Labor Standards Digests 2

Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

Title Letran Calamba Faculty v. NLRC GR No. 156225 29 January 2008  Austria-Martinez, J.

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

The Labor Labor Arbite Arbiterr dismis dismissed sed 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.

Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/s W/N the CA can review the factual  NO. The Court finds no error in the The appellate appellate court’s court’s jurisdicti jurisdiction on to findings and legal conclusions of the ruling ruling of the CA that since nowhere nowhere review a decision of the NLRC in a   NLRC in a special civil action for  in the petition is there any acceptable   petition for  certiorari is confined to certiorari. certiorari. demons demonstrat tration ion that the LA or the issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse  NLRC acted either with grave abuse of discre discretio tion. n. An extrao extraordi rdinary nary of discretion or without or in excess remedy, remedy, a petition petition for  certiorari is of its jurisdiction, the appellate court available available only and restrictivel restrictively y in has no reaso reason n to look look into into the the truly truly except exception ional al cases. cases. The sole sole correct correctnes nesss of the evalua evaluatio tion n of  office office of the writ of certiorari of  certiorari is the evidence evidence which supports supports the labor  correction correction of errors of jurisdicti jurisdiction on tribunals’ findings of fact. including including the commission commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack  W/N a teacher’s overload pay should   NO. NO. Over Overlo load ad pay pay shou should ld be or excess of jurisdiction. The writ of  certiorari does not include correction   be considered in the computation of  excluded in the computation of the his or her 13th month pay. 13th month pay of the Association’s of the NLRC’s NLRC’s evalua evaluatio tion n of the members members.. The peculi peculiari arity ty of an evidence evidence or of its factual factual findings. findings. overload lies in the fact that it may be Such findings are generally accorded  performed within the normal eight- not only respect but also finality. A hour working day. This is the only   party assailing assailing such findings findings bears reas reason on why why the the DOLE DOLE,, in its its the the burde burden n of show showin ing g that that the the explanatory explanatory bulletin, bulletin, finds it proper  proper  tribun tribunal al acted acted caprici capricious ously ly and to include a teacher’s overload pay in whimsically or in total disregard of  the determination of his or her 13 th evidence material to the controversy, month month pay. pay. However However,, the DOLE DOLE in order that the extraordinary writ of  loses sight of the fact that even if it is certiorari will lie.  performed within the normal eighthour working day, an overload is still Settled is the rule that the findings of  an additional or extra teaching work  the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC which is performed after the regular  and and the the CA, CA, are bindi binding ng on the teaching teaching load has been completed. completed. Suprem Supremee Court, Court, unless unless patent patently ly Hence, any pa y given as erroneous. compensatio compensation n for such additional additional work should be considered as extra The Supreme Court is not a trier of  and not deemed as part of the regular  facts, and this applies applies with greater  greater  or basic salary. force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confin confined ed to specif specific ic matter matters, s, are generally generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.

Basic wage means all remuneration or earnings paid by an employer to a worker worker for servic services es rendered rendered on normal working days and hours but does does not not incl includ udee cost cost of livi living ng allowances, 13th month pay or other  moneta monetary ry benefi benefits ts which which are not

1

Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

considered considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the workers. Overload Overload vs. Overtime: Overtime: Overtime Overtime work is work rendered in excess of  normal working hours of eight in a day. day. Overlo Overload ad work work is additi additiona onall work after completing completing the regular  regular  workload, workload, may be performed performed either  within or outside eight hours in a day, and may or may not be considered overtime work.

Philippine Airlines v. Ligan GR No. 146408 30 April 2009 Carpio-Morales, J.

25 employees employees were terminated terminated by Synergy Services Corporation in the guise of retrenchment. They filed a complaint against Philippine Airlines with regard to their regularization regularization and under-/ under-/non non-pa -payme yment nt of their  their    ben benefi efits ts with with resp respec ectt to thei their  r  termination. 13 out out of the the 25 term termin inat ated ed empl employ oyee eess also also file filed d an ille illega gall dismis dismissal sal case case against against PAL, PAL, the resolu resolutio tion n of which which was held in abeyance abeyance until the Court has done ruling on the present case.

W/N W/N the the Deci Decisi sion on of the the Court Court orde orderi ring ng PAL PAL to “acc “accept ept”” the the respondents respondents also means that they shou should ld be “rei “reins nsta tate ted” d” with with  backwages.

