Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorporated v. Nlrc

AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) GR. No. 121439 Janua! 2"# 2$$$ Gon%a&a'R!# J.* +a,-*

These are consolidated cases/claims for non-payment of salaries and wages, 13th month  pay, ECOLA and other fringe benefits as rice, medical and clothing allowances, sbmitted by complainant !odolfo "# !etiso and 1$3 others, Lyn E# %anilla and &ilson %# 'allador against respondent A(lan Electric Cooperati)e, *nc# +AELCO# On .anary , 100, by way of resoltion of the %oard %o ard of irectors of AELCO allowed the temporary transfer holding ho lding of office at Amon Theater, alibo, A(lan and that their head office was closed# 2e)ertheless, maority of the employees inclding herein complainants contined to report for wor( at Le4o A(lan and were pa id of their salaries# On 5ebrary 11, 100, nnmbered resoltion was passed by b y the %oard of AELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at alibo, A(lan, and that the daily operations mst be held again at the main office of Le4o, A(lan# Complainants who were then reporting at the Le4o office from .anary 100 p to "ay 100 were dly paid of their salaries, while in the meantime some of the employees throgh the instigation of respondent "ationg contined to remain and wor( at alibo, A(lan# 6owe)er, from .ne 100 p to "arch 17, 1003, complainants who continosly reported for wor( at Le4o, A(lan in compliance with the aforementioned resoltion were not paid their salaries# The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, which was re)ersed by the 2L!C and held that the pri)ate respondents are entitled to their np aid wages# Iu*

&hether or not pri)ate respondents are entitled for npaid wages# Ru/n&*

8ri)ate respondents are not entitled for npaid wages# The 'preme Cort held that  2L!C committed gra)e abse of discretion amonting to e9cess or want of risdiction risdiction when it re)ersed the findings of the Labor Arbiter that pri)ate respondents refsed to wor( nder the lawfl orders of the petitioner AELCO management: hence they are co)ered b y the ;no wor(, no pay; principle and are ths not entitled to the claim for npaid wages from .ne 1$, 100 to "arch 17, 1003#

The 'preme Cort affirmed the LAeneral "anager, the complainants did not follow sch order# The %oard of irectors passed a !esoltion resisting and denying the claims of these complainants, nder the principle of ;no wor( no pay; which is legally stified# These complainants ha)e ;mass lea)e; from their cstomary wor( on .ne 100 p to "arch 17, 1003 and had a ;sit-down; stance for these periods of time in their alleged  protest of the appointment of respondent Atty# Leo)igildo "ationg as the new >eneral "anager of the AELCO# The age-old rle go)erning the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a ;fair days wage for a fair days labor; remains as the basic factor in determining employees wages# *f there is no wor( performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay nless, of corse, the laborer was able, willing and ready to wor( bt was illegally loc(ed ot, sspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally pre)ented from wor(ing, a sitation which is not  present in the instant case# *t wold neither be fair nor st to allow pri)ate respondents to reco)er something they ha)e not earned and cold not ha)e earned becase they did not render ser)ices at the alibo office dring the stated period# 6ence, the 'preme Cort re)ersed 2L!C