39. MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs.

ADANA FACTS: Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR) hired herein 16 respondents as employees in its business in Legaspi City. Its operation was suspended due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for the space it rented. While waiting for the completion of the construction of its new site, MHR continued its operation in another site with 9 of the 16 employees. When the new site constructed and MHR resumed its business operation, none of the 16 employees was recalled to work. MHR alleged business losses as the reason for not reinstating the respondents. On various dates, respondents filed complaints for underpayment of wages, money claims and illegal dismissal. ISSUES: Whether or not respondents are entitled to their money claims due to underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of holiday pay, rest day premium, SILP, COLA, overtime pay, and night shift differential pay. HELD: The Supreme Court reinstated the award of monetary claims granted by the Labor Arbiter. The cost of meals and snacks purportedly provided to respondents cannot be deducted as part of respondents' minimum wage. As stated in the Labor Arbiter's decision. Even granting that meals and snacks were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without compliance with certain legal requirements. As stated in Mabeza v. NLRC, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee's wages without satisfying the following: (a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and (c) the facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value. The law is clear that mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees' wages. As for petitioners repeated invocation of serious business losses, suffice to say that this is not a defense to payment of labor standard benefits. The employer cannot exempt himself from liability to pay minimum wages because of poor financial condition of the company. The payment of minimum wages is not dependent on the employer's ability to pay.

40. BPI EMPLOYEE UNION VS BPI/ BPI VS BPI EMPLOYEE UNION FACTS: The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision finding Uy's dismissal as illegal and ordering BPI to immediately reinstate Uy and to pay her full back wages, including all her other benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and attorneys fees. Instead of reinstatement, the CA ordered BPI to pay Uy her separation pay. Further, instead of full back wages, the CA fixed Uy's back wages to three years.

ISSUE: WON UY was entitled of full back wages HELD: Jurisprudence dictates that such award of back wages is without qualifications and deductions, that is, unqualified by any wage increases or other benefits that may have been received by co-workers who were not dismissed. It is likewise settled that the base figure to be used in the computation of back wages is pegged at the wage rate at the time of the employees dismissal unqualified by deductions, increases and/or modifications.

41.Millares vs NLRC Facts: Petitioners numbering one hundred sixteen occupied the positions of Technical Staff, Unit Manager, Section Manager, Department Manager, Division Manager and Vice President in the mill site of respondent Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. In 1992 PICOP suffered a major financial setback allegedly brought about by the joint impact of restrictive government regulations on logging and the economic crisis. To avert further losses, it undertook a retrenchment program and terminated the services of petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners received separation pay computed at the rate of one (1) month basic pay for every year of service. Believing however that the allowances they allegedly regularly received on a monthly basis during their employment should have been included in the computation thereof they lodged a complaint for separation pay differentials. Issue: WON presentation and transportation allowances formed part of salary as to be considered in the computation of retirement benefits.. Ruling: The allowances are not part of the wages of the employees. Wage is defined in letter (f) as the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. The ruling was in the negative on the main ground that the retirement plan of the company expressly excluded such allowances from salary.

42. Songco, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission FACTS:

Zuelig filed an application for clearance to terminate the services of Songco, and others, on the ground of retrenchment due to financial losses. During the hearing, the parties agreed that the sole issue to be resolved was the basis of the separation pay due. The salesmen received monthly salaries of at least P400.00 and commission for every sale they made. The Collective Bargaining Agreements between Zuelig and the union of which Songco, et al. were members contained the following provision: "Any employee who is separated from employment due to old age, sickness, death or permanent lay-off, not due to the fault of said employee, shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to one (1) month's salary per year of service." The Labor Arbiter ordered Zuelig to pay Songco et al., separation pay equivalent to their one month salary (exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc.) for every year of service with the company. ISSUE: Whether or not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly salary of Songco, et al. for the purpose of computing their separation pay. RULING: In the computation of backwages and separation pay, account must be taken not only of the basic salary of the employee, but also of the transportation and emergency living allowances. Even if the commissions were in the form of incentives or encouragement, so that the salesman would be inspired to put a little more industry on jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered which contributed to the increase of income of the employee. Commission is the recompense compensation or reward of an agent, salesman, executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate that commissions are part of Songco, et al's wage or salary. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not receive any basic salary, but depend on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee relationships exists.

43. PNB V PEMA

FACTS PNB and PNB Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute regarding the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA wanted the cost of living allowance (granted in 1958) and longevity pay (granted in 1961) to be included in the computation. PNB disagreed and the 2 parties later went before the CIR to resolve the dispute. CIR decided in favor of PEMA and held that PNB should compute the overtime pay of its employees on the basis of the sum total of the employees basic salary or wage plus cost of living allowance and longevity pay. The CIR relied on the ruling in NAWASA v NAWASA Consolidated Unions, which held that for purposes of computing overtime compensation, regular wage includes all payments which the parties have agreed shall be received during the workweek, including differentiated payments for working at undesirable times, such as at night and the board and lodging customarily furnished the employee. ISSUE WON the cost of living allowance and longevity pay should be included in the computation of overtime pay HELD NO. Overtime pay is for extra effort beyond that contemplated in the employment contract; additional pay given for any other purpose cannot be included in the basis for the computation of overtime pay. Longevity pay cannot be included in the computation of overtime pay for the very simple reason that the contrary is expressly stipulated in the CBA, which constitutes the law between the parties. As regards cost of living allowance, there is nothing in Art. 87 Labor Code that could justify PEMAs posture that it should be added to the regular wage in computing overtime pay. It prescribes that overtime work shall be paid at the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least 25% additional. The law did not define what is a regular wage or salary. What the law emphasized is that in addition to regular wage, there must be paid an additional 25% of that regular wage to constitute overtime rate of pay. Parties were thus allowed to agree on what shall be mutually considered regular pay from or upon which a 25%premium shall be based and added to makeup overtime compensation. -

44. (PACIWU)-TUCP vs NLRC FACTS: (PACIWU)-TUCP is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of respondent Vallacar Transit, Inc. Petitioner union instituted a complaint with NLRC , for payment of 13th month pay in behalf of the drivers and conductors on the ground that although said drivers and conductors are compensated on a "purely commission" basis as described in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), they are automatically entitled to the basic minimum pay mandated by law should said commission be less than their basic minimum for eight (8) hours work. ISSUE whether or not the bus drivers and conductors are entitled to 13th month pay and basic minimum payment HELD: The court ruled in affirmative. it is immaterial whether the employees concerned are paid a guaranteed wage plus commission or a commission with guaranteed wage inasmuch as the bottom line is that they receive a guaranteed wage Evidently therefore, the commissions form part of the wage or salary of the bus drivers and conductors. A contrary interpretation would allow an employer to skirt the law and would result in an absurd situation where an employee who receives a guaranteed minimum basic pay cannot be entitled to a 13th month pay simply because he is technically referred to by his employer per the CBA as an employee compensated on a purely commission basis. Such would be a narrow interpretation of the law, certainly not in accord with the liberal spirit of our labor laws. Moreover, what is controlling is not the label attached to the remuneration that the employee receives but the nature of the remuneration