Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v.

NLRC, 213 SCRA 621

(1992)
Issue 1: WON an indirect employer is bound by the ruling of NLRC which
made the indirect employer liable when the guards are not employees of
the petitioner because the contract of services explicitly states that the
security guards are not their employees thus, no employer-employee
relationship, thus the jurisdiction of the CSC may not be invoked in this
case.
Held:
Notwithstanding that the petitioner is a government agency, its
liabilities, which are jointly and solidary with that of the contractor are
provided in Art. 106, 107 and 109.
Its liabilities are under the NLRC scope and in addition, book three
title ii on wages provides that the term employer includes any
person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer
in relation to an employee and shall include the Government and
all its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all GOCCs
and institutions as well as non-profit private institutions or
organizations.
Issue 2: Who should carry the burden of the wage increases?
Held:
It is settled that in job contracting, the petitioner as principal is jointly
and severally liable with the contractor for the payment of unpaid
wages. In the case at bar, the action was for the payment of unpaid
wage differentials under Wage Order No. 6.
In the case of Eagle Security vs. NLRC:
The solidary liability of PTSI and EAGLE, however, does not preclude the
right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid. It is with
respect to this right of reimbursement that petitioners can find support in
the aforecited contractual stipulation and Wage Order provision.

The Wage Orders are explicit that the payment of the increases are to be
borne by the principal or client. To be borne, however, does not mean
that the principal, PTSI in this case, would directly pay the security guards
the wage and allowance increases because there is no privity of contract
between them. The security guards contractual relationship is with their
immediate employer, EAGLE. As an employer, EAGLE is tasked, among
others, with the payment of their wages.
Premises considered, the security guards immediate recourse for the
payment of the increases is with their direct employer, EAGLE. However, in
order for the security agency to comply with the new wage and allowance
rates it has to pay the security guards, the Wage Order made specific
provision to amend existing contracts for security services by allowing the
adjustments of the consideration paid by the principal to the security
agency concerned. What the Wage orders require, therefore, is the
amendment of the contract as to the consideration to cover the service
contractors payment of the increases mandated. In the end, therefore,
ultimate liability for the payment of the increasees rests with the principal.
The Wage Orders are statutory and mandatory and can not be
waived. The petitioner can not escape liability since the law provides
the joint and solidary liability of the principal and the contractor for the
protection of the laborers.
But the Court here did not apply the Eagle case because the
petitioner is equally guilty by not abiding to the law in the subsequent
change of contract even when the WO6 was already implemented.
Therefore, security guards immediate recourse is with direct
employer but the latter is not prejudiced as to the claim of of the
wages it shall give the guards.
Doctrine: Principal liable for Wage Orders mandating wage increases.
But when principal cannot pay, contractor is the immediate recourse and
should pay the whole claim with right to reimbursement from principal.
But if contractor is at fault, will be liable to of the claim.
Aklan Electric Corp., Inc. v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 259 (2000)

Facts:
Employees working at Lezo but were told to transfer to Kalibo but they did
not transfer. Claiming salaries, wages and benefits.
Issue: WON they are entitled to salaries and benefits.
Held: No. The employer gave orders to the employees to transfer office
because of the dangers the environment poses to the company, yet the
employees disobeyed. Moreover, the transfer of office was approved by
NEA Administrator in its exercise of supervision and control over all electric
cooperatives. When the business transferred, what was left to the
employees to work on? Thus no basis that the employees continued to
report for work in Lezo.
The age-old rule governing 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. If there is no
work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of
course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from
working, a situation we find is not present in the instant case. It would
neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover something
they have not earned and could have not earned because they did not
render services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE),
petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as
the Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON. CRESENCIANO B.
TRAJANO in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Labor and
Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the
Superintendent of International School-Manila; and INTERNATIONAL
SCHOOL, INC., respondents.,
G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000

FACTS:

Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732,

is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of
foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The decree
authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management
personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other
nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws
and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or
will be enacted for the protection of employees. School hires both foreign
and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two:
(1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires.
Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than local-hires.
When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995, petitioner ISAE,
a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all
faculty members of the School, contested the difference in salary rates
between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of
whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit,
eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.
ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a compromise in the
NCMB, the matter reached the DOLE which favored the School. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of localhires.