 NO. The Court’s prior decision ruled on the the regu regula larr stat status us of the the respondents, but said decision should  be deemed without prejudice to the resolut resolution ion of the issue of illega illegall dismis dismissal sal 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.

What What are deemed deemed not part part of the  basic salary: a. Cost Cost of liv livin ing g allo allowa wanc nces es grante granted d pursua pursuant nt to PD 525 and LOI 174;  b.  b. Profi Profitt shari sharing ng paym paymen ents ts;; c. All allowances and monetary monetary benefits benefits which are are not not cons consid ider ered ed or  integrated integrated as part of the regular basic salary of the employ employee ee at the time time of  the promulgation promulgation of the Decree; d. Over Overti time me pay, pay, earn earnin ings gs,, and other remuneratio remunerations ns as prov provid ided ed for for by PD 851’s IRR. The Court cannot take cognizance of  issues which were not brought up by the parties of the case on appeal.

The Court ruled, for the present case, in the employees’ favor, declaring them them as regu regula larr empl employ oyees ees and and

2

Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

direct directing ing PAL to accept accept them them as such.

P.I . Ma nu nu fa fa ct ctu ri rin g v. Manufa Manufactu cturin ring g Superv Superviso isors rs Forem en Associa tion GR No. 167217 4 February 2008 Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

TSPIC TSPIC

Corpor Corporati ation on

v.

P. I. I. and

TSPIC TSPIC

PAL PAL subm submit itte ted d a Moti Motion on for  for  Reco Recons nsid ider erat atio ion, n, whil whilee the the respondents respondents filed for a Motion Motion for  Clarification and/or Reconsideration. RA 6640 was signed into law on 10 December December 1987, providing, providing, among others, others, an increase increase in the statutory statutory minimum 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,   provi provided ded those those that that are already already receiving above the minimum wage shall receive an increase of P10. PI Manufa Manufactu cturin ring g Supervi Supervisor sorss 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 PIMA PIMASU SUFA FA toget togethe herr with with the the  National Labor Union to file a case against against PIMA for violation violation of RA 6640. PIMA asseverates that the The Comp Compan any y and and Supe Superv rvis isor orss and and Fore Foreme men n Cont Contra ract ct abso absolv lves es,, quitclaims, and releases the company for any monetary monetary claim claim that that the supervi supervisor sorss and the foreme foremen n may have previous to the signing of the agreement on 17 December 1987. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of  PIMASUFA PIMASUFA and ordered PIMA to give the PIMASUFA members wage increases equivalent to 13.5% of their    basic basic pay. The CA affirm affirmed, ed, but raised the wage increase to 18.5%. In 1999, TSPIC TSPIC and the Union Union

W/N the PIMASUFA, PIMASUFA, by signing signing The Company and Supervisors and Foremen Foremen Contract, Contract, has waived any  benefit it may have under RA 6640. W/N W/N the the 13.5 13.5% % incre increas asee in the the supervi supervisor sorss and foreme foremen’s n’s basic basic salary should be increased to 18.5% to correct the wage distortion brought about by the implementation of RA 6640.

W/N chargi charging ng the overpay overpaymen ments ts

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

Quitclaims by laborers are generally frowned upon as contrary to public  policy  policy and are held to be ineffective ineffective to bar recovery for the full measure of the worker’s rights. The reason for    NO. NO. Althou Although gh there there was a wage wage the rule is that the employer employer and the distortion distortion,, the same was cured or  employee do not stand on the same remedied when PIMASUFA entered footing. into the 1987 CBA with PIMA after  the effectivity of RA 6640. The 1987 Article 1149 of the Civil Code states CBA increased the monthly salaries that: When the law sets, or authorizes of the supervisors by P626 and P475, the setting of a minimum wage for  which re-establishes the gap not only labore laborers, rs, and a contra contract ct is agreed agreed  between supervisors and foremen but upon by which a laborer laborer accepts a also between them and the rank-and- lower wage, he shall be entitled entitled to file file employ employees ees.. Such Such gap as re- recover the deficiency. established by virtue of the CBA is more than a substantia substantiall compliance compliance Acco Accord rdin ing g to RA 6727 6727,, wage wage with RA 6640. Moreover, Moreover, requiring requiring distor distortio tion n is a situat situation ion where an PIMA to pay 18.5%, over and above increase in prescribed wage results in the the nego negoti tiat ated ed wage wage incre increas ases es the elimination or severe contraction   provided provided under the 1987 CBA, is of intentional quantitative differences highly unfair and oppressive to the in wage or salary rates between and former. amon among g empl employ oyee ee grou groups ps in an establ establish ishmen mentt as to effecti effectivel vely y  A CBA constitutes the law between obliterate the distinctions embodied the the part partie iess when when free freely ly and  and  in such such wage wage struct structure ure based on voluntarily entered into. It was not  skills skills,, length length of servic service, e, or other  other   shown that PIMASUFA was coerced  logica logicall bases bases of differe differenti ntiati ation. on. or forced by PIMA to sign the 1987  Otherwise Otherwise stated, stated, wage distortion distortion CBA. All of its 13 officers signed the means the disappearance disappearance or virtual virtual CBA with the assistance assistance of NLU. disappearan disappearance ce of pay differential differentialss They They signed signed it fully fully aware aware of the  between lower and higher positions   passa passage ge of RA 6640. 6640. The duty to in a n e nt nt er er pr pr is ise be ca ca us us e o f   bargain bargain requires requires that the parties parties compliance with a wage order. deal with each other with open and    fair fair minds. minds. PIMASU PIMASUFA FA cannot  cannot  The goal of collective bargaining is invoke the beneficial beneficial provisions provisions of  the making of agreements that will the 1987 1987 CBA but disreg disregard ard the stabilize business conditions and fix concessions it voluntarily extends to fair standards of working conditions.  PIMA. NO. Diminu Diminutio tion n of of bene benefit fitss is the The CBA is the law betwee between n the the

3

Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

Employees Union GR No. 163419 13 February 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.

entered entered into into a CBA for the years 2000 to 2004. The CBA included a  provisions on

1. 2.

made made to 16 empl employ oyees ees thro throug ugh h unil unilat ater eral al with withdr draw awal al by the the stagge staggered red deduct deduction ionss from from their  their  employer of benefits already enjoyed salaries salaries amounts amounts to diminutio diminution n of   by the employees. Yearly Yearly salary salary increa increases ses  benefits. starti starting ng Januar January y 2000 2000 until January 2002. Empl Employ oyee eess who acq acqui uire re regular employment status within the year but after  th e e ff ff ec ec titi vi vit y o f a   particular particular increase increase shall receive receive a propor proportio tionat natee  part of the increase upon attainment of their regular  status.

On 1 January 2000, all the regular  rank-and-file rank-and-file employees of TSPIC TSPIC receive received d a 10% increase increase in their  their  sala salary ry.. On 6 Octo Octobe berr 2000 2000,, the the Regi Region onal al Trip Tripart artit itee Wage Wage and and Produc Productiv tivity ity Board Board issued issued Wage Wage Order No. 8 which raised the daily minimum minimum wage. More employees employees reach reached ed the the regu regula larr stat status us and and received increases in their salaries as mandated by the CBA. On January 2001, the TSPIC implemented implemented the new wage rates as mandated by the CBA. 9 employees who were senior  to th os ose w ho ho w er er e re ce ce nt nt ly ly regula regulariz rized ed receiv received ed less less wages. wages. Subsequently, the HR Department of  TSPIC notified notified 24 employees employees that they were overpaid due to an error in the automated automated payroll system, and that these would be deducted deducted from their salaries in a staggered basis.

  part partie iess and and they they are obli obliged ged 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. T he he g ra ra nt nt o r b en ene fi fi t is is founded on a policy or has ripened ripened into into a practi practice ce over a long period; 2. The The pract practic icee is con consi sist sten entt and deliberate; 3. The The prac practi tice ce is is not not due due to error in the construction construction or a pp pp lilic at ati on on of a doub doubtf tful ul or diff diffic icul ultt question of law; 4. The diminution or   discon discontin tinuan uance ce is done done u ni ni la la te ter al al ly ly by t he he employer. An erroneously erroneously granted benefit may  be withdrawn withdrawn without violating the  prohibition against non-diminution of   benefits. Although it is the sta te te’ s responsibility to afford protection to labor, this policy should not be used as an inst instru rume ment nt to oppr oppres esss management and capital. In resolving resolving disputes disputes between between labor  and capita capital, l, fairne fairness ss and justic justicee should always prevail. Social justice does not mandate that every dispute should be automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case,   jus justi tice ce is to be gran grante ted d to the the deserving and dispensed in the light of the establ establish ished ed facts facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

4