Online Recits - 2018

(AUGUST 20, 2018)

Question:
My establishment is a night club which is frequently visited by rich senior patrons who love to spend their leisure time,
singing, drinking and dancing. It is located near what is known as "red-light district". Last week, I was served a notice from
the Department of Labor and Employment, notifying me to close my establishment as it is a "place of immorality", and the
female employees who are working as cashier/waitress/es and bartender/s although they are already of age, may be
corrupted in violation of the workers right to just and humane conditions of work. Please advise if the action taken by the
DOLE has legal basis.

Answer Given (not necessarily correct):

The action taken by the DOLE has no legal basis.

RA 9231 only applies to instances wherein an establishment has violated such Republic Act for more than three times. It is
only in these cases that such establishment may be ordered closed. Furthermore, for such law to apply, there must be
employed children who are not of age and thus may be corrupted by the nature of the business.

In your case, the women are all of legal age and there are no children employed, therefore DOLE has no legal basis for
issuing such closure notice without complying with the requirements of prior notice and hearing.

Follow up
You are not addressing the issue I am raising. The issue is on immorality of my establishment.

Answer Given:

Now to address the issue regarding the immorality of your business, Burlesk Singing & Dancing Night Club, we would like
to submit that your business is not at all immoral. To shed light on the issue of whether your establishment is a “place of
immorality”, it is best to discuss first what constitutes the term immorality.

In deciding the issue of whether there was valid cause for the dismissal of employee on the ground of immorality in one
case, the Supreme Court said that “immorality pertains to a course of conduct that offends the morals of the community.
The determination of whether a particular conduct is immoral involves: (1) a consideration of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; and (2) an assessment of these circumstances in the light of the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e.,
what the society generally considers moral and respectable, and of the applicable laws.” (Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent
Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016)

And in another case the Supreme Court held that an ordinance prohibiting the operation of night clubs among others, “seeks
to legislate morality but fails to address the core issues of morality. Try as the Ordinance may to shape morality, it should
not foster the illusion that it can make a moral man out of it because immorality is not a thing, a building or establishment; it
is in the hearts of men. The City Council instead should regulate human conduct that occurs inside the establishments, but
not to the detriment of liberty and privacy which are covenants, premiums and blessings of democracy.” (City of Manila vs.
Laguio, GR 118127)

Considering the totality of the facts in your case, we are of the opinion that your establishment is not a place of immorality.
Your clients avail of your services merely for the purpose of leisure through legitimate and valid activities such as singing,
drinking, and dancing. Thus, there is no basis in saying that the female employees may be corrupted while working in your
establishment.

Moreover, while it is true that the Secretary of Labor and Employment may order the suspension of the operations of any
establishment, this will not serve as a proper basis for the closure order issued to you.

Such power of the Secretary is granted by Article 128 of the Labor Code:
“Article 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. x x x The Secretary of Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage
of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or
implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace.
x x x”

For such closure order to issue, the law requires that (1) the establishment should be non-compliant with the law or
implementing rules and regulations and (2) such non-compliance poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety
of workers in the workplace. These things not having been established, no stoppage of Burlesk Singing & Dancing Night
Club may be validly issued.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is already established that your business is not a place of immorality, thus, it is not in
violation of any law or implementing rules and regulations. There is also no basis to say that the health and safety of your
workers are in grave and imminent danger. The activities in your establishment are legitimate and valid hence there is no
threat of exposing your employees to impending hazard, injury, or even death.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

October 30, 2018

Dear Team Correos,

Edwin, who was employed by Isog Security Agency was assigned as VIP security for a bank's Manager. After 3
months, Edwin was recalled by the agency when the bank's manager passed away although the contract between
the bank and the agency was fixed for one year. When he was given a new assignment by his agency to another bank
as security guard, Edwin refused, contending he was employed as VIP security only and not as security guard. Did
Isog Security Agency act within the law? Why or why not?
Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
Brgy. Talamban, Cebu City

Thank you for reaching out to our firm for your inquiry.

It is of our opinion that Isog Security Agency acted within the law. According to RA 5487, also known as the Private Security
Agency Law, the organization, operation, business and activities of private detectives, watchmen or security agencies shall
be governed by the provisions of this Act.

With this in mind, the law covers both VIP security or private security personnel and security guards. Hence, Isog Security
Agency has the authority to transfer assignments that would benefit or affect their business. In other words, it has the right
to transfer Edwin to another assignment since he is an employee of the agency and not of the bank. The Agency is the
employer of Edwin and the bank is merely a principal. There is no employer-employee relationship between Edwin and the
Bank. What exists is an employer-employee relationship between the Agency and Edwin.

As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of EXOCET SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION and/or MA. TERESA
MARCELO vs. ARMANDO D. SERRANO, G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014,

“An employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one office or area of operation to another, or in
pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and
other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment
or demotion without sufficient cause.

xxxxxx

The security guard’s right to security of tenure does not give him a vested right to the position as would deprive the
company of its prerogative to change the assignment of, or transfer the security guard to, a station where his services
would be most beneficial to the client. Indeed, an employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees from one
office or area of operation to another, or in pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided there is no demotion in
rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the transfer is not motivated by discrimination or bad
faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.”
In the present case, when Edwin was given a new assignment, there was no demotion in rank or diminution of benefits.
In sum, Isog Security Agency validly acted within the law when it assigned Edwin a new assignment. This is true even when
Edwin has worked only 3 months within the fixed one-year contract.

***********************************************************************************************************

Prior Years Online Recits - 2017 and prior

CAVEAT EMPTOR:
This list is not exhaustive due to the copy paste restrictions on Marquez’ posts. Marquez MUST not know about the sharing of Online Recit
questions.
NOTA BENE:
Some questions that Marquez uses ARE REPEATED across classes, individual or group questions may be used even during the same online
recit period. Marquez likes to use cases and questions like the above for his exams so collecting online recit questions maybe useful for his
notorious MCQ tests.

The questions compiled below are not expected to be repeated again but are illustrative of his style of questioning and the answers shown
below are in full block letter format with a business letter style of greeting and closing which we are expected to use as well.

A point worth knowing is that if Atty. Marquez asks a follow up question then you made a mistake in your answer and may likewise have to
revise a portion or all of it depending on his follow up question.
The content below are taken from Facebook directly not arranged in any particular order and all of this is in compliance with the Facebook
Terms of Service, and Facebook Community Standards, although again Atty. Marquez will not be happy with any leak of info so please keep
these within your group for review for the coming Online Recits.

**********************************************************************************************************

QUESTION
My establishment engaged in the manufacture of softdrink bottles was visited by the DOLE for the conduct of a compliance visit. I
then learned from the DOLE Labor Law Compliance Officer that there was one worker who was working with my company for the
past 10 years until his resignation last month who lodged a complaint with the DOLE for underpayment of wages amounting to
Php5,000. In spite my explanation that this former worker was merely disgruntled, the DOLE Labor Law Compliance Officer ("DOLE
LLCO") issued me the Notice of Results. Did the DOLE LLCO act correctly? Please advise.

The LLCO did not act correctly. The visitorial and enforcement power that may be exercised by the Regional Director or his representative
through the conduct of a compliance visit requires that an employer-employee relationship still exists at the time the complaint is presented.
Such requirement is clearly provided in Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code.
Art. 128(b)

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-
employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance
orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and
enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.

In the case at hand, the worker is no longer an employee of the company at the time the compliance visit was conducted. Thus, the LLCO did
not act correctly in issuing the Notice of Results since under the present rules, the Regional Director or his duly authorized representatives
can exercise both visitorial and enforcement power provided that there still exists an employer-employee relationship.

QUESTION
In my pharmaceutical company, two of my outside salesmen who are paid a fixed salary of Php20,000 plus Php5,000 monthly
allowance for expenses, and commission of 10% on all sales, applied for retirement although they were both below the retirement
ages provided by law. In consideration of their 10 years of loyal and dedicated service, I allowed them to retire and paid them 150%
of their latest total salary. Two months after, another salesman who has been employed only for two years likewise applied for
retirement, which I also granted but paid him only 100% of his latest total salary. This salesman now complained that he was unjustly
and unlawfully discriminated, anchoring his claim on company practice. Does he have a valid cause of action? Why or why not. Please
advise.

No diminution benefits since there is no company practice. So that the rule against diminution may apply, it must be shown that
1. the grant of the benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period;
2. the practice is consistent and deliberate
3. the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law; and
4. the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer

In this case, the benefit was only granted one by the employer once, in consideration for long period of service.

