Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Bankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade Unions v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 140689, February 17, 2004

Wage distortion includes the following elements: (1.) An existing hierarchy of positions
with corresponding salary rates; (2) A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class
without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one; (3) The elimination of the
distinction between the two levels; and (4) The existence of the distortion in the same region of
the country.
In this case, it is thus clear that there is no hierarchy of positions between the newly hired
and regular employees of Bankard, hence, the first element of wage distortion provided
in Prubankers is wanting. While seniority may be a factor in determining the wages of
employees, it cannot be made the sole basis in cases where the nature of their work differs.
Moreover, for purposes of determining the existence of wage distortion, employees cannot create
their own independent classification and use it as a basis to demand an across-the-board increase
in salary.
Even assuming that there is a decrease in the wage gap between the pay of the old
employees and the newly hired employees, the Court ruled that said gap is not significant as
to obliterate or result in severe contraction of the intentional quantitative differences in the salary
rates between the employee group. As already stated, the classification under the wage
structure is based on the rank of an employee, not on seniority. For this reason, wage distortion
does not appear to exist.

Supra Muliti-Services Inc. et. al., v. Labitigan


G.R. No. 192297, August 03, 2016

"Wage Distortion" refers to a situation where an increase in the prescribed wage rates
results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or
salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate
the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other
logical bases of differentiation.

In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC and the Court of Appeals
were correct in not giving much , credence to respondent's claim of wage distortion, based on
their observation that respondent was the only employee of petitioner SMSI earning more than
minimum wage who was receiving ECOLA.

The Court additionally points out that other than respondent's bare allegation of wage
distortion, there is an absolute dearth of proof to corroborate the same. It is an age-old rule that
the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be clear, positive,
and convincing. Mere allegation is not evidence. By its definition, wage distortion is
quantifiable, and it may be established by presentation of the employee groups, wage structure,
and the computation showing how the application of the ECOLA eliminated or severely
contracted the difference in wage or salary rates among the groups.
National Federation of Labor v. NLRC
234 SCRA 311

As used herein, a wage distortion shall mean a situation where an increase in prescribed
wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences
in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or
other logical bases of differentiation.

From the above quoted material, it will be seen that the concept of wage distortion assumes
an existing grouping or classification of employees which establishes distinctions among such
employees on some relevant or legitimate basis. This classification is reflected in a differing wage
rate for each of the existing classes of employees. The wage distortion anticipated in Wage Orders
Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 was a "distortion" (or "compression") which ensued from the impact of those
Wage Orders upon the different wage rates of the several classes of employees. Thus distortion
ensued where the result of implementation of one or another of the several Wage Orders was the
total elimination or the severe reduction of the differential or gap existing between the wage rates
of the differing classes of employees.

Barsolo v. SSS
G.R. No. 187950, January 11, 2017

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of
the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) The employee's work must involve the risks
described herein; (2) The disease was contracted as a result of the employee's exposure to the
described risks; (3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other
factors necessary to contract it; and, (4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the
employee.

The Medical Certificate did not help petitioner's cause, as this only shows that Manuel
was already suffering from hypertension even before his pre-employment examination, and that
he did not contract it during his employment with Vela. Having had a pre-existing cardio
vascular disease classifies him under the first condition. However, for a claim under the first
category to prosper, petitioner must show that there was an acute exacerbation of the heart
disease caused by the unusual strain of work. Petitioner failed to adduce any proof that her
husband experienced any symptom of a heart ailment while employed with Vela, much less any
sign that his heart condition was aggravated by his job.

Since there was no showing that her husband showed any sign or symptom of cardiac
injury during the performance of his functions, petitioner clearly failed to show that her
husband's employment caused the disease or that his working conditions aggravated his existing
heart ailment.

Ranises v. ECC
504 Phil, 340 (2005)

Section l(h), Rule III of the ECC Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, now
considers cardio-vascular disease as compensable occupational disease. Included in Annex "A"
is cardio-vascular disease, which cover myocardial infarction. However, it may be considered as
compensable occupational disease only when substantial evidence is adduced to prove any of the
following conditions: a) If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment
there must be proof that an acute exacerbation clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by
reason of the nature of his work; b) The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be
of sufficient severity and must be followed within twenty-four (24) hours by the clinical signs of
a cardiac assault to constitute causal relationship; and, c) If a person who was apparently
asymptomatic before subjecting himself to strain of work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac
injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is
reasonable to claim a causal relationship.

In Rañises, we held that for myocardial infarction to be considered a compensable occupational


disease, any of the three conditions must be proven by substantial evidence.