Maternity Hospital vs.

Secretary of Labor and Regional Director of Labor Region X Facts: Maternity Childrens Hospital is a semi owned government hospital. Ten employees of the said hospital filed complaint for underpayment to the Regional Director of Labor Region X. The Regional Director assigned Labor Standards and Welfare officers to investigate on the alleged underpayment. The Labor Standards and Welfare officers found out that there was indeed underpayment on the part of the employees and recommended to the Regional Director that the hospital should pay the employees for underpayment. The Regional Director issued an order, sometime in August, directing the hospital to pay the employees. The Petitioner hospital appealed that the deficient wages should only be computed from May 23,1983 May 23, 1986 which was granted. But on October 24,1986 the petitioner filed for reconsideration that the awards extended to those who are not signatories in the complaint and no longer an employee in the hospital. In addition the authority of Regional Director to give awards when such power lies on the Labor Arbiter. Issue: A. Whether or not Regional director erred in awarding those who are not signatories and former employees. B. Whether or not the Regional Director commit grave abuse of discretion. Discussion: A. With regard to the awarding of those who are not signatories to the complaint, there is no error there. Labor laws make sure that Labor Standards are complied with and that it benefits everyone thats affected with the issue. But those who are former employees of the hospital, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Regional Director but of the Labor Arbiter. B. No. The Regional Director is granted with visitorial and enforcement powers thus it can investigate cases with matters concerning labor issues and implement proper orders provided that it is not contested by the parties. In this case the contention of the hospital that Regional Director made a grave abuse of discretion was only an after thought. Conclusion: Petition denied.

Colgate Palmolive vs. Ople and Colgate Sales Union Facts: Petitioner contends the decision of Secretary Ople for making private union the CBU and reinstating 3 of dismissed employers. The Union, as assiled by the petitioner, has questionable membership. The strike made by the union was not a consensus of the members. And they did not distribute surveys to hinder the recognition of the union. Ople rendered that the dismissed employees are at fault and that the petitioner did not commit unfair labor practice. Ople on the contrary made the union the CBU and reinstated 3 former employees. Hence,the petition. Issue: Whether or not Ople commit a grave abuse of discretion. Discussion: Yes. Evidently he contradicted himself when he admitted he found no fault from the side of the company but ordered the opposite. Moreover it is not in his jurisdiction to decide the Collective Bargaining Union as it is the prerogative of the employer as one of its management right. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees namely, would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws as a managerial employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident was already dismissed and was not ordered to be reinstated. Conclusion: Petition Granted.

Jose Rizal College vs. NLRC and NATOW Facts: The petitioner employs 3 kinds of staffs: 1)regular teachers paid monthly 2) maintenance personnel who are paid on a daily basis 3)collegiate faculty members who are paid per hour. NATOW filed a case for non-payment of holiday pay from 1975-1977. The Labor arbiter ordered the petitioner to pay only the maintenance personnel the holiday pay. The petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The decision of the NLRC awarded the regular teachers and the maintenance personnel holiday pay but not the collegiate faculty members. Hence the petition. Issue: Whether or not the collegiate faculty employees should receive holiday pay.

Discussion: Yes but only with regard to special public holiday. It is readily apparent that the declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the monthly income of the employees on account of work interruptions is defeated when a regular class day is cancelled on account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working day to make up for time lost in the school calendar. Otherwise stated, the faculty member, although forced to take a rest, does not earn what he should earn on that day. Be it noted that when a special public holiday is declared, the faculty member paid by the hour is deprived of expected income, and it does not matter that the school calendar is extended in view of the days or hours lost, for their income that could be earned from other sources is lost during the extended days. Similarly, when classes are called off or shortened on account of typhoons, floods, rallies, and the like, these faculty members must likewise be paid, whether or not extensions are ordered.

Conclusion: Regular holiday pay is not awarded to the collegiate faculty member but they are entitled for special holiday pay.

De Rancho vs Municipality of Iligan Facts: Manuel Rancho was employed by the respondent as a market cleaner. He was promoted as the overall head of maintenance of the market. Manuel de Rancho retired and eventually died. The petitioner wife of the deceased filed a claim for salary differentials. The Court of First Instance ordered the municipality to pay the differentials and adjusted the terminal leave. The respondent municipality appealed due to the lack of funds. Such reason should exempt them from complying immediately with the order.

Issue: Whether or not the Municipality of Iligan is exempted from complying with the order of the court.

Discussion: No. To excuse the defendant municipality now would be to permit it to benefit from its non-feasance. It would also make the effectivity of the law dependent upon the will and initiative of said municipality without statutory sanction. Defendant's remedy, therefore, is not to seek an excuse from implementing the law but, as the lower court suggested, to upgrade and improve its tax collection machinery with a view towards realizing more revenues. Or, it could for the present forego all non-essential expenditures.

Conclusion: Petition Granted.

Labor Standards and Social Legislations

CASE DIGESTS

Submitted by: Ivyron Quinto Riza Villalobos