RULING:

NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides that labor
is entitled to humane conditions of work. These conditions are not
restricted to the physical workplace the factory, the office or the field but
include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor
Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization.
The Constitution enjoins the State to protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the constitution mandates
to afford labor full protection. The State has the right and duty to regulate
the relations between labor and capital. These relations are not merely
contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts,
collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good.
However, foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the
local-hires.
A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised
of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity
to the employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the
law.
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1)
the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the
employees interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual
Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of
employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining units
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining
rights.
In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective
bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that
these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited
tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform

similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires,

foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires such
as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances. These benefits are reasonably related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To
include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure
either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby
GRANTED IN PART.
Iran v. NLRC, 289 SCRA 433 (1998)
The case where the salesman and truck helpers received commission for
cases sold. Then there were irregularities and the respondents were
prompted to report cash shortages. After a few days, they stopped
reporting for work, thus the conclusion of abandonment. Terminated without
notice.
On the other hand, complain for illegal dismissal, deduction, underpayment
of wages, premium pay for holiday and rest day, holiday pay, incentive pay,
etc.
Issue:
WON commissions in the computation of wages must only be paid after the
minimum wage has been paid, thus excluding commissions in the
computation for benefits which rely on wage.
Held: No.
The Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that some salesman do not
receive any basic salary but depend entirely on commissions and
allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee
relationship exists.
This salary structure is intended for the benefit of the corporation
establishing such, on the apparent assumption that thereby its salesmen
would be moved to greater enterprise and diligence and close more sales

in the expectation of increasing their sales commission. But this does not
detract from the character of such commissions as part of the salary or
wage paid to each of its salesmen for rendering services to the corporation.
There is no law mandating that commissions be paid only after the
minimum wage has been paid to the employee. Verily, the establishment of
a minimum wage only sets a floor below which an employees
remuneration cannot fall, not that commissions are excluded from wages in
determining compliance with the minimum wage law.
In one case it was acknowledged that drivers and conductors who are
compensated purely on a commission basis are automatically entitled to
the basic minimum pay mandated by law should said commission be less
than their basic minimum for eight hours work. It can thus be inferred that
where said commissions equal to or even exceed the minimum wage, the
employer need not pay, in addition, the basic minimum pay prescribed by
law. It follow then that commissions are included in determining compliance
with minimum wage requirements.

SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and LAGON VS NLRC,

LOPEZ, ZUIGA and CAETE (2011) FACILITIES and
SUPPLEMENTS
FACTS:
Private Respondents were hired by Lagon as apprentice or trainee
cable/lineman and were paid the full minimum wage and other benefits;
they did not report to work regularly, since they are trainees, but came in
substitutes for other regular workers. After their training, they were engaged
as Project Employees in different parts of the Country (Bohol, Anitpolo,
Bulacan and Caloocan) upon which they have to re-apply after every
completion. Faced with economic problems, Lagon was constrained to cut
down the overtime work of its workers. Thus, when private respondents
requested to work overtime, Lagon refused. Private respondents went
home to Cebu and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay as well
as damages and attorneys fees.
Petitioners admitted private respondents employment 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. And since the workplaces of

private respondents were all in Manila, the complaint should be filed there.
Thus, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and utter lack of merit.
The LA claimed that his office had jurisdiction under RULE 4 SEC 1 of the
NLRC RULES because the "workplace," as defined in the said rule,
included the place where the employee was supposed to report back after
a temporary detail, assignment or travel, which in this case was Cebu. 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.
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. However, 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.
The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision. It noted that no single report of
project completion was filed with the PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT office as
required by DOLE. The CA affirmed both the LAs and NLRCs decisions
and considered that petitioners failure 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.
ISSUE(S):
WON private respondents are entitled to be paid the minimum wage.
HELD:
YES. As a general rule, on payment of wages, a party who alleges payment
as a defense has the burden of proving it. 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 are not in the possession
of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.

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.
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. Mere availment is not sufficient to
allow deductions from employees wages.
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 employees 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.
Facilities VS Supplements
"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 laborers and his family's existence and
subsistence so that by express provision of law, 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. 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.
Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 380 (1995)
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011
(Labor Standards Commissions included in the computation of 13 th month
pay)
Facts: Petitioner Corporation pays its salesmen a small fixed or
guaranteed wage; the greater part of the latters wages or salaries being
composed of the sales or incentive commissions earned on actual sales of
duplicating machines closed by them. Thus the sales commissions
received for every duplicating machine sold constituted part of the basic
compensation or remuneration of the salesmen of the Philippine
Duplicators for doing their job.
The Labor Arbiter directed Petitioner Duplicators to pay 13 th month pay to
private respondent employees computed on the basis of their fixed wages
plus sales commission.
Sec. 4 of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No.
851 (Revised Guidelines Implementing 13th Month Pay) provides that
overtime pay, earning and other remuneration which are not part of the
basic salary shall not be included in the computation of the 13 th month pay.
Petitioner Corporation contends that their sales commission should not be
included in the computation of the 13th month pay invoking the consolidated
cases of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs Hon. Dionisio dela Serna and
Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. vs Hon. Crecencio Trajano, were the so-called
commissions of medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals and
rank-and-file employees of Fuji Xerox Co. were not included in the term
basic salary in computing the 13th month pay.
Issue: WON sales commissions comprising a pre-determined percent of
the selling price of the goods are included in the computation of the
13th month pay.

