Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Money Claims Cases On Labor
Money Claims Cases On Labor
FACTS: LAW:
This is a case for illegal dismissal and Article 4, Labor Code of the Philippines.
money claims All doubts in the implementation xxx of
the provisions of this code xxx shall be
Petitioner's version: resolved in favor of labor.
Respondent hired him as a "roomboy" in
1997 with a monthly salary of P2500 per
month. He was assigned to work from CASE HISTORY:
Monday to Saturday, including holidays.
His tasks included cleaning the lodging
house and washing towels and Labor Arbited: (L)
bedsheets.
NLRC: (L)
Sometime in 2008, he was barred by the
respondent from reporting to work CA: (M)
without affording him the opportunity to
SC: (L)
be informed of the cause of his
dismissal and the opportunity to be RULING:
heard.
Respondent's version:
The petitioner is underpaid. Under the
Petitioner was hired in 2000 law, all doubts in the implementation of
the Labor Code must be resolved in
The petitioner was paid a salary which
favor of labor. In the case at bar, the
was above the minimun wage, including
respondent was NOT able to present
benefits granted by law. But despite the
substantial evidence that it paid the
benevolence showed to him, he still
required minimum wage, 13th month
caused trouble in the workplace through
pay and holiday pay in favor of the
acts of theft, a charge of rape and three
petitioner. The burden of proof rests with
counts of attempted killings, and the
the employer to prove such payment /
petitioner refused the "memo".
compliance. Since the respondent was
NOT able to do so, then the petitioner
shall benefit with the presumption that
ISSUE: he is, indeed, underpaid.
Whether or not the petitioner is
underpaid?
SLL International Cables vs. NLRC
(3) Section 1 of DOLE Memorandum (2) Yes. Under the law, as a general
Circular No. 2: an employer may provide rule, all employees are entitled to the
subsidized meals and snacks to his payment of minimum wage; while it is
employees provided that the subsidy true that exceptions exists, project
shall not be less that 30% of the fair and employees are not listed in those
reasonable value of such facilities. In exceptions. Hence, Project Employees
such cases, the employer may deduct are entitled to the payment of minimum
from the wages of the employees not wage.
more than 70% of the value of the meals (3) No. Under the law, before the value
and snacks enjoyed by the latter, of facilities can be deducted from the
provided that such deduction is with the employees’ wages, the following
written authorization of the employees requisites must all be attendant: (1)
concerned. proof must be shown that such facilities
are customarily furnished by the trade;
(2) the provision of deductible facilities
CASE HISTORY: must be voluntarily accepted in writing
by the employee; and (3) facilities must
Labor Arbiter: (L) be charged at reasonable value. In the
NLRC: (L) case at bar, the items provided were
given "freely" (emphasis supplied) by
CA: (L) SLL for the purpose of maintaining the
efficiency and health of its workers while
SC: (L)
they were working at their respective
projects.
RULING:
(e) when the employee is suffering from establishments even before the
a disease and his continued expiration of the six (6)-month period
employment is prohibited by law or is provided by law. Also, there was no
prejudicial to his health and to the health dismissal to speak of. Private
of his co-employees. respondents were simply not dismissed
at all. What they received from JPL was
However, separation pay shall be not a notice of termination of
allowed as a measure of social justice in employment, but a memo informing
those cases where the employee is them of the termination of CMCs
validly dismissed for causes other than contract with JPL. More importantly,
serious misconduct or those reflecting they were advised that they were to be
on his moral character, but only when reassigned. At that time, there was no
he was illegally dismissed. severance of employment to speak of.
Thus, they were not dismissed at all.
Art. 95 of the Labor Code, is a yearly (2) The Private Respondents are not
leave benefit of five (5) days with pay, entitled to the payment of the
enjoyed by an employee who has Separation pay, but are entitled to the
rendered at least one year of service. payment of the 13th month pay and
Service incentive Leave.
(1) No.
Autobus Transport System vs
Under the law, a period of 6 months is Bautista
allowed for the temporary suspension of
the operation of the business.
office of the employer and whose actual Respondent noticed that some of the
hours of work in the field cannot be call center agents under him would often
determined with reasonable certainty. make excuses to leave their work
stations. Their most common excuse
In the case at bar, in each and every was that they would visit the companys
depot, there is always the Dispatcher medical clinic. To verify that they were
whose function is precisely to see to it not using the clinic as an alibi to cut their
that the bus and its crew leave the work hours, respondent sent an e-mail
premises at specific times and arrive at to the clinics personnel requesting for
the estimated proper time. Bautista was the details of the agents alleged medical
therefore under constant supervision consultation. His request was denied on
while in the performance of this work. the ground that medical records of
Hence, he is NOT a field personnel, and employees are highly confidential and
is entitled to 13th Month Pay and can only be disclosed in cases involving
Service Incentive Leave. health issues, and not to be used to
build any disciplinary case against them.
Note: The complaint for illegal dismissal
was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, Respondent received a notice requiring
whose decision was affirmed by the him to explain why he should not be
higher forums. penalized for: (1) violating Green Dot
Companys Policy and Procedure for
Direct Deposit Bank Info Request when
he accessed a customers online
Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. vs.
account and then gave the latters
Castro
routing and reference numbers for direct
deposit; and (2) gravely abusing his
discretion when he requested for the
FACTS: medical records of his team members.
This is a case for illegal dismissal and Respondent did not deny allegations,
money claims. however, justified his actuations by
explaining that the customer begged
Respondent was employed by petitioner
him to access the account because she
as a call center agent. After six (6)
did not have a computer or an internet
months, he was promoted to the Mentor
access; and that he merely requested
position, and thereafter to the Coach
for a patient tracker, not medical
position. A Coach is a team supervisor
records.
who is in charge of dealing with
customer complaints which cannot be A poster showing SITEL's organizational
resolved by call center agents. chart was posted on the companys
bulletin board, but respondents name
Money Claims Cases Page 7
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
and picture were conspicuously missing, Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
and the name and photo of another Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(c): Managerial
employee appeared in the position Employees are those:
which respondent was supposedly
occupying. 1) The primary duty consists of the
performance of work directly related to
On February 12, 2007, he received a management of policies of their
Notice of Termination. employer;
(2) Whether the respondent is entitled to 4) Who do not devote more than 20
the money claims that he prays for. percent of their hours worked in a
workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely related to the
LAW: performance of the work described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.
(2) Article 82, Labor Code: the
provisions of the Labor Code on working
conditions and rest periods shall not
CASE HISTORY:
apply to managerial employees.
Generally, managerial employees are Labor Arbiter: (L)
not entitled to overtime pay for services
rendered in excess of eight hours a day. NLRC: (M)
CA: (L)
SC: (L)
religiously paying already hence the opinion of DOLE for their right to
they are justified in diminishing service awards and anniversary and
the 13th month pay. performance bonus they filed this case
3) Wage differentials - there is to claim the same.
nothing in the collective
bargaining agreement that would CASE HISTORY:
prevent the petitioner from
crediting the first salary and October 8, 1992 Labor Arbiter – (Labor)
allowance increases against the granted the prayer
increases prescribed by the wage
order no. 6. Thus, petitioner is not NLRC – (Management) reversed
liable for wage differentials.
4) Holiday pay – At was proven that Hence this petition.
the use of 303 days as divisor
was not used in computing for APPLICABLE LAW:
payment of holiday pay rather the
same was only used for Article 6 and 22 of Civil Code which
computation of overtime pay provides for validity of waiver of rights
thus, the petitioner did not and unjust enrichment.
diminish the holiday pay of the
private respondent as it was ISSUE:
being paid by using 314 days in
computing the same. 1) Whether or not petitioners is
5) Damages – Consequently there entitled to their claims given that
is no ground to grant the same. they had already signed a
release and quitclaim after
accepting the special redundancy
package?
LOURDES G. MARCOS, ALEJANDRO 2) Whether they are entitled to their
T. ANDRADA, BALTAZARA J. LOPEZ claims.
AND VILMA L. CRUZ, petitioners,
vs. RULING:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and INSULAR LIFE Petition granted (Labor)
ASSURANCE CO., LTD., respondents.
1) YES. Under prevailing
FACTS: jurisprudence, the fact that an
employee has signed a
Petitioners worked for respondent satisfaction receipt for his claims
company until they were terminated does not necessarily result in the
sometime in 1990 due to redundancy of waiver thereof. A deed of release
position. They were awarded special or quitclaim cannot bar an
redundancy benefit and subsequently employee from demanding
signed a document for release and benefits to which he is legally
quitclaim. After the petitioners asked for entitled. The reason is that
APPLICABLE LAW:
ISSUE: