C.
Planas Commercial and Marcial Cohu, Ruling:
Petitioners
Vs
NLRC (2nd Division), Alfredo Ofialda, Dioleto
Morente and Rugy Allauigan, Resondents
(RE: Application of the Labor Code on wages,
exceptions)
Facts:
In September 1993, Morente, Allauigan and
Ofialda and others filed a complaint for
underpayment of wages, on non-payment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave
pay, and premium pay for rest day and holiday and
night shift differential against petitioners in the
Arbitration Branch of NLRC. It alleged that Cohu is
engaged in the business of wholesale of plastic
products and fruits of different kinds with more
than 24 employees. Respondents were hired on
January 1990, May 1990 and July 1991 as laborers
and were paid below the minimum wage for the past
3 years. They were required to work for more than 8
hours a day and never enjoyed the minimum
benefits. The petitioners filed their comment stating
that the respondents were their helpers.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision
dismissing the money claims. Respondents filed an
appeal with the NLRC where it granted the money
claims of Ofilda, Morente and Allaguian. Petitioners
appealed with the CA but it was denied. It sad that
the company having claimed of exemption of the
coverage oof the minimum wage shall have the
burden of proof to the claim.
In the present petition, the petitioner insists
that C. Planas Commercial is a retail establishment
principally engaged in the sale of plastic products
and fruits to the customers for personal use, thus
exempted from the application of the minimum wage
law; that it merely leases and occupies a stall in the
Divisoria Market and the level of its business activity
requires and sustains only less than 10 employees
at a time. Petitioners contend that private
respondents were paid over and above the minimum
wage required for a retail establishment, thus the
labor arbiter is correct in ruling that private
respondents’ claim for underpayment has no factual
and legal basis. Petitioners claim that since private
respondents alleged that petitioners employed 24
workers, it was incumbent upon them to prove such
allegation which private respondents failed to do.
Issue: WON petitioner is exempted from the
Application of Minimum Wage
The contention of the petitioners that they
are exempted by the law must be proven. The
petitioners have not successfully shown that they
had applied for the exemption.
RA. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization
Act provides for the statutory minimum wage rate of
all workers and employees in the private sector.
Section 4 of the Act provides for exemption from the
coverage, thus: Section 4 (c) Exempted from the
provisions of this Act are household or domestic
helpers, and persons employed in the personal
service of another, including family drivers. Also,
retail/service establishments regularly employing
not more than 10 workers may be exempted from
the application of this act upon application with and
as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in
accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations issued by the Commission. Whenever an
application for exemption has been duly files with
the appropriate Regional Board, action on any
complaint for alleged non-compliance with this Act
shall be deferred pending resolution of the
application for exemption by the appropriate
Regional Board.
In the event that applications for exemptions
are not granted, employees shall receive the
appropriate compensation due them as provided for
by this Act plus interest of 1% per month retroactive
to the effectivity of this Act.
Clearly, for a retail/service establishment to
be exempted from the coverage of the minimum
wage law, it must be shown that the establishment
is regularly employing not more than 10 workers
and had applied for exemptions with an as
determined by the appropriate Regional Board in
accordance with the applicable rules and
regulations issued by the Commission.