Labor Jurisprudence101

8/17/2019 Labor Jurisprudence101

1/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LATEST SUPREMECOURT JURISPRUDENCEON LABOR STANDARDCASES

ATTY. LR LUMBAYNCMB


2/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LABOR STANDARDS

and LABORRELATIONS


3/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LABOR STANDARDS LAW - thatwhich sets out the minimum terms,conditions and benefts oem!"o#ment that em!"o#ers must

!ro$ide or com!"# with and towhich em!"o#ees are entit"ed as amatter o "e%a" ri%ht&


4/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LABOR STANDARDS – theminimum requirements !rescribed by existing laws, rules andregulations relating to wages, hours

of work, cost – of – living allowance,and other monetary and welfarebenets, including occupational,

safety, and health standards.


5/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LA!" "#LA$%!&' LA( – that

which denes the status, rightsand duties, and the institutionalmechanisms, that govern the

individual and collectiveinteractions of employers,employees or their

representatives.


6/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

LE'AL DO(TRINES

ON LABORSTANDARDS


7/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

With res!ect to mone# c"aims)). %nsofar as ordinar# "aborstandard money claims areconcerned, the burden of provingcompliance with the law rests with theem!"o#er .


8/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

*. ut insofar as mone# c"aims

considered as e*traordinar# such as claims for overtime, nightshift di+erential, holiday and rest

day pay premium, the burden of proof is shifted to the wor+er whomust prove he rendered overtime

work or that he worked at night, orthat he worked during holidays andrest days. &ational 'emi – -onductor

istribution Ltd vs &L"-, /.". &o. )*01*2,


9/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

OVERTIME PAY - $he em!"o#eemust rst establish by proof that saidovertime work was actually performedbefore he may avail of said benet.

7illar, et al. vs. &L"- et al. /.". &o.)02401, 8ay )), *2226


10/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

MONEY CLAIMS - All money claimsarising from an employer9employeerelationship shall be led within three#ears from the time the cause of actionaccrued: otherwise, they shall beforever barred.

$he amount that can only bedemanded by the aggrieved employee

shall be limited to the amount of thebenets withheld within three yearsbefore the !"# of the $o%&a!"t. ;A"#A'$ A/"%-


11/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

NON – PAYMENT OF WAGES 9 'ettledis the rule that the em!"o#er has theburden of proving that the money claims– wages have been paid.

$his is because the pertinent

personnel les, payrolls, records,remittances and other similar documentswhich will show that the claims have

been paid are not in the possession ofthe workers but in the custody andabsolute control of the employer. 7illar, etal. vs. &L"- et al. /.". &o. )02401, 8ay )),*2226.


12/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

BEST ROO O A./ENT O

LABOR STANDARDS BENEITS 90oucher is not necessarily evidenceof payment as it is only a method of

keeping track of payment made, thevoucher must still be supported byan actual payment of cash duly

receipted for, or the issuance of acheck subsequently enchashed.AlonCo vs. 'an 3uan, /.". &o. )0B1D4,

;eb. )), *2216


13/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$he best proof of the fact of

payment is a recei!t or a !a#ro"" &$his is because receipt and payrollare in writing, signed and

contained acknowledgment thatthe money had been paid. %n short,receipt and payroll are substantial

proof of actual payment. EA" A'%A,%&-., andFor -#L#'$%&! A""#$! vs 8A"%!

-!"!&A, #$ AL, /.". &!. )1D451, August *D, *22D 6


14/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

12IT (LAI/S 9

'enera""# , deeds of release, waiveror quitclaims cannot bar employeesfrom demanding benets to which theyare legally entitled or from contestingthe legality of their dismissal sincequitclaims are looked upon with disfavorand are frowned upon as contrary to

public policy.


15/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

(here, however, the person

making the waiver has done so$o"untari"# , with a fullunderstandin% thereof, and the

consideration for the quitclaim iscredib"e and reasonab"e, thetransaction must be recogniCed

as being a valid and bindingundertaking. ;"A&-%'-! '!"%A&!, 3"., vs&L"-, /.". &o. )114D, April *0, *207 6


16/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

RED2(TION O WOR3IN' 4O2RS -

%n order for the reduction of working hours

to be valid, the following should beconsidered – the arrangement wastem!orar# , it was a more humane so"utioni nstead of a retrenchment of personnel, therewas notice and consu"tations with theworkers and supervisors, a consensus werereached on how to deal with deterioratingeconomic conditions and it was su5cient"# !ro$en that the company was su+ering fromlosses. L%&$!& -!88#"-%AL -!., %&-. and #'%"##!&/ vs AL#H A. @#LL#"A et al., /.". &o. )0)DB,!ctober )2, *22B6


17/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

SER0I(E IN(ENTI0E LEA0E – #very employee whohas rendered at least one #ear o ser$ice is entitledto yearly service incentive leave of f$e da#s with

!a# .

