Famindalan, Nerissa F. Labor Law Bsba HRM 3-1N July 11, 2021

FAMINDALAN, NERISSA F.
LABOR LAW
BSBA HRM 3-1N July 11, 2021
UNIT I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
ASSESSMENT:
Read the facts and the rulings of this labor case, then provide your own judgement of
the case.
Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997)

G.R. 156225
Facts:
The Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association (petitioner) filed a complaint against
Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Calamba, Inc. (respondent) for collection of various monetary
claims due its members. The Labor Arbiter (LA) handling the consolidated cases, denied and
dismissed the respective complaints.
Issue:
Whether or not the pay of the faculty members for teaching overloads should be included as
basis in the computation of their 13th month pay.
Held:
Teaching overload may not be considered part of basic salary. Under the Rules and
Regulations Implementing PD 851, the following compensations are deemed not part of the
basic salary: a) cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to PD 525 and Letter of Instruction
No. 174; b) profit sharing payments; c) all allowances and monetary benefits which are not
considered or integrated as part of the regular basic salary of the employee at the time of the
promulgation of the Decree on Dec 16, 1975.
This study source was downloaded by 100000825671520 from CourseHero.com on 06-01-2022 01:05:45 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/101348347/Labor-law-FINALSdocx/
Under a later set of Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851 issued by the
then Labor Secretary Blas Ople, overtime pay, earnings and other remunerations are excluded
as part of the basic salary and in the computation of the 13th-month pay.
In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special
holidays
is considered as additional compensation apart and distinct from an employee's regular wage or
basic salary, an overload pay, owing to its very nature and definition, may not be considered as
part of a teacher's regular or basic salary, because it is being paid for additional work performed
in excess of the regular teaching load.
Judgement on the case:
This case talks about where, the petitioner claims that since the pay for excess loads or
overloads does not fall under any of the enumerated exclusions and considering that the said
overloads are being performed within the normal working period of eight hours a day, it only
follows that the overloads should be included in the computation of the faculty members' 13th-
month pay. To support its argument, petitioner cites the opinion of the Bureau of Working
Conditions of the DOLE that payment of teaching overload performed within eight hours of
work a day shall be considered in the computation of the 13th-month pay.
As of my judgement in this case, I think teacher should also be given an additional salary
for her teaching overload. I know that the basic wage is defined by the Implementing Rules of
RA 6727 which is also the foregoing definition that was based on Article 83 of the Labor Code
which provides that "the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours
a day." Overload on the other hand means "the load in excess of the normal load of private
school teachers as prescribed by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) or the
policies, rules and standards of particular private schools." In recognition of the peculiarities of
the teaching profession, existing DECS and School Policies and Regulations for different levels of
instructions prescribe a regular teaching load, the total actual teaching or classroom hours of
which a teacher can generally perform in less than eight (8) hours per working day.
Where a teacher is required to perform such overload within the eight (8) hours normal
working day, such overload compensation shall be considered part of the basic pay. Considering
that overload work may be performed either within or outside eight hours in a day, overload
work may or may not be overtime work. Under Presidential Decree 851 and its implementing
rules, any compensations or remunerations which are deemed not part of the basic pay is
excluded as basis in the computation of the mandatory bonus.
Since this case is being denied, I don't think that the teacher gets what they deserve.
Overloads should also be considered and included aside from the basic pay given to them. Any
pay given as compensation for such additional work should be considered as extra and not
deemed as part of the regular or basic salary.
UNIT II. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT
ASSESSMENT:
Read the facts and the rulings of this labor case on illegal recruitment, then provide your
own judgement of the case.
G.R. No. 168651: March 16, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDITH RAMOS ABAT, Accused-
Appellant.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Facts:
Accused Abat was convicted by the RTC of illegal recruitment in large scale of nine individuals,
by recruiting them to a supposed job in Taiwan for a fee, without the proper authority. The CA
affirmed her conviction. In her appeal, the accused denies having any participation in the
recruitment of the nine named complainants for employment in Taiwan, asserting that the CA
erred in thus affirming her conviction despite the totality of