materials. Faced with
economic problems, Lagon was constrained to cut
down the overtime work of its workers, including
private respondents.
Respondents were prompted to leave work when
they were not allowed to do overtime work
March 3, 2000 respondents filed a complaint for
SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES v. NLRC illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, holiday
pay, 13th month pay for 1997 and 1998 and
PETITIONER: SLL International Cables Specialist and service incentive leave pay as well as damages
Sonny L. Lagon and attorneys fees
RESPONDENTS: National Labor Relations
Commission, 4th Division, Roldan PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:
Lopez, Edgardo Zuiga and
Danilo Caete Respondents were only project employees, for
DATE: March 2, 2011
their services were merely engaged for a specific
PONENTE: J. Mendoza
project or undertaking and the same were covered
by contracts duly signed by private respondents
FACTS: food allowance of P63.00 per day as well as
private respondents allowance for lodging house,
Petition for review on certiorari
transportation, electricity, water and snacks
1996 to January 1997 private respondents
allowance should be added to their basic pay
Lopez and Caete, and Zuiga respectively, were
private respondents received higher wage rate
hired by petitioner Lagon as apprentice or trainee
than that prescribed in Rizal and Manila
cable/lineman
since the workplaces of private respondents were
Paid the full minimum wage and other benefits
all in Manila, the complaint should be filed there
They did not report for work regularly but came in
The value of the facilities that the private
as substitutes to the regular workers or in
respondents enjoyed should be included in the
undertakings that needed extra workers to
computation of the "wages" received by them; the
expedite completion of work
lack of written acceptance of the employees of the
After their training, they were engaged as project
facilities enjoyed by them should not mean that the
employees by the petitioners in their Islacom
value of the facilities could not be included in the
project in Bohol
computation of the private respondents "wages."
March 15, 1997 to December 1997 worked as
project employees ISSUE/S:
Upon the completion of their project, their
employment was also terminated. WON the value of the facilities should be included
They received the amount of P145.00, the in the computation of the "wages"
minimum prescribed daily wage for Region VII. In
July 1997, the amount of P145 was increased to LABOR ARBITER DECISION (January 18, 2001)
P150.00 by the Regional Wage Board (RWB) and LA had jurisdiction to hear and decide the
in October of the same year, the latter was complaint filed by private respondents because
increased to P155.00 the "workplace," as defined in the said rule,
March 1998 were engaged again by Lagon as
included the place where the employee was
project employees for its PLDT Antipolo, Rizal supposed to report back after a temporary detail,
project assignment or travel
September 1998 project ended, Caete, and Private respondents were regular employees
Zuigas employment were terminated because they were repeatedly hired by petitioners
Zuiga and Caete received only the wage of
and they performed activities which were usual,
P145.00 daily. The minimum prescribed wage for necessary and desirable in the business or trade
Rizal at that time was P160.00 of the employer
November 1998 private respondents re-applied Private respondents were underpaid; free board
in the Racitelcom project of Lagon in Bulacan. and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by
Zuiga and Caete were re-employed. Lopez was them could not be included in the computation of
also hired for the said specific project. private their wages because these were given without
respondents received the wage of P145.00 their written consent.
May 21, 1999 respondents worked again with Petitioners were not liable for illegal dismissal.
Lagons project in Camarin, Caloocan Private respondents act of going home as an act
May 21 to December 1999 private respondents
of indifference when petitioners decided to prohibit
received the wage of P145.00. At this time, the overtime work
minimum prescribed rate for Manila was P198.00.
January to February 28 they received the wage NLRC DECISION: (March 31, 2004)
of P165.00. The existing rate at that time was
P213.00. Affirmed LAs decision
Found the petitioners, SLL International Cables received by private respondents, Section 1 of
Specialist (SLL) and its manager, Sonny L. Lagon DOLE Memorandum Circular No. 2 provides that
(petitioners), not liable for the illegal dismissal of an employer may provide subsidized meals
Roldan Lopez, Danilo Caete and Edgardo Zuiga and snacks to his employees provided that the
(private respondents) but held them jointly and subsidy shall not be less that 30% of the fair
severally liable for payment of certain monetary and reasonable value of such facilities. In such
claims to said respondents. cases, the employer may deduct from the wages
of the employees not more than 70% of the value
CA DECISION: (January 11, 2006) of the meals and snacks enjoyed by the latter,
provided that such deduction is with the written
Affirmed NLRCs Decision
authorization of the employees concerned.
The failure of petitioners to comply with the simple
Before the value of facilities can be deducted from
but compulsory requirement to submit a report of
the employees wages, the following requisites
termination to the nearest Public Employment
must all be attendant: first, proof must be shown
Office every time private respondents employment
that such facilities are customarily furnished
was terminated was proof that the latter were not
by the trade; second, the provision of
project employees but regular employees.
deductible facilities must be voluntarily
Respondents are entitled to 13th month pay
accepted in writing by the employee; and finally,
It was the petitioners prerogative to grant or deny
facilities must be charged at reasonable value.
any request for overtime work and that the private
Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions
respondents act of leaving the workplace after
from employees wages.
their request was denied was an act of
Requisites have not been met. SLL failed to
abandonment
present any company policy or guideline showing
that provisions for meals and lodging were part of
the employees salaries. It also failed to provide
SC DECISION: proof of the employees written authorization,
much less show how they arrived at their
On payment of wages, a party who alleges
valuations.
payment as a defense has the burden of proving
It is of the view that the food and lodging, or the
it. Specifically with respect to labor cases, the
electricity and water allegedly consumed by
burden of proving payment of monetary claims
private respondents in this case were not facilities
rests on the employer, the rationale being that the
but supplements.
pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records,
SUPPLEMENTS constitute extra remuneration
remittances and other similar documents which
or special privileges or benefits given to or
will show that overtime, differentials, service
received by the laborers over and above their
incentive leave and other claims of workers have
ordinary earnings or wages.
been paid are not in the possession of the
FACILITIES items of expense necessary for the
worker but in the custody and absolute control of
laborer's and his family's existence and
the employer. Petitioners, aside from bare
subsistence so that by express provision of law,
allegations that private respondents received
they form part of the wage and when furnished by
wages higher than the prescribed minimum, failed
the employer are deductible therefrom, since if
to present any evidence, such as payroll or
they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend
payslips, to support their defense of payment
and pay for them just the same.
Private respondents are entitled to be paid the
PETITION DENIED.
minimum wage, whether they are regular or non-
regular employees.
On whether the value of the facilities should be
included in the computation of the "wages"

You might also like