Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digests On Wages Labor
Case Digests On Wages Labor
vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment, Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr., and CARSUMCO
Employees Union
PUNO, J.:
Facts:
On November 16, 1993, Regional Wage Order No. RO2-02 was issued by the
Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board (RTWPB) of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE).
On September 12 and 13, 1994, labor inspectors from the DOLE Regional Office
examined the books of the petitioner CARSUMCO to determine its compliance with the
wage order and found that it did not implement an across the board increase in the
salary of its employees. At the hearing for the alleged violation, CARSUMCO
maintained that it paid the mandated increase in the minimum wage. In an Order
dated December 16, 1994, the public respondent Regional Director Ricardo S.
Martinez, Sr. ordered CARSUMCO to pay the deficiency in the salary of its employees
in the total amount of P555,133.41.
The Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the respondents
from enforcing and conducting further proceedings until further orders.
Issues:
Whether or not the Wage Order is null and void for having been issued in
violation of the procedure provided by law and of the petitioner's right to due process
of law
Whether or not the Wage Order clearly provided for the fixing of a statutory
minimum wage rate, not an across the board increase in wages
Ruling:
Wage Order No. RO2-02, passed on November 16, 1993, provided for an increase
in the statutory minimum wage rates for Region II. More than a year later, or on
January 6, 1995, the Regional Board passed Wage Order RO2-02-A amending the
earlier wage order and providing instead for an across the board increase in wages of
employees in Region II, retroactive to the date of effectivity of Wage Order RO2-02.
CARSUMCO assails the validity of Wage Order RO2-02-A on the ground that it was
passed without the required public consultation and newspaper publication.
"ART. 123. Wage Order. Whenever conditions in the region so warrant, the Regional
Board shall investigate and study all pertinent facts, and, based on the standards and
criteria herein prescribed, shall proceed to determine whether a Wage Order should
be issued. Any such Wage Order shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
complete publication in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the
region. In the performance of its wage-determining functions, the Regional Board
shall conduct public hearings/consultations, giving notices to employees' and
employers' groups and other interested parties. x x x"
The record shows that there was no prior public hearings/consultations and
newspaper publication insofar as Wage Order No. RO2-02-A is concerned. In fact,
these allegations were not denied by the public respondents in their Comment. Their
position is that there was no need to comply with the legal requirements as Wage
Order No. RO2-02-A merely clarified the ambiguous provision of the original wage
order.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP (MBTCEU) and its
President Antonio V. Balinang
vs.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Metropolitan Bank And Trust
Company
VITUG, J.:
Facts:
On May 25, 1989, the bank entered into a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with the MBTCEU, granting only regular employees a monthly P900 wage
increase effective January 1, 1989, P600 wage increase effective January 1, 1990, and
P200 wage increase effective January 1, 1991.
Barely a month later, or on January 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6727, "An act to
rationalize wage policy determination by establishing the mechanism and proper
standards thereof, . . . fixing new wage rates, providing wage incentives for industrial
dispersal to the countryside, and for other purposes," took effect. Pursuant to the
provisions, the bank gave the P25 increase per day, or P750 a month, to its
probationary employees and to those who had been promoted to regular or
permanent status before July 1, 1989 but whose daily rate was P100 and below.
Issue:
In keeping then with the intendment of the law and the agreement of the
parties themselves, along with the often repeated rule that all doubts in the
interpretation and implementation of labor laws should be resolved in favor of
labor, an acceptable quantitative difference between and among the CBA agreed
work levels must be approximated.
Producers Bank of the Philippines
vs.
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.:
Facts:
On March 31, 1989, Labor Arbiter Nieves V. de Castro found the claims to be
unmeritorious and dismissed the complaint. In a complete reversal, however, the
NLRC granted all of the association’s claims, except for damages. The bank is ordered
to pay the unpaid bonus (mid-year and Christmas bonus) and 13th month pay; wage
differentials under Wage Order No. 6 for November 1, 1984 and the corresponding
adjustment thereof; and holiday pay under Article 94 of the Labor Code, not
exceeding three (3) years. In a Resolution issued on June 18, 1991, the NLRC denied
the bank’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
Wage Order No. 6, which came into effect on November 1, 1984, increased the
statutory minimum wage of workers, with different increases being specified for
agricultural plantation and non-agricultural workers. Section 4 thereof reads -
Ruling: