SECOND DIVISION
|
SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST
and SONNY L. LAGON, Petitioners, - versus - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH
DIVISION, ROLDAN LOPEZ, EDGARDO ZUÑIGA and DANILO CAÑETE, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 172161 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR.,* ABAD,
and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: March 2, 2011 |
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are
the January 11, 2006 Decision[1]
and the March 31, 2006 Resolution[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 00598 which affirmed with modification the March 31,
2004 Decision[3]
and December 15, 2004 Resolution[4]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC Decision found
the petitioners, SLL International Cables Specialist (SLL) and its
manager, Sonny L. Lagon (petitioners), not liable for the illegal
dismissal of Roldan Lopez, Danilo Cañete and Edgardo Zuñiga (private
respondents) but held them jointly and severally liable for payment
of certain monetary claims to said respondents.
A
chronicle of the factual antecedents has been succinctly summarized by the CA
as follows:
Sometime in 1996, and January 1997,
private respondents Roldan Lopez (Lopez for brevity) and Danilo Cañete (Cañete
for brevity), and Edgardo Zuñiga (Zuñiga for brevity) respectively, were hired
by petitioner Lagon as apprentice or trainee cable/lineman. The three were paid
the full minimum wage and other benefits but since they were only trainees,
they did not report for work regularly but came in as substitutes to the
regular workers or in undertakings that needed extra workers to expedite
completion of work. After their training, Zuñiga, Cañete and Lopez were engaged
as project employees by the petitioners in their Islacom project in P145.00, the minimum prescribed daily wage for Region VII. In
July 1997, the amount of P145
was increased to P150.00
by the Regional Wage Board (RWB) and in October of the same year, the latter
was increased to P155.00.
Sometime in March 1998, Zuñiga and Cañete were engaged again by Lagon as
project employees for its PLDT Antipolo, Rizal project, which ended sometime in
(sic) the late September 1998. As a consequence, Zuñiga and Cañete’s employment
was terminated. For this project, Zuñiga and Cañete received only the wage of P145.00 daily. The minimum prescribed wage
for Rizal at that time was P160.00.
Sometime in late November 1998, private
respondents re-applied in the Racitelcom project of Lagon in Bulacan. Zuñiga
and Cañete were re-employed. Lopez was also hired for the said specific
project. For this, private respondents received the wage of P145.00. Again, after the completion of
their project in March 1999, private respondents went home to
On P145.00.
At this time, the minimum prescribed rate for P198.00. In January to February 28, the three received the
wage of P165.00. The
existing rate at that time was P213.00.
For reasons of delay on the delivery of
imported materials from Furukawa Corporation, the Camarin project was not
completed on the scheduled date of completion. Face[d] with economic
problem[s], Lagon was constrained to cut down the overtime work of its
worker[s][,] including private respondents. Thus, when requested by private
respondents on
In their answers, petitioners admit
employment of private respondents but claimed that the latter were only project
employees[,] for their services were merely engaged for a specific project or
undertaking and the same were covered by contracts duly signed by private
respondents. Petitioners further alleged that the food allowance of P63.00 per day as well as private
respondents allowance for lodging house, transportation, electricity, water and
snacks allowance should be added to their basic pay. With these, petitioners
claimed that private respondents received higher wage rate than that prescribed
in Rizal and
Lastly, petitioners alleged that since
the workplaces of private respondents were all in
On
As to the status of
their employment, the LA opined that private respondents were regular employees
because they were repeatedly hired by petitioners and they performed activities
which were usual, necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the
employer.
With regard to the
underpayment of wages, the LA found that private respondents were underpaid. It
ruled that the free board and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by them could not be included in the computation
of their wages because these were given without their written consent.
The LA, however, found
that petitioners were not liable for illegal dismissal. The LA viewed private respondents’ act of
going home as an act of indifference when petitioners decided to prohibit
overtime work.[7]
In its
by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Order No. 19, Series
of 1993.[8]
The NLRC later denied[9]
the motion for reconsideration[10]
subsequently filed by petitioners.
When the matter was
elevated to the CA on a petition for certiorari,
it affirmed the findings that the private respondents were regular
employees. It considered the fact that they performed functions which were the
regular and usual business of petitioners. According to the CA, they were
clearly members of a work pool from which petitioners drew their project
employees.
