Cases Wage

7/25/2019 Cases Wage

1/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 142 - DisiniNATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION V

SAN ILDEFEONSO COLLEGE, ETC.299 SCRA 24

DAVIDE JR; November 20, 1998NATUREPetition for certiorari seeking to set aside an NLRC decision andresolution denying a otion for reconsideration

FACTS- National !ines and Allied "orkers# $nion is t%e certifiedbargaining agent of t%e rank and file e&loyees of res&ondentCollege' Petitioner (uliet Arroyo was t%e &resident of t%e )an*ldefonso College Association of +aculty and Personnel, anaffiliate of NA!A"$' Priate res&ondent Lloren is t%e directressof t%e College'- *n +ebruary, 1..1, ARR//, a tenured teac%er w%o laterbecae a &art-tie teac%er, asked t%at s%e be allowed to teac%on a full-tie basis' 3%e C/LL5 denied %er re6uest for %erfailure to ake use of t%e &riilege of %er study leae in t%etwo years s%e was allowed to do so' 3%e ne7t ont%, t%e ot%erindiidual &etitioners, w%o were issued yearly a&&ointent,were infored of t%e non-renewal of t%eir res&ectie contracts'- *n A&ril, 1..1, t%e )*CA+P was forali8ed into a labor unionaffiliated wit% NA!A"$'- 3%e &etitioners and NA!A"$ filed a co&laint for illegaldisissal, unfair labor &ractice, forced resignation, %arassent,under&ayent of wages, non-&ayent of serice incentieleae &ay, and iolation of "aeg /rder No' *9-1' 3%eydeanded reinstateent and &ayent of back wages'- 3%e Labor Arbiter %eld &riate res&ondents guilty of illegaldisissal, unfair labor &ractice interfering wit% t%e organi8ationof t%e labor union' 3%e contracts of e&loyent were notbilateral agreeents, but letters of a&&ointent' "%en t%eCollege o&ted not to renew t%e a&&ointents it erely inokedt%e e7&iration of t%e &eriod fi7ed in t%e a&&ointents wit%outgiing any ot%er reason or granting t%e teac%ers concerned ano&&ortunity to e7&laint %eir side' 3%e &robationary e&loyeeswere not een infored of t%eir &erforance rating w%en t%eywere denied renewal of t%eir a&&ointent' 3%e non-renewalwas tiely ade w%ile indiidual &etitioners were in t%e

&rocess of organi8ing t%eseles into a union' 3%ese acts oft%e College aounted to union busting'- 3%e /ffice of t%e )olicitor 5eneral oes for t%e disissal oft%e &etition e7ce&t as to ARR//: t%at all &etitioners e7ce&tARR// were legally disissed' 3%e reason w%y s%e failed toco&lete %er aster#s degree could not be solely attributed to%er' )%e initially re6uested a leae of absence, but t%eC/LL5 suggested t%at s%e teac% on a &art-tie basisbecause it was in need of teac%ers at t%at tie' Also, %erdisissal was wit%out due &rocess'

ISSUE1' "/N ARR// was legally disissed2' "/N t%e ot%er &etitioners were &eranent e&loyees

HELD

1' N/Reasoning- it is undis&uted t%at Arroyo %ad been teac%ing in t%e C/LL5since 1.;< and %ad obtained a &eranent status: s%e becaea &art-tie teac%er, %oweer, fro (une 1.== to !arc% 1..1'- )%e did not lose %er &eranent status w%en s%e re6uested toteac% on a &art-tie basis' 3%e reason for t%e re6uest was t%ats%e wanted to &ursue a aster>s degree' 3%e C/LL5a&&roed t%e re6uest, and t%e study leae was e7tended foranot%er year' *t would %ae been un?ust and unreasonable toallow ARR// to &ursue %er aster>s degree, fro w%ic% t%eC/LL5 would %ae also benefited in ters of %er %ig%erlearning and e7&erience, and at t%e sae tie &enali8e %erwit% t%e loss of &eranent status' *t would as well be absurdand illogical to aintain t%at by teac%ing on a &art-tie basis

after obtaining t%e &erission to take u& a aster>s degreeARR// relin6uis%ed %er &eranent status'- "%en ARR// subse6uently re6uested t%at s%e continueteac%ing on a full-tie basis, &riate res&ondents in its letter o2@ !arc% 1..1 refused, citing as reason %er failure to akeuse of t%e &riilege granted B%er by t%e adinistrationregarding B%er study leae in t%e &ast four seesters' 3%isletter sered as notice of ARR//>s terination froe&loyent' No furt%er notice was sered' *t ust be

e&%asi8ed t%at t%e letter did not indicate t%at a aster>degree was necessary for ARR// to continue %er serice, asnow claied by t%e C/LL5' *n fact, a&art fro its ereallegation, t%e C/LL5 failed to &roe t%at a aster>s degreewas a &re-re6uisite for ARR//>s teac%ing &osition' ARR//, a&eranent teac%er, could only be disissed for ?ust cause andonly after being afforded due &rocess, in lig%t of &aragra&% bEArticle 2@@ of t%e Labor Code'- Arroyo#s disissal was substantiely and &rocedurally flawed*t was effected wit%out ?ust cause and due &rocess' 3%us, %erterination was oid' )%e is t%erefore entitled to reinstateento %er forer &osition wit%out loss of seniority rig%ts and ot%er&riileges, full backwages inclusie of allowances, and ot%ebenefits co&uted fro t%e date of %er actual disissal to t%edate of reinstateent2' N/

Reasoning- /n t%e issue of w%et%er t%e indiidual &etitioners were&eranent e&loyees, it is t%e !anual of Regulations foPriate )c%ools, and not t%e Labor Code, w%ic% is a&&licable3%is was settled inUniversity of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, w%ere wee7&licitly ruled t%at for a &riate sc%ool teac%er to ac6uire&eranent status in e&loyent and, t%erefore, be entitled tosecurity of tenure, t%e following re6uisites ust concurF 1E t%eteac%er is a full-tie teac%er: 2E t%e teac%er ust %aerendered t%ree GE consecutie years of serice: and GE suc%serice ust %ae been satisfactory'- leen of t%e indiidual &etitioners were full-tie teac%erduring t%e sc%ool year 1..0-1..1, but only two, naely, /disteand Huan %ad rendered t%ree consecutie years of serice3%ere is no s%owing, %oweer, t%at t%e two were on a full-tiebasis during t%ose t%ree years and t%at t%eir serices weresatisfactory' idently, not one of t%e said teac%ers can be

considered to %ae ac6uired a &eranent status'Disposition t%e decision of t%e National Labor RelationsCoission in NLRC Case No' RAH-*[email protected]* iA++*R!D, sub?ect to t%e odification t%at &riate res&onden)an *ldefonso College is D*RC3D to 1E reinstate &etitione($L*3A ARR// to %er forer &osition at t%e tie of %edisissal, or to any e6uialent &osition if reinstateent to suc%&osition is no longer feasible, wit%out of loss of seniority rig%tsand benefits t%at ay be due %er: and 2E &ay %er back wagesfro t%e date of %er actual disissal to t%e date of %er actuareinstateent'

CIELO V NLRC193 SCRA 410

CRUZ; Januar 28, 1991

NATUREPetition for certiorari to reiew decision of NLRC setting asidedecision of Labor Arbiter for t%e reinstateent wit% backwagesof Iosio Cielo'

FACTSJenry Lei 3rucking %ired Iosio Cielo as a truck drier under ;-ont% Agreeent wit% sti&ulations t%at t%e ter is can beearlier terinated at t%e o&tion of eit%er &arty' 3%e Agreeentalso sti&ulated t%at t%ere was no e&loyer-e&loyeerelations%i& between t%e &arties and t%at t%e nature of t%erelations%i& is erely contractual' Lei asked Cielo to sign anaffidait of %aing receied full &ayent of wages, w%ic% Cielorefused to sign' A week before t%e Agreeent was su&&osed toend, Lei notified Cielo of t%e terination of %is serices


2/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14G - DisiniA&&arently in t%e Agreeents wit% t%e driers, Lei erely fillsin t%e blanks wit% t%e corres&onding data suc% as t%e drier#snae and address, etc'

ISSUE"/N t%e Agreeent was alidHELDN/

Ratio "%ere fro t%e circustances it is a&&arent t%at t%e&eriods were i&osed in order to &reclude t%e ac6uisition oftenurial security by t%e e&loyee, t%ey s%ould be struck downor disregarded for being contrary to &ublic &olicy, orals,etc'Reasoning- 3%e Agreeent is oid ab initio for %aing a &ur&ose contraryto &ublic &olicy' 3%e agreeent was a clear atte&t to e7&loitt%e e&loyee and de&rie %i of t%e &rotection of t%e LaborCode by aking it a&&ear t%at t%e sti&ulations are goerned byt%e Ciil Code as in ordinary &riate transactions' *n reality t%eagreeent was a contract of e&loyent into w%ic% were readt%e &roisions of t%e Labor Code and t%e social ?ustice &olicy oft%e Constitution' 3%at Cielo refused to sign t%e affidait was nota ?ust cause for %is terination as %e was only &rotecting %isinterest against unguarded waier of t%e benefits due %iunder t%e Labor Code' )aid affidait w%ic% sti&ulated &ayentof wages een suggested t%at t%ere was indeed an e&loyer-e&loyee relations%i&'Disposition NLRC decision set aside' LA decision reinstated'

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION V TORRES19! SCRA 21"

#E$ICIAN%; A&r'( 22, 1991

NATUREPetition for certiorari reiew'

FACTS- D/L NCR issued Alien &loyent Perit in faor of&etitioner arl 3iot%y Cone, a $nited )tates citi8en, as s&ortsconsultant and assistant coac% for 5!C' 5!C and Cone enteredinto a contract of e&loyent w%ereby t%e latter undertook to

coac% 5!C>s basketball tea' Hoard of )&ecial *n6uiry of t%eCoission on *igration and De&ortation a&&roed&etitioner Cone>s a&&lication for a c%ange of adission statusfro te&orary isitor to &rearranged e&loyee'- /n . +ebruary 1..0, &etitioner 5!C re6uested renewal of&etitioner Cone>s alien e&loyent &erit' 5!C also re6uestedt%at it be allowed to e&loy Cone as full-fledged coac%' 3%eD/L Regional Director, Luna Pie8as, granted t%e re6uest' Alien&loyent Perit was issued'- Priate res&ondent Hasketball Coac%es Association of t%eP%ili&&ines HCAPE a&&ealed t%e issuance of said aliene&loyent &erit to t%e res&ondent )ecretary of Labor w%oissued a decision ordering cancellation of &etitioner Cone>se&loyent &erit on t%e ground t%at t%ere was no s%owingt%at t%ere is no &erson in t%e P%ili&&ines w%o is co&etent, ableand willing to &erfor t%e serices re6uired nor t%at t%e %iring

of &etitioner Cone would redound to t%e national interest'

ISSUES1' "/N )ecretary of Labor graely abused %is discretion w%en%e reoked &etitioner Cone>s alien e&loyent &erit2' "/N )ection ; cE, Rule K*9, Hook * of t%e /nibus Rules*&leenting t%e Labor Code is null and oid as it is in iolationof t%e enabling law as t%e Labor Code does not e&owerres&ondent )ecretary to deterine if t%e e&loyent of analien would redound to national interest

