Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • #1 Labor - Mabeza v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    EphraimEnriquez
    27 views2 pages
    This case involves Norma Mabeza, an employee at Hotel Supreme, who was asked to sign an affidavit stating there were no issues with her pay or treatment. She signed but refused to verify it with the prosecutor. She was then dismissed. She argued this was illegal dismissal and she was underpaid. The owner argued she took unofficial leave and was paid properly through amenities. The court found the amenities like food and lodging were supplements, not facilities that could deduct from wages. The hotel did not prove the amenities met legal requirements to be deducted. The court ruled Mabeza was illegally dismissed and entitled to deficiency in pay.

    Original Description:

    cases!!

    Original Title

    #1 Labor - Mabeza v. Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves Norma Mabeza, an employee at Hotel Supreme, who was asked to sign an affidavit stating there were no issues with her pay or treatment. She signed but refused to verify it with the prosecutor. She was then dismissed. She argued this was illegal dismissal and she was underpaid. The owner argued she took unofficial leave and was paid properly through amenities. The court found the amenities like food and lodging were supplements, not facilities that could deduct from wages. The hotel did not prove the amenities met legal requirements to be deducted. The court ruled Mabeza was illegally dismissed and entitled to deficiency in pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    #1 Labor - Mabeza v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    EphraimEnriquez
    This case involves Norma Mabeza, an employee at Hotel Supreme, who was asked to sign an affidavit stating there were no issues with her pay or treatment. She signed but refused to verify it with the prosecutor. She was then dismissed. She argued this was illegal dismissal and she was underpaid. The owner argued she took unofficial leave and was paid properly through amenities. The court found the amenities like food and lodging were supplements, not facilities that could deduct from wages. The hotel did not prove the amenities met legal requirements to be deducted. The court ruled Mabeza was illegally dismissed and entitled to deficiency in pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NormaMabezav.

    NLRCandPeterNg/HotelSupreme
    FACTS:
    PetitionerNormaMabezawasanemployeehiredbyHotelSupremeinBaguio
    City.In1991,aninspectionwasmadebytheDepartmentofLaborand
    Employment(DOLE)atHotelSupremeandtheDOLEinspectorsdiscovered
    severalviolationscommittedbythehotelsmanagement.
    Petitionerandhercoemployeeswerethenaskedbythehotelsmanagementto
    signaninstrumentattestingtothelatterscompliancewithminimumwageand
    otherlaborstandardprovisionsoflaw.Theinstrumentprovidesthat,xxxThey
    havenocomplaintsagainstthemanagementoftheHotelSupremeastheyare
    paidaccordinglyandthattheyaretreatedwell;xxx
    Asgleanedfromtheaffidavit,thesamewasdrawnbymanagementforthesole
    purposeofrefutingthefindingsofDOLEinspectorsapparentlyadversetoprivate
    respondent.
    ThepetitionersignedtheaffidavitbutrefusedtogototheCityProsecutors
    Officetosweartotheveracityandcontentsoftheaffidavitasinstructedby
    management.Theaffidavitwasneverthelesssubmittedonthesamedaytothe
    RegionalOfficeofDOLEinBaguioCity.
    Thatsameday,assherefusedtogototheCityProsecutorsOffice,shewas
    orderedbythehotelmanagementtoturnoverthekeystoherlivingquartersand
    toremoveherbelongingsfromthehotelspremises.Accordingtoher,respondent
    stronglychidedherforrefusingtoproceedtotheCityProsecutor'sOfficetoattest
    totheaffidavit.Shethereafterreluctantlyfiledaleaveofabsencefromherjob
    whichwasdeniedbymanagement.Sheattemptedtoreturntoworkbutthe
    hotelscashiertoldherthatsheshouldnotreporttoworkandinsteadcontinue
    withherunofficialleaveofabsence.
    Threedaysafterherattempttoreturntowork,petitionerfiledacomplaintagainst
    themanagementforillegaldismissalbeforetheArbitrationBranchoftheNLRC
    inBaguioCity.Inadditiontothat,sheallegedunderpaymentofwagesbecause
    herwagewaslessthantheminimumwage.
    PrivaterespondentPeterNg(ownerofHotelSupreme),inhisdefense,arguedthat
    petitionersunauthorizedleaveofabsencefromworkisthegroundforher
    dismissal.Heevenmaintainedthattherewasnobasisforthemoneyclaimsfor
    underpaymentandotherbenefitsasthesewerepaidintheformoffacilitiesto