#mployees not coveredI). $hose of the government and any of its political

subdivisions, including /!--:*. omestic helpers and persons in the personal

service of another:0. 8anagerial employees:D. ;ield personnel and other employee whose

performance is unsupervised by the employer:1. $hose who are already enJoying the benet:. $hose enJoying vacation leave with pay of at least

1 days: and

B. $hose employed in establishments regularly


18/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

/anner o a$ai"ment o SIL 6

'%L may be used for sic+ and$acation "ea$e purposes. And at theend of the year, the unused '%L maybe commuted to cash&


19/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

0A(ATION LEA0E7SI(3 LEA0E –

not legally mandated benet since itis a voluntary benets undertaken bycompanies to help the employee.

!nce it is granted to employees, itbecomes part of company policy andcould no longer be revoked withoutviolating the principle of non –

diminution of benet s.


20/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

CHARLITO PEÑARANDA,

- $ersus-

BAGANGA PLYWOOD

CORPORATIONand HUDSON

CHUA,

G.R. No. !"!## Ma$ %, &''(


21/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

FACTS) A""e%ation o (om!"ainant)

!n 8arch )444, complainant=eKaranda was hired as ;oremanFoiler@eadF'hift #ngineer of aganga =lywood

-orporation =-6.

Alleges that he was a regularemployee and was illegally terminatedon ecember *222 and was not paid hisovertime pay, premium pay for workingduring holidayFrest days and night shift

di+erentials.


22/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

A""e%ation o Res!ondent)

=- alleges that complainantsseparation from service was due to thetemporary closure of the company for

its repair and general maintenance andthat he insisted to be paid hisseparation benets .

-onsequently, when =- partiallyreopened in 3anuary *22), complainantfailed to reapply.


23/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

eing a managerial employee, he isnot entitled to overtime pay and ifever he rendered services beyondthe normal hours of work, MthereN wasno oOce orderFor authoriCation forhim to do so.


24/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the Labor Arbiter )

&o illegal dismissal sincetemporary closure of =-s plant

did not terminate his employment.

Awarded overtime pay, premium pay for working on rest days ascomplainant was a

regularFcommon employee


25/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the NLR()

eleted the award of overtime pay and premium pay for workingon rest days since complainantwas a managerial employee.


26/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the (ourt o A!!ea"s)

ismissed complainants=etition for -ertiorari due to

technicalities.


27/67>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

ISSUES)

)6(hether or not complainant wasa managerial employee.

*6(hether or not complainant isentitled to overtime pay and

premium pay.


28/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the Su!reme (ourt)

-omplainant is not amanagerial employee but a

member of the managerialsta+, which also takes himout of the coverage of laborstandards.


29/67


30/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

eing a supervisor, complainant isnot entitled to his claims for overtime pay, premium pay for working duringholidayFrest days and night shift

di+erentials.


31/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

(ABLES SE(IALIST andSONN. L& LA'ON,

- $ersus-

NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS(O//ISSION, 8T4 DI0ISION, ROLDANLOE9, ED'ARDO

92:I'A and DANILO(A:ETE,

'&R& No& ;;

/arch =, =?;;


32/67


33/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

'ometime in 8arch )445 to'eptember )445, -omplainants were

engaged again byrespondent as proJectemployees for its =L$ Antipolo, "iCal proJect.

As a consequence, complainantsemployment was terminated.

-omplainants were receiving theirsalary below the minimum wage.


34/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

%n &ovember )445 to 8arch )444,complainants were re – employed in

respondents "acitelcom proJect inulacan.


!n 8ay *) )444 complainants for


35/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

!n 8ay *), )444, complainants forthe Dth time worked with respondents

proJect in -amarin, -aloocan -ity with

;urukawa -orporation as the generalcontractor.

$heir contract would expire on;ebruary *5, *222, the period ofcompletion of the proJect.



36/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$he -amarin proJect was not

completed on the scheduled date ofcompletion due to delay in the deliveryof imported materials .

"espondent was constrained to cutdown the overtime work of its workers,including complainants.


37/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$hus, when requested bycomplainants on ;ebruary *5, *222 towork overtime, respondent refused andtold them that if they insist, they wouldhave to go home at their own expenseand that they would not be givenanymore time nor allowed to stay in

the quarters.


38/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$his prompted complainants toleave their work and went home to

-ebu.

!n 8arch 0, *222, complainants

led a complaint for illegal dismissal,non9payment of wages, holiday pay,)0th month pay for )44B and )445 andservice incentive leave pay as well asdamages and attorneys fees.



39/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>


-omplainants were only proJect

employees, for their services weremerely engaged for a specic proJect orundertaking and the same were covered

by contracts duly signed by them.

;ood allowance of =0.22 per day as

well as allowance for lodging house,transportation, electricity, water andsnacks allowance should be added tocomplainants basic pay.


40/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

u"in% o the Labor Arbiter )-omplainants were regular

employees because they wererepeatedly hired by respondents andthey performed activities which wereusual, necessary and desirable inthe business or trade of theemployer.


41/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

-omplainants were underpaid. %truled that the free board and lodging,

electricity, water, and food enJoyed bythem could not be included in thecomputation of their wages because

these were given without their writtenconsent.-omplainants were not illegallydismissed since their act of going home

was an act of indi+erence whenrespondents decided to prohibitovertime work .


42/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the NLR()

AOrmed the ndings of the LA.

%t noted that not a single report of

proJect completion was led with thenearest !L# as requiredepartment !rder &o. )4, 'eries of)440.


43/67


44/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

b6 'uch duration, as well as the specicworkFservice to be performed, is denedin an employment agreement and ismade clear to the employee at the timeof hiring.c6 $he workFservice performed by theemployee is in connection with the

particular proJectFundertaking for whichhe is engaged.d6 $he employee, while not employed

and awaiting engagement, is free too+er his services to any other employer.


45/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

e6 $he termination of his employment

in the particular proJectFundertaking isreported to the !L# "egional !Ocehaving Jurisdiction over the workplace

within 02 days following the date of hisseparation from work, using the

prescribed form on employees

terminationFdismissalsFsuspensions.


46/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

f6 An undertaking in the

employment contract by theemployer to pay completionbonus to the proJect employee as

practiced by most constructioncompanies.


47/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the (ourt o A!!ea"s)

AOrmed the ndings of the &L"-.

-omplainants were regularemployees performing functionswhich were the regular and usual

business of respondent.


48/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

ISS2E)

)6 (hether or not the value of thefacilities that the complainants

enJoyed should be included in thecomputation of the PwagesQ receivedby them.


49/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

"in% o the Su!reme (ourt)

$he burden of proving payment ofmonetary claims rests on the employer,the rationale being that the pertinent

personnel les, payrolls, records,remittances and other similardocuments R which will show thatovertime, di+erentials, service incentive

leave and other claims of workers havebeen paid R are not in the possessionof the worker but in the custody and

absolute control of the employer.


50/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

"espondents, aside from bareallegations that complainants receivedwages higher than the prescribedminimum, failed to present any

evidence, such as payroll or payslips,to support their defense of payment.


51/67


52/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

"espondents failed to presentany company policy or guideline

showing that provisions for mealsand lodging were part of theemployees salaries.

%t also failed to provide proofof the employees written

authoriCation, much less showhow they arrived at theirvaluations.


53/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

D*+*n*on /0//n 12a*3**/+4 and1+5663/7/n+4

SSu!!"ements constitute extraremuneration or special privileges

or benets given to or received bythe laborers over and above theirordinary earnings or wages.


54/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

P;acilitiesQ are items of expense

necessary for the laborerTs and hisfamilyTs existence and subsistenceand it forms part of the wage and

when furnished by the employer aredeductible therefrom, since if theyare not so furnished, the laborer

would spend and pay for them Justthe same.


55/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$he allowances allegedlyenJoyed by the complainants aresupplements.


56/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

C. PLANAS COMMERCIALand8o9 MARCIAL COHU

- :/9+5+-

NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION;S/ond D*:.


57/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

!n 'eptember )D, )440,complainants, who arelaborersFhelpers, led a complaint for

underpayment of wages, nonpaymentof overtime pay, holiday pay, serviceincentive leave pay and premium pay

for holiday and rest day and night shiftdi+erential against respondents.

FACTS)

A"" ti ( " i t


58/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

"espondent -ohu, owner of -. =lanas-ommercial, is engaged in wholesale of

plastic products and fruits of di+erent kindswith more than *D employees:

=aid below the minimum wage law for the

past 0 years:

"equired to work for more than 5 hours aday without overtime pay:

&ever enJoyed holiday pay and did nothave a rest day as they worked for B days aweek: and

A""e%ation o (om!"ainants)


59/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

$hey were not paid service incentiveleave pay although they had beenworking for more than one year.


60/67


61/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

&ot entitled to holiday and

service incentive leave pays forthey were employed in a retailand service establishment

regularly employing less thanten workers.


62/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

u"in% o the Labor Arbiter ) ismissed complainants money claims for

lack of factual and legal basis since theyfailed to support the allegation that theiremployer is regularly employing more thanten )26 workers in order to be covered of

the minimum wage law, or entitled to legalholiday pay and '%L.

&o suOcient factual basis to awardovertime pay and premium pay for holidayand rest day because complainants failed tosubstantiate that they rendered overtime

and during rest days.


63/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

Ru"in% o the NLR()

8odied the ruling of the Labor Arbiter by directing respondent to paycomplainants their salary di+erentials,

holiday pay, and '%L.

@e who invokes the exemption ofthe mandated wages and fringe benetshas the burden of showing the basis ofthe same .


64/67


65/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

ISS2E)

)6 (hether or not complainantsare entitled to the money claims.

il i bli h


66/67

>> 0 >> 1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >>

"in% o the Su!reme (ourt);or a retailFservice establishment tobe exempted from the coverage of the

minimum wage law, it must be shownthat the establishment is regularlyemploying not more than ten )26

workers and had applied for exemptionswith and as determined by theappropriate "egional oard.

"espondents had not shown anyevidence to show that they had appliedfor such exemption and if they had

applied, the same was granted.


67/67

End&

Labor Jurisprudence101

Documents

Transcript of Labor Jurisprudence101