HELD1' N/- Petitioners %ae failed to s%ow any grae abuse of discretionor any act wit%out or in e7cess of ?urisdiction on t%e &art of

res&ondent )ecretary of Labor in rendering %is decisionreoking &etitioner Cone>s Alien &loyent Perit'- 3%e alleged failure to notify &etitioners of t%e a&&eal filed by&riate res&ondent HCAP was cured w%en &etitioners wereallowed to file t%eir !otion for Reconsideration beforeres&ondent )ecretary of Labor'2' N/- 3%e Labor Code itself s&ecifically e&owers res&onden)ecretary to ake a deterination as to t%e aailability of t%e

serices of a &erson in t%e P%ili&&ines w%o is co&etent, ableand willing at t%e tie of a&&lication to &erfor t%e serices fow%ic% an alien is desired' *n s%ort, t%e De&artent of Labor ist%e agency ested wit% ?urisdiction to deterine t%e 6uestion oaailability of local workers'- $nder Article 40 of t%e Labor Code, an e&loyer seekinge&loyent of an alien ust first obtain an e&loyent &eritfro t%e De&artent of Labor' Petitioner 5!C>s rig%t to c%oosew%o to e&loy is, of course, liited by t%e statutoryre6uireent of an alien e&loyent &erit'- Petitioners will not find solace in t%e e6ual &rotection clause ot%e Constitution' As &ointed out by t%e )olicitor-5eneral, noco&arison can be ade between &etitioner Cone and !rNoran Hlack as t%e latter is a long tie resident of t%ecountry, and t%us, not sub?ect to t%e &roisions of Article 40 ot%e Labor Code w%ic% a&&ly only to non-resident aliens' *n anycase, t%e ter non-resident alien and its oberse residenalien, %ere ust be gien t%eir tec%nical connotation under oulaw on iigration'- Neit%er can &etitioners alidly clai t%at i&leentation ores&ondent )ecretary>s decision would aount to ani&airent of t%e obligations of contracts' 3%e &roisions of t%eLabor Code and its *&leenting Rules and Regulationre6uiring alien e&loyent &erits were in e7istence longbefore &etitioners entered into t%eir contract of e&loyent' *tis firly settled t%at &roisions of a&&licable laws, es&ecially&roisions relating to atters affected wit% &ublic &olicy, aredeeed written into contracts' Priate &arties cannoconstitutionally contract away t%e ot%erwise a&&licable&roisions of law'- *n s%ort, t%e De&artent of Labor is t%e agency ested wit%?urisdiction to deterine t%e 6uestion of aailability of locaworkers' 3%e constitutional alidity of legal &roisions granting

suc% ?urisdiction and aut%ority and re6uiring &roof of nonaailability of local nationals able to carry out t%e duties of t%e&osition inoled, cannot be seriously 6uestioned'- Petitioners a&&arently suggest t%at t%e )ecretary of Labor isnot aut%ori8ed to take into account t%e 6uestion of w%et%er onot e&loyent of an alien a&&licant would redound to t%enational interest because Article 40 does not e7&licitly refer tosuc% assessent' 3%is arguent w%ic% sees i&liedly toconcede t%at t%e relations%i& of basketball coac%ing and t%enational interest is tenuous and unrealE is not &ersuasie' *n t%efirst &lace, t%e second &aragra&% of Article 40 saysF Bt%ee&loyent &erit ay be issued to a non-resident alien or tot%e a&&licant e&loyer after a deterination of t%e nonaailability of a &erson in t%e P%ili&&ines w%o is co&etent, ableand willing at t%e tie of a&&lication to &erfor t%e serices fow%ic% t%e alien is desired'

- The permissive language employed in the Laor Codeindi!ates that the authority granted involves thee"er!ise o# dis!retion on the part o# the issuingauthority' *n t%e second &lace, Article 12 of t%e Labor Codesets fort% a stateent of ob?ecties t%at t%e )ecretary of Labos%ould, and indeed ust, take into account in e7ercising %isaut%ority and ?urisdiction granted by t%e Labor Code'Disposition Court Resoled to D*)!*)) t%e Petition foCertiorari for lack of erit'

MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY INC V CIR(MANILATERMINAL RELIEF AND MUTUAL AID ASSN)

91 )*I$ !2")ARAS; Ju( 1!, 19"2


3/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 144 - DisiniFACTS- !anila 3erinal Co undertook arrastre serice in Port Area,under control of $) Ary' *t %ired watc%en on 12 %r s%ifts'- !anila 3erinal began &ost-war o&eration of arrastre sericeunder control of Hureau of Custos' 3%e watc%en continuedin t%e serice, wit% salary raise'A eber of t%e !anila 3erinal Relief and !utual AidAssociation wrote to De&t of Labor re6uesting t%at t%e atter of

oertie &ay be inestigated, but not%ing %a&&ened'- !ebers of t%e Association filed deand wit% De&artent ofLabor, including oertie &ay, but not%ing %a&&ened'- !anila 3erinal Co&any instituted syste of strict = %rs%ifts'- 3%e Association was organi8ed for t%e first tie, and anaended &etition was filed wit% C*R &raying t%at t%e &etitionerbe ordered to &ay its watc%en or &olice force oertie &ay'- 3%e &etitioner#s &olice force was consolidated wit% t%e !anilaJarbor Police of t%e Custos Patrol )erice, a got agencyunder Coissioner of Custos and )ecretary of +inance'- C*R, w%ile disissing ot%er deands, ordered t%e &etitioner to&ay its &olice force regular or base &ay and oertieco&ensation' "it% reference to oertie &ay after t%ewatc%en %ad been integrated into t%e !anila Jarbor Police,t%e ?udge ruled t%at court %as no ?urisdiction because it affects

t%e Hureau of Custos'- *n a se&arate o&inion, (udge Lanting ruledF decision s%ould be affired in so far as it grantsco&ensation for oertie on regular days as to co&ensation for work on )undays and legal %olidays,&etitioner s%ould &ay co&ensation t%at corres&onds to t%eoertie at t%e regular rate only watc%en are not entitled to nig%t differential

ISSUE"/N oertie &ay s%ould be granted to t%e workers

HELD)- Petitioner stressed t%at t%e contract between it and t%eAssociation sti&ulates 12 %rs a day at certain rates includingoertie, but t%e record does not bear out t%ese allegations'- *n ties of acute e&loyent, &eo&le go fro office to officeto searc% for work, and t%e workers %ere found t%eselesre6uired to render 12 %rs a day' 3rue, t%ere was an agreeent,but did t%e workers %ae freedo to bargain uc% less insist int%e obserance of t%e ig%t Jour Labor LawM- "e note t%at after &etitioner instituted = %r s%ifts, noreduction was ade in salaries w%ic% its watc%en receiedunder t%e 12 %r agreeent'- Petitioner#s allegation t%at t%e Association %ad ac6uiesced int%e 12 %r s%ifts for ore t%an 1= os is not accurate' /nly oneof t%e ebers entered in )e&teber 1.4 un&aid wages fro (une 1;, 1..2 to !arc%1=, 1..G: bE t%e eorandu of said Atty' !ationg in answeto t%e letter re6uest of Leyson w%ere %e ade an assurancet%at %e will recoend suc% re6uest: cE t%e &riateres&ondents> own co&utation of t%eir un&aid wages'- "e find t%at t%e foregoing does not constitute substantiaeidence to su&&ort t%e conclusion t%at &riate res&ondents areentitled to t%e &ayent of wages fro (une 1;, 1..2 to !arc%1=, 1..G'$ Sustantial eviden!e is that amount o# relevanteviden!e %hi!h a reasonale mind might a!!ept asade&uate to 'usti#y a !on!lusion' 3%ese eidences reliedu&on by &ublic res&ondent did not establis% t%e fact t%a


4/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14< - Disini&riate res&ondents actually rendered serices in t%e Oalibooffice during t%e stated &eriod'a( Letter o# )edrito Leyson to Atty( *ationg+ Pedrito Leyson is one of t%e %erein &riate res&ondents w%oare claiing for un&aid wages and we find %is actuation ofre6uesting in be%alf of t%e ot%er &riate res&ondents for t%e&ayent of t%eir backwages to be biased and self-sering, t%usnot credible' /n t%e ot%er %and, &etitioner was able to s%ow t%at &riate

res&ondents did not render serices during t%e stated &eriod'Petitioner>s eidences s%ow t%at on (anuary 22, 1..2,&etitioner>s Hoard of Directors &assed a resolution te&orarilytransferring t%e /ffice fro Le8o, Aklan to Aon 3%eater,Oalibo, Aklan '"it% t%e transfer of &etitioner>s business officefro its forer office, Le8o, to Oalibo, Aklan, its e6ui&ents,records and facilities were also reoed fro Le8o and broug%tto t%e Oalibo office w%ere &etitioner>s official business wasbeing conducted: t%us &riate res&ondents> allegations t%att%ey continued to re&ort for work at Le8o to su&&ort t%eir claifor wages %as no basis'( Response o# Atty( *ationg to the letter$re&uest o#o##i!e manager Leyson !ationg>s offer to recoend t%e &ayent of &riateres&ondents> wages is %ardly a&&roal of t%eir clai for wages'*t is ?ust an undertaking to recoend &ayent' !oreoer, t%eoffer is conditional' *t is sub?ect to t%e condition t%at &etitioner>sHoard of Directors will gie its a&&roal and t%at funds wereaailable' !ationg>s re&ly to Leyson>s letter for &ayent ofwages did not constitute a&&roal or assurance of &ayent' 3%efact is t%at, t%e Hoard of Directors of &etitioner re?ected &riateres&ondents deand for &ayent Hoard Resolution No' 4.;, s'1..GE'!( the private respondents, o%n !omputation o# theirunpaid %ages "e %old t%at &ublic res&ondent erred in erely relying on t%eco&utations of co&ensable serices subitted by &riateres&ondents' 3%ere ust be co&etent &roof suc% as tiecards or office records to s%ow t%at t%ey actually renderedco&ensable serice during t%e stated &eriod to entitle t%e towages' *t %as been establis%ed t%at t%e &etitioner>s businessoffice was transferred to Oalibo and all its e6ui&ents, recordsand facilities were transferred t%ereat and t%at it conducted its

official business in Oalibo during t%e &eriod in 6uestion' *t wasincubent u&on &riate res&ondents to &roe t%at t%ey indeedrendered serices for &etitioner, w%ic% t%ey failed to do'

SSS V CA (AYALDE)348 SCRA 1

-NARESSAN.IA+%; De/ember 14, 2000

NATUREPetition for reiew on certiorari

FACTS$*n a &etition before t%e )ocial )ecurity Coission, !argarita3ana, widow of t%e late *gnacio 3ana, )r', alleged t%at %er%usband was, before %is deise, an e&loyee of Conc%ita

Ayalde as a far%and in t%e two 2E sugarcane &lantations s%eowned in Ponteedra, La Carlota City Jda' H-@0E and leasedfro t%e $niersity of t%e P%ili&&ines Jda' H-1s e&loyent' 3%e dis&ute is in

t%e 6uestion of &ayent of wages' Claiant !argarita 3anaand %er corroborating witnesses testified t%at %er %usband was&aid daily wages &er 6uincena as well as on &akyaw basisAyalde, on t%e ot%er %and, insists t%at 3ana was &aid solely on&akyaw basis' 3o su&&ort %er clai, s%e &resented &ayrollscoering t%e &eriod (anuary of 1.@4 to (anuary of 1.@; andNoeber of 1.@= to !ay of 1.@.'- A careful &erusal of t%e records readily s%ow t%at t%e e7%ibitsoffered are not co&lete, and are but a ere sa&ling o&ayrolls' "%ile t%e naes of t%e su&&osed laborers a&&eat%erein, t%eir signatures are now%ere to be found' And w%ilet%ey coer t%e years 1.@s &lantations' Also anaditted fact is t%at t%ese e7%ibits only coer Jda' H@0, Ayalde