Held: Yes. These commission which are an integral part of the basic salary
structure of the Philippine Duplicators employees-salesmen, are not
overtime payments, nor profit-sharing payments nor any other fringe
benefit. Thus, salesmens commissions comprising a pre-determined
percent of the selling price of the goods were properly included in the term
basic salary for purposes of computing the 13th month pay.
Commissions of medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals and
rank-and-file employees of Fuji Xerox Co. were not included in the term
basic salary because these were paid as productivity bonuses which is
not included in the computation of 13th month pay.
PLASTIC TOWN CENTER CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NAGKAKAISANG
LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM)-KATIPUNAN, respondents.
Facts:
On September 1984, respondent Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa
(NLM)-Katipunan filed a complaint against petitioner Plastic Town Center
Corporation with:
violation of CBA by crediting the P1 per day increase in gratuity pay to
resigning employees instead of 30 days equivalent to one month
unfair labor practice by giving only 26 days pay instead of 30 days
equivalent to one month as gratuity pay to resigning employees.
In the CBA, it was provided that:
Company agreed to grant regular workers who rendered at least one year
of continuous service of P1 per worked day.
Company to grant gratuity pay to a resigning employee or laborer
amounting to, among others, one month salary for those who rendered two
to five years of service.

Plastic Town Center Corporation maintained that under the principle of fair
days wage for fair days labor, gratuity pay should be computed on the
basis of 26 days for one month salary considering that the employees are
daily paid.
Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of NLM Union. As daily wage earner, there
would be no instance that the worker would work for 30 days a month since
work does not include Sunday or rest days.
NLRC: Reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter and held that PTC should
grant gratuity pay equivalent of thirty days salary.
Issue:
Whether the PTCs contention that the gratuity pay should be computed on
the basis of 26 days for one month salary instead of 30 days is valid.
Held:
No, PTCs contention does not hold merit in this case.
Gratuity pay is not intended to pay a worker for actual services rendered. It
is a money benefit given to the workers whose purpose is to reward
employees or laborers who have rendered satisfactory and efficient service
to the company.
While it may be enforced once it forms part of a contractual undertaking,
the grant of such benefit is not mandatory so as to be considered a part of
labor standard law unlike salary, which are covered in Labor Code.
Nowhere has it ever been stated that gratuity pay should be based on
actual number of days worked over the period of years forming its basis.
Court saw no point in counting the number of days worked over a ten-year
period to determine the meaning of two and one- half months gratuity.
Moreover any doubts or ambiguity in the contract between management
and the union members should be resolved in favor of the laborer. When
months are not designated by name, a month is understood to be 30 days.

As such, NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it decided
that the gratuity pay should be equivalent to 30 days.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Davao Fruits Corporation vs Associated Labor Unions, G.R. No. 85073,
August 24, 1993; 225 SCRA 562
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011
(Labor Standards Fringe benefits not included in 13 th month pay)
Facts: Respondent ALU for and in behalf of all the rank-and-file workers
and employees of petitioner sought to recover from the latter the 13 th month
pay differential for 1982 of said employees, equivalent to their sick,
vacation and maternity leaves, premium for work done on rest days and
special holidays, and pay for regular holidays which petitioner, allegedly in
disregard of company practice since 1975, excluded from the computation
of the 13th month pay for 1982.
Issue: WON in the computation of the 13th month pay under PD No. 851,
payments for sick, vacation and maternity leaves, premiums for work done
on rest days and special holidays, and pay for regular holidays may be
excluded in the computation and payment thereof.
Held: Yes. Basic salary does not merely exclude the benefits expressly
mentioned but all payments which may be in the form of fringe benefits or
allowances.
Sec. 4 of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No.
851 provides that overtime pay, earnings and other remunerations which
are not part of the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of
the 13th month pay.
Whatever compensation an employee receives for an 8 hour work daily or
the daily wage rate is the basic salary. Any compensation or remuneration
other than the daily wage rate is excluded. It follows therefore, that
payments for sick, vacation and maternity leaves, premiums for work done
on rest days and special holidays, as well as pay for regular holidays, are
likewise excluded in computing the basic salary for the purpose of
determining the 13th month pay.