The CA also stated that
the failure of petitioners to comply with the simple but compulsory requirement
to submit a report of termination to the nearest Public Employment Office every
time private respondents’ employment was terminated was proof that the latter were
not project employees but regular employees.
The CA likewise found
that the private respondents were underpaid. It ruled that the board and
lodging, electricity, water, and food
enjoyed by the private respondents could not be included in the computation of
their wages because these were given without their written consent. The CA added
that the private respondents were entitled to 13th month pay.
The CA also agreed with
the NLRC that there was no illegal dismissal. The CA opined that it was the petitioners’
prerogative to grant or deny any request for overtime work and that the private
respondents’ act of leaving the workplace after their request was denied was an
act of abandonment.
In modifying the
decision of the labor tribunal, however, the CA noted that respondent Roldan Lopez
did not work in the Antipolo project and, thus, was not entitled to wage
differentials. Also, in computing the
differentials for the period January and February 2000, the CA disagreed in the
award of differentials based on the minimum daily wage of P223.00, as the prevailing minimum daily wage then was
only P213.00. Petitioners sought reconsideration but the
CA denied it in its
In this petition for review
on certiorari,[12]
petitioners seek the reversal and setting aside of the CA decision anchored on this
lone:
GROUND/
ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED
A SERIOUS ERROR IN LAW IN AWARDING WAGE DIFFERENTIALS TO THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANTS ON THE BASES OF MERE TECHNICALITIES, THAT IS, FOR LACK OF WRITTEN
CONFORMITY x x x AND LACK OF NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
(DOLE)[,] AND THUS, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH
MODIFICATION THE NLRC DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE RULING IN THE CASE OF JENNY
M. AGABON and VIRGILIO AGABON vs, NLRC, ET AL., GR NO. 158963,
WELLCOME-DFA (NEW –DFA), ET AL., GR NO. 149349,
Petitioners reiterated
their position that the value of the facilities that the private respondents
enjoyed should be included in the computation of the “wages” received by them. They
argued that the rulings in Agabon v. NLRC[14]and
Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. v.
Nagkakaisang Empleyado Ng Wellcome-DFA[15]
should be applied by analogy, in
the sense that the lack of written acceptance of the employees of the
facilities enjoyed by them should not mean that the value of the facilities could
not be included in the computation of the private respondents’ “wages.”
On
After a thorough review
of the records, however, the Court finds no merit in the petition.
This petition generally involves factual issues, such
as, whether or not there is evidence on record to support the findings of the
LA, the NLRC and the CA that private respondents were project or regular
employees and that their salary differentials had been paid. This calls
for a re-examination of the evidence, which the Court cannot entertain. Settled
is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are
generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when
supported by substantial evidence. It is not the Court’s function to assess and
evaluate the evidence
all
over again, particularly where the findings of both the Labor tribunals and the
CA concur. [16]
As a general rule, on payment of wages, a party who
alleges payment as a defense has the burden of proving it.[17]
Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of
monetary claims rests on the employer, the rationale being that the pertinent
personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents —
which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other
claims of workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but
in the custody and absolute control of the employer.[18]
In this case, petitioners, aside from bare
allegations that private respondents received wages higher than the prescribed
minimum, failed to present any evidence, such as payroll or payslips, to
support their defense of payment. Thus, petitioners utterly failed to
discharge the onus probandi.
Private respondents, on the other hand, are entitled to be paid
the minimum wage, whether
they are regular
or non-regular employees.
Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code[19]
specifically enumerates those who are not covered by the payment of minimum
wage. Project employees are not among them.
On whether the value of
the facilities should be included in the computation of the “wages” received by
private respondents, Section 1 of
DOLE Memorandum Circular No. 2 provides that an employer may provide subsidized
meals and snacks to his employees provided that the subsidy shall not be less
that 30% of the fair and reasonable value of such facilities. In such cases,
the employer may deduct from the wages of the employees not more than 70% of
the value of the meals and snacks enjoyed by the latter, provided that such
deduction is with the written authorization of the employees concerned.