    petitionerandthehotelsotheremployees.Hearguedthatthereasonforsuchlow
    paymentofwageswasbecauseshewasbeinggivenfreelodging,food,and
    electricityandwaterconsumptionbythehotel.
    Hethenraisedanewground,lossofconfidence,whichwassupportedbyhis
    filingofcriminalcomplaintforQualifiedTheftofthepetitioner.
    LaborArbiter:renderedadecisiondismissingpetitioner'scomplaintonthe
    groundoflossofconfidence.
    NLRC:affirmedtheLaborArbitersdecision.
    Hence,thispetition.
    ISSUE:
    WONtheamenities(food,lodging,electricityandwaterconsumption)provided
    bythehotelbeconsideredasfacilitieswhicharedeductiblefrompetitioner
    Mabezaswage
    RULING:
    NO.
    Goingintotheissueofpetitioner'smoneyclaims,wefindonemoresalientreason
    inthiscasetosetthingsright:thelaborarbiter'sevaluationofthemoneyclaimsin
    thiscaseincrediblyignoresexistinglawandjurisprudenceonthematter.
    Thelaborarbiteracceptedhook,lineandsinkertheprivaterespondent'sbare
    claimthatthereasonthemonetarybenefitsreceivedbypetitionerbetween1981
    to1987werelessthanminimumwagewasbecausepetitionerdidnotfactorinthe
    meals,lodging,electricconsumptionandwatershereceivedduringtheperiodin
    hercomputations.
    Grantingthatmealsandlodgingwereprovidedandindeedconstitutedfacilities,
    suchfacilitiescouldnotbedeductedwithouttheemployercomplyingfirst
    withcertainlegalrequirements.Withoutsatisfyingtheserequirements,the
    employersimplycannotdeductthevaluefromtheemployee'swages:
    1) Proofmustbeshownthatsuchfacilitiesarecustomarilyfurnished
    bythetrade

    2) Theprovisionofdeductiblefacilitiesmustbevoluntarilyacceptedin
    writingbytheemployee
    3) Facilitiesmustbechargedatfairandreasonablevalue
    Theserequirementswerenotmetintheinstantcase.Privaterespondent
    "failedtopresentanycompanypolicyorguidelinetoshowthatthemealand
    lodging...(are)partofthesalary;"hefailedtoprovideproofofthe
    employee'swrittenauthorization;and,hefailedtoshowhowhearrivedatthe
    valuations.

    Moresignificantly,thefoodandlodging,ortheelectricityandwater
    consumedbythepetitionerwerenotfacilitiesbutsupplements.Abenefitor
    privilegegrantedtoanemployeefortheconvenienceoftheemployeris
    notafacility.Thecriterioninmakingadistinctionbetweenthetwonotso
    muchliesinthekind(food,lodging)butthepurpose.Considering,therefore,
    thathotelworkersarerequiredtoworkdifferentshiftsandareexpectedtobe
    availableatvariousoddhours,theirreadyavailabilityisanecessarymatterin
    theoperationsofasmallhotel,suchastheprivaterespondent'shotel.
    Itisthereforeevidentthatpetitionerisentitledtothepaymentofthe
    deficiencyinherwagesequivalenttothefullwageapplicablefromMay13,
    1988uptothedateofherillegaldismissal.

    You might also like