5/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14; - Disini%aing aerred t%at all %er records and &ayrolls for t%e ot%er&lantation Jda' H-1s nae doesnot a&&ear in t%e &ayrolls for t%e years 1.@s &ositie testiony,corroborated by two 2E ot%er witnesses'- 3%e witnesses did not waer in t%eir assertion t%at w%ile 3anawas %ired by Ayalde as an arador on &akyaw basis, %e wasalso &aid a daily wage w%ic% Ayalde>s oerseer disbursed eeryfifteen 1s &lantations' *t is indubitable, as testifiedby t%e witnesses, t%at 3ana worked continuously for Ayalde, notonly as arador on &akyaw basis, but as a regular far%and,doing backbreaking ?obs for Ayalde>s business' 3%ere is nos%red of eidence to s%ow t%at 3ana was only a seasonalworker, uc% less a igrant worker' All witnesses, includingAyalde %erself, testified t%at 3ana and %is faily resided in t%e&lantation' *f %e was a ere &akyaw worker or inde&endentcontractor, t%en t%ere would be no reason for Ayalde to allowt%e to lie inside %er &ro&erty for free' 3%e only logicale7&lanation is t%at %e was working for ost &art of t%e yeare7clusiely for Ayalde, in return for w%ic% t%e latter gratuitously

allowed 3ana and %is faily to reside in %er &ro&erty: and, 2EAyalde ade uc% ado of %er clai t%at 3ana could not be %ere&loyee because s%e e7ercised no control oer %is work %oursand et%od of &erforing %is task as arador' A closer scrutinyof t%e records, %oweer, reeals t%at w%ile Ayalde %erself aynot %ae directly i&osed on 3ana t%e anner and et%ods tofollow in &erforing %is tasks, s%e did e7ercise control t%roug%%er oerseer'- $nder t%e circustances, t%e relations%i& between Ayalde and3ana %as ore of t%e attributes of e&loyer-e&loyee t%ant%at of an inde&endent contractor %ired to &erfor a s&ecific&ro?ect'- Lastly, as a far laborer w%o %as worked e7clusiely forAyalde for eig%teen 1=E years, 3ana s%ould be entitled toco&ulsory coerage under t%e )ocial )ecurity Law, w%et%er%is serice was continuous or broken'

Disposition Decision of CA reersed' Decision of )))reinstated'

MANTRADE/FMMC DIVISION EMPLOYEES ANDWORKERS UNION V BACUNGAN

144 SCRA "10#ERIA; Se&ember 30, 198!

NATUREPetition for Certiorari and !andaus

FACTS- Petitioner e&loyees 6uestion t%e alidity of t%e &ertinensection of t%e Rules and Regulations *&leenting t%e LaboCode as aended on w%ic% res&ondent arbitrator +roilan !Hacungan based %is decision ruling t%at !antrade Det Cor& isnot under legal obligation to &ay %oliday &ay as &roided for inArticle .4 of t%e Labor CodeE to its ont%ly &aid e&loyees w%oare uniforly &aid by t%e ont%, irres&ectie of t%e nuber ofworking days t%erein, wit% a salary of not less t%an t%estatutory or establis%ed iniu wage, and t%at t%is rule isa&&licable not only as of !arc% 2, 1.@; but as of Noeber 1,1.@4'- Res&ondent cor&oration contends, aong ot%ers t%a&etitioner is barred fro &ursuing t%e &resent action in iew o1E Article 2;G of t%e Labor Code: 2E t%e &ertinent &roision oft%e CHA between &etitioner and res&ondent cor&oration: andGE Article 2044 of t%e Ciil Code: t%at t%e s&ecial ciil action ocertiorari does not lie because res&ondent arbitrator is not anofficer e7ercising ?udicial functions wit%in t%e conte&lationof Rule ;


6/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14@ - Disini- $nder Art' .4 of t%e Labor Code, ont%ly salaried e&loyeesare not aong t%ose e7cluded fro receiing %oliday &ay' Hutt%ey a&&ear to be e7cluded under )ec' 2, Rule *9, Hook *** of t%eRules and Regulations i&leenting said &roision'- Insuar Ban! of "sia an# "merica $m%oyees& Union (IB""$U)vs. Incion'/ctober 24, 1.=4EF )ection 2, Rule *9, Hook *** of t%ei&leenting rules and Policy *nstruction No' ., issued by t%et%en )ecretary of Labor are null and oid since in t%e guise ofclarifying t%e Labor Code>s &roisions on %oliday &ay, t%ey in

effect aended t%e by enlarging t%e sco&e of t%eir e7clusion'- Cartere# Ban! $m%oyees "ssociation vs. O%e August 2=,1.=


7/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14= - Disinibe aoided' 3%us, t%e disissal of an a&&eal on &urely tec%nicalground is frowned u&on es&ecially if it will result to unfairness'Reasoning- "e a&&ly t%ese sound rules in t%e case at bar' Petitioners>&etition for certiorari before t%e Court of A&&eals contained t%ecertified true co&y of t%e NLRC>s decision dated Noeber 2;,1..@' *ts order dated !ay 2, 1...1@ and t%e sworn certificationof non-foru s%o&&ing' Petitioners also e7&lained t%at t%eircounsel e7ecuted an affidait of &roof of serice and

e7&lanation in t%e afternoon of (uly 1, 1...' Joweer, %e forgotto attac% it w%en %e filed t%eir &etition t%e following daybecause of t%e olue and &ressure of work and lack of office&ersonnel' Joweer, t%e Registry w%ic% is t%e &roof of ailingto /rlando>s counsel, issued by t%e Central Post /ffice wasattac%ed on t%e original &etition t%ey filed wit% t%e res&ondentcourt' *t was also sta&ed by t%e NLRC w%ic% is &roof of recei&tof t%e &etition by t%e latter' 3%e affidait of serice, w%ic% wasoriginally oitted, was attac%ed on t%eir otion forreconsideration' )ignificantly, it was dated (uly 1, 1...'- t%e subse6uent filing of t%e affidait of serice ay beconsidered as substantial co&liance wit% t%e rules'2' N/Reasoning- 3%e word ti& %as seeral eanings' *t is ore fre6uentlyused to indicate additional co&ensation, and in t%is sense ti&is defined as eaning a gratuity: a gift: a &resent: a fee: oneygien, as to a serant to secure better or ore &ro&t serice'- 3i&&ing is done to get t%e attention and secure t%e iediateserices of a waiter, &orter or ot%ers for t%eir serices' )ince ati& is considered a &ure gift out of beneolence or friends%i&, itcan not be deanded fro t%e custoer' "%et%er or not ti&swill be gien is de&endent on t%e will and generosity of t%egier' Alt%oug% a custoer ay gie a ti& as a consideration forserices rendered, its alue still de&ends on t%e gier' 3%ey aregien in addition to t%e co&ensation by t%e e&loyer' Agratuity gien by an e&loyer in order to ins&ire t%e e&loyeeto e7ert ore effort in %is work is ore a&&ro&riately called abonus'- 3%e contract of e&loyent between &etitioners and /rlandois categorical t%at t%e ont%ly salary of /rlando is $)S4s saary&er year of serice'/ne ont% of saary as used in t%is &aragra&% s%all bedeeed e6uialent to t%e saary at date of retireent:years of serice s%all be deeed e6uialent to total sericecredits, a fraction of at least si7 ont%s being consideredone year, including &robationary e&loyent'

- /n t%e ot%er %and, Article 2=4 of t%e Labor Code t%en&reailing &roidesF

Art' 2=4' Re#uction of %ersonne' T 3%e terination ofe&loyent of any e&loyee due to t%e installation oflabor saing-deices, redundancy, retrenc%ent to &reentlosses, and ot%er siilar causes, s%all entitle t%e e&loyeeaffected t%ereby to se&aration %ay' *n case of terinationdue to t%e installation of labor-saing deices orredundancy, t%e se&aration &ay s%all be e6uialent to one1E ont%%ayor to at least one 1E ont%%ay for eeryyear of serice, w%ic%eer is %ig%er' *n case ofretrenc%ent to &reent losses and ot%er siilar causes,t%e se&aration &ay s%all be e6uialent to one 1E ont%&ay or at least one-%alf 12E ont% &ay for eery year ofserice, w%ic%eer is %ig%er' A fraction of at least si7 ;Eont%s s%all be considered one 1E w%ole year'

- *n addition, )ections .bE and 10, Rule 1, Hook 9* of t%e Rules*&leenting t%e Labor Code &roideF

)ec' .bE' "%ere t%e terination of e&loyent is due toretrec%ent initiated by t%e e&loyer to &reent losses orot%er siilar causes, or w%ere t%e e&loyee suffers fro adisease and %is continued e&loyent is &ro%ibited by lawor is &re?udicial to %is %ealt% or to t%e %ealt% of %is co-e&loyees, t%e e&loyee s%all be entitled to terination&ay e6uialent at least to %is one ont% salary, or to one-%alf ont% %ay for eery year of serice, w%ic%eer is%ig%er, a fraction of at least si7 ;E ont%s beingconsidered as one w%ole year')ec' 10' Basis of termination %ay' T 3%e co&utation oft%e terination &ay of an e&loyee as &roided %ereins%all be based on %is latest salary rate, unless t%e saewas reduced by t%e e&loyer to defeat t%e intention of t%eCode, in w%ic% case t%e basis of co&utation s%all be t%erate before its deduction' &%asis su&&liedE


8/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 14. - Disini- 3%e Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering t%e res&ondentto &ay t%e co&lainants se&aration &ay e6uialent to t%eir one-ont% salary e7clusie of coissions, allowances, etc'E foreery year of serice t%at t%ey %ae worked wit% t%e co&any'- 3%e a&&eal by &etitioners to t%e National Labor RelationsCoission was disissed for lack of erit'- Petitioners Arg!ments *n arriing at t%e correct and legal aount of se&aration &aydue t%e, w%et%er under t%e Labor Code or t%e CHA, t%eir basic

salary, earned sales coissions and allowances s%ould beadded toget%er' 3%ey cited Article .@fE of t%e Labor Code w%ic%includes coission as &art on one>s salary, to wit:

fE >"age> &aid to any e&loyee s%all ean t%ereuneration or earnings, %oweer designated, ca&able ofbeing e7&ressed in ters of oney, w%et%er fi7ed orascertained on a tie, task, &iece, or coission basis, orot%er et%od of calculating t%e sae, w%ic% is &ayable byan e&loyer to an e&loyee under a written or unwrittencontract of e&loyent for work done or to be done, or forserices rendered or to be rendered, and includes t%e fairand reasonable alue, as deterined by t%e )ecretary ofLabor, of board, lodging, or ot%er facilities custoarilyfurnis%ed by t%e e&loyer to t%e e&loyee' >+airreasonable alue> s%all not include any &rofit to t%ee&loyer or to any &erson affiliated wit% t%e e&loyer'

- Respon"ents# Comments *f it were really t%e intention of t%e Labor Code as well as itsi&leenting rules to include coission in t%e co&utation ofse&aration &ay, it could %ae e7&licitly said so in clear andune6uiocal ters' +urt%erore, in t%e definition of t%e terwage, coission is used only as one of t%e features ordesignations attac%ed to t%e word reuneration or earnings'

ISSUE"/N earned sales coissions and allowances s%ould beincluded in t%e ont%ly salary of &etitioners for t%e &ur&ose ofco&utation of t%eir se&aration &a

HELD)$ Article .@fE by itself is e7&licit t%at coission is included int%e definition of t%e ter wage' *t %as been re&eatedly

declared by t%e courts t%at w%ere t%e law s&eaks in clear andcategorical language, t%ere is no roo for inter&retation orconstruction: t%ere is only roo for a&&lication'- 3%e abiguity between Article .@fE, w%ic% defines t%e ter>wage> and Article K*9 of t%e Collectie Hargaining Agreeent,Article 2=4 of t%e Labor Code and )ections .bE and 10 of t%e*&leenting Rules, w%ic% ention t%e ters &ay andsalary, is ore a&&arent t%an real'- Hroadly, t%e word salary eans a reco&ense orconsideration ade to a &erson for %is &ains or industry inanot%er an>s business' "%et%er it be deried fro salariu,or ore fancifully fro sal, t%e &ay of t%e Roan soldier, itcarries wit% it t%e fundaental idea of co&ensation forserices rendered' -- *ndeed, t%ere is einent aut%ority for %olding t%at t%e wordswages and salary are in essence synonyous' )alary, t%e

etyology of w%ic% is t%e Latin word salariu, is often usedinterc%angeably wit% wage, t%e etyology of w%ic% is t%e!iddle nglis% word wagen' Hot% words generally refer to oneand t%e sae eaning, t%at is, a reward or reco&ense forserices &erfored'- Likewise, &ay is t%e synony of wages and salary'*nasuc% as t%e words wages, &ay and salary %ae t%esae eaning, and coission is included in t%e definition ofwage, t%e logical conclusion, t%erefore, is, in t%e co&utationof t%e se&aration &ay of &etitioners, t%eir salary base s%ouldinclude also t%eir earned sales coissions'- 5ranting, in 'ratia ar'umenti, t%at t%e coissions were int%e for of incenties or encourageent, so t%at t%e &etitionerswould be ins&ired to &ut a little ore industry on t%e ?obs&articularly assigned to t%e, still t%ese coissions are direct

reuneration serices rendered w%ic% contributed to t%eincrease of incoe of Iuellig'- Coission is t%e reco&ense, co&ensation or reward of anagent, salesan, e7ecutor, trustees, receier, factor, broker orbailee, w%en t%e sae is calculated as a &ercentage on t%eaount of %is transactions or on t%e &rofit to t%e &rinci&al' 3%enature of t%e work of a salesan and t%e reason for suc% ty&eof reuneration for serices rendered deonstrate clearly t%acoission are &art of &etitioners> wage or salary'

- 3%e Court took ?udicial notice of t%e fact t%at soe salesendo not receie any basic salary but de&end on coissions andallowances or coissions alone, are &art of &etitioners> wageor salary' Also, t%at soe salesan do not receied any basicsalary but de&end on coissions and allowances ocoissions alone, alt%oug% an e&loyer-e&loyeerelations%i& e7ists'- Hearing in ind t%e &receding discussions, if t%e o&&osite iewis ado&ted t%at coissions, do not for &art of wage osalary, t%en, in effect, t%is kind of salesen do not receie anysalary and t%erefore, not entitled to se&aration &ay in t%e eentof disc%arge fro e&loyent' 3%is narrow inter&retation is noin accord wit% t%e liberal s&irit of our labor laws and consideringt%e &ur&ose of se&aration &ay w%ic% is, to alleiate t%edifficulties w%ic% confront a disissed e&loyee t%rown t%e t%estreets to face t%e %ars% necessities of life'- Additionally, in Soriano v. NLRC+ et a.+ su%ra, in resoling t%eissue of t%e salary base t%at s%ould be used in co&uting t%ese&aration &ay, t%e Court %eld t%atF

3%e coissions also claied by &etitioner >oerridecoission> &lus >net de&osit incentie>E are not &ro&erlyincludible in suc% base figure since suc% coissions ustbe earned by actual arket transactions attributable to&etitioner'

- A&&lying t%is by analogy, since t%e coissions in t%e &resencase were earned by actual arket transactions attributable to&etitioners, t%ese s%ould be included in t%eir se&aration &ay' *nt%e co&utation t%ereof, w%at s%ould be taken into account ist%e aerage coissions earned during t%eir last year oe&loyent'- *n carrying out and inter&reting t%e Labor Code>s &roisionsand its i&leenting regulations, t%e workingan>s welfares%ould be t%e &riordial and &araount consideration' 3%i

kind of inter&retation gies eaning and substance to t%eliberal and co&assionate s&irit of t%e law as &roided for inArticle 4 of t%e Labor Code w%ic% states t%at all doubts in t%ei&leentation and inter&retation of t%e &roisions of t%e LaboCode including its i&leenting rules and regulations s%all beresoled in faor of labor, and Article 1@02 of t%e Ciil Codew%ic% &roides t%at in case of doubt, all labor legislation andall labor contracts s%all be construed in faor of t%e safety anddecent liing for t%e laborer'Disposition3%e &etition was granted'

IRAN V NLRC (RETRALBA)10! SCRA 444

R%6ER%; A&r'( 22, 1998

FACTS- Antonio *ran is engaged in softdrinks erc%andising anddistribution in !andaue City, Cebu, e&loying truck driers w%odouble as salesen, truck %el&ers, and non-field &ersonnel in&ursuit t%ereof' Je %ired &riate res&ondents asdrierssalesen and truck %el&ers' Drierssalesen droe&etitioner#s deliery trucks and &rooted, sold and delieredsoftdrinks to arious outlets in !andaue City' 3%e truck %el&ersassisted in t%e deliery of softdrinks to t%e different outletscoered by t%e driersalesen'- As &art of t%eir co&ensation, t%e driersalesen and truck%el&ers of &etitioner receied coissions &er case osoftdrinks sold'- )oetie in (une 1..1, *ran discoered cas% s%ortages andirregularities allegedly coitted by &riate res&ondentsPending t%e inestigation of irregularities and settleent of t%e


9/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1


10/39



11/39



12/39



13/39



14/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1s cold storage &lant for filing, storing, cleaning, andaintenance: and finally loading t%e &rocessed tuna for

s%i&ent' 3%ey worked @ daysweek'- *n (une 1..0, Congson notified %is workers of %is &ro&osal toreduce t%e rate-&er-tuna oeent due to t%e scarcity of tuna'Priate res&ondents resisted Congson>s &ro&osed ratereduction' "%en t%ey re&orted for work t%e ne7t day, t%ey wereinfored t%at t%ey %ad been re&laced by a new set of workers'"%en t%ey re6uested for a dialogue wit% t%e anageent, t%eywere instructed to wait for furt%er notice' 3%ey waited for t%enotice of dialogue for a full week but in ain'- )o &riate co&lainant workers filed co&laint againstCongson for under&ayent of wages, non-&ayent of oertie&ay, 1Gt% ont% &ay, %oliday &ay, rest day &ay, and s establis%ent'Disposition Petition D*)!*))D' C%allenged decision of NLRCA++*R!D'

PA%RO$$ ENTRIES

KAR ASIA V CORONA43 SCRA 184

-NARESSAN.IA+%; Auu5 24, 2004

FACTS- Res&ondents, regular e&loyees of &etitioner OAR A)*A, *nc'an autootie dealer in Daao City, filed on )e&teber 241..@ claiubg t%at t%ey were not &aid t%eir cost of liingallowance C/LAE for t%e ont%s of Deceber 1..G andDeceber 1..4'- Petitioner co&any and its &resident Celestino Harrettocountered by saying t%at res&ondents %ad already been &aidt%eir C/LA for t%e said &eriods' Petitioners &resented ineidence t%e &ayrolls for Deceber 1..G and Deceber 1..4s%owing t%at t%e res&ondents acknowledged in writing t%erecei&t of t%eir C/LA, and t%e affidaits of rina Daray andCristina Arana, cas%iers of OAR A)*A, refuting res&ondentsclai t%at t%ey were ade to sign blank &ieces of &a&er'- Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in faor of &etitioners' NLRC

affired t%e decision of t%e Labor Arbiter' Court of A&&ealsreersed t%e decision of t%e NLRC and ordered &etitioneco&any to &ay t%e res&ondents t%e P2


15/39



16/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1s fees

ISSUE"/N &ublic res&ondents acted wit% grae abuse of discretionaounting to lack of ?urisdiction in %olding t%e &etitioner solelyliable for union serice fee> to res&ondent $RCP*CLA-+$R

HELDN/' Attorney>s fee due t%e o&&ositor is c%argeable against RCP*'Ratio3%e defaulting e&loyer or goernent agency reainsliable for attorney>s fees because it co&elled t%e co&lainantto e&loy t%e serices of counsel by un?ustly refusing torecogni8e t%e alidity of t%e clai' Cristobal s' CCEReasoning- *t is undis&uted t%at o&&ositor &riate res&ondent %ereinE wast%e counsel on record of t%e RCP* e&loyees in t%eir clai forC0LA under "age /rder No' 1 since t%e ince&tion of t%e&roceedings at t%e National "ages Council u& to t%e )u&reeCourt' *t %ad t%erefore a alid clai for attorney>s fee w%ic% itcalled union serice fee'- As is eident in t%e co&roise agreeent, &etitioner wasbound to &ay only G0 of t%e aount due eac% e&loyee onNoeber G0, 1.=


17/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1 *f t%ere is no work &erfored by t%ee&loyee t%ere can be no wage or &ay, unless of course, t%elaborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegallylocked out, disissed or sus&ended' *t is %ardly fair or ?ust foran e&loyee or laborer to fig%t or litigate against %is e&loyer

on t%e e&loyer>s tie'- 3%e res&ondent association, %oweer, clais t%at it was nott%e one t%at broug%t t%e cases to t%e Court of *ndustrialRelations, and t%e &oint is ade t%at if t%e laborer w%o isdragged to court is de&ried of %is wages w%ile attending court%earings, %e would in effect be denied t%e o&&ortunity todefend %iself and &rotect %is interests and t%ose of %is fellowworkers' Hut w%ile it is true t%at it was t%e )ecretary of Laborw%o certified t%e dis&ute inoled in case No'


18/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1 o!!upations or usiness %here thepra!ti!e o# ma=ing dedu!tions or re&uiring deposits is are!ogni?ed one> or is ne!essary or desirale asdetermined y the Se!retary o# Laor in appropriaterules and regulations(- Dentec% %as not satisfactorily dis&uted t%e a&&licability of t%is&roision to t%e case at bar' Considering furt%er t%at it failed tos%ow t%at it is aut%ori8ed by law to re6uire !arbella, et al', tofile t%e cas% bond in 6uestion, t%e refund is in order'- 3%e allegation t%at t%e &roceeds of t%e cas% bond %ad alreadybeen gien to a certain carinderia to &ay for t%e accounts of t%e&riate res&ondents does not erit serious consideration' Noeidence or recei&t %as been s%own to &roe suc% &ayent'DispositionPetition is %ereby D*)!*))D for lack of erit'

FIVE " TA#I V NLRC23" SCRA ""!

RE+A$AD%; Auu5 22, 1994

NATURE)&ecial ciil action for certiorari to annul NLRC decision

FACTS- !aldigan and )absalon were %ired by t%e &etitioners as ta7idriers' 3%ey &aid daily boundary of P@00 for air-conditionedor P4


19/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;0 - Disinibefore t%e NLRC or any labor arbiter only 1E if t%ey re&resentt%eseles, or 2E if t%ey re&resent t%eir organi8ation or t%eebers t%ereof' "%ile it ay be true t%at 5uillero J' Puliawas t%e aut%ori8ed re&resentatie of &riate res&ondents, %ewas a non-lawyer w%o did not fall in eit%er of t%e foregoingcategories' Jence, by clear andate of t%e law, %e is notentitled to attorney>s fees'Disposition NLRC decision !/D*+*D by deleting t%e awardsfor reiburseent of car was% e7&enses and attorney>s fees

and directing NLRC to order and effect t%e co&utation and&ayent by &etitioners of t%e refund for !aldigan>s de&osits,&lus legal interest t%ereon fro t%e date of finality of t%isresolution u& to t%e date of actual &ayent t%ereof'

2(s contention t%at t%e otion s%ould be deniedbecause it is &redicated on a labor contract entered intobetween t%e &etitioner and t%e Pacific Custos Hrokerage"orkers $nion %as no foundation in fact, it a&&earing t%at t%eebers of t%e two labor unions are one and t%e sae' 3%eebers of t%e Pacific Custos Hrokerage "orkers> $nion aret%e sae laborers now ebers of t%e &etitioner union'

GAA V CA)A+E 148

RECORD-KEEPING

SOUTH MOTORISTS ENTERPRISES V TOSOC $SECOF DOLE%

181 SCRA 38!6E$ENCI%*ERRERA; Januar 23, 1990

NATURECertiorari

FACTS- (anuary 1.=G, co&laints for non-&ayent of eergency costof liing allowances were filed by 4; workers, 3osoc, et als'against )/$3J !/3/R*)3))!E before t%e Naga City Distric/ffice of Regional /ffice No' < of t%e t%en !inistry of Labor- 10 (anuary 1.=G a )&ecial /rder was issued by t%e District

Labor /fficer directing its Labor Regulation /fficers to conducan ins&ection and erification of )/$3J !/3/R*)3)e&loyent records'- /n t%e date of t%e ins&ection and erification, )/$3J!/3/R*)3) was unable to &resent its e&loyent records ont%e allegation t%at t%ey %ad been sent to t%e ain office in!anila'- 3%e case was t%en set for conference on 2< (anuary 1.=G butwas reset twice'- )! ke&t on re6uesting for &ost&oneents on t%e ground t%at%e docuents were still being &re&ared and collated and t%at aforal anifestation or otion would follow' Not%ing did'- After t%e subission of an *ns&ection Re&ort on t%e basis ow%ic% an /rder dated 14 A&ril 1.=G was issued by Labor /fficeDoingo Reyes directing )!to &ay 3osoc, et als', t%e totaaount of P1=4,;=.'12 re&resenting t%e latter>s corres&ondingeergency cost of liing allowances'- )! +*LD a ! for R H$3 was denied'- 11 (uly 1.==, t%e )ecretary of Labor and &loyent affiredt%e a&&ealed /rder'- 2= (uly 1.==, )! +*LD anot%er !R H$3 "A) DN*D: +*LDAN/3JR !R H$3 "A) )3*LL DN*D'CL"I9S8- )/$3J !/3/R*)3)F t%is falls under t%e original and e7clusie?urisdiction of Labor Arbiters LA- a trier of facts, ay deterineafter %earing suc% 6uestions as "/N an R- rel#& e7ists"/N t%e workers were &ro?ect workers: "/N t%e e&loyeesworked continuously or "/N t%ey s%ould receie eergencycost of liing allowances and if entitled, %ow uc% eac% s%ouldreceie''E- 3/)/C et alF aintain ot%erwise'


20/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;1 - DisiniISSUE"/N Regional Directors of D/L %ae ?urisdiction to alidly acton award oney clais

HELD)Ratio Regional Directors are e&owered to %ear and decide, ina suary &roceeding, clais for recoery of wages and ot%eronetary clais and benefits, including legal interest, sub?ect

to t%e concurrence of t%e following re6uisitesF1E t%e clai is &resented by an e&loyee or &erson e&loyedin doestic or %ouse%old serice, or %ouse%el&er under t%eCode:2E t%e clai arises fro e&loyer-e&loyee relations:GE t%e claiant no longer being e&loyed, does not seekreinstateent: and4E t%e aggregate oney clai of eac% e&loyee or %ouse%el&erdoes not e7ceed Psclais'Disposition 3%e award P l=4,;=.'12 was !/D*+*D' 3%eindiidual clais of 5aino, uste ,Hre6uillo, Cis, Agreda5alona, 3osoc, 5uinoo, Cea, 5uinoo, and /soc, eac% of w%ic%

e7ceeds P


21/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;2 - DisiniISSUES"/N res&ondent NLRC coitted grae abuse of discretion innot reersing t%at &ortion of t%e decision of t%e labor arbiterordering &etitioner to &ay &riate res&ondent %is s%are in t%eserice c%arge w%ic% was collected during t%e tie %e was notworking in t%e %otel

HELD

N/- Daalerio is entitled not only to full backwages but also toot%er benefits, including a ?ust s%are in t%e serice c%arges, tobe co&uted fro t%e start of %is &reentie sus&ension until%is reinstateent'- Joweer, indful of t%e aniosity and strained relationsbetween t%e &arties, eanating fro t%is litigation, we u&%oldt%e ruling a 6uo t%at in lieu of reinstateent, se&aration &ayay be gien to t%e &riate res&ondent, at t%e rate of oneont% &ay for eery year of serice' )%ould &etitioner o&t infaor of se&aration &ay, t%e &riate res&ondent s%all no longerbe entitled to s%are in t%e serice c%arges collected during %is&reentie sus&ension'Dispositionetition #ismisse#

TIPS

ACE NAVIGATION CO INC V CA)A+E 14!

2(


22/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;G - Disini- *n t%e instant case, t%e said re6uisites are not &resent'2' )- 5uogda %eeded doctor#s adise and een e7ceeded t%enuber of days recoended by %is doctor for %isrecu&eration' *n fact, %e re&orted back for work provides thatemployees are entitled to the thirteenth$month payene#it regardless o# their designation and irrespe!tiveo# the method y %hi!h their %ages are paid(DispositionPetition is D*)!*))D'

WAGE DI**ERENCE

"PL MARKETING PROMOTIONS V CA (GONZALES,ABESA ! ANNIPOT)

4!3 SCRA 13!.IN+A; Ju( 8, 200"

NATUREPetition for reiew of t%e decision of t%e CA

FACTS- (PL !arketing and Prootions is a doestic cor&orationengaged in t%e business of recruitent and &laceent ofworkers'- 5on8ales, Abesa *** and Anini&ot were e&loyed by (PL aserc%andisers on se&arate dates and assigned at differentestablis%ents in Naga City and Daet, Caarines Norte asattendants to t%e dis&lay of California !arketing Cor&orationC!CE, one of &etitioner#s clients'- /n 1G August 1..;, (PL notified &riate res&ondents t%at C!Cwould sto& its direct erc%andising actiity effectie 1< August1..;'- 3%ey were adised to wait for furt%er notice as t%ey would betransferred to ot%er clients'- /n 1@ /ctober 1..;, Abesa and 5on8ales filed before t%eNLRC co&laints for illegal disissal, &raying for se&aration&ay, 1Gt%ont% &ay, serice incentie leae &ay and &ayentfor oral daages' Anini&ot filed a siilar case t%ereafter'- Labor Arbiter 5elacio L' Riera, (r' disissed t%e co&laints

for lack of erit'- 3%e Labor Arbiter %eld t%atF1' 3%e &riate res&ondents ay be deeed to %ae seeredt%eir relation wit% (PL, and cannot c%arge (PL wit% illegaldisissal, as t%ey a&&lied for different ?obs een before t%ela&se of t%e si7 ;E-ont% &eriod gien by law to (PL to &roidet%e wit% new assignents'( The !laims #or s business: andeE w%en t%e e&loyee is suffering fro a disease and %icontinued e&loyent is &ro%ibited by law or is &re?udicial to%is %ealt% and to t%e %ealt% of %is co-e&loyees' Joweerse&aration &ay s%all be allowed as a easure of social ?ustice int%ose cases w%ere t%e e&loyee is alidly disissed for causesot%er t%an serious isconduct or t%ose reflecting on %is orac%aracter, but only w%en %e was illegally disissed'- 3%e coon denoinator of t%e instances w%ere &ayent ofse&aration &ay is warranted is t%at t%e e&loyee was disissedby t%e e&loyer- *n t%e instant case, t%ere was no disissal to s&eak of' "%att%ey receied fro (PL was not a notice of terination oe&loyent, but a eo inforing t%e of t%e terination ofC!C#s contract wit% (PL' !ore i&ortantly, t%ey were adisedt%at t%ey were to be reassigned' At t%at tie, t%ere was noseerance of e&loyent to s&eak of'- Art' 2=; of t%e Labor Code allows t%e bona fide sus&ension o

t%e o&eration of a business or undertaking for a &eriod noe7ceeding si7 ;E ont%s, w%erein an e&loyeee&loyees are&laced on t%e so-called floating status'- As clearly borne out by t%e records of t%is case, &riateres&ondents soug%t e&loyent fro ot%er establis%entseen before t%e e7&iration of t%e si7 ;E-ont% &eriod &roidedby law' (PL did not terinate t%eir e&loyent: t%eyt%eseles seered t%eir relations wit% (PL' 3%us, t%ey are noentitled to se&aration &ay'2' )- (PL cannot esca&e t%e &ayent of 1G t%ont% &ay and sericeincentie leae &ay to &riate res&ondents' )aid benefits areandated by law and s%ould be gien to e&loyees as a atteof rig%t'- Adittedly, &riate res&ondents were not gien t%eir 1Gtont% &ay and serice incentie leae &ay w%ile t%ey were

under t%e e&loy of (PL' *nstead, (PL &roided salaries w%ic%were oer and aboe t%e iniu wage'- 3%e Court rules t%at t%e difference between t%e iniuwage and t%e actual salary receied by &riate res&ondentcannot be deeed as t%eir 1Gt% ont% &ay and sericeincentie leae &ay as suc% difference is not e6uialent to or ot%e sae i&ort as t%e said benefits conte&lated by law'3%us, as &ro&erly %eld by t%e Court of A&&eals and by t%e NLRC&riate res&ondents are entitled to t%e 1Gt% ont% &ay andserice incentie leae &ay'Disposition Petition granted in &art' Award of se&aration &aydeleted'

HO'SEHE$PERS


23/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;4 - DisiniULTRAVILLA FOOD HOUSE V GENISTON

)A+E 1"

GO1ERNMENT EMP$O%EES

ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS V MINISTEROF LABOR (PNB)

124 SCRA 1+U.IERREZ JR; Auu5 3, 1983

NATUREPetition to reiew decision of t%e !inister of Labor and&loyent

FACTS- Petitioner Alliance of 5oernent "orkers A5"E is aregistered labor federation w%ile t%e ot%er &etitioners are itsaffiliate unions wit% ebers w%o are e&loyees of PNH,!")), 5)*), ))), P93A, PNC, P$P, and P5A'- PD =$R$"S+ it is necessary to furter %rotect te eve of rea/a'es from te rava'e of /or#-/i#e infation=W>$R$"S+ tere as 0een no increase case in te e'a

minimum /a'e rates since ?1,=W>$R$"S+ te Cristmas season is an o%%ortune time forsociety to so/ its concern for te %i't of te /or!in'masses so tey may %ro%ery cee0rate Cristmas an# Ne/@ear.NOW+ T>$R$FOR$+ I+ F$RDIN"ND $. 9"RCOS+ 0y virtue of te%o/ers veste# in me 0y te Constitution #o ere0y #ecree asfoo/s8S$CTION . " em%oyers are ere0y re7uire# to %ay a teirem%oyees receivin' a 0asic saary of not more tan +,,, amont+ re'ar#ess of te nature of teir em%oyment+ a *t-mont %ay not ater tan Decem0er ;A of every year.S$CTION ;. $m%oyers area#y %ayin' teir em%oyees a*t-mont %ay or its e7uivaent are not covere# 0y tisDecree.S$CTION *. Tis Decree sa ta!e effect imme#iatey. Done

in te City of 9ania+ tis 3t #ay of Decem0er ?14.- According to t%e &etitioners, P'D' No' =


24/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;< - Disini- *t will be noted t%at t%e PD =


25/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;; - Disiniremoving the salary !eiling o# )333(33 a month set ythe latter,$ N/E*.ER


26/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;@ - Disini6uestion to be resoled on a case-to-case basis' *n t%e instantcase, it is i&ortant to distinguis% t%e &roductiity bonusesgranted in Hoie-3akeda fro t%e sales coissions of t%eDu&licators case'- A &roductiity bonus is soet%ing e7tra gien to an e&loyeefor w%ic% no s&ecific additional serices are rendered' )ince abonus is a gratuity of t%e e&loyer, t%e reci&ient cannotdeand its &ayent as a atter of rig%t' *f an e&loyer cannotbe co&elled to &ay a &roductiity bonus to %is e&loyees,

t%en it follows t%at t%e bonus s%ould not fall under basicsalary w%en co&uting 1Gt%ont% &ay'- )ales coissions, on t%e ot%er %and, are directly&ro&ortional to t%e e7tent or energy of an e&loyee#s work')uc% coissions are &aid u&on t%e s&ecific results ac%ieedby a salesan and for an integral &art of %is basic &ay ands%ould t%us be included in t%e co&utation of 1G t%ont% &ay'Disposition !+R is denied for lack of erit

IRAN V NLRC)A+E 148

HONDA PHILS INC V SAMAHAN NG MALAYANGMANGGAGAWA SA HONDA

4!0 SCRA 18!

-NARESSAN.IA+%; June 1", 200"

FACTS- A Collectie Hargaining Agreeent CHAE was forged between&etitioner Jonda and res&ondent union )aa%an ng !alayang!anggagawa sa Jonda res&ondent unionE' Aong ot%ers, t%eCHA &roides t%at t%e Co&any will aintain t%e &resent&ractice in t%e i&leentation of t%e 1Gt% ont% &ay, s%allgrant a 14t% !ont% Pay, co&uted on t%e sae basis asco&utation of 1Gt% !ont% Pay and s%all continue t%e &racticeof granting, in its discretion, financial assistance to coerede&loyees in Deceber of eac% year, of not less t%an 100 ofbasic &ay' 3%is CHA is effectie until year 2000'- *n 1..=, t%e two &arties started re-negotiations for t%e 4t%and


27/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;= - Disiniincentie leae &ay, %oliday &ay and social aelioration bonusand 1Gt% ont% &ay and eergency liing allowance under PD112G- $&on t%e &etitioners> a&&eal of t%at /rder, t%e De&uty !/Lodified it ordering t%e e&loyer to all non-&akyaw workerst%eir clai for %oliday and incentie leae &ay, t%eir 1Gt%ont% &ay, &ay differentials and C/LA e7cluding t%e &akyawworkers fro %oliday and serice incentie leae &ay- +raanlis filed for !+R, w%ic% was denied %ence, t%is &etition

for certiorari

ISSUE1' "/N !inister erred in re6uiring t%e &etitioners to &ay wagedifferentials to t%eir &akyaw workers w%o worked for at leasteig%t %ours daily2' "/N benefits in for of food and electricity are e6uialent tot%e 1Gt%ont% &ay

HELD1' N/- *n 1.@;, PD No' .2= fi7ed a iniu wage for agriculturalworkers in any &lantation or agricultural enter&rise irres&ectieof "/N t%e worker was &aid on a &iece-rate basis' Joweer,effectie (uly 1, 1.@=, t%e iniu wage was increased )ec'1, PD 1G=.E' )ubse6uently, PD 1;14 &roided for anot%erincrease in t%e daily wage of all workers effectie A&ril 1, 1.@.'3%e &etitioners adit t%at t%ose were t%e iniu rates&reailing t%en' 3%erefore, t%e res&ondent !inister did not errin re6uiring t%e &etitioners to &ay wage differentials to t%eir&akyaw workers w%o worked for at least eig%t %ours daily andearned less t%an P='00 &er day in 1.@= to 1.@.'2' N/- "it% regard to t%e 1Gt% ont% &ay, &etitioners aditted t%att%ey failed to &ay t%eir workers 1Gt% ont% &ay' Joweer, t%eyargued t%at t%ey substantially co&lied wit% t%e law by giingt%eir workers a yearly bonus and ot%er non-onetary benefitsaounting to not less t%an 112t% of t%eir basic salary in weeklysubsidy of c%oice &ork eat, free c%oice &ork eat and freelig%t or electricity w%ic% were allegedly t%e e6uialent of t%e1Gt% ont% &ay'- $nder )ection G of PD No' =s decision to identify t%e &akyawand non-&akyaw workers does not render said decision inalid'3%e workers ay be identified or deterined in t%e &roceedingsfor e7ecution of t%e ?udgent'Disposition &etition for certiorari is disissed wit% costsagainst t%e &etitioners'

(t3MONTH PA%

4)ection G' &loyees coered 3%e Decree s%all a&&ly to all e&loyees e7ce&t toF

777 777 7773%e ter >its e6uialent> as used in &aragra&% cE %ereof s%all include C%ristasbonus, id-year bonus, &rofit-s%aring &ayents and ot%er cas% bonuses aountingto not less t%an 112 of t%e basic salary but s%all not include cas% and stockdiidends, cost of liing allowances and all ot%er allowances regularly en?oyed by t%ee&loyee, as well as non-onetary benefits'"%ere an e&loyer &ays less t%an 112 of t%e e&loyee>s basic salary t%e e&loyers%all &ay t%e difference'

KAMAYA PORT HOTEL V NLRC (FEDERATION OFFREE WORKERS)

1 SCRA 8#ERNAN; Auu5 31, 1989

NATURE

Petition for reiew on certiorari

FACTS- Res&ondent !eia Quiabao wit% t%irty ot%ers w%o areebers of t%e +ederation of +ree "orkers ++"E weree&loyed by Oaaya as %otel crew' /n the asis o# thepro#itaility o# the !ompany,s usiness operationsmanagement granted a


28/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1;. - Disini14t% ont% &ay is a anageent &rerogatie w%ic% cannot beforced u&on t%e e&loyer' *t is soet%ing gien in addition tow%at is ordinarily receied by or strictly due t%e reci&ient' *t is agratuity to w%ic% t%e reci&ient %as no rig%t to ake a deand'- 3%is Court is not &re&ared to co&el &etitioner to grant t%e14t% ont% &ay solely because it %as allegedly ri&ened into aco&any &ractice as t%e labor arbiter %as &ut it' Jaing lost itscatering business deried fro Libyan students, Oaaya Jotels%ould not be &enali8ed for its &reious liberality'

An e&loyer ay not be obliged to assue a double burdenof &aying t%e 1Gt% ont% &ay in addition to bonuses or ot%erbenefits aside fro t%e e&loyee>s basic salaries or wages'Restated differently, we rule t%at an e&loyer ay not beobliged to assue t%e onerous burden of granting bonuses orot%er benefits aside fro t%e e&loyee>s basic salaries orwages in addition to t%e re6uired 1Gt% ont% &ay'Disposition &etition is %ereby 5RAN3D' 3%e &ortion of t%edecision of t%e National Labor Relations Coission dated (une2 rig%t to terinate e&loyees on account oretrenc%ent to &reent losses or closure of businesso&erations, is recogni8ed by law, but it ay not &ay se&arationbenefits une6ually for suc% discriination breeds resentenand ill-will aong t%ose w%o %ae been treated less generouslyt%an ot%ers'- 3%e res&ondents cited financial business difficulties to ?ustifyt%eir terination of t%e co&lainants> e&loyent' 3%ey were

gien one-%alf 12E ont% of t%eir salary for eery year oserice' Due to continuing loos, t%ey closed o&erations w%eret%ey disissed t%e second batc% of e&loyees w%o were gienone 1E ont% &ay for eery year t%ey sered' 3%e t%ird batc%of e&loyees were terinated and were likewise gien one 1ont%ly &ay for eery year of serice' 3%e business cliatew%en t%e co&lainants were terinated did not at all defei&roeent-wise' 3%e interal between t%e dates oterination was so close to eac% ot%er, so t%at, noi&roeent in business aybe likely e7&ected'- 3%e law re6uires t%e granting of t%e sae aount ose&aration benefits to t%e affected e&loyees in any of t%ecases' 3%e res&ondent argued t%at t%e giing of orese&aration benefit to t%e second and t%ird batc%es oe&loyees se&arated was t%eir e7&ression of gratitude andbeneolence to t%e reaining e&loyees w%o %ae tried tosae and ake t%e co&any iable in t%e reaining lays oo&erations' 3%is ?ustification is not &lausible' 3%ere are workersin t%e first batc% w%o %ae rendered ore years of serice andore efficient t%an t%ose se&arated subse6uently, yet, t%ey didnot receie t%e sae recognition'- 3%ere was i&erissible discriination against t%e &riateres&ondents in t%e &ayent of t%eir se&aration benefits' 3%elaw re6uires an e&loyer to e7tend e6ual treatent to itse&loyees' *t ay not, in t%e guise of e7ercising anageent&rerogaties, grant greater benefits to soe and less to ot%ers!anageent &rerogaties are not absolute &rerogaties but aresub?ect to legal liits, collectie bargaining agreeents, ogeneral &rinci&les of fair &lay and ?ustice2' N/- 3%e grant of a bonus is a &rerogatie, not an obligation, of t%ee&loyer' 3%e atter of giing a bonus oer and aboe t%eworker>s lawful salaries and allowances is entirely de&endent on

t%e financial ca&ability of t%e e&loyer to gie it' 3%e fact t%at%e co&any>s business was no longer &rofitable it was in factoribundE &lus t%e fact t%at t%e &riate res&ondents did nowork u& to t%e iddle of t%e year t%ey were disc%arged in !ay1..GE were alid reasons for not granting t%e a id-yeabonus'G' N/- A cor&orate officer is not &ersonally liable for t%e oneyclais of disc%arged cor&orate e&loyees unless %e acted wit%eident alice and bad fait% in terinating t%eir e&loyent3%ere is no eidence in t%is case t%at Locsin acted in bad fait%or wit% alice in carrying out t%e retrenc%ent and eentuaclosure of t%e co&any, %ence, %e ay not be %eld &ersonallyand solidarily liable wit% t%e co&any for t%e satisfaction of t%e?udgent in faor of t%e retrenc%ed e&loyees'Disposition3%e resolution of t%e NLRC ordering t%e &etitione

co&any to &ay se&aration &ay differentials to t%e &riateres&ondents is A++*R!D' Joweer, t%e award of id-yeabonus to t%e is %ereby deleted and set aside' Petitioner RauLocsin is absoled fro any &ersonal liability to t%e res&ondente&loyees' No costs'

ASIAN TRANSUNION CORP V CA)A+E 4"

NAT'RE 8 ;ON'S 8 WHENDEMANDA;$E


29/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@0 - DisiniAMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE DAILY RATED

EMPLOYEES UNION V AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLECO INC

)A+E 4

LUZON STEVEDORING CORP V CIR1" SCRA !!0

:EN+Z%N; De/ember 31, 19!"NATUREA&&eal fro ?udgent and order of t%e Court of *ndustrialRelations

FACTS- 3%e a&&eal is a consolidation of t%ree actions filed for oragainst Lu8on)teedoring Cor&oration and Lu8teeco &loyees Associationin connection wit% a strike called by t%e $nion on (anuary 2,1.


30/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@1 - Disini denied t%e deand for gratuity because gratuity isessentially oluntary and t%e anageent cannot beco&elled to gie t%e sae' NDC res&onsible for t%e e?ection of t%e crew of t%e !) DoXaAlicia, in iew of its failure to incor&orate in t%e deed of sale infaor of L*)3C/ a &roision on t%e retention of t%e serices oft%e co&leent of t%e essels, in s&ite of t%e latter>s re6uestst%erefor &rior to t%e consuation of t%e sale' NDC ordered to &ay t%e back wages of t%e e?ected crew u& to

t%e date of t%eir actual reinstateent' L*)3C/ was co&letely e7onerated fro any liability, t%e trialcourt reasoning t%at t%e lay off of t%e crew of t%e !) DoXaAlicia was coitted on (une 21, 1.;1, or before saidres&ondent becae sub?ect to t%e restraining order of (une G0,1.;1'- )e&teber 2, 1.;< U C*R, u&on t%e !+R of NDC, odified t%edecision of t%e trial (udge NDC and L*)3C/ solidarity liable for &ayent of t%ebackwages L*)3C/ e6ually res&onsible, t%e court en banc took intoaccount t%e fact t%at as of A&ril 2., 1.;1, it was already anindis&ensable &arty to t%e case' 3%us, wit% knowledge of t%erestraining order of !ay G, 1.;1 to t%e anageent againstunaut%ori8ed disissal of e&loyees and laborers, t%e court%eld t%at L*)3C/ could not clai to %ae acted in good fait%w%en it e?ected t%e crew of t%e !) DoXa Alicia on (une 21,1.;1' increased t%e allowable accuulated acation and sickleaes wit% &ay of t%e &etitioners, fro < to 10 ont%s becauseof RA10=1' new sale of t%e DoXa essels %ad taken &lace during t%e&endency of t%e otion for reconsideration, t%e case wasordered reo&ened, but only for t%e &ur&ose of deterining t%eerits of t%e deand for gratuity &ay'- $ISTCO assails ruling on &aying, ?ointly and seerally wit% t%e NDC, backwages to t%e affected officers and crew ebers of t%e !)DoXa Alicia, claiing1E t%at t%e *ndustrial Court was wit%out ?urisdiction oer its&ersons, L*)3C/ not being a &arty to t%e labor dis&ute certifiedto it by t%e President:2E t%at t%e restraining order of !ay G, 1.;1 did not include t%is

&etitioner: andGE t%at it cannot legally be co&elled to retain t%e serices oft%e original crew of t%e !) DoXa Alicia- NDC raises1E legality of t%e strike staged by t%e crews of t%e t%ree

essels and of t%eir rig%t to strike-duration &ay2E liability for suc% strike-duration &ay and for reinstateent oft%e officers and crew-ebers w%o were not ree&loyed aftert%e conclusion of t%e Agreeent of Noeber 2=, 1.;1GE ?urisdiction of> t%e Court of *ndustrial Relations oer t%eofficers of t%e essels4E legality of t%e ruling t%at t%e crew-ebers are entitled toaccuulated sick and acation leaes wit% &ays deands for gratuity are concerned

ISSUES1' "/N C*R %as ?urisdiction oer t%e case since, at t%at tie,L*)3C/ is not an e&loyer of t%e &etitioners2' "/N L*)3C/ is bound by t%e 3R/G' "/N NDC is liable for backwages4' "/N crew-ebers are entitled to accuulated sick andacation leaes wit% &ays aut%ority wasalready in full force, %aing been issued since !ay G' et, in its

letter dated (une 1@, 1.;1 and sent to t%e !aster of t%e !)DoXa Alicia, t%e 5eneral !anager of t%e NDC en?oined t%eofficers and crew ebers t%ereof, w%o were not selected byt%e new owner to debark' 3%is letter, in effect, was a de#ian!eo# the Industrial Court,s in'un!tion, ?ust as t%e L*)3C/>sre&laceent of t%e DoXa Alicia crew was in disregard o# thesame order' 3%is coo&eration and concordant action of bot%a&&ellants, &lainly contrary to t%e e7&ress C*R order of !ay G?ustifies t%eir being %eld solidarily liable for t%e back wages ot%e officers and crew of said otor essel'4' )- R*5J3 3/ ACC$!$LA3*/N /+ )*CO AND 9ACA3*/N LA9)"*3J PA - 3%e lower court>s recognition of t%e rig%t of t%ee&loyees of t%e NDC, adittedly a goernent-owned andcontrolled cor&oration to accuulation of sick and acationleaes wit% &ay is based on t%e &roisions of 5oernen

nter&rises Counsel Circular No' 4 of !arc% 1.4= and o)ections 2.4-2=; of t%e Adinistratie Code as aended byRe&ublic Act No' 10=1, w%ic% increased t%e allowableaccuulated acation and sick of goernent e&loyees to10 ont%s' 3%e fact t%at t%e officers and unlicensed ebersof t%e crew of t%e essel %ad a collectie bargaining contractt%at did not contain any &roision on t%e &ayent oaccuulated leaes does not by itself bar t%e e&loyees> resorto t%e Leae Law' 3%e rule is t%at t%e law fors &art of, andinto, eery contract, unless clearly e7cluded t%erefro in t%osecases w%ere suc% e7clusion is allowed'


31/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@2 - Disinilong and regular concession ay becoe regarded as &art ofregular co&ensation' P%il' ducation Co', *nc', s' C'*'R', .2P%il', G=2, G=s e&loyee>s anual and aret%erefore contractual in nature is not i&ressie'Reasoninga' Anniersary and &erforance bonuses %ae ri&ened into a!ompany pra!ti!e t%erefore becoe deandable' *t is nodis&uted t%at it is res&ondent>s &ractice to gie an anniersarybonus eery fie years fro its incor&oration' 3%e &rerogatieof t%e e&loyer to deterine w%o aong its e&loyees s%albe entitled to receie bonuses w%ic% are, as a atter o&ractice, gien &eriodically cannot be e7ercised arbitrarily'b' Pursuant to t%eir poli!ieson t%e atter, t%e serice awarddifferential is gien at t%e end of t%e year to an e&loyee w%o%as co&leted years of serice diisible by if t%ee&loyee %as sered during t%e sti&ulated tie, on t%e groundt%at it was a &roise of a ere gratuity'Disposition 3%e assailed decision and resolution o

res&ondent National Labor Relations Coissions are %ereby)3 A)*D and t%e decision of Labor Arbiter Ale7 Arcadio Lo&e8is R*N)3A3D'

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP VNLRC (ANGELES, PABLO, "R)

30 SCRA 21818 6a 1999

NATUREPetition for certiorari of a decision of NLRC'

FACTS- AN5L) and PAHL/, (R' BC/!PLA*NAN3), for breity weree&loyed by PNCC as tollway guards' Acting on a &riate

co&laint regarding ulcting actiities of soe of its tollway&ersonnel, PNCC created an inestigating tea' During itsinestigation, said tea saw C/!PLA*NAN3) acce&t cas% and adog fro a otorist'- After due inestigation, C/!PLA*NAN3) were disissed byPNCC for serious isconduct' "%en t%e C/!PLA*NAN3)co&laint for illegal disissal reac%ed NLRC, t%e latter %eldt%at C/!PLA*NAN3)# act of receiing a su of oney and a dogfro otorists constituted bribery w%ic% was a sufficienground for t%eir disissal' NLRC, nonet%eless, ordered PNCC to&ay C/!PLA*NAN3) t%eir id-year bonus for 1..4, aongot%ers' Jence, t%e &resent &etition'

ISSUE"/N C/!PLA*NAN3) entitled to t%e dis&uted id-year bonus


32/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@G - Disini

HELDN/Ratio A bonus is a gift fro t%e e&loyer and t%e grantt%ereof is a anageent &rerogatie' A bonus becoes adeandable or enforceable obligation only w%en it is ade &art

of t%e co&ensation of t%e e&loyee' "%et%erW a bonusfors &art of wages de&ends u&on t%e circustancesW for its&ayent' *f it is additional co&ensation w%ic% t%e e&loyer&roised and agreed to gie wit%out any conditions i&osedfor its &ayent, suc% as success of business or greater&roduction or out&ut, t%en it is &art of t%e wage' Hut if it is &aidonly if &rofits are reali8ed or if a certain leel of &roductiity isac%ieed, it cannot be considered &art of t%e wage' "%ere itisW &ayableW only to soe e&loyees and only w%en t%eirlabor becoes ore efficient or ore &roductie, it is only aninduceent for efficiency, a &ri8e t%erefor, not a &art of t%ewage Bciting 9etro Transit vs NLRC+ 24< )CRA @;@ 1..s clais to beuneritorious and disissed its co&laint'

- NLRC4 granted all of &riate res&ondent>s clais, e7ce&t fordaages ordering res&ondent- a&&ellee to &ay co&lainanta&&ellantF1' 3%e un&aid bonus id-year and C%ristas bonusE and 1Gt%ont% &ay:2' "age differentials under "age /rder No' ; for Noeber 11.=4 and t%e corres&onding ad?ustent t%ereof: andG' Joliday &ay under Article .4 of t%e Labor Code, but not toe7ceed t%ree GE years'

- Petitioner now contends t%at t%e NLRC graely abused itsdiscretion in ruling as it did for t%e succeeding reasons stated inits Petition

ISSUES1' "/N &etitioner s%ould &ay t%e un&aid bonus2' "/N &etitioner s%ould &ay t%e 1Gt%ont% &ayG' "/N &etitioner co&lied wit% "age /rder No';4' "/N &etitioner co&lied wit% Art'.4 of t%e Labor Code on%oliday &ay

HELD1' N/RatioA bonus is an aount granted and &aid to an e&loyeefor %is industry and loyalty w%ic% contributed to t%e success ot%e e&loyer>s business and ade &ossible t%e reali8ation o&rofits' *t is an act of generosity granted by an enlig%tenede&loyer to s&ur t%e e&loyee to greater efforts for t%esuccess of t%e business and reali8ation of bigger &rofits' 3%egranting of a bonus is a anageent &rerogatie, soet%inggien in addition to w%at is ordinarily receied by or strictly duet%e reci&ient'1G 3%us, a bonus is not a deandable andenforceable obligation, e7ce&t w%en it is ade &art of t%ewage, salary or co&ensation of t%e e&loyee'- Joweer, an e&loyer cannot be forced to distribute bonusesw%ic% it can no longer afford to &ay' 3o %old ot%erwise would beto &enali8e t%e e&loyer for %is &ast generosity'Reasoning- &riate res&ondent declared in its &osition &a&ers filed wit%t%e NLRC t%at Producers Hank of t%e P%ili&&ines %as been

