You are on page 1of 3

[G.R.  No.  132162.

 January  26,  2000]  
PHIL.  WALLBOARD  CORP.    
vs.    
NWPC,  et  al.  
SECOND  DIVISION  
Gentlemen:  
Quoted  hereunder,  for  your  information,  is  a  resolution  of  this  Court  dated  JAN  26  2000.  
G.R.  No.  132162  (Philippine  Wallboard  Corporation  vs.  National  Wages  and  Productivity  
Commission  and  Manila  Lumber  Employees  and  General  Workers'  Union.)  
Before  us  is  a  petition  for  certiorari  under  Rule  65  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Court  assailing  
two   (2)   decisions   of   Public   respondent   National   Wages   and   Productivity   Commission  
(NWPC)   dated   October   6,   1997   and   December   16,   1997,   denying   the   application   of  
petitioner  Philippine  Wallboard  Corporation  (hereafter,  "PWC")  for  extension  of  its  one-­‐
year  exemption  from  coverage  of  Wage  Order  Nos.  NCR-­‐04  and  NCR-­‐04-­‐A.  
The  facts  are:  
On   January   16,   1996,   the   Regional   Tripartite   Wages   and   Productivity   Board-­‐National  
Capital   Region   (RTWPB-­‐NCR)   issued   Wage   Order   No.   NCR-­‐04   Section   1   of   which  
provides,  thus:  
"Section   1.   All   private   sector   workers   and   employees   in   the  
National   Capital   Region   receiving   the   prescribed   minimum   wage   rate  
of   ONE   HUNDRED   FORTY   FIVE   PESOS   per   day   shall   receive   a   wage  
increase  of  twenty  pesos  (P20.00)  per  day  x  x  x."  
On   February   6,   1996,   the   RTWPB-­‐NCR   issued   Wage   Order   No.   NCR-­‐04-­‐A   prescribing   a  
formula  for  wage  distortion.  
On   March   5,   1996,   petitioner   PWC   filed   with   the   RTWPB-­‐NCR,   an   application   for  
exemption   from   the   aforesaid   wage   orders   on   the   ground   that   it   was   a   distressed  
establishment  with  an  impaired  capital  of  at  least  twenty-­‐five  percent  (25%).  
On   September   2,   1996,   said   application   was   approved   by   the   RTWPB-­‐NCR.   The  
dispositive  portion  of  its  Decision  thus  provides:  
"WHEREFORE,   premises   considered,   the   application   filed   by  
PHILIPPINE   WALLBOARD   CORPORATION   is   hereby   APPROVED.  
PHILLIPPINE   WALLBOARD   CORPORATION   is   hereby   granted   exemption  
from  the  implementation  of  Wage  Order  No.  NCR-­‐04  and  NCR-­‐04-­‐A,  for  
all  employees  in  the  National  Capital  Region,  for  a  period  of  twelve  (12)  
months   effective   02   February   1996   until   01   February   1997.   After   the  

  NCR-­‐02   &   NCR-­‐02-­‐A.  1997.   On  March  3.  denied  the  same  in   the  assailed  Decision  of  October  6.   On  June  30.   1997.  Emphasis  supplied  by  the  RTWPB-­‐NCR.   National   Wages   and   Productivity   Commission.  pp.   112216.  1997.   which   involves   the   issue   of   whether   or   not   this   Commission   committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   denying   the   petitioners'   request   for   extension   of   the   one   year   exemption   granted   to   it   by   the   Board   under   Wage   Order   No.   et   al.   Hence.   petitioner   filed   a   Motion   for   Reconsideration   but   the   same   was   denied  in  the  assailed  Decision  of  December  16.   Philippine   Wallboard   Corporation  shall  pay  the  corresponding  minimum  wage  for  all  covered   workers   without   need   of   further   notice.   therefore.period   of   exemption   shall   have   expired.  Rollo.  thus:   "Perforce.  1997.  that  the  non-­‐renewability  of  the  one  year  exemption  was   purposely   meant   to   protect   workers   from   any   deleterious   effect   of   a   prolonged  exemption.  this  petition.   G.   is   entitled   only   to   a   maximum   duration   of   exemption  of  one  year  under  subject  Wage  Order.   .   NCR   04   which   expressly   limits   the   period   of   exemption   to   a   maximum   of   one   (1)   year  from  the  effectivity  of  this  wage  order.  Rollo.   Appellant..   the   Supreme   Court   dismissed   the   petition   for   certiorari   after   finding   that  no  such  grave  abuse  of  discretion  was  committed  by  respondent   Commission   in   denying   the   extension   of   exemption   sought   under   the   Wage  Order.   as   we   have   done   so   in   similar   appeals   of   this  nature.   Inc."1Annex   "C"   of   the   Petition.   On   March   11..   1997.   It   must   be   stressed.   the   RTWPB-­‐NCR   denied   the   motion.   Petitioner   insists   that   the   NWPC   committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   denying   petitioner's   application   for   extension   from   Wage   Order   No.  1997.  p.  25.   1996.20-­‐21.   "Finally.   No.  It  ruled.   December   6.   NCR-­‐04   and   NCR-­‐04-­‐A   despite  its  worsening  financial  condition.  however.  Rollo  pp.   there   is   simply   no   legal   basis   upon   which   the   extension   of   exemption   being   sought   in   the   instant   appeal   will   lie.  petitioner  appealed  to  the  NWPC  which."2  Annex  "A"  of  the  Petition.R.   On   October   23.  22-­‐ 23.   citing   Section   7   of   Wage   Order   No.   v.3  Annex  "B"  Petition.   it   may   not   be   amiss   to   note   that   in   Cheng   Ban   Yek   &   Co.  petitioner  PWC  filed  a  Motion  for  Reconsideration  where  it  sought  an   extension   of   the   period   for   exemption   granted   by   the   Board   on   the   ground   that   it   continued  to  suffer  business  reverses.

  Petitioner   is   ordered   to   pay  the  corresponding  minimum  wage  to  all  its  covered  workers  effective  02  February   1997.   There   are   no   exceptions.   WHEREFORE.  The  Board  has  the  discretion  to  grant  full  or  partial   exemption  to  such  employer  with  respect  to  the  amount  or  period  of   exemption   but   in   no   case   shall   it   exceed   one   (1)   year   from   the   effectivity  of  this  Wage  Order.  The  said  section  which  states.  we  cannot  tolerate.   is   clear   and   fixes   the   limit   within   which   such   exemption   shall   be   valid.   the   petition   for  certiorari  is   hereby   DISMISSED.  viz:   "Section  7.   Section  7  of  Wage  Order  No.  To  allow  the  petitioner  to  escape  this  obligation  is   tantamount  to  a  judicial  imprimatur  of  an  attempt  to  evade  the  mandate  of  the  wage   order  in  question.  more  than  sufficient  time  to  cope  with   adverse   financial   conditions   and   make   the   necessary   adjustments   in   order   to   comply   with  the  mandated  wage  increases.We  disagree.  Costs  against  petitioner.  This.   The   rationale   for   allowing   a   one-­‐year   exemption   from   coverage   of   the   wage   order   is   precisely  to  afford  the  parties  affected  thereby.     .  NCR-­‐04  categorically  provides  that  exemption  thereunder   is  to  be  granted  for  a  maximum  of  only  one  year.