GAA v.

CA reward of a day's labor or services for immediate or present support (Wakefield

December 3, 1985 | J. Patajo
By: Perry
SUMMARY:
Europhil won a suit for damages and sought to garnish the salary of the
petitioner. Petitioner objected to the garnishment and alleged that her salary
was exempted from execution under Article 1708 of the NCC. The SC ruled
otherwise stating that the exemption only applied to the wages of laborers and
salaries, were not exempted from execution. Finding that petitioner Gaa was not
a laborer, her salaries were not exempt from execution.
DOCTRINE:
The term "wages" as distinguished from "salary", applies to the compensation
for manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and measured by the
day, week, month, or season, while "salary" denotes a higher degree of
employment, or a superior grade of services, and implies a position of office: by
contrast, the term wages " indicates considerable pay for a lower and less
responsible character of employment, while "salary" is suggestive of a larger
and more important service
FACTS:
Europhil was formerly a tenant in T.M. Kalaw Street, wherein the petitioner
Rosario Gaa was then the building administrator. In 1973, Europhil commenced
an action for damages against the petitioner “for having perpetrated certain acts
that Europhil Industries considered a trespass upon its rights…” The court
rendered judgment in favor of Europhil and after it had become final and
executory, a writ of garnishment was issued. A Notice of Garnishment was
served upon El Grande Hotel, where the petitioner was then employed,
garnishing her "salary, commission and/or remuneration." Petitioner filed a
motion to lift the garnishment alleging that her salaries, commission, and/or
remuneration are exempted from execution under Article 1708 of the NCC. The
motion was denied, and the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence,
this petition.
vs. Fargo).
We can then determine in what context the term “wages” is used in Article
1708, and this would refer to the compensation received by a laborer;
compensation for manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and
measure by the day, week, month or season. This should be distinguished from
“salary” which denotes a higher degree of employment, or a superior grade of
service, and implies a position of office.
With these definitions laid down, the SC ruled that the petitioner was not
entitled to the right granted by Article 1708 by finding that she was not a
laborer within the meaning of the law. She was not an ordinary or rank and file
employee but “a responsibly place employee” of El Grande Hotel, "responsible
for planning, directing, controlling, and coordinating the activities of all
housekeeping personnel".
The SC further ruled that the legislature could not have intended the exemption
in Article 1708 of the New Civil Code to operate in favor of any but those who
are laboring men or women in the sense that their work is manual. Persons
belonging to this class usually look to the reward of a day's labor for immediate
or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than
any others. Petitioner Rosario A. Gaa is definitely not within that class.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We find the present petition to be without merit
and hereby AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against
petitioner.

ISSUES / HELD:
WON the salary, commission and/or remuneration of the petitioner are
exempted from execution. NO.

RULING:
The SC defined the word “laborer” as one whose work depends on mere
physical power to perform ordinary manual labor, and not one engaged in
services consisting mainly of work requiring mental skill or business capacity,
and involving the exercise of intellectual faculties (Oliver vs. Macon Hardware
Co.); or as one who performs menial or manual services and usually looks to the