Moreover, before the
value of facilities can be deducted from the employees’ wages, the following
requisites must all be attendant: first, proof must be shown that such
facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; second, the provision
of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the
employee; and finally, facilities must be charged at reasonable value.[20]
Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees’
wages.[21]
These requirements, however,
have not been met in this case. SLL failed to present any company policy or
guideline showing that provisions for meals and lodging were part of the
employee’s salaries. It also failed to provide proof of the employees’ written
authorization, much less show how they arrived at their valuations. At any rate, it is not even clear whether private respondents actually enjoyed said facilities.
The Court, at this point, makes a distinction between
“facilities” and “supplements.” It is of
the view that the food and lodging, or the electricity and water allegedly
consumed by private respondents
in this case were not facilities but supplements. In
the case of Atok-Big Wedge Assn. v. Atok-Big Wedge Co.,[22]
the two terms were distinguished from one another in this wise:
"Supplements," therefore,
constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or
received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or
wages. "Facilities," on the other hand, are items of expense
necessary for the laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so that
by express provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), they form part of the wage and when
furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are not so
furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.
In short, the benefit or privilege given to the
employee which constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic or
ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is
part of the laborers' basic wages, it is a facility. The distinction lies not
so much in the kind of benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave)
given, but in the purpose for which it is given.[23] In the case at
bench, the items provided were given freely by SLL for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency and
health of its workers while they were working at their respective projects.
For said reason, the
cases of Agabon and Glaxo are inapplicable in this case. At any rate, these were cases of dismissal with
just and authorized causes. The present case involves the matter of the failure
of the petitioners to comply with the payment of the prescribed minimum wage.
The Court sustains the deletion of the award of
differentials with respect to respondent Roldan Lopez. As correctly pointed out by the CA, he did not work for
the project in Antipolo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued by the
Court on
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T
E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R
T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura per Special Order No. 933 dated
** Designated as
additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special
Order No. 954 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 48-60. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap
and concurred in by Associate
Justice Arsenio J. Magpale and Associate
Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Section 1. Venue. — (a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complaint/petitioner.
For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. In the case of field employees, as well as ambulant or itinerant workers, their workplace is where they are regularly assigned, or where they are supposed to regularly receive their salaries/wages or work instructions from, and report the results of their assignment to, their employers.
[7] Rollo, p. 130.
[8] 2.2 Indicators of project employment. – Either one or more of the following circumstances, among other, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer.
(e) The termination of his
employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the
workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using
the prescribed form on employees’ terminations/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 171-172.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] 485 Phil. 248 (2004).
[15] 493 Phil.410 (2005).
[16] Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian, 468 Phil 34 (2004).
[17] Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Querimit, 424 Phil. 721 (2002); Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., 408 Phil. 570 (2001); Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 706 (2000); Audion Electric Co, Inc. v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 620 (1999); Ropali Trading Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 357 Phil. 314 (1998); National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission (4th Division), 353 Phil. 551 (1998); Pacific Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ranay, 341 Phil. 716 (1997); Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 89 (1996); Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 46 (1996); Good Earth Emporium, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82797, February 27, 1991, 194 SCRA 544, 552; Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 46210, December 26, 1990, 192 SCRA 680, 690; Biala v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43503, October 31, 1990, 191 SCRA 50, 59; Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 255 Phil. 787 (1989).
[18] Dansart
Security Force & Allied Services Company v. Bagoy, G.R. No. 168495,
[19] Sec. 3. Coverage. – This Rule shall not apply to the following persons:
(a) Household or domestic helpers, including family drivers and persons in the personal service of another;
(b) Homeworkers who are engaged in needlework;
(c) Workers employed in any establishment duly registered with the National Cottage Industries and Development Authority in accordance with R.A. 3470, provided that such workers perform the work in their respective homes;
(d) Workers in any duly registered cooperative when so recommended by the Bureau of Cooperative Development and upon approval of the Secretary of Labor; Provided, however, That such recommendation shall be given only for the purpose of making the cooperative viable and upon finding and certification of said Bureau, supported by adequate proof, that the cooperative cannot resort to other remedial measures without serious loss or prejudice to its operation except through its exemption from the requirements of this Rule. The exemption shall be subject to such terms and conditions and for such period of time as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.
[20] Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v.
[21] Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, supra.
[22] 97 Phil. 294 (1955).
[23] States
Marine Corporation and Royal Line, Inc. v.