&roiding seeral benefits to its e&loyees since 1.@1 w%en istarted its o&eration' Aong t%e benefits it %ad been regularlygiing is a id-year bonus e6uialent to an e&loyee>s one-ont% basic &ay and a C%ristas bonus e6uialent to ane&loyee>s one w%ole ont% salary basic &ay &lus allowanceEJoweer, it %as c%anged t%is &ractice' *n a tabular for, %ereare t%e bank>s iolationsF- Priate res&ondent argues t%at t%e id-year and C%ristasbonuses, by reason of t%eir %aing been gien for t%irteenconsecutie years, %ae ri&ened into a ested rig%t and, assuc%, can no longer be unilaterally wit%drawn by &etitionewit%out iolating Art'100 of PD No' 442. w%ic% &ro%ibits t%ediinution or eliination of benefits already being en?oyed byt%e e&loyees'- Petitioner was not only e7&eriencing a decline in its &rofits, buwas reeling fro treendous losses triggered by a bank-run

w%ic% began in 1.=G' *n suc% a de&ressed financial condition&etitioner cannot be legally co&elled to continue &aying t%esae aount of bonuses to its e&loyees' 3%us, t%econserator was ?ustified in reducing t%e id-year andC%ristas bonuses of &etitioner>s e&loyees' 3o %old ot%erwisewould be to defeat t%e reason for t%e conserators%i& w%ic% isto &resere t%e assets and restore t%e iability of t%e financially&recarious bank'2' N/Ratio3%e intention of t%e law was to grant soe relief - not toall workers - but only to t%ose not actually &aid a 1Gt% ont%salary or w%at aounts to it, by w%ateer nae called' *t wasnot enisioned t%at a double burden would be i&osed on t%ee&loyer already &aying %is e&loyees a 1Gt% ont% &ay or itse6uialent w%et%er out of &ure generosity or on t%e basis of abinding agreeent' 3o i&ose u&on an e&loyer already giing

AR !*D- ARH/N$)

CJR*)3!A)H/N$)

1G3J !/'PA

&reiousyears

one o' basic one o' basic one o' Hasic

1.=4 Bone o' basic -none- one-%alf o'Hasic

1.=< one-%alf o'basic

-none- one-%alf o'Hasic

1.=; one-%alf o'basic

one-%alf o'basic

one o' Hasic

1.=@ one-%alf o'basic

one-%alf o'basic

one o' basic


33/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@4 - Disini%is e&loyees t%e e6uialent of a 1Gt% ont% &ay would be to&enali8e %i for %is liberality and in all &robability, t%ee&loyer would react by wit%drawing t%e bonuses or resistfurt%er oluntary grants for fear t%at if and w%en a law is&assed giing t%e sae benefits, %is &rior concessions ig%tnot be gien due credit'Reasoning- Petitioner argues t%at it is not coered by PD =


34/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@< - Disinibest efforts to conclude a CHA' $&on conclusion of t%e CHAnegotiations, &etitioner accordingly gae t%is early signingbonus'- After t%is CHA e7&ired in Aug'1..., t%e 2 &arties begannegotiations for a new CHA but after 11 eetings, res&ondentunion declared a deadlock and a few days later filed a notice ofstrike' A conciliation and ediation conference was %eld but itstill left t%e ff' issues unresoledF wages, rice subsidy, signingand retroactie bonus' +ailure to coe to an agreeent led

res&ondent union to go on an 11-day strike w%ic% resulted insto&&age of anufacturing o&erations as well as losses for&etitioner' 3%is constrained &etitioner to file a &etition beforet%e D/L and t%e Labor )ecretary Laguesa resoled t%edis&ute by issuing an order w%ic%, aong ot%ers, granted asigning bonus of PG,000 to t%e union'- Petitioner filed a !+R, stating t%at it acce&ted t%e decision buttook e7ce&tion to t%e award of t%e signing bonus, claiing t%atit is not deandable or enforceable since it is in t%e nature ofan incentie' Labor )ec' denied t%is otion' Petitioner t%en filedfor Certiorari wit% t%e CA w%ic% was dealt wit% siilarly' 3%eLabor )ec#s award of signing bonus was affired since&etitioner itself offered t%e sae incentie to e7&edite t%e CHAnegotiations, w%ic% t%ey did not wit%draw and was stilloutstanding w%en t%e dis&ute reac%ed t%e D/L' Petitioner fileda !+R w%ic% was again denied, leading to t%is &etition'

ISSUE"/N t%e signing bonus awarded by t%e Labor )ecretary andaffired by res&ondent CAE was &ro&er

HELDN/Ratio A signing bonus ay not be deanded as a atter ofrig%t if it is not agreed u&on by t%e &arties or unilaterallyoffered as an additional incentie' *t is not a deandable andenforceable obligation' 3%e condition for awarding it ust beduly satisfied'Reasoning- 2 t%ings ilitate against t%e grant of t%e signing bonusF first,t%e non-fulfillent of t%e condition for w%ic% it was offered, i'e',t%e s&eedy and aicable conclusion of t%e CHA negotiations:and second, t%e failure of res&ondent union to &roe t%at t%e

grant of t%e said bonus is a long establis%ed tradition or aregular &ractice on t%e &art of &etitioner' Petitioner adits,and res&ondent union does not dis&ute, t%at it offered an earlyconclusion bonus or an incentie for a swift finis% to t%e CHAnegotiations'- A signing bonus is ?ustified by and is t%e consideration &aid fort%e goodwill t%at e7isted in t%e negotiations t%at culinated int%e signing of a CHA' *n t%e case at bar, t%e CHA negotiationbetween &etitioner and res&ondent union failed' Res&ondentunion went on strike for eleen days and blocked t%e ingress toand egress fro &etitioner#s work &lants' 3%e labor dis&ute %adto be referred to t%e )ecretary of Labor and &loyentbecause neit%er of t%e &arties was willing to co&roise t%eirres&ectie &ositions regarding t%e four reaining ites w%ic%stood unresoled' "%ile we do not fault any one &arty for t%efailure of t%e negotiations, it is a&&arent t%at t%ere was no ore

goodwill between t%e &arties and t%at t%e CHA was clearly notsigned t%roug% t%eir utual efforts alone' Jence, t%e &ayentof t%e signing bonus is no longer ?ustified and to order suc%&ayent would be unfair and unreasonable for &etitioner'- "e %ae consistently ruled t%at alt%oug% a bonus is not adeandable and enforceable obligation, it ay neert%eless begranted on e6uitable considerations as w%en t%e giing of suc%bonus %as been t%e co&any#s long and regular &ractice' 3o beconsidered a regular &ractice, %oweer, t%e giing of t%ebonus s%ould %ae been done oer a long &eriod of tie, andust be s%own to %ae been consistent and deliberate' 3%e testor rationale of t%is rule on long &ractice re6uires an indubitables%owing t%at t%e e&loyer agreed to continue giing t%ebenefits knowing fully well t%at said e&loyees are not coeredby t%e law re6uiring &ayent t%ereof' Res&ondent does notcontest t%e fact t%at &etitioner initially offered a signing bonus

only during t%e &reious CHA negotiation' Preious to t%att%ere is no eidence on record t%at &etitioner eer offered t%esae or t%at t%e &arties included a signing bonus aong t%eites to be resoled in t%e CHA negotiation' Jence, t%e giingof suc% bonus cannot be deeed as an establis%ed &racticeconsidering t%at t%e sae was gien only once'Disposition &etition is 5RAN3D' CA decision affiring t%e/rder of t%e )ecretary of Labor and &loyent is R9R)Dand )3 A)*D'

2(s wages Hecause ConcordePacific, an Aerican co&any wc owns !9 Princess Joadecided to use s%i& in t%e coastwise trade' )ince t%e !9Princess Joa was a foreign registered essel and could not beused in t%e coastwise trade, t%e s%i&owner conerted t%e esseto P%ili&&ine registry on )e&t 2=, 1..4 by way of bareboac%artering it out to anot%er entity naed P%ili&&ine Carrie)%i&&ing Lines Co' BPC)LC' 3o do t%is, t%e s%i&owner %ad toterinate its anageent agreeent wit% PC)A)C/ on )e&

2=, 1..4 by a letter of terination' Conse6uently, PC)A)C/terinated its crew agreeent wit% /)! in a letter dated Dec


35/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@; - Disini)- Petitioner, as anning agent, is ?ointly and seerally liablewit% its &rinci&al, PC)A)C/, for &riate res&ondent>s clai' 3%isconclusion is in accordance wit% )ection 1 of Rule ** of t%e P/ARules and Regulations@'- (oint and solidary liability is eant to assure aggrieedworkers of iediate and sufficient &ayent of w%at is duet%e' 3%e fact t%at &etitioner and its &rinci&al %ae alreadyterinated t%eir agency agreeent does not reliee t%e forer

of its liability' 3%e reason for t%is ruling was gien by t%is Courtin Catan National Labor Relations Coission, w%ic% were&roduce in &art as followsF

3%is ust be so, because t%e obligations coenanted in t%eBanning agreeent between t%e local agent and its foreign&rinci&al are not coterinus wit% t%e ter of suc% agreeentso t%at if eit%er or bot% of t%e &arties decide to end t%eagreeent, t%e res&onsibilities of suc% &arties towards t%econtracted e&loyees under t%e agreeent do not at all end,but t%e sae e7tends u& to and until t%e e7&iration of t%e,e&loyent contracts of t%e e&loyees recruited ande&loyed &ursuant to t%e said recruitent agreeent'/t%erwise, t%is will render nugatory t%e ery &ur&ose forw%ic% t%e law goerning t%e e&loyent of workers forforeign ?obs abroad was enacted'

Disposition NLRC Decision R*N)3A3D and A++*R!D

MANILA ELECTRIC CO V BENAMIRA)A+E !2

2(+air and reasonable alue> s%all not include any &rofit to t%ee&loyer or to any &erson affiliated wit% t%e e&loyer'e&%asis su&&liedE

9Article 110' Wor!er %reference in case of 0an!ru%tcy E *n t%e eent of bankru&tcy

or li6uidation of an e&loyer>s business, %is workers s%all en?oy first &reference aregards wages due t%e for serices rendered during t%e &eriod &rior to t%bankru&tcy or li6uidation, any &roision of law to t%e contrary notwit%standing' $nion&aid wages s%all be &aid in full before ot%er creditors ay establis% any clai to as%are in t%e assets of t%e e&loyer' e&%asis su&&liedE'


36/39

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1@@ - Disini$ /n 1G !ay 1.==, &riate res&ondent Raiund Die%l, aresident alien, lodged a co&laint for illegal disissal againstt%e P%ili&&ine 5eran "ire !es% Reinforcing Cor&oration+*L+/RCE wit% t%e National Labor Relations CoissionNLRCE' Parent%etically, fie s !anual ' ' ', wasnot &ro&erly %eeded'- "e could consider t%e followingF

1' 3%e !anual re6uires t%at t%e indenity bond t%at ust be&osted u& by t%e &reailing &arty s%ould be in a su not lesst%an t%e alue of t%e &ro&erty leied' Jere, Die%l %as &ut u&a bond of only P1,G20,@@2'11: t%e a&&raised alue, %oweertotals P4,.G4,000'00'2' 3%e !anual &roides t%at in case of disagreeent on t%ealue of t%e &ro&erty leied, t%e atter s%all be deterinedby t%e Labor Arbiter' Not only did PJ*L5$ARAN3 &ro&tlyc%allenge t%e integrity of t%e bond subitted by Die%l but it

also did 6uestion t%e aount of t%e bond' )ince t%edifference is substantial, it s%ould %ae be%ooed t%e LaboArbiter to take ore t%an ?ust a &assing glance on t%e claiof PJ*L5$ARAN3'

- A final obseration' /n 21 !arc% 1.=., Article 110 of t%eLabor Code was aended by Re&ublic Act No' ;@1< so as toreadF

Art' 110' "orker &reference in case of bankru&tcy' T *n t%eeent of bankru&tcy or li6uidation of an e&loyer>s business%is workers s%all en?oy first &reference as regards t%eir wagesand ot%er onetary clais, any &roisions of law to t%econtrary notwit%standing' )uc% un&aid wages and onetaryclais s%all be &aid in full before clais of t%e 5oernenand ot

Documents

Cases Wage