labor standards digests 2

Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/sLetran Calamba Faculty v. NLRCGR No. 15622529 January 2008Austria-Martinez, J.

In 1992, the Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association filed with the NLRC a complaint against Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Calamba for collection of various monetary claims due to its members. In 1994, the Association held a strike.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the Association’s money claims, and also dismissed Letran’s petition to declare the strike illegal. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter on appeal. The CA also affirmed the NLRC.

W/N the CA can review the factual findings and legal conclusions of the NLRC in a special civil action for certiorari.

W/N a teacher’s overload pay should be considered in the computation of his or her 13th month pay.

NO. The Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that since nowhere in the petition is there any acceptable demonstration that the LA or the NLRC acted either with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of its jurisdiction, the appellate court has no reason to look into the correctness of the evaluation of evidence which supports the labor tribunals’ findings of fact.

NO. Overload pay should be excluded in the computation of the 13th month pay of the Association’s members. The peculiarity of an overload lies in the fact that it may be performed within the normal eight-hour working day. This is the only reason why the DOLE, in its explanatory bulletin, finds it proper to include a teacher’s overload pay in the determination of his or her 13th

month pay. However, the DOLE loses sight of the fact that even if it is performed within the normal eight-hour working day, an overload is still an additional or extra teaching work which is performed after the regular teaching load has been completed. Hence, any pay given as compensation for such additional work should be considered as extra and not deemed as part of the regular or basic salary.

The appellate court’s jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari does not include correction of the NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings. Such findings are generally accorded not only respect but also finality. A party assailing such findings bears the burden of showing that the tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy, in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie.

Settled is the rule that the findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.

Basic wage means all remuneration or earnings paid by an employer to a worker for services rendered on

1


normal working days and hours but does not include cost of living allowances, 13th month pay or other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the workers.

Overload vs. Overtime: Overtime work is work rendered in excess of normal working hours of eight in a day. Overload work is additional work after completing the regular workload, may be performed either within or outside eight hours in a day, and may or may not be considered overtime work.

What are deemed not part of the basic salary:

a. Cost of living allowances granted pursuant to PD 525 and LOI 174;

b. Profit sharing payments;c. All allowances and

monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular basic salary of the employee at the time of the promulgation of the Decree;

d. Overtime pay, earnings, and other remunerations as provided for by PD 851’s IRR.

Philippine Airlines v. LiganGR No. 14640830 April 2009Carpio-Morales, J.

25 employees were terminated by Synergy Services Corporation in the guise of retrenchment. They filed a complaint against Philippine Airlines with regard to their regularization and under-/non-payment of their benefits with respect to their termination.

13 out of the 25 terminated employees also filed an illegal

W/N the Decision of the Court ordering PAL to “accept” the respondents also means that they should be “reinstated” with backwages.

NO. The Court’s prior decision ruled on the regular status of the respondents, but said decision should be deemed without prejudice to the resolution of the issue of illegal dismissal in the proper case. The Court could not take cognizance of the validity of the eventual dismissal of respondents because the matter of just or authorized cause is beyond the issues of the case.

The Court cannot take cognizance of issues which were not brought up by the parties of the case on appeal.

2


dismissal case against PAL, the resolution of which was held in abeyance until the Court has done ruling on the present case.

The Court ruled, for the present case, in the employees’ favor, declaring them as regular employees and directing PAL to accept them as such.

PAL submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, while the respondents filed for a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration.

P.I. Manufacturing v. P.I. Manufacturing Supervisors and Foremen AssociationGR No. 1672174 February 2008Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

RA 6640 was signed into law on 10 December 1987, providing, among others, an increase in the statutory minimum wage and salary rates of employees and workers in the private sector. It provides that the minimum wage of workers and employees in the private sector shall be increased by P10, except those outside Manila who shall receive an increase of P11, provided those that are already receiving above the minimum wage shall receive an increase of P10. PI Manufacturing Supervisors and Foremen Association (PIMASUFA) entered into a new CBA whereby the supervisors were granted an increase of P625 per month and the foremen, P475 per month. The increases were made to retroact to 12 May 1987, or prior to the passage of RA 6640. The application of said CBA resulted in a wage distortion, which prompted the PIMASUFA together with the National Labor Union to file a case against PIMA for violation of RA 6640. PIMA asseverates that the The Company and Supervisors and Foremen Contract absolves, quitclaims, and releases the company for any monetary claim that the

W/N the PIMASUFA, by signing The Company and Supervisors and Foremen Contract, has waived any benefit it may have under RA 6640.

W/N the 13.5% increase in the supervisors and foremen’s basic salary should be increased to 18.5% to correct the wage distortion brought about by the implementation of RA 6640.

NO. The increase resulting from any wage distortion brought about by the implementation of the new minimum wage law is not waivable.

NO. Although there was a wage distortion, the same was cured or remedied when PIMASUFA entered into the 1987 CBA with PIMA after the effectivity of RA 6640. The 1987 CBA increased the monthly salaries of the supervisors by P626 and P475, which re-establishes the gap not only between supervisors and foremen but also between them and the rank-and-file employees. Such gap as re-established by virtue of the CBA is more than a substantial compliance with RA 6640. Moreover, requiring PIMA to pay 18.5%, over and above the negotiated wage increases provided under the 1987 CBA, is highly unfair and oppressive to the former.

A CBA constitutes the law between the parties when freely and voluntarily entered into. It was not shown that PIMASUFA was coerced or forced by PIMA to sign the 1987 CBA. All of its 13 officers signed the

Quitclaims by laborers are generally frowned upon as contrary to public policy and are held to be ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the worker’s rights. The reason for the rule is that the employer and the employee do not stand on the same footing.

Article 1149 of the Civil Code states that: When the law sets, or authorizes the setting of a minimum wage for laborers, and a contract is agreed upon by which a laborer accepts a lower wage, he shall be entitled to recover the deficiency.

According to RA 6727, wage distortion is a situation where an increase in prescribed wage results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of differentiation. Otherwise stated, wage distortion means the disappearance or virtual

3


supervisors and the foremen may have previous to the signing of the agreement on 17 December 1987.The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of PIMASUFA and ordered PIMA to give the PIMASUFA members wage increases equivalent to 13.5% of their basic pay. The CA affirmed, but raised the wage increase to 18.5%.

CBA with the assistance of NLU. They signed it fully aware of the passage of RA 6640. The duty to bargain requires that the parties deal with each other with open and fair minds. PIMASUFA cannot invoke the beneficial provisions of the 1987 CBA but disregard the concessions it voluntarily extends to PIMA.

disappearance of pay differentials between lower and higher positions in an enterprise because of compliance with a wage order.

The goal of collective bargaining is the making of agreements that will stabilize business conditions and fix fair standards of working conditions.

TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees UnionGR No. 16341913 February 2008Velasco, Jr., J.

In 1999, TSPIC and the Union entered into a CBA for the years 2000 to 2004. The CBA included a provisions on

1. Yearly salary increases starting January 2000 until January 2002.

2. Employees who acquire regular employment status within the year but after the effectivity of a particular increase shall receive a proportionate part of the increase upon attainment of their regular status.

On 1 January 2000, all the regular rank-and-file employees of TSPIC received a 10% increase in their salary. On 6 October 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board issued Wage Order No. 8 which raised the daily minimum wage. More employees reached the regular status and received increases in their salaries as mandated by the CBA. On January 2001, the TSPIC implemented the new wage rates as mandated by the CBA. 9 employees who were senior to those who were recently regularized received less wages. Subsequently, the HR Department of TSPIC notified 24 employees that they were overpaid due to an error in the automated payroll system, and

W/N charging the overpayments made to 16 employees through staggered deductions from their salaries amounts to diminution of benefits.

NO. Diminution of benefits is the unilateral withdrawal by the employer of benefits already enjoyed by the employees.

The CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA

There is diminution of benefits when it is shown that:

1. The grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period;

2. The practice is consistent and deliberate;

3. The practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law;

4. The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.

An erroneously granted benefit may be withdrawn without violating the prohibition against non-diminution of benefits.

Although it is the state’s responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as an instrument to oppress management and capital.

In resolving disputes between labor and capital, fairness and justice should always prevail.

4


that these would be deducted from their salaries in a staggered basis. Social justice does not mandate that

every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to be granted to the deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

5

labor standards digests 2

Documents