QUESTION
Due to Wage Order No. 20 issued in Region VII, my furniture establishment was visited by the DOLE for the conduct of a joint
assessment. In the course of such assessment, I was found by the DOLE Labor Law Compliance Officer to be paying my rank-and-file
piece rate workers only Php15 for every piece of chair produced which is way below the prescribed daily minimum wage, and thus,
advised to pay the wage difference. However, I have a facility valuation from the RTWPB to prove that the meals I provide these
workers during lunch were duly approved, thereby making their daily wages twice the prescribed daily minimum wage. Do I need
to comply? Why or why not? Please advise.

You need not comply with paying the wage difference at this stage. Instead, D.O. 131-B-16 is instructive on the course of action that you should
take. It provides for the procedures to be taken after joint assessment has been conducted. Particularly, Rule v, Sec. 4, para. d, subparagraph
d.1. governs Non-compliant Establishments, viz:
“If the establishment is found non-compliant, the LLCO shall issue an Notice of Result to the representatives of the employer and the employees,
and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, if organized, indicated therein the noted deficiencies.”
This said Notice of Result contained the wage deficiencies that were assessed against you payable to your employees. The D.O. provides that
you or your representative who disagrees with the findings may note your comment on the NR before affixing your signature. You must note
in the NR your disagreement as regards said wage deficiencies stating there that you have a facility valuation which forms part of your
employees’ salary.
The next step is the conduct of a Mandatory Conference. Under Rule XII, Sec. 1. of the said Department Order, a mandatory conference shall be
conducted after the lapse of the twenty (20) days period of correction for general labor standards deficiencies arising from Joint Assessment.
During the mandatory conference, you may present your facility valuation as proof that you are not liable to the wage difference as assessed
by the DOLE LLCO.
Within 10 days after the termination of the mandatory conference, the Hearing Officer shall submit his/her recommendation for the
disposition of the labor standards case. Accordingly, the Regional Director shall issue the corresponding compliance Order within 10 from
receipt of the aforesaid recommendation.
If you will be issued a Compliance Order, you may file an appeal to the Office of SOLE by filing a Memorandum of Appeal, furnishing the other
party with a copy of the same, within 10 days from receipt thereof, based on the grounds provided under the said Department Order.

QUESTION
I am the President of a call center in Cebu City which caters to the needs of clients operating in various time zones. As I am
anticipating successive non-working special holidays due to the forthcoming APEC conferences which will be held in Cebu, I am
planning to operate for seven straight days starting on Monday. After making an advance announcement of my plan, I was surprised
to receive a protest letter from fifty of my employees who are members of Iglesia Ni Kristo, informing me of their strong reservation
of making them work on Saturday, their scheduled rest days, which is also their day of worship. Do these employees have legal basis
for their protest? Kindly advise.

Yes, the 50 Iglesia ni Kristo employees have a legal basis for their protest.

Under the Labor Code (Article 91a), as a general rule, the employer has the prerogative in fixing the schedule of the rest day of his employees
subject to CBA and rules and regulation of the DOLE. However, such general rule is subject to an exception under (Article 91b) that is if it is
based on the religious grounds of the employees. In other words, the employer’s right and prerogative is subject to the preference in the choice
by the employee of his rest day based on religious grounds
However, there is an exception to the abovementioned exception. The employer can compel the employees to work on their preferred rest day
despite their religious preference for setting such date as their rest day if granting it would inevitably result in serious prejudice or
obstruction to the operations of the undertaking and the employer cannot normally be expected to resort to other remedial
measures. In which case, the employer can only compel these workers to work on their preferred rest day for only twice a month.

In the case at bar, the President wanted the workers to work for 7 straight days to presumably compensate for the successive non-working
holidays due to the APEC conference. Fifty workers protested of the President's plan. The president would have been able to compel these
workers to work on their rest day since it is his prerogative as President to set the schedule for the rest day. However, these fifty workers are
members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and they chose Saturday as their preferred rest day since it is the day of worship for them.
The only way for the President to be able to compel these fifty workers to work on their preferred rest day which they chose due to religious
preferences is when allowing these 50 workers to not work on one Saturday would result in serious prejudice or obstruction to the operations
of the undertaking and the employer cannot normally be expected to resort to other remedial measures.

QUESTION
I worked as a regular utility worker for a businessman in Lapu-Lapu City who own a large rice mill. Customarily, I am paid a daily
cash wage of Php250.00 plus daily wage in kind consisting of 5 kilos of "Ganador" rice worth Php150.00, the value of which I have
accepted in writing. I am planning to file a complaint against my employer for wage underpayment since my daily cash wage is way
below the prescribed minimum wage. Do I have solid legal basis to pursue my complaint? Please advise

ANSWER
As to your inquiry, we advise you not to pursue your complaint, as it does not have any solid legal basis. As a general rule, wages are payable
in cash. However, there is an exception where the wage is payable partly in cash and partly in kind.

“Facilities” is defined in the Section 5, Rule 7-A, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as “articles or services for the
benefit of the employee or his family but shall not include tools of the trade or articles or service primarily for the benefit of the employer or
necessary to the conduct of the employer’s business.” As provided for in the Labor Code, if payment qualifies as facilities, it forms part of the
wages of the employee, and as such, the reasonable value thereof may be deducted from the employee’s wage.

It is well-settled that in order for payment to qualify as facilities and be considered as an integral part of an employee’s wage, the following
requisites must be present:
1. It must be customarily furnished by the employer to the employee;
2. It must be charged at a fair and reasonable value; and
3. The provision on deductibility must be voluntarily accepted by the employee in writing.

In your case, the payment in kind qualifies as “facilities” because it is an expense necessary for you and your family’s existence and subsistence.
Also, it satisfies all the requisites in order for a facility to be wage-deductible. Since the daily wage in kind consisting of 5 kilos of “Ganador”
rice worth P150.00 is customarily furnished by your employer and you have accepted the value of such in writing, the fair and reasonable
value thereof can be charged and deducted from your wage. Therefore, finding no legal basis, we advise that you do not pursue your complaint,
as your daily wage does not fall below the prescribed minimum wage and the payment in kind qualifies as facilities and forms part of your
daily wage of P400.00.

QUESTION
I was a marketing officer of a retail establishment engaged in repair and retreading services for used tires, until I was offered by its
owner to operate a tire and retreading business, using the establishment's business name and service system. Since the owner would
provide me with revolving funds I can use to run the business subject to periodic liquidation, I accepted the offer and quit my job.
In carrying out my undertaking, I abide with the owner's dictated prices, and faithfully observe the owner's prescribed quality of
services and good business practices. Out of my sales from this business, I am required to deduct from the revolving fund the
expenses I spent with the balance thereof representing my income. For the past eight months, I noticed however that I was getting
income way below the monthly minimum wage in the region. I intend to file a complaint against the owner for underpayment of
wages? Please advise.

ANSWER
In response to your inquiry, we strongly advise you to file a complaint to protect your rights as a worker.

Given that you did not state the exact amount of the monthly-wage you have been receiving for the past 8 months, we would like to inform you
of the Cebu City standing basic wage of P366/Day for non-agricultural work.

As a worker, you have a right to a Living Wage, under Section 3, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution. This means that you are entitled to an
amount of family income needed to provide for the family's food and non-food expenditures with sufficient allowance for savings/investments
for social security so as to enable the family to live and maintain a decent standard of human existence beyond mere subsistence level, taking
into account all of the family's psychological, social and other needs.

The Law protects workers Mr. Dela Cruz, to not only receive wages for mere day-to-day survival but for more. The manner of work that you
are undertaking as of the moment is not fair labor but is what we call a "sweating system" which means you are being exploited as workers
with wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living.

Lastly, Article 113 of the Labor Code of the Philippines states that;
"No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees except;

1.) as payment for premium on the insurance

2.) Union Dues with the authorized consent in writing of the employee
3.) Deductions authorized by law.

As your situation is not among those listed, the deduction of the employer from your wages is unlawful.

Should you decide to pursue legal action, our law firm is willing to aid you in the upholding of your rights.

QUESTION
I am the owner of a coconut plantation. During the harvest season, I employ workers to harvest fresh coconuts. While at the farm,
these workers break the coconut shells, remove the meat from the shells, dry the shells and place the dried copras in sacks of one
hundred kilos each to be transported and sold later to public markets. I pay my workers the daily minimum agricultural rates but
they protested and claim they are into processing of coconuts into copra, which involves non-agricultural work. Please advise.

ANSWER
To answer your predicament, you need to understand the nature of the work that your farm workers are engaged in. In your point of view,
you consider their work to be agricultural and in so considering, are paying them the minimum agricultural rates. On the other hand, they
think that they should be paid the non-agricultural wage rates as they are engaged in processing of coconuts into copra.
To shed light on this matter, we consult the Labor Code. Article 97 (d) defines “agriculture” as including farming in all its branches and, among
other things, includes the cultivation and tillage of soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural and
horticultural commodities, the raising of livestock or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer on a farm as an incident to or in
conjunction with such farming operations, but does not include the manufacturing or processing of sugar, coconuts, abaca, tobacco, pineapples
or other farm products.
The above-stated provision clearly cites the manufacturing of coconuts as not falling under the term “agriculture”. Based on your description
of the work that they do (i.e. breaking coconut shells, removing meat from the shells, and placing dried copras in sacks), it involves the
processing of coconuts and is therefore excluded from the term “agriculture”.
It is also important for you to understand that different minimum wage rates apply to different types of work. Since it has already been
established that the nature of your farm workers’ job is non-agricultural, they must be paid with the minimum wage rates for non-agriculture
work.

QUESTION
I am the owner of a large poultry farm in Batanes island. My farm can produce thousands of egg a day from chickens. I have ten (10)
full time workers whose main job involve processing the eggs, and mixing it with milk, sugar and other ingredients using an
automated machinery and kitchen equipment, and packing them into candies. I pay them the daily minimum agricultural wage rates
applicable in the region. Did I act correctly? Please advise.

ANSWER
Unfortunately, your act of paying your 10 full-time workers the daily minimum agricultural wage rates is not correct. This is because
“Agricultural work” as defined by Article 97(d) of the Labor Code, means the raising of livestock or poultry and other chores incidental to
ordinary farming operations. In your case, even if you are engaged in a poultry farm, your employees are not performing chores incidental to
ordinary farming operations specifically the raising of livestock or poultry as they are performing industrial work.

“Industrial Work” is performed when the harvest are processed into finished product or transformed to another product. In relation to your
case, your workers are involved in processing the eggs and mixing it with milk, sugar, and other ingredients using an automated machinery
and kitchen equipment and packing them into candies. Therefore, your workers are engaged in industrial work.

This differentiation is important because the agricultural is generally lower than the industrial pay rate. Because of this, you appear to be
underpaying your employees.

In conclusion, we advise you to pay them at least the daily industrial minimum wage rates.

QUESTION
I own a bottling company, which manufactures containers for juices. One department I have involves the manual cleaning and
inspection of bottle containers. I pay the workers the daily minimum wage for an 8 hour of work. However, I noticed that my workers
are less productive since they can only clean and inspect an average of 250 containers in a normal work day. Can I change my method
of fixing compensation without violating any law? Please advise.

ANSWER
Yes, you can change your method of fixing compensation without violating any law. In the facts presented, your employees are classified as
daily-paid employees. Under the R.A. 6727 or the Wage Rationalization Act, the employer can pay its employees any amount provided that it
does not fall below the prescribed minimum wage.

Considering your predicament involves slack in demand, there is a remedy provided under the Labor Code. The remedies are as follows: (1)
compressed workweek; (2) reduce working days; (3) temporary suspension of operation of not more than 6 months. You can avail any of
those as you deemed sufficient.

QUESTION
Our company’s business is in real estate. Recently, we received several claims for payment of overtime pay, premium and holiday
pay from 10 licensed and registered real estate brokers who were responsible in the advertisement and negotiation for the sale of
our 2hectare commercial land in Carbon, Cebu City. We already paid these brokers their commissions and this, we were surprised
why they made these additional claims against the company. May we request your opinion and advise as regards the claims made?

ANSWER
The claims made by the real estate broker should not be granted. The contractual relationship between you and the 10 real estate brokers is
a principal-contractor relationship, and is not covered under our labor laws, but is found in the Civil Code. This kind of contractual relationship
means that you as the principal are not in control over the means, manner, and method as to how the work is to be done, and under the Civil
Code, you as the principal may only control the results thereof. The power over the means, manner, and method as to how to conduct the work
is an essential element in an employer-employee relationship, that of which is absent here. In the said relationship, the employee here would
then be entitled to overtime time pay, premium pay, and holiday pay.

To sum up our advice, the 10 real estate brokers here are not entitled to overtime pay, premium pay, and holiday pay since such benefits are
merely reserved exclusive for employees under an employer-employee relationship.

QUESTION
I received a complaint from my construction workers for alleged illegal deduction of wages. In particular, they accuse my company
that the value of the meals and lodging which we provide them within the construction site to enable them to be available at anytime
while construction activities are going on, should not have been deducted from their wages. Can you please advise us if the complaint
has basis? And secondly, can you advise us of the potential liability of the company, if any?

ANSWER
This is in relation to your query on the complaint of your construction workers for the alleged illegal deduction of wages from the lodging and
meals that you provided them.
Under Article 113 of the Labor Code on Wage Deduction, it is said that no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make
any deduction from the wages of his employees subject to certain exceptions. One exception pertains to cases where the employer is authorized
by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Deduction for value of meals and other facilities is an example of a
deduction authorized by law.
However, it is very important to revisit Department Order No. 126-13 Series of 2013 or the Revised Guidelines on the conduct of Facility
Evaluation. Under the said guidelines, facilities, which is part and deductible from the wage, was distinguished from supplements, which is not
wage deductible and independent of the wage. As defined, facilities refer to articles or services provided by the employer for the benefits of
the employee or his/her family but shall not include tools of the trade or articles or services primarily for the benefit of the employer or
necessary to the conduct of the employer’s business. Meals and housing for dwelling purposes are generally considered as facilities.
In order that the fair and reasonable value of the facilities may be deducted from the wages of the employees. The following requisites must
concur:
a. Facilities subject of valuation are customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.
b. Facilities must be charged at a fair and reasonable value.
c. Deductibility of the value of the facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee.
In your case, food and lodging are not considered facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience
of the employer is not facility. The criterion in making a distinction between facilities and supplements does not so much lie in the kind but
the purpose. Considering therefore that your company provided you meals and lodging within the construction site to enable the worker to
be available at any time for construction activities are going on, it can be said that the workers’ availability is a necessary matter in the
construction operations and is beneficial to the employer. The meals and lodging in your case should be considered as a supplement and
should not be deducted from your wage.
For the liability, your company will need to compensate the amount withheld form the employees subject to interest.

QUESTION
I just got myself employed in a call center as technical operator. During the orientation, I was informed of a company policy which
provides for an early retirement incentive package as follows:
xxx 1. For those who have reached 40 years old – 5 months incentive pay
2. For those who have reached 45 years old – 3 months incentive pay
3. For those who have reached 50 years old – No incentive pay
I need your opinion and advice if the above employment policy is valid or not.

ANSWER
The policy is valid. Company management is in the position to prescribe the rules as to the early retirement incentive package. It may choose
he age for the retirement and the incentive it would give, provided that it is in accordance with your collective bargaining agreement. Your
consent based on your independent judgment to the agreement is the final say.

QUESTION
I am the owner of a coconut plantation. For the past two years, I have an arrangement with two residents near the plantation, where
I divided my property between the two and entrusted each one of them to take care of the land, remove the weeds near the trees,
fumigate the trees and prevent strangers from taking the coconuts. I pay these two residents 1/5 of the total coconut harvest I make
from the area entrusted to them. Yesterday, I received a complaint from one of the residents, claiming payment of his wages for the
past two years. Please advise.

ANSWER
The two residents have no right to claim for their respective wages, under Article 98 of our Labor Code, wages shall not apply to farm tenancy
or leasehold, domestic service and persons working in their respective homes in needle work or in any cottage industry duly registered in
accordance with law.

Since your industry is under Farm tenancy or leasehold in accordance with RA 1199, tenancy exist whenever two persons agree on a joint
undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other is his labor, and the produce thereof to be divided
between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective contributions.

The 1/5 of coconut harvest that you have paid for two years will be their proportion to their respective contribution of the work done, therefore
you no longer have to pay them for wages.

QUESTION
My restaurant establishment was visited by a DOLE labor law compliance officer last week, who told me it was a compliance visit
due to a complaint filed by one of the waiters. I was served a Notice of Results, finding violation of non-payment of overtime pay,
premium pay and holiday pay for the past 2 years. I cannot understand such violation because I have a payroll for the past 2 years
which clearly indicated that all my waiters were paid these labor standards, as in fact, I have proof both documentary and testimonial
that they actually received payment. I would like to seek your urgent legal advice and guidance on the complaint filed and how to
address it.

ANSWER
In view of the foregoing, the correct way to address your query is to contest the Notice of Inspection Results and present the documentary
proofs i.e. the payroll you mentioned that proves you have paid correctly, copies of their employment contracts, and to have your waiters put
their testimonies under oath in an affidavit stating that you have made such payments for the past two years as required by Section 6 of Rule
X, Book III, of the Labor Code.

Please be advised that we have to submit our contest of the Notice of Inspection Results with all our documentary proof of your compliance
from the date you have received such Notice at earliest to the Regional Director of the DOLE or during the hearing of the case at the latest.

QUESTION
In Batanes island, I own a 200 square meter warehouse where I employ families in one small remote barangay and supply them with
clothing materials to make embroideries using seashells and organic materials. I need your advice whether I need to pay them the
prescribed minimum wages?
ANSWER
Under Art. 98 of the Labor Code, one of the exemptions for the non-payment of the prescribed minimum wage are those persons working in
their respective homes in needle work.

In your case, although your business is engaged in clothing materials to make embroideries using seashells and organic materials, which in
nature is involved in needlework, the law provides that for the exemption for the payment of prescribed minimum wage to apply, the persons
or employees must be working in their respective homes.

Since your employees are working in your own warehouse and not in their respective homes, the exemption for the prescribed minimum wage
is not applicable.

Hence, you are obliged to comply with the prescribed minimum wage.

QUESTION
On the occasion of a big fire in Mandaue City area two years ago, some personnel of a private non-governmental organization which
is funded by private donations had to work an average of 12 hours a day, sometimes continuously to assist our firemen. Some of
these personnel filed a claim for overtime compensation. However, each claim did not exceed Php5,000.00. Will these claims
prosper?

ANSWER
The firemen can validly claim for overtime compensation.

Under Article 87 of the Labor code overtime work is work performed beyond 8 hours a day and an overtime work is an additional
compensation equivalent to his regular wage.

no employee shall be made to work more than 8 hours a day against his will but this rule is not absolute, any worker can also be compelled to
work under compulsory overtime work under article 89 of the Labor code
Under subparagraph “b” when it is necessary to prevent loss of life or proper or incase of imminent danger to public safety due to an actual or
impending emergency in the locality caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, disaster or calamity

Under this rule employer should pay his workers to render overtime work so they are entitled to overtime pay.

Follow up question:
But the employer is the Bureau of Fire Protection? Will it not matter?

Answer:
The Bureau of Fire is not the employer of those personnel who assisted the firemen but the private non- governmental organization.
Under article 82 of our labor code, overtime compensation shall apply to all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but
not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results.

In this case, considering that the employer is the non-governmental organization, the personnel are still entitled with overtime compensation.

QUESTION
My restaurant establishment was visited by a DOLE labor law compliance officer (LLCO) last week to conduct a Joint Assessment.
During such visit, the LLCO told me I have to pay my Chief Cook overtime pay since the daily time record of this manager would show
that he works regularly an average of 10 to 12 hours daily, for the past 3 years. When I disagreed, I was served by the Regional
Director/DOLE of a Notice of Results, finding violation of non-payment of overtime pay. Please advise.

You can validly contest or question the Notice Results served by the DOLE to you. DOLE made a mistake when it found you in violation of the
non-payment of Overtime pay of your Chief Cook who is a managerial employee of your restaurant. Since, under our labor laws, managerial
employee is among those employees exempted from Overtime pay.
But, you can only contest the NR within 20 days from when you received the NR. It is the prescribed period to correct deficiencies arising from
Joint Assessments and it is non-extendible. Otherwise, if you fail to contest the NR within the prescribed 20 days period, the deficiencies not
corrected will be docketed as a Labor Standards Case.
There will then be a mandatory conference held within 10 days from the lapse of the period of correction which shall last for a period not
exceeding 30 days reckoned from the date of the first conference. 10 days after the termination of the mandatory conference, the Hearing
officer will then submit his/her recommendation on the disposition of the Labor Standards Case. Accordingly, the Regional Director will issue
either a (1) Compliance Order or a (2) Order dismissing the case.
If there is still time left of the 20 day period for correction of the NR. You should take note that in contesting the NR, issues raised must be
accompanied with documentary proofs not verifiable during the normal course of the inspection.

QUESTION
I have been in the show business for so many years. And my childhood friend works exclusively for me for the past two years, doing
all household chores. During weekend, he accompanies me when I have some performances. Because of busy schedule, he was not
able to use his leave benefit. Yesterday, he demanded from me to pay him the cash equivalent of his unused leave benefits. Please
advise.

Good day!
Let me commend you for bringing your concern up before taking any actions with respect to the request of your friend.

First, let's check if he qualifies as a household helper under Batas Kasambahay (RA 10361) and if so, does the said law allows the conversion
of the accrued leave benefits into cash?

Under the said law, you friend is considered a household helper since he qualifies in the definition under section 4 (d):

(d) Domestic worker or “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not
limited to, the following: general househelp, x x x but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically
and not on an occupational basis.

In the case of your friend, he was employed by you to do all household chores. He does not perform the work occasionally as in fact, he worked
for exclusively for you for the past two years. Thus, he is convered in the said law.

Unfortunately for your childhood friend, although he is entitled to leave benefits he is not allowed to convert unused leaves to cash under
Batas Kasambahay:

Under section 29 of the same law, "a domestic worker who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual service
incentive leave of five (5) days with pay: Provided, That any unused portion of said annual leave shall not be cumulative or carried over to the
succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be convertible to cash.

Hence, you are legally allowed to refuse to give him his accrued leave benefits for the last two (2) years.

We hope that we helped you regarding your concern! God bless!

QUESTION
I own a fleet of taxi cabs. And I employ drivers whose arrangement with me is to use the taxi cabs for 24 hours at anytime of the day
and night except Monday, and I pay them 20% of the gross proceeds earned. I got a claim from one of the drivers for payment of
overtime pay. Please advise.

QUESTION
In my pharmaceutical company, two of my outside salesmen who are paid a fixed salary of Php20,000 plus Php5,000 monthly
allowance for expenses and commission of 10% on all sales lodged a complaint for payment of overtime pay, contending that they
regularly devote as much as 12 hours a day to sales efforts, which yield to much higher revenue to the company compared to their
prescribed monthly quotas. Please advise.

Good Day Mr. -------,

Thank you for requesting our assistance regarding this matter.

No, the salesmen cannot be entitled to overtime pay as they claim to be. Article 82 *check daw if wala na renumber* of the Labor Code provides
for the right of employees to overtime pay, among others.

However, one exemption to the aforementioned provision, is a situation where the employee is a field personnel.
Field personnel are employees who undertake their jobs, outside the principal place of business of the employer and those whose working
hours cannot be determined by reasonable certainty.

The reason why this type of employee is not included is that the basis of overtime pay, which is hours of work, cannot be determined due to
the lack of close or personal supervision of the employer.

Your employees, being outside salesmen are considered field personnel and consequently, since their hours of work cannot be determined,
they are exempted from the provision granting employees overtime pay. There is no way that you, the employer, can ascertain the hours of
work that your employees claim to be serving. They are beyond your personal supervision.

Sincerely,

Cheung super team

QUESTION
In my family-owned pharmacy, two of my unmarried adult children work full time as assistants, regularly working an average of 15
hours daily, since they live with me and my wife in the same house. They are paid a fixed monthly salary which they share to the
family upkeep. After they got married, one of the two children sued me for non-payment of labor standards. Please advise.

The suit against the parent for non-payment of labor standards shall not succeed. Article 82 of the Labor Code provides that employees who
are members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support shall be exempted from the minimum labor standards
benefits.

This case fits squarely with the requisites provided by Article 82. First, the party who filed the suit is the child of the employer and second, the
child who filed the suit was dependent on the employer for support since he still live with his parents before he got married.
While the work done by the child is exempted from minimum labor standards benefits before he got married, the work done by the child after
he is emancipated by reason of marriage must be provided with the minimum labor standards benefits. This includes night shift differential,
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, and service charges.

QUESTION
I have been in the show business for so many years. And my make-up artist and hairdresser who has been my childhood friend works
exclusively for me in Cebu City. During the week, when I have some performances or events to attend to, he has to work for 10 hours
daily. However, when there no events, he only works for one to two hours, and there are also days when he does not work at all. In
spite the irregular schedule, I pay him a fixed weekly wage of Php2,000.00. Yesterday, he confronted me about his pay. Please advise.

Thank you for coming to our office for advice.

By looking at the facts surrounding your situation, your make-up artist and hairdresser can indeed be considered an employee. In asserting
this, we applied the two-tiered test enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Francisco vs NLRC. This test involves: (1) the putative
employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the
underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.

However, he is considered as a person in the service of another contemplated under Art. 82 of the Labor Code which are exempted from labor
standard benefits. Hence, you are not required to pay him the standard minimum wage.

QUESTION
I am the President of a call center in Cebu City which caters to the needs of clients operating in various time zones. As I am
anticipating successive non-working special holidays due to the forthcoming APEC conferences which will be held in Cebu, I am
planning to operate for seven straight days starting on Monday. After making an advance announcement of my plan, I was surprised
to receive a protest letter from fifty of my employees who are members of Iglesia Ni Kristo, informing me of their strong reservation
of making them work on Saturday, their scheduled rest days, which is also their day of worship. Do these employees have legal basis
for their protest? Kindly advise.

Yes, the 50 Iglesia ni Kristo employees have a legal basis for their protest.

Under the Labor Code, as a general rule, the employer has the prerogative in fixing the schedule of the rest day of his employees subject to CBA
and rules and regulation of the DOLE. However, such general rule is subject to an exception that is if it is based on the religious grounds of the
employees. In other words, the employer’s right and prerogative is subject to the preference in the choice by the employee of his rest day
based on religious grounds.

However, there is exception to the abovementioned exception. The employer can compel the employees to work on their preferred rest day
despite their religious preference for setting such date as their rest day if granting it would inevitably result in serious prejudice or obstruction
to the operations of the undertaking and the employer cannot normally be expected to resort to other remedial measures. In which case, the
employer can only compel these workers to work on their preferred rest day for only twice a month.

In the case at bar, the President wanted the workers to work for 7 straight days to presumably compensate for the successive non-working
holidays due to the APEC conference. Fifty workers protested the plan of the President. The president would have been able to compel these
workers to work on their rest day since it is his prerogative as President to set the schedule for the rest day. However, these fifty workers are
members of the Iglesia ni Kristo and they chose Saturday as their preferred rest day since it is the day of worship for them.

The only way for the President to be able to compel these fifty workers to work on their preferred rest day which they chose due to religious
preferences is when allowing these 50 workers to not work on one Saturday would result in serious prejudice or obstruction to the operations
of the undertaking and the employer cannot normally be expected to resort to to other remedial measures.
However, allowing 50 workers not to work on only one rest day which they prefer due to religious reasons would hardly result to serious
prejudice or obstruction to the operations of the undertaking of the employer. To hold otherwise would be to assume that any establishment
would suffer serious prejudice or obstruction to its operations if the workers would not work for only one day, which in reality does not
happen. In fact, in this case, only 50 out of all the workers are asking not to work on their preferred rest day, and operations will still go on
since there are other workers that can be compelled to work on that day, provided it is not their preferred rest day due to religious preference
also.

On the other hand, remedial measures could normally be resorted to if 50 workers would not work in one day. The president may ask his other
workers whom he could still legally compel to work on Saturday to do overtime to be able to compensate for the lost work due to the absence
of 50 workers on that one day.

ANSWER FOR THE ONE WITH FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:

You are assuming that no work will be required during the successive holidays. You are assuming that if there is a holiday in a call
center, it will close its operations.

ANSWER
Article 91 of the Labor Code states that the management has a prerogative in fixing the rest day for the employees. This is subject to an
exception which is “the employer must respect the preference of employees as to their weekly rest days when such preference is based on
religious grounds”.
Your employees who are from Iglesia ni Kristo have a ground on this however there is also an exception to the exception. This is when the
choice of the employees as to their rest day based on religious grounds will inevitably result in serious prejudice or obstruction to the
operations or undertaking and the employer cannot normally be expected to resort to other remedial measures, the employer in this case may
schedule the weekly rest day of their choice for at least two days in a month.
Since you are expecting an important event (APEC Conferences) you have a reason to require your employees to work. The choice of your
employees would eventually cause some problems for your business so you can adjust the schedule for their rest days. You can even find more
support under Article 92(c) of the Labor Code where you can compel employees to work on a rest day in the event of abnormal pressure or
work due to special circumstances which in this case is the forthcoming APEC.

QUESTION
My establishment is engaged in the manufacture of beer products. I have rank-and-file employees in my factory. Six months after, I
granted a daily wage adjustment to these factory workers from Php366 to Php400. Their fellow rank-and-file workers in the
administrative department who were paid the prescribed daily minimum wage, however, complained of wage distortion since no
similar increase was given to them. Do these workers have a valid grievance? Why or why not? Please advise.

The workers have no valid grievance as there has no wage distortion that has happened.

Wage distortion, under article 124 of the Labor Code, means a situation where an increase in prescribed wage results in the elimination or
severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as
to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of
differentiation.

Further, the Supreme Court, in Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank, laid down the elements comprising wage distortion:
1. An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates;
2. A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one;
3. The elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and
4. The existence of the distortion in the same region of the country. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the same case also held that it is the
hierarchy of positions and the disparity of their corresponding wages and other emoluments that are sought to be preserved by the concept
of wage distortion.

In the case at bar, the two groups of employees are all rank-and-file employees. The only difference between the two is that one group works
in the factory, while the other is administrative in nature. Clearly, there is no existing hierarchy of positions between the two. The elements,
therefore, of a wage distortion are not present in this case.

Finally, in Bankard Employees Union v. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory mandate under Article 124 of the Labor Code to
correct wage distortion cannot be applied to voluntary and unilateral increases by the employer, as in this case, because this is inherently a
business judgment prerogative.

QUESTION
I am working for a meat processing company which owns a canned corned beef product, selling one can at Php80.00. Since I am a
regular employee, I am entitled under the company policy to purchase on credit company canned goods at 50% discount. Last
December 2016, I made several purchases for the Christmas season. However, the value of the purchases I made on credit were
considered by the company as part payment of my wages. Do I have any valid grievance as regards this company policy?

Under Article 102 of the Labor Code, no employer shall pay the wages of an employee by means of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons,
tokens, tickets, chits, or any object other than legal tender, even when expressly requested by the employee. The same article further provides
that payment of wages by check or money order shall be allowed when such manner of payment is customary on the date of effectivity of this
Code, or is necessary because of special circumstances as specified in appropriate regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or as stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement.

In relation thereto, Article 113 of the Labor Code provides that no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any
deduction from the wages of his employees, except: (1) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the
deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance; (2) For union dues, in cases where the
right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned;
and (3) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Article 1706 of the Civil Code also provides that withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the employer.

In the case at bar, the act of the employer in considering the value of the purchases on credit as part of the payment of wages is not allowed
under the law. For, such payment is not in legal tender. Moreover, it is not one of the exceptions provided for under the 2nd paragraph of
Article 102 of the Labor Code. It cannot also be justified under Article 1706 of the Civil Code as a valid wage deduction because it is not yet due
and demandable. Thus, you have a valid grievance with regards to such company policy.

QUESTION
My restaurant establishment was visited by a DOLE labor law compliance officer last week, who told me it was a compliance visit
due to a complaint filed by one of the waiters. I was served a Notice of Results, finding violation of non-payment of overtime pay,
premium pay and holiday pay for the past 2 years. I cannot understand such violation because I have a payroll for the past 2 years
which clearly indicated that all my waiters were paid these labor standards, as in fact, I have proof both documentary and testimonial
that they actually received payment. I would like to seek your urgent legal advice and guidance on the complaint filed and how to
address it.

ANSWER
In view of the foregoing, the correct way to address your query is to contest the Notice of Inspection Results and present the documentary
proofs i.e. the payroll you mentioned that proves you have paid correctly, copies of their employment contracts, and to have your waiters put
their testimonies under oath in an affidavit stating that you have made such payments for the past two years as required by Section 6 of Rule
X, Book III, of the Labor Code.

Please be advised that we have to submit our contest of the Notice of Inspection Results with all our documentary proof of your compliance
from the date you have received such Notice at earliest to the Regional Director of the DOLE or during the hearing of the case at the latest.

QUESTION
I am the lawful wife of the General Manager of a meat processing company. My children and I have not been provided with monthly
support by my husband for the past two months. I am planning to write the President of my husband's company to request him to
deduct from my husband's monthly salary the sum of Php50,000 for support. Can you advise me if my idea is doable or not, and if I
have other legal options to make sure I get a monthly support from my husband's salary? But I do not want my husband to go to jail.

ANSWER
Yes, your idea is doable.
The law expressly mandates parents and their children to give support to each other, whether their relationship is legitimate or not.
Undeniably, you and your children have the right to demand support from your husband. Support is defined by the Family Code of the
Philippines as follows:
“Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,
medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some
profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and
from place of work.”
Under Article 203 of the Civil Code, the obligation to give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a right to receive the
same needs it for maintenance, but it shall not be paid except from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand.
Based on the above provisions, it is imperative that demand must be made to require the father of your daughter to fulfill his obligation to give
support to the latter. If he fails to comply with his obligation, he may be compelled to do so by the filing of an appropriate civil action in court.
It is worthy to note that our law prohibits employers, on their own behalf or in behalf of any person, to make deductions from the wages of
their employees except in the following instances: 1) where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to
recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance; 2) for union dues, in cases where the right of the worker
or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and 3) the
employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment (Article 113, Labor Code of the Philippines).
So, before the employers may make deductions from wages, it must first be established that the same is authorized by law, or regulations
issued by the Secretary of Labor. Based on the foregoing, the laws have explicitly provided that the right to support is demandable. Therefore,
you may send a demand letter addressed to your husband’s company for wage deduction as it is authorized by law.
Other legal option, as previously mentioned, is the filing of an appropriate action in court. Under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004 or R.A. No. 9262, a mechanism was introduced for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence that may be inflicted
against a woman or her child/children. This is particularly provided by Section 8 thereof to wit:
“SECTION 8. Protection Orders.- A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence
against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief. The relief granted under a protection order
serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim’s daily life, and facilitating the
opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life. The provisions of the protection order shall be enforced by
law enforcement agencies. The protection orders that may be issued under this Act are the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary
protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order (PPO). The protection orders that may be issued under this Act shall include any,
some or all of the following reliefs:
xxx
(g) Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or her child if entitled to legal support. Notwithstanding other laws to the
contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the
respondent’s employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to the woman. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the
remittance of support to the woman and/or her child without justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect
contempt of court;
xxx”
Hence, you may also file a petition for Protection Order under R.A. 9262 with the Family Court of the place where you live to compel your
husband to give financial support.

QUESTION
I have been in the show business for so many years. And my childhood friend works exclusively for me for the past two years, doing
all household chores. During weekend, he accompanies me when I have some performances. I pay him a fixed weekly wage of
Php2,000.00. Yesterday, he asked me to let him spend a two day vacation in his hometown, which I flatly denied. He later sued me to
pay him the cash equivalent of his leave benefits. Please advise.

He is entitled to a two-day vacation leave to his hometown, however, he cannot ask for the cash equivalent of his leave benefits.

He is considered by law as a domestic worker or a Kasambahay. A Kasambahay is defined by law as any person engaged in domestic work
within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or
laundry person.

His rights are covered by the provisions of the Domestic Workers Act. The relevant provision of the said law states that “A domestic worker
who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay: Provided, That
any unused portion of said annual leave shall not be cumulative or carried over to the succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be convertible
to cash.”
In the case at bar, your friend has been under your employment for over 2 years doing household work. Thus, your friend squarely falls within
the definition of a Kasambahay.

As a result, he can validly ask for a five-day leave for every year of service rendered and he shall be paid for such leave. His unused leave
benefits, however, cannot be converted to cash. On your part, you are required by law to comply with its provisions. Your friend has a right
under the law to have a service incentive leave. He should be allowed to have a two-day vacation.

Non-compliance with the Domestic Workers Act is punishable with a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than
Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00). A civil or criminal action may also be filed against you

QUESTION
I am working for a fine dining restaurant as a waiter. At the time I was hired, I was told by the General Manager that my wages would
be deducted for the value of plates or glasses that I may broke while in the performance of my work. Although I did not give my
conformity, I was surprised that on two occasions when I carelessly broke some plates (I admit I was then in a hurry to go home),
my weekly wage suffered a 10% deduction based on the actual value of these plates. I need your advice if I can validly recover what
was deducted from my wage.

Yes. You can validly recover the 10% deduction made in your weekly wage by your General Manager.

Our law prohibits employers, on their own behalf or in behalf of any person, to make deductions from the wages of their employees, except in
the following instances:
1) where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by
him as premium on the insurance;
2) for union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing
by the individual worker concerned; and
3) the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment (Article 113, Labor Code of the
Philippines).

Furthermore, the employers cannot just unilaterally declare and impose upon their employees the giving of bonds and/or deposits to stand
as a reimbursement for loss or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer. Unless the employer is able to establish
the following:
1.) that the same is authorized by law, or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.; or
2.) that the posting of cash bonds is a recognized practice in their business or if there be none, the employers should seek for the determination
by the Secretary of Labor through the issuance of appropriate rules and regulations that the policy that they wish to implement is necessary
or desirable in the conduct of their business.(Niña Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts, Inc., vs. Montecillo, G.R. No. 188169, November 28,
2011).
The failure of the employers to comply with the foregoing will render the deductions baseless and illegal.

In the case at bar, neither Article 113 nor Article 114 can be availed by the General Manager to justify the 10% deduction in your weekly wage.
None of the exceptions in Article 113 can be availed as your case does not involve deductions for purposes of insurance, union dues, or any of
those instances authorized by law. Moreover, Article 114 cannot also be used as a valid justification as there was no deposit nor a cash bond
that have been required by your General Manager in your case. Thus, there can be no valid and legal basis for the 10% deduction by your
General Manager which entitles you to recover the amount that has been previously deducted.

SEE Bluer than Blue Case

QUESTION
In Batanes island, I own a 200 square meter warehouse where I employ families in one small remote barangay and supply them with
clothing materials to make embroideries using seashells and organic materials. I need your advice whether I need to pay them the
prescribed minimum wages?

ANSWER
Under Art. 98 of the Labor Code, one of the exemptions for the non-payment of the prescribed minimum wage are those persons working in
their respective homes in needle work.
In your case, although your business is engaged in clothing materials to make embroideries using seashells and organic materials, which in
nature is involved in needlework, the law provides that for the exemption for the payment of prescribed minimum wage to apply, the persons
or employees must be working in their respective homes.
Since your employees are working in your own warehouse and not in their respective homes, the exemption for the prescribed minimum wage
is not applicable.

Hence, you are obliged to comply with the prescribed minimum wage.

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
September 21, 2016 ·
Dear Mr. Keith Juaneza,
Due to fatigue, my nephew who is 17 years old and working as a domestic worker for Spouses Largo who is one of
our neighbors, overslept and failed to prepare the couples' breakfast one day. He was at once dismissed, although he still has 5 months of his
contract unused. Can my nephew sue his employers, and if yes, what legal relief/s, if any, is he entitled to, and which has jurisdiction over his
complaint. Please advise.
Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

Keith Ian Pastrana Juaneza To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: September 21, 2016
RE: Termination of
Domestic Worker Without Just Cause Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
In response to your query, I believe that your nephew can sue his employees. Under law, an employee cannot be terminated before the
completion of his cotract. However this rule has an exception. Republic Act 10361 Section 34 provides that “An employer may terminate the
services of the domestic worker at any time before the expiration of the contract, for any of the following causes: (a) Misconduct or willful
disobedience by the domestic worker of the lawful order of the employer in connection with the former’s work
(b) Gross or habitual neglect
or insuffeciency by the domestic worker in the performance of duties (c) Fraud or willful breach of trust reposed by the employer on the
domestic employee
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the domestic worker against the person of the employer or any immediate
member of the employer’s family
(e) Violation by the domestic worker of the terms and conditions of the employment contract and other
standards set forth under this law
(f) Any disease prejudicial to the health of the domestic worker, the employer, ir member/s of the
household
(g) Other causes analogous to the forgoing
Furthermore, it is also provided under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 10361, Rule VII, Section 3 that if the employer
dismissed the Kasambahay for reasons other than the above, he/she shall pay the Kasambahay the earned compensation plus indemnity in
the amount equivalent to fifteen(15) days of work. The Implementing Rules also provides for the rules on settlement of disputes. It is provided
under Rule XI, Section 1 that all labor- related disputes shall be filed before the DOLE Field/Provincial/Regional Office having jurisdiction over
the workplace and shall go through the mandatory conciliation under the DOLE Single Entry Approach program.
In the case of your newphew, his termination was not grounded on any of the instances provided for under the law. His termination was
therefore not valid and your nephew may file a case against his employer. He may file it with the Department of Labor and Employment
however it has undergo the mandatory concilation under the Single Entry Approach program as they are the one who has jurisdiction over
the case. As he was terminated with just cause, he is entitled to the compensation he has earned and indemnity which is equal to fifteen days
work.

Sincerely,
Keith Ian Juaneza
Associate Lawyer
September 21, 2016 at 7:15pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Mr. Keith Juaneza,

Can my nephew still return to work, since he was unjustly dismissed?
Mr. Dela Cruz
September 22, 2016 at 9:35am

Keith Ian Pastrana Juaneza To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: September 22, 2016
RE: Termination of
Domestic Worker Without Just Cause Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
With regard to your query, I believe your nephew cannot be reinstated.
Under Republic Act No. 10361 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, if the employee is unjustly dismissed, the domestic worker is
entitled to the following:
1.) Payment of earned wage; and
2.) Indemnity equivalent to fifteen days of work
In the case of your nephew, the law governing the employment of domestic workers do not provide reinstatement in cases of unjust dismissal.
He is only entitled to the wage he earned and a wage equivalent to fifteen days of work as a form of indemnity. This is however without
prejudice to the agreement of your nephew and his employer upon the mandatory conciliation. If they agree on reinstating your nephew then
he may be reinstated. However, as of now, he cannot compel his employer to reinstate him.
Sincerely,
Keith Ian Juaneza Associate Lawyer

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
July 25, 2016 ·
Dear Team Corominas-Lim,
I own two (2) school buses, which I use to transport the public from Cebu City to Danao City and vice-versa. My
drivers are paid a fixed monthly salary of Php10,000, and made to work for a maximum of 12 hours a day. They are allowed a one hour meal
period at anytime during their work shift. Although they are paid overtime pay for every hour of work beyond 8 hours, they are demanding
for an additional one (1) hour rest period. Please advise.
Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
President
Cruz Pharma Inc.
Cebu City
Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 25, 2016
RE: Additional One (1)
Hour Rest Period To Employees
Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
Thank you for seeking our legal advice regarding this matter.
As regards your concern, you are not obliged to give an additional one hour rest period to your drivers.
Under the Labor Code, employees are only entitled to not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals. It does not specify as to
what specific hour of the day the meal period is to be given. The Labor Code does not require employees to give additional rest periods other
than the 60-minute meal period. Rest periods in addition to the required 60-minute meal period are purely discretionary on the part of the
employer.
In your case, we see no violation on your part as an employer, since you have already allowed your employees their entitled one-hour meal
period. They are not entitled anymore to an additional rest period, regardless of the number of hours worked by them in a day.
Therefore, you have no obligation to give them an additional hour of rest period.

Sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
July 25, 2016 at 6:58pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Team Corominas-Lim.
But they are made to work for 12 hours? Would you consider their one hour
meal period adequate under existing law and regulations? Mr. Dela Cruz
July 26, 2016 at 9:17am

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Additional One (1)
Hour Rest Period To Employees

Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

The Labor Code clearly indicates that employees are entitled to a regular meal period of not less than one hour. The giving of rest period,
however, is not required under the Labor Code, and is largely a management prerogative.
We understand you concern that an hour meal period may not be adequate for a 12-hour work period, but the Labor Code is clear in expressing
that an employee is only entitled to not less than 60 minutes time-off for their regular meals. It does not indicate nor require an additional rest
period to be granted to employees even if they work beyond the normal eight (8)-hour work period. However, this is without prejudice to your
prerogative as an employer to give them an additional one (1) hour rest period, as this is not violative of the Labor Code.
Should you decide to give your employees an additional hour of rest period to make them more productive, this may or may not be
compensable depending on the situation, as determined under Section 4, Rule I, Book Three of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, on whether the time spent by an employee is considered hours worked or not.

For the reasons cited above, you are not required under the Labor Code to grant your employees an additional one-hour rest period, unless
you exercise your prerogative as an employer and heed their demand for an additional rest period.
Sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
July 26, 2016 at 11:59am

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Team Corominas-Lim,

Did you make a thorough research on existing rules and regulations?
Mr. Dela Cruz
July 26, 2016 at 1:45pm

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Additional One (1) Hour Rest Period To Employees Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

Although Article 85 of the Labor Code states that it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes
time-off for their regular meals, this is subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe. In line with this, we have found
existing rules and regulations issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (Department Order No. 118-12), governing the employment
and working conditions of drivers and conductors in the public utility bus transport industry.
Under Section 3, Rule II of such order, drivers and conductors shall be entitled to rest periods of at least one (1) hour, exclusive of meal breaks,
within a 12- hour shift.

Given the fact that the nature of your business involves public transportation, you are covered under this law. Consequently, you are required
to give your employees an additional rest period of at least one (1) hour, on top of their one (1)-hour meal period within their twelve (12)-
hour shift, pursuant to Section 3, Rule II of Department Order No. 118-12.
Sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
July 26, 2016 at 4:36pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Ms. Corominas-Lim,

Why is the advice on the rest period only now?
Mr. Dela Cruz
July 26, 2016 at 5:08pm

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 26, 2016
RE: Additional One (1)
Hour Rest Period To Employees
Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
We sincerely apologize for the late reply as we were still conducting a thorough research on existing rules and regulations pertaining to your
case.
After extensive research, we have found that under Section 3, Rule II of Department Order No. 118-12, drivers and conductors shall be entitled
to rest periods of at least one (1) hour, exclusive of meal breaks, within a 12-hour shift. As such, you are required to give your employees an
additional rest period of at least one (1) hour, on top of their one (1)-hour meal period within their twelve (12)-hour shift.
We thank you for your continued reliance upon our firm and hope for your utmost consideration regarding our late response to your query.

Sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
July 26, 2016 at 5:50pm

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
August 31, 2016 ·

Dear Ms. Constance Marie Corominas Lim,
Isog Security Agency entered into a one (1) year contract of services with a bank. Pursuant to this
contract, Edwin was hired by the agency as security guard but made to pay from his own money for his firearms license and neuro-psychiatric
examination. Edwin was assigned to the bank client and placed under a one year non-regular contractual employment. Edwin was also
required to give a cash bond for the use of the agency's firearm equivalent to 5% of the value of such firearm. After two months, Edwin was
replaced by the security agency and placed under off-detail status for a maximum of 6 months, when the bank requested for his replacement
after he was found sleeping twice while on duty. Edwin consults you whether he has any valid claim against his agency and the bank. Please
advise. Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
Brgy. Siete, Cebu City

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: August 31, 2016
RE: Preventive
Suspension for a Maximum of Six (6) Months
Yes, Edwin has a valid claim against his agency and the bank.

After the lapse of 30 days of his preventive suspension, Edwin should be reinstated or paid for his wages and other benefits due him during
the extension, should the security agency decide to extend his suspension. In the event that Isog Security Agency fails to pay, Edwin may run
after the bank, because the latter is the indirect employer of Edwin. As such, it is solidarily liable with the Security Agency upon its failure to
pay his wages, to the extent of the work performed under the contract, by virtue of the provisions under the Labor Code.

Under Section 10.5 DOLE Department Order No. 150-16, security guards and other private security personnel may be preventively suspended
if their continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to life or property of the Security Service Contractor, its principal, or the
co-workers of security guards and other priate security personnel. However, no preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days.
The Security Service Contractor shall thereafter reinstate the security guard and other private security personnel to his/her former position
or it may extend the period of suspension, provided that during the period of suspension, the Security Service Contractor shall pay the wages
and other benefits due the security guard and toher private security personnel.
In Edwin’s case, the preventive suspension was valid because sleeping while on duty could pose a serious and imminent threat to life or
property of the bank, the principal. However, such suspension should only last for not longer than 30 days. After such time, Isog Security
Agency should reinstate Edwin or pay his wages and other benefits due him, if the preventive suspension is to be extended, for the period of
such extension. Otherwise, his constitutional right to security of tenure and his right to be protected against unjust dismissal will be violated.
Therefore, after the lapse of 30 days preventive suspension, Edwin should be reinstated or paid his wages and other benefits due him during
the period of extension, should Isog Security Agency decide to extend the period of suspension. Failure on the part of Isog Security Agency to
pay Edwin his wages shall make the bank liable for it, to the extent of the work perfomed under the contract.

Sincerely,
Constance Marie Corominas Lim Associate Lawyer
August 31, 2016 at 7:44pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Ms. Constance Marie Corominas Lim, Are you saying that placing the guard under off-detail status is
preventive
suspension? Mr. Dela Cruz
September 1, 2016 at 10:53am

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: September 1, 2016
RE: “Off-detail”
Status for a Maximum of Six (6) Months
Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
In response to your query, I wish to clarify the meaning of “off-detail” status in this letter.
The Supreme Court in the case of Exocet Security and Allied Services Corp. vs. Serrano defined “off-detail” status or “floating status” of security
guards as a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off, wherein security guards are in between assignments or are made to wait after being
relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. Aside from taking place when the security agency’s clients decide not to
renew their contracts with the agency, it may also happen in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may
request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be placed
on temporary “off-detail” if there are no available posts under the agency’s existing contracts.

Further, the Court has held that the placement of the employee on a floating status should not last for more than six months. After six months,
the employee should be recalled for work, or for a new assignment; otherwise, he is deemed terminated. Under Section 10.3 of DOLE
Department Order No. 150-16, if after a period of six (6) months, the Security Service Contractor cannot provide work or give an assignment
to the reserved security guard, the latter can be separated from service and shall be entitled to separation pay.
In Edwin’s case, placing him under off-detail status was due to a valid relief from his work, since the bank requested for his replacement after
having been caught sleeping twice while on duty. However, his reserved status or “off-detail” status should be due to lack of work assignment
available, and not as a measure to constructively dismiss him. The Supreme Court has held that the burden of proving that there are no posts
available to which the security guard may be assigned rests on the employer. In any case, if after the period of 6 months, the security agency
cannot provide work or give assignment to Edwin, the latter can be dismissed from service and shall be entitled to separation pay, as described
under Subsection 7.5 (m) of DO No. 150-16. Therefore, until and unless his temporary “off-detail” status exceeds a period of six (6) months, he
does not have a valid claim against the Isog Security Agency or the bank.

Sincerely,
Constance Marie Corominas Lim Associate Lawyer
September 1, 2016 at 12:21pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Ms. Constance Marie Corominas Lim,
Are you changing your opinion?
Mr. Dela Cruz
September 1, 2016 at 3:37pm

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: September 1, 2016
RE: “Off-detail” Status for a Maximum of Six (6) Months
Dear Mr. Dela Cruz,
I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused, but yes I am changing my initial opinion on the matter.
After further research and reexamination of the facts of Edwin’s case, I have come to the realization that placing him under “off-detail” status
does not mean that he is under preventive suspension. As such, Section 10.3 of DO No. 150-16 applies. As explained by the Supreme Court, a
security guard may be placed under “off-detail” status if the client, in this case the bank, requests for his replacement, even for want of cause,
and if there are no work assignments available. However, this floating status should not last for more than six (6) months; otherwise, Edwin
may be considered to have been constructively dismissed. If after the period of 6 months, the security agency cannot provide work or give
assignment to Edwin, the latter can be dismissed from service and shall be entitled to separation pay.
In light of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that until Edwin’s temporary “off- detail” status exceeds a period of six (6) months, he does not
have a valid claim against Isog Security Agency or the bank.
Thank you for your continued reliance upon our firm and I hope that my previous misappreciation of the facts has not caused you too much
inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Constance Marie Corominas Lim Associate Lawyer
September 1, 2016 at 4:33pm

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
July 18, 2016 ·
Dear Ms. Carmel Magtibay,
I would like to consult you regarding my daily paid helper in my gas station. My gas station is open 24 hours a day.
Aside from the helper, I have one (1) cashier and twelve (12) gas attendants. During last year's Holy Week, the helper reported for work only
on Monday and Tuesday and was absent on Wednesday when he went on his scheduled vacation leave. This helper complained about his
unpaid holiday pay when I did not pay him on Holy Thursday and Maundy Friday. Please advise whether his complaint is valid or not.
Mr.
Juan Dela Cruz
Proprietor
Lousy Gas Station
Mandaue City

Carmel Genevieve Sator Magtibay To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 18, 2016
RE: Absences on
Holiday Pay
Dear Mr Juan Dela Cruz,

Thank you for trusting our firm with your concern. Your worker's complaint is not valid.
According to the Labor Code under the successive holiday rule, where there are two regular holidays, an employee may not be paid for both
holidays if he absents himself from work on the day immediately preceding the first holiday, unless he works on the first holiday, in which
case he is entitled to his holiday pay on the second holiday.
The above provision may very well give enlightenment to your situation. Considering that your worker was on vacation leave a day
immediately preceding the first holiday which is Holy Thursday, it follows that he should therefore not be entitled to a Holiday pay.
Moreover, the Labor Code provides for the effect of absence on holiday pay, under which it states that all covereed employees shall be entitled
to the benefit provided when they are on leave of absence with pay. Employees who are on leave of absence without pay on the day immediately
preceding a regular holiday may not be paid the required holiday pay if he has not worked on such regular holiday.
Your worker cannot even find relief under this provision because he was on leave of absence of pay a day preceding a regular holiday. Hence
he is not entitled to any holiday pay.
Applying the two provisions, your worker's complaint is not valid.
Sincerely yours,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm July 18, 2016 at 7:08pm

Usc Labor Standards Law Dear Ms. Carmel Magtibay,
Would it matter that his absence was because he was on his scheduled
vacation leave? Would you not consider that as leave with pay? Mr. Dela Cruz
July 19, 2016 at 9:40am

Carmel Genevieve Sator Magtibay To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 19, 2016
RE: Absences on
Holiday Pay
Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz,
It is with utmost apology that I reverse my first answer. I am sorry for the misappreciation of facts and erroneous
application of the law.
Indeed the Labor Code treats vacation leave under the same category as Service Incentive Leave or leave with pay.
Thus, the grant of vacation or sick leave with pay of at least five days may be credited as compliance with Service Incentive Leave.
While the
five- day service incentive leave is mandatory because it is legally required, vacation leave are voluntary. The Supreme Court in the case of
Cuajao vs. Chua Lo Tan (G.R. L- 16298) held that, the purpose of vacation leave is to afford to a laborer a chance to get a much needed rest to
replenish his worn out energies and acquire new vitality to enable him to efficiently perform his duties and not merely to give him additional
salary or bounty. This privilege must e demanded in its opportune time and if an employee allows the years to go by in silence, he waives it. It
becomes a mere concession or act of grace of the employer.
In light of the foregoing, your worker is entitled to his Holiday Pay considering
that his absence was a leave with pay.
Yours sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm July 19, 2016 at 10:26am

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
July 20, 2016 ·
Dear Mr. Keith Juaneza
I would like to consult you regarding my lady gas attendant in my gas station who gave birth two (2) months ago. My
gas station is open 24 hours a day, and under my employ for the past two years are one (1) lady cashier and three (3) lady gas attendants, the
lady gas attendant included. Yesterday, this lady gas attendant brought with her her child as she could not leave the child at home. She
threatened me with a complaint as I have no space in my gas station where she could breastfeed her child. Please advise.
Mr. Juan Dela
Cruz
Proprietor
Best Gas Station
Mandaue City

Keith Ian Pastrana Juaneza To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 20, 2016
RE: Establishment of
Breastfeeding Stations
Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz,
I would like to my heartfelt thanks for your trust towards our law firm.
With regards to your query on the area for breastfeeding of your employees, your employee’s complaint has a strong basis. I would advise you
to establish a breastfeeding station for your employees.
Under Section 11 of RA 10028 or the “Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act” it provides that establishments are mandated to establish
lactating stations.
You are therefore required to have a breastfeeding station within your establishment for your female employees. However, this rule is not
absolute. You can avail of the exemption under Section 4 of the same law where it provides that “upon application to, and determination by,
the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment for private sector, establishments and institutions may be exempted for a
renewable period of two (2) years where establishment of lactation stations is not feasible or necessary due to the peculiar circumstances of
the workplace or public place taking into consideration, among others, number of women employees, physical size of establishment, and the
average number of women who visit”
Under the above provision, you can apply for exemption arguing that your area is too limited and you only have four female employees and
therefore, it is not feasible to have a breastfeeding station.
However, as long as you have not applied for an exemption, you are still required to establish a breastfeeding station. You can opt to build one
if it is feasible or you can apply for an exemption.
Sincerely yours,
Keith Ian Juaneza Associate Partner
July 20, 2016 at 7:24pm

Usc Labor Standards Law

to
Constance Marie Corominas Lim
July 4, 2016 ·
Dear Team Corominas Lim,
I worked as a regular utility worker for a businessman in Lapu-Lapu City who owns a large rice mill. Customarily,
I am paid a daily cash wage of Php250.00 plus daily wage in kind consisting of 5 kilos of "Ganador" rice worth Php150.00, the value of which I
have accepted in writing. I am planning to file a complaint against my employer for wage underpayment since my daily cash wage is way below
the prescribed minimum wage. Do I have solid legal basis to pursue my complaint? Please advise
Mr. Juan Dela Cruz
Brgy.
Canduman,
Mandaue City

Constance Marie Corominas Lim To: Mr. Juan Dela Cruz From: Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
Date: July 4, 2016
RE: Action for Complaint
Against Employer for Wage Underpayment Dear Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

Thank you for seeking our legal advice regarding this matter.
We advise you not to pursue your complaint, as it does not have any solid legal basis.
As a general rule, wages are payable in cash. However, this admits of an exception in cases wherein it can be paid partly in cash and partly in
kind, if such payment in kind qualifies as facilities.
“Facilities” is defined in the Section 5, Rule 7, Book III of the Implementing Rules as “articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his
family but shall not include tools of the trade or articles or service primarily for the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the
employer’s business.” In one case, the Supreme Court defined “Facilities” as items of expenses necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s
existence and subsistence, so that by express provision of law, they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible
therefrom, since if they are not so furnished the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.
As provided for in the Labor Code, if payment qualifies as facilities, it forms part of the wages of the employee, and as such, the reasonable
value thereof may be deducted from the employee’s wage.
It is well-settled that in order for payment to qualify as facilities and be considered as an integral part of an employee’s wage, the following
requisites must be concur:
1. It must be customarily furnished by the employer to the employee;
2. It must be charged at a fair and reasonable value; and
3. The provision
on deductibility must be voluntarily accepted by the employee in writing.
In your case, the payment in kind qualifies as “facilities” because it is a an expense necessary for the you and your family’s existence and
subsistence. Also, it satisfies all the requisites in order for a facility to be wage-deductible. Since the daily wage in kind consisting of 5 kilos of
“Ganador” rice worth P150.00 is customarily furnished by your employer and you have accepted the value of such in writing, the fair and
reasonable value thereof can be charged and deducted from your wage.
Therefore, finding no legal basis, we advise that you do not pursue your complaint, as your daily wage does not fall below the prescribed
minimum wage and the payment in kind qualifies as facilities and forms part of your daily wage of P400.00.
Sincerely,
Lim Juaneza Magtibay Law Firm
July 4, 2016 at 7:11pm