Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

North Davao Mining Corp. and Asset Privatization Trust vs.

NLRC Case Digest

North Davao Mining Corp. & Asset Privatization Trust vs. NLRC 254 SCRA 721 (1996) Facts: Petitioner North Davao Mining Corporation was incorporated in 1974 as a 100% privately-owned company. Later, the Philippine National Bank became part owner thereof as a result of a conversion into equity of a portion of loans obtained by North Davao from said bank. On June 30, 1986, PNB transferred all its loans to and equity in North Davao in favor of the national government which later turned them over to petitioner Asset Privatization Trust As of December 31, 1990 the national government held 81.8% of the common stock and 100% of the preferred stock of said company. Respondent Wilfredo Guillema is one among several employees of North Davao who were separated by reason of the companys closure on May 31, 1992, and who were the complainants in the cases before the respondent labor arbiter. On May 31, 1992, petitioner North Davao completely ceased operations due to serious business reverses. From 1988 until its closure in 1992, North Davao suffered net losses averaging three billion pesos per year, for each of the five years prior to its closure. All told five months prior to its closure, its total liabilities had exceeded its assets by 20.392 billion pesos. When it ceased operations, its remaining employees were separated and given the equivalent of 12.5 days pay for every year of service, computed on their basic monthly pay, in addition to the commutation to cash of their unused vacation and sick leaves. However, it appears that, during the life of the petitioner corporation, from the beginning of its operations in 1981 until its closure in 1992, it had been giving separation pay equivalent to thirty days pay for every year of service. Moreover, the employees had to collect their salaries at a bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte, some 58 kilometers from their workplace and about 2 hours travel time by public transportation; this arrangement lasted from 1981 up to 1990. Subsequently, a complaint was filed with respondent labor arbiter by respondent Wilfredo Guillema and 271 other seperated employees for additional separation pay; back wages; transportation allowance; hazard pay; etc., amounting to P58,022,878.31. Issue: Whether or not time spent in collecting wages in a place other than the place of employment is compensable notwithstanding that the same is done during official time. Ruling: It is undisputed that because of security reasons, from the time of its operations, petitioner NDMC maintained its policy of paying its workers at a bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte, which usually took the workers about two and a half (2 1/2) hours of travel from the place of work and such travel time is not official. Records also show that on February 12,1992, when an inspection was conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment at the premises of petitioner NDMC at Amacan, Maco, Davao del Norte, it was found out that petitioners had violated labor standards law, one of which is the place of payment of wages.

Section 4, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that: Place of payment. - (a) As a general rule, the place of payment shall be at or near the place of undertaking. Payment in a place other than the workplace shall be permissible only under the following circumstances: (1) When payment cannot be effected at or near the place of work by reason of the deterioration of peace and order conditions, or by reason of actual or impending emergencies caused by fire, flood, epidemic or other calamity rendering payment thereat impossible; (2) When the employer provides free transportation to the employees back and forth; and (3) Under any analogous circumstances; provided that the time spent by the employees in collecting their wages shall be considered as compensable hours worked. From the evidence on record, we find that the hours spent by complainants in collecting salaries at a bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte shall be considered compensable hours worked. Considering further the distance between Amacan, Maco to Tagum which is 2 hours by travel and the risks in commuting all the time in collecting complainants salaries, would justify the granting of backwages equivalent to 2 days in a month.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Agabon vs. NLRC Case Digest

Jenny Agabon & Virgilio Agabon vs. NLRC G.R. No.158693 November 17, 2004

Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims and on December 28, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private respondent to pay the monetary claims.

Issue: Whether or not respondents dismissal is illegal and if not, entitles them benefits.

Ruling: The Court ruled that the dismissal is legal and entitles them of payment of benefits.

Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate employees. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. When the termination of employment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full back wages are mandated under Article 279. If reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may be granted.

Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.

From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.

In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.

The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employees last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.

The Court ruled that respondent is liable for petitioners holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay without deductions. The evident intention of Presidential Decree No. 851 is to grant an additional income in the form of the 13th month pay to employees not already receiving the same so as to further protect the level of real wages from the ravages of world wide inflation. Clearly, as additional income, the 13th month pay is included in the definition of wage under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code.

An employer is prohibited under Article 113 of the same Code from making any deductions without the employees knowledge and consent.