Gaa vs Court of Appeals (1985) 140 SCRA 304 Facts: • It appears that respondent Europhil Industries Corporation was

formerly one of the tenants in Trinity Building at T.M. Kalaw Street, Manila, while petitioner Gaa was then the building administrator. • On December 12, 1973, Europhil commenced an action in CFI Manila for damages against petitioner for having perpetrated certain acts that Europhil considered a trespass upon its rights, namely, cutting of its electricity, and removing its name from the building directory and gate passes of its officials and employees", • On June 28, 1974, said court rendered judgment in favor of respondent Europhil, ordering petitioner to pay the former the sum of P10,000.00 as actual damages, P5,000.00 as moral damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs. • The said decision having become final and executory, a writ of garnishment was issued pursuant to which Deputy • Sheriff Roxas on August 1, 1975 served a Notice of Garnishment upon El Grande Hotel, where petitioner was then employed, garnishing her "salary, commission and/or remuneration." • Petitioner then filed with the CIF of Manila a motion to lift said garnishment on the ground that her salaries, commission and or remuneration" are exempted from execution under Article 1708 of the New Civil Code. • Said motion was denied by the lower Court • CA dismissed the petition holding that petitioner is not a mere laborer as contemplated under • Article 1708 as the term laborer does not apply to one who holds a managerial or supervisory position like that of petitioner, but only to those laborers occupying the lower strata. Issue: WON the Petitioner is covered by Article 1708 of the New Civil Code. RULING: Petitioner is not covered by Article 1708 since she does not fall within the criteria of laborer. Article 1708 of the Civil Code provides: “The laborer's wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance." It is beyond dispute that petitioner is not an ordinary or rank and file laborer but a responsibly place employee, of El Grande Hotel, responsible for planning, directing, controlling, and coordinating the activities of all housekeeping personnel so as to ensure the cleanliness, maintenance and orderliness of all guestrooms, function rooms, public areas, and the surroundings of the hotel. Considering the importance of petitioner's function in El Grande Hotel, it is undeniable that petitioner is occupying a position equivalent to that of a managerial or supervisory position. We do not think that the legislature 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 is definitely not within that class.

TheSchool grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. the faculty member isclassified as a local hire. There is no evidence here that foreign-hiresperform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires.In this case. Foreign-hires are also paid a salaryrate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires.Inc."Persons who work with substantially equalqualifications. TheSchool justifies the difference on two "significanteconomic disadvantages" foreignhires have to endure. which they perform under similar working conditions. pursuant toPD 732. classifying the same into two: (1)foreignhires and (2) local-hires.International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing (2000) 333 SCRA 13 Facts: InternationalSchool. effort and responsibility. supra.TheSchool contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires.If the employer paysone employee less than the rest.with equal pay for equal work. To enable theSchool to continuecarrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. the employer has failed to discharge this burden. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limitedtenure. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable lawsand regulations attending their employment. Both groups have similar functions andresponsibilities. taxes. and home leave travel allowance.TheSchool hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. These include housing. in particular: ( a) Remuneration which provides all workers. Issue:WON local hire teachers shall enjoy same salary as foreign hire teachers where they perform the same work. in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men. . fromPhilippine or other nationalities. TheSchool employs four tests to determine whether a faculty membershould be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire: (a) What is one's domicile? (b) Where is one's homeeconomy? (c) To which country does one owe economic allegiance? (d) Was the individual hired abroadspecifically to work in theSchool and was theSchool responsible for bringing that individual to thePhilippines?Should the answer to any of thesequeries point to thePhilippines.Section 2(c) of the same decreeauthorizes theSchool to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally orabroad.transportation. The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction thelong honored legal truism of "e qual pay for equal work. should be paid similar salaries.. he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.Notably. and Cultural Rights. with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind. theInternational Covenant on Economic. inArticle 7 thereof. The employer has discriminated against that employee.If an employer accords employees thesame position and rank. which ensure. it is for the employer to explain whythe employee is treated unfairly. otherwise.Social. shipping costs. it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. except laws that have been or will be enacted for theprotection of employees. The compensation scheme is simply theSchool's adaptive measure to remain competitive on aninternational level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education. RULING:Employees are entitled to same salary for performance of equal work. The Court finds this argument a little inconsiderate. is a domestic educational institution established primarily fordependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. under similar conditions.provides: TheStatesParties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of justand favorable conditions of work. This ruleapplies to theSchool.as a minimum. skill.

Petitioners appealed with the CAbut it was denied. thus the LaborArbiter is correct in ruling that private respondents claim for underpayment has no factual and legal basis. Issue:WON petitioner is exempted from the application of minimum wage law. 6727 known as theWageR ationalization Act provides for the statutory minimum wage rate of allworkers and employees in the private sector. service incentive leave pay. including family drivers.Petitioners insist that C. No.Petitioners claim that since private respondents alleged that petitioners employed 24 workers.Petitioners filed their comment stating that the respondents were theirhelpers. retail/service establishmentsregularly employing not more than ten (10) workers may be exempted from the applicability of thisAct uponapplication with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicablerules and regulations issued by the Commission.C.R. 144619 Facts:I nSeptember 1993. and premium pay for rest day andholiday and night shift differential against petitioners in theArbitration Branch of NLRC. non payment of overtime pay.thus:Sec.Also. thus exempted from the application of the minimumwage law. action on any complaint for alleged non-compliance with thisAct shallbe deferred pending resolution of the application for exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. Section 4 of theAct provides for exemption from the coverage.In the event that applications for exemptions are not granted. 4.Planas Commercial is a retail establishment principally engaged in the sale of plasticproducts and fruits to the customers for personal use.It alleged that Cohuis engaged in the business of wholesale of plastic products and fruits of different kinds with more than 24employees.A. it wasincumbent upon them to prove such allegation which private respondents failed to do. RULING: Petitioners have not successfully shown that they had applied for the exemption. that it merely leases and occupies a stall in the Divisoria Market and the level of its businessactivity requires and sustains only less than ten employees at a time.Planas Commercial vs NLRC (2005) G. holiday pay. employees shall receive the appropriatecompensation due hem as provided for by thisAct plus interest of one percent (1%) per month retroactiveto the effectivity of thisAct. (c)Exempted from the provisions of thisAct are household or domestic helpers and personsemployed in the personal service of another.Petitioners contend that privaterespondents were paid over and above the minimum wage required for a retail establishment. Whenever an application for exemption has been duly filedwith the appropriate Regional Board. .R. Respondents were hired on January 1990. May 1990 and July 19991 as laborers and were paidbelow the minimum wage for the past 3 years.It said that thecompany having claimed of exemption of the coverage of the minimum wage shall have the burden of proof to the claim. Respondents filed an appeal with theNLRC where it granted the money claims. llauigan and Ofialda and others filed a complaint for underpayment of wages.The LaborArbiter rendered a decision dismissing the money claims. Morente. They were required to work for more than 8 hours a day andnever enjoyed the minimum benefits.

Thiscould only mean that the union can no longer demand for any wage distortion adjustment.00 minimumwage.Aperusal of the record shows that the lowest paid employee before theimplementation of Wage Order #8 isP250. 166647 Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel bars and wire rods whilePag-AsaSteel Workers Union is theduly authorized bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.R.50/day increase.00 increase of the salaries receiving minimumwages.P25.PagAsa Steel Works vs CA (2006) G. The rovision of wage order #8 and its implementing rules are very clear as to who are entitled to theP26. Consideringtherefore that none of the members of respondent Union are receiving salaries below theP250. to ripen into a companypractice that is demandable as a matter of right. the petitioner and unionentered into an collective bargaining agreement where it provided wage adjustments namelyP15. On the first year. the increase provided were followed until RTWP B issued anotherwage order where it provided for aP25. thesame would not automatically ripen into a company practice.The union president asked that the wage order be implemented where petitioner rejected the requestclaiming that there was no wage distortion and it was not obliged to grant the wage increase." and since the lowest paid isP250.The provision in the CB Athat "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage andProductivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted above" cannot be interpreted insupport of an across-the-board increase. RULING Company is not obliged to grant the wage increase. Issue:WON the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under the Wage Order as a matter of practice.50 per dayincrease to all of its rank-and-file employees. petitioner is not obliged to grant the wage increase to them. "private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving the prescribed dailyminimum wage rate of P223.50 per day increase in the salary of employees receiving theminimum wage and increased the minimum wage toP223.e.50 minimum.On November 2000.50) perday. Wage Order No.and not all employees across -the-board as respondent Union would want petitioner to do.50 per day.i.50 shall receive an increase of Twenty-SixPesos and Fifty Centavos (P26.RTWPB of NCR issued a wage order which provided for aP13. Hence.. the giving of the increase should not be by reason of a strictlegal or contractual obligation. The matter was elevated to CAwhere it favored the respondents. .Petitioner paid theP25. The unionsubmitted the matter for voluntary arbitration where it favored the position of the company and dismissedthe complaint. NCR-08 clearly states that only those employeesreceiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase provided therein. Wage Order No.00/day and none was receiving belowP223. NCR-08 was issued where it provided the increase of P26. but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the employer.50 per day.In September 1999. P30for three succeeding year. ThePetitioner and the union negotiated on the increase.Petitioner forwarded a letter to the unionwith the list of adjustments involving rank and file employees.00/day the company is not obliged to adjust the wages of theworkers.It is submitted that employers unless exempt are mandated to implement the said wage order but limited tothose entitled thereto. Moreover. evenif the company continuously grants a wage increase as mandated by a wage order or pursuant to a CBA.

