Case Digest #100_Norma Mabeza vs NLRC

271 SCRA 670

Labor Law – Labor Standards – Wages – Facilities vs Supplements

FACTS:
Norma Mabeza was an employee hired by Hotel Supreme in
Baguio City. In 1991, an inspection was made by the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) at Hotel Supreme and the DOLE
inspectors discovered several violations by the hotel management.
Immediately, the owner of the hotel, Peter Ng, directed his employees
to execute an affidavit which would purport that they have no
complaints whatsoever against Hotel Supreme. But Mabeza refused to
certify said affidavit with the fiscal’s office so this led to her dismissal.
She sued Peter Ng and one of her complaints against him is
underpayment because her wage was less than the minimum wage.
Peter Ng argued that the reason for such low payment was because
she was being given free lodging, water, electricity, and water
consumption by the hotel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not such amenities provided by the hotel be
considered as facilities which are deductible from Mabeza’s wage.

HELD: No. There are requisites before such can be done and they are:

1. Proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily

furnished by the trade.
2. The provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily
accepted in writing by the employee.
3. Facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value.

None of these were complied with in the case at bar. More

significantly, the food and lodging, or the electricity and water
consumed by Mabeza were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or
privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is
not a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the two
not so much lies in the kind (food, lodging) but the purpose.
Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work
different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours,
their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a
small hotel, such as Hotel Supreme.