Mabeza vs Nlrc

NORMA MABEZA, petitioner MABEZA, petitioner,, vs. NATIONAL vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PETER NG/HOTEL SUPREME, respondents FACTS Norma Norma Mabeza Mabeza was was an employ employee ee hire hired d by Hotel Hotel Supre Supreme me in Bagui Baguio o City City. In 1991, 1991, an inspetion was made by the !epartment o" #abor and $mployment %!&#$' at Hotel Supreme and and the the !&#$ !&#$ insp inspe eto tors rs dis diso( o(er ered ed se(e se(era rall (iol (iolat atio ions ns by the the hote hotell mana manage geme ment nt.. Immedi Immediate ately, ly, the owner owner o" the hotel, hotel, )eter eter Ng, diret direted ed his employ employees ees to e*eu e*eute te an a+da( a+da(it it whih whih would would purpor purportt that that they they ha(e ha(e no ompla omplaint ints s whatso whatsoe(e e(err again against st Hotel Hotel Supreme partiularly the latters ompliane with minimum wage and other labor standard pro(i pro(isio sions ns o" law. law. Mabeza Mabeza signe signed d the a+da( a+da(it it but but she re"used re"used to erti" erti"y y it with with the proseutor-s o+e. MABEZA’S MABEZA’S CONTENTION  hat same day, as she re"used to go to the City )roseutor-s &+e, &+e, she was ordered by the hotel management to turn o(er the /eys to her li(ing 0uarters and to remo(e her belongings to the hotel-s hotel-s premi premise ses. s. She then led led a lea(e lea(e o" absen absene e whih whih was was denied denied by her employer. She attempted to return to wor/ but the hotel-s ashier told her that she should not report to wor/ and instead ontinue with her uno+ial lea(e o" absene.  hree days a"ter her attempt to return to wor/, she led a omplaint against the management "or illegal dismissal be"ore the 2rbitration Branh o" the N#3C in Baguio City. In addition to that, she alleged underpayment o" wages, non4payment o" holiday pay, ser(ie inenti(e lea(e pay, 15th month pay, night di6erential di6erential and other benets. NG’S CONTENTION )eter Ng, in their 2nswer, argued that her unauthorized lea(e o" absene "rom wor/ is the ground "or her dismissal. He e(en maintained that her allegation o" underpayment and non4 payment o" benets had no legal basis. He raises a new ground o" loss o" ondene, whih was supported by his ling o" riminal ase "or the alleged 0ualied the"t o" the petitioner %)eter Ng led a riminal omplaint against Mabeza as he alleged that she had stolen a blan/et blan/et and some other stu6 "rom the hotel' LA’S DECISION  he #abor 2rbiter ruled in "a(or o" the hotel management on the ground o" loss o"  ondene. She appealed to the N#3C whih a+rmed the #abor 2rbiter-s deision. Hene, this petition. MAIN ISSUE Whether or not Mae!a’" #erta$n %a#$&$t$e" 'a( 'a( e )e)*#te) %ro' her +ae No he labor arbiter-s ontention that the reason "or the monetary benets reei(ed reei(ed by the petitioner between 1971 to 1978 were less than the minimum wage was beause petitioner did not "ator in the meals, lodging, eletri onsumption and water she reei(ed during the period period o" omput omputati ations ons.. rant ranting ing that that meals meals and lodgin lodging g were were pro(i pro(ided ded and indeed indeed onstituted "ailities, suh "ailities ould not be deduted without the employer omplying rst with ertain legal re0uirements. :ithout satis"ying these re0uirements, the employer simply annot dedut the (alue "rom the employee-s wages. ;irst, irst, proo" proo" must be shown that suh "ailities "ailities are ustomari ustomarily ly "urnishe "urnished d by the trade. Seond, the pro(ision o" dedutible "ailities must be (oluntary aepted in writing by the empl employ oyee ee.. ;inal inally ly,, "ai "aili liti ties es must must be har harge ged d at "air "air and and reaso easona nabl ble e (alu (alue. e. hes hese e

re0uirements were not met in the instant ase. )ri(ate respondent "ailed to present any ompany poliy to show that the meal and lodging are part o" the salary. He also "ailed to pro(ide proo" o" the employee-s written authorization and he "ailed to show how he arri(ed at the (aluations. More signiantly, the "ood and lodging, or eletriity and water onsumed by the petitioner were not "ailities but supplements. 2 benet or pri(ilege granted to an employee "or the on(eniene o" the employer is not a "aility. he riterion in ma/ing a distintion between the two not so muh lies in the /ind but the purpose. Considering, there"ore, that hotel wor/ers are re0uired to wor/ on di6erent shi"ts and are e*peted to be a(ailable at (arious odd hours, their ready a(ailability is a neessary matter in the operations o" a small hotel, suh as the pri(ate respondent-s hotel. OTHER ISSUES Whether or not there $" *n%a$r &aor .ra#t$#e- e"  he pi(otal 0uestion in any ase where un"air labor pratie on the part o" the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has e*erted pressure, in the "orm o" restraint, inter"erene or oerion, against his employee-s right to institute onerted ation "or better terms and onditions o" employment. :ithout doubt, the at o" ompelling employees to sign an instrument indiating that the employer obser(ed labor standard pro(isions o" the law when he might not ha(e, together with the at o" terminating or oering those who re"use to ooperate with the employees- sheme onstitutes un"air labor pratie. Whether or not there $" aan)on'ent- No 2bandonment is not present. Mabeza returned se(eral times to in0uire about the status o"  her wor/ or her employment status. She e(en as/ed "or a lea(e but was not granted. Her as/ing "or lea(e is a lear indiation that she has no intention to abandon her wor/ with the hotel. $(en the employer /nows that his purported reason o" dismissing her due to abandonment will not