under the law. by virtue of an oral contract. (3) [i] Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary dutyconsists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof. unfairlabor practice. or[iii] execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks. petitioner is clearly exempted there from. Delantar informing him of the termination of his services effective on 30April 1991. overtime rendered. 93. nonetheless he is still not entitledto payment of the aforestated benefits because he falls s quarely under another exempt category  "officersor members of a managerial staff" as defined under sec. althoughpetitioner cannot strictly be classified as a managerial employee underArt.The petitioner was paid overtime benefits does not automatically and necessarily denote that petitioner isentitled to such benefits. and (3)above. non-payment of wages.Exemption.commission. petitionerwould also receive a share in the profits after completion of the project and that petitioner's services inexcess of eight (8) hours on regular days and services rendered on weekends and legal holidays shall becompensable overtime at the rate of P27.Salazar vs NLRC (1996) 256 SCRA 273 FACTS: OnApril 1990.NestorA. (2).85 per hour. private respondent employed petitioner as construction/project engineer for the onstructionof the Monte dePiedad building in Cubao.However. Hence. 82 of the Labor Code specifically delineates who are entitled to the overtimepremiums and service incentive leave pay provided underArt. 2(c) of the abovementioned implementing rules:SECTION 2. this does not translate into a right on the part of petitioner to demand additional payment when. illegal deduction. or knowledge. 82 of the Labor Code. and(4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which arenot directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1). or[ii] execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring specialtraining.  The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to the following persons if theyqualify for exemption under the condition set forth herein:(c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform the following duties and responsibilities:(1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of theiremployer.(2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent Judgment. experience.On 16April 1991. profit-sharing and separation pay with the NLRC-NCRArbitration Branch. Engr. and sec.On 13 September 1991. service incentive leave pay.It is well and good that petitioner was compensated for his overtime services. .As previously determined petitioner falls under the exemptions and therefore has nolegal claim to the said benefits.Allegedly. petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal dismissal. Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to separation pay. BookIIIof the Omnibus RulesImplementing the Labor Code.Petitioner admitted that his job was to supervise the laborers in the construction project. Manila. Quezon City. RULING: The petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. 94 and 95 of the Labor Code and theexemptions thereto. petitioner received a memorandum issued by private respondent's project manager.2(b).Art. Rule 1. allowances. 87.

00 for air-conditioned taxi orP450. on several occasions. private respondents filed a complaint with the manila rbitration Office of theNational Labor Relations Commission charging petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions.claimed that his termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for the washing of histaxi seat covers. he failed to report for work during hisschedule. there is no dispute that as a matter of practice in the taxi industry. after a tour of duty. 1991. the amount doled out was paid directly to theperson who washed the unit. and is. if they wanted to save theirP20. Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver under the same terms andconditions as when he was first employed. Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2years. materials orequipments supplied by the employer.Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows: Deposits f or loss or damage. materials.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi.00 for car washing. or is necessary or desirable as etermined bytheSecretary of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations.Sabsalon failed to remit his boundary of P700. on his part. but his working schedule was made on an alternative basis wherehe drove only every other day. the labor arbiter had this to say in his decision: "Anent the issue of illegal deductions.In January. petitioners terminated his services. Clearly. but herein petitioners told him that not a single centavo was left of his deposits as these were noteven enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was driving. OnSeptember 22. they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour shifting schedule. as such. 1987. car washingafter a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry. much more (sic) to consider theamount paid by the driver as illegal deduction in the context of the law.00 for the previous day.for every actual working day. WhenMaldigan insisted on the refund of his deposit. thus we find nothing illegal in this practice.  No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from hichdeductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools.Also. amounts to the prohibition provided by law. private respondents are not entitled to the refund of theP20. Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for work. and to further make aP15. With respect toSabsalon.On the matter of the car wash payments.It will be noted that there was nothing to prevent private respondents from cleaning the taxi unitsthemselves. However."Consequently. in fact.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their boundary.Aside from the daily boundary of P700. he adamantly refused. he went to this home province to recuperate.00. while driving a taxicab of petitioners onSeptember 1983.Five J Taxi vs NLRC (1992) 235 SCRA 556 Facts: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and GilbertoSabsalon were hired by the petitioners as taxi driversand. he already failed toreport for work for unknown reasons.00 car wash payments theymade. RULING: The Court declares that the deposits made. they were also required to payP 20.Sabsalon. Issue:WON the deductions made were illegal and if illegal.Also.Sometime in 1989. considered a prohibition regarding wages. . The depositsmade were illegal and the respondents must be refunded. This was allegedly thepractice adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of their taxicab units. he was held upby his armed passenger who took all his money and thereafter stabbed him. the same does not apply to or permit deposits to defray anydeficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his boundary. 1991. occupations or businesswhere the practice of making deposits is a recognized one.In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the petitioners.Afterwards it was revealed that he was drivinga taxi for Bulaklak Company. dictated by fair play.00. he abandoned his taxicab in Makati without fuel refill worthP300. complainant(s) (private respondentsherein) were made to shoulder the expenses for washing. except when the employer is engaged in such trades. it isincumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has given to the same clean condition when he took it out. as theSolicitor General correctly noted.and as claimed by the respondents (petitioners in the present case).On November 27. or equipmentsupplied by the employer.Petitioners learned that he was working for Mine of Gold TaxiCompany.t can be deduced that the said article provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools. He was hospitalized and after isdischarge.

