Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority V PDF Free
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority V PDF Free
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority V PDF Free
Held:
Held:
“The solidary liability of PTSI and EAGLE, however, does not preclude the
right of reimbursement from his co-debtor by the one who paid. It is with
respect to this right of reimbursement that petitioners can find support in
the aforecited contractual stipulation and Wage Order provision.
The Wage Orders are explicit that the payment of the increases are “to be
borne” by the principal or client. “To be borne”, however, does not mean
that the principal, PTSI in this case, would directly pay the security guards
the wage and allowance increases because there is no privity of contract
between them. The security guards’ contractual relationship is with their
immediate employer, EAGLE. As an employer, EAGLE is tasked, among
others, with the payment of their wages.
The Wage Orders are statutory and mandatory and can not be
waived. The petitioner can not escape liability since the law provides
the joint and solidary liability of the principal and the contractor for the
protection of the laborers.
But the Court here did not apply the Eagle case because the
petitioner is equally guilty by not abiding to the law in the subsequent
change of contract even when the WO6 was already implemented.
Employees working at Lezo but were told to transfer to Kalibo but they did
not transfer. Claiming salaries, wages and benefits.
Held: No. The employer gave orders to the employees to transfer office
because of the dangers the environment poses to the company, yet the
employees disobeyed. Moreover, the transfer of office was approved by
NEA Administrator in its exercise of supervision and control over all electric
cooperatives. When the business transferred, what was left to the
employees to work on? Thus no basis that the employees continued to
report for work in Lezo.
The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or
management and employee of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor”
remains as the basic factor in determining employee’s wages. If there is no
work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of
course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from
working, a situation we find is not present in the instant case. It would
neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover something
they have not earned and could have not earned because they did not
render services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.
When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995, petitioner ISAE,
a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all
faculty members of the School, contested the difference in salary rates
between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of
whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit,
eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.
ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a compromise in the
NCMB, the matter reached the DOLE which favored the School. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
RULING:
NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides that labor
is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” These conditions are not
restricted to the physical workplace – the factory, the office or the field – but
include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
The Constitution enjoins the State to “protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of the constitution mandates
“to afford labor full protection”. The State has the right and duty to regulate
the relations between labor and capital. These relations are not merely
contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts,
collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good.
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1)
the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the
employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual
Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of
employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining
rights.
In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective
bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that
these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited
tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform
similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires,
foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires such
as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances. These benefits are reasonably related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To
include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure
either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.
The case where the salesman and truck helpers received commission for
cases sold. Then there were irregularities and the respondents were
prompted to report cash shortages. After a few days, they stopped
reporting for work, thus the conclusion of abandonment. Terminated without
notice.
Issue:
WON commissions in the computation of wages must only be paid after the
minimum wage has been paid, thus excluding commissions in the
computation for benefits which rely on wage.
Held: No.
The Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that some salesman do not
receive any basic salary but depend entirely on commissions and
allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee
relationship exists.
In one case it was acknowledged that “drivers and conductors who are
compensated purely on a commission basis are automatically entitled to
the basic minimum pay mandated by law should said commission be less
than their basic minimum for eight hours work. It can thus be inferred that
where said commissions equal to or even exceed the minimum wage, the
employer need not pay, in addition, the basic minimum pay prescribed by
law. It follow then that commissions are included in determining compliance
with minimum wage requirements.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision. It noted that no single report of
project completion was filed with the PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT office as
required by DOLE. The CA affirmed both the LA’s and NLRC’s decisions
and considered that petitioners failure to comply with the simple but
compulsory requirement to submit a report of termination to the nearest
Public Employment Office every time private respondents’ employment was
terminated was proof that the latter were not project employees but regular
employees.
ISSUE(S):
HELD:
These requirements, however, have not been met in this case. SLL failed to
present any company policy or guideline showing that provisions for meals
and lodging were part of the employee’s salaries. It also failed to provide
proof of the employees’ written authorization, much less show how they
arrived at their valuations. At any rate, it is not even clear whether private
respondents actually enjoyed said facilities.
Facilities VS Supplements
vs.
Facts:
Company agreed to grant regular workers who rendered at least one year
of continuous service of P1 per worked day.
Company to grant gratuity pay to a resigning employee or laborer
amounting to, among others, one month salary for those who rendered two
to five years of service.
Plastic Town Center Corporation maintained that under the principle of “fair
day’s wage for fair day’s labor”, gratuity pay should be computed on the
basis of 26 days for one month salary considering that the employees are
daily paid.
Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of NLM Union. As daily wage earner, there
would be no instance that the worker would work for 30 days a month since
work does not include Sunday or rest days.
NLRC: Reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter and held that PTC should
grant gratuity pay equivalent of thirty days salary.
Issue:
Whether the PTC’s contention that the gratuity pay should be computed on
the basis of 26 days for one month salary instead of 30 days is valid.
Held:
Gratuity pay is not intended to pay a worker for actual services rendered. It
is a money benefit given to the workers whose purpose is “to reward
employees or laborers who have rendered satisfactory and efficient service
to the company.”