Isabela. Baguio-Tuguegarao via Manilaand Manila-Tabuk via Baguio. Respondent averred that the accident happened because he wascompelled by the management to go back to Roxas. BookIIIof theImplementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code which provides:RIGHT TO SE RVIC E INC ENTIVE LEAVE . seven percent (7%) of the totalgross income per travel.In so doing. Nueva Vizcaya. BookIII. it is necessary to stress that the definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned withthe location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee'sperformance is unsupervised by the employer. (a)Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shallbe entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay. field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by theemployer or his representative.ServiceIncentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as "field personnel." applying the rule on ejusdemgeneris that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they followence.50. 114 alongSta. an inquiry must be made as to whetheror not the employee's time and performance are constantly supervised by . respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal withMoney Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay againstAutobus. unless.After a month. as the latter vehicle suddenly stopped at asharp curve without giving any warning. the bus he wasdriving accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No.employees including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performingwork away from the principal office of the employee.According toArticle 82 of the Labor Code.Respondent further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount of P75. although he had not slept for almost twenty-four(24) hours.Inc.. 156364 Facts: RespondentAntonio Bautista has been employed by petitionerAuto Bus TransportSystems.At this point.551. itserves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code asthose "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. anagement sent him aletter of termination.representing thirty percent (30%) of the cost of repair of the damaged buses and that despite respondent'spleas for reconsideration. This definition isfurther elaborated in the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC). Rather. purelycommission basis. field personnel are those who regularlyperform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Thus. or those who are paid ina fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof."Said phrase should be related with "field personnel. as he had just arrived in Manila from Roxas.If required to be at specific places at specific times.What must be ascertained in order to resolve the issue of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave torespondent is whether or not he is a field personnel. they fall under the classification of field personnel. hence. while respondent was drivingAutobus No. Rule V. on a twice a onth basis.Isabela. on 02 February 2000.Autobus Transport System vs Bautista (2005) G. Issue:WON respondent is entitled to service incentive leave. Rule V:SERVICE INCENTIVELEAVEalso states that this rule shall apply to all employeesexcept: (d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the empl oyerincluding those who are engaged on task or contract basis. employees engaged on task or contract basis or paid on purely commission basis are notautomatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave. they are paid specific amount forrendering specific service or performing specific work. in order to conclude whether anemployee is a field employee. it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can bedetermined with reasonable certainty by the employer. the same was ignored by management.Advisory Opinion toPhilippine Technical-Clerical CommercialEmployeesAssociation 10 which states that:As a general rule."The phrase "other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer" must not be understoodas a separate classification of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be granted.As discussed above. RULING: The respondent is entitled to service incentive leave. as driver -conductor with travel routes Manila-Tuguegarao via Baguio.Acareful examination of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentiveleave has been delimited by theImplementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to thoseemployees not explicitly excluded bySection 1 of Rule V. Respondent was paid on commission basis. "field personnel" shall refer to nonagricultural employees whoregularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer andwhose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.The disposition of the issue revolves around the proper interpretation of Article 95 of the Labor Code vis-à-visSection 1(D). since May1995. 124. purely commission basis.On January 2000. the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours anddays of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.According to theImplementing Rules.Moreover. Fe. Thus."The same is true with respect to the phrase "those who are engaged on task or contract basis.R.

as the solicitor generalrecommends."It is also "commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at theend of the year. is less than 12 months.subject to a few exceptions.Section 2.whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working. in which case said period shallbe considered as one year. is to unduly restrict such right. Rule V. respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave. an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it."Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served "within 12 months. including authorizedabsences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practice orpolicy.The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay to workers in all establishments."In other words. To limit the award to three years.the employer. . Respondent is not afield personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually necessary and desirable to the usual tradeof petitioner's business. He may use it asleave days or he may collect its monetary value.Accordingly. BookIIIof theImplementing Rules and Regulations providesthat "every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly serviceincentive leave of five days with pay. or that provided in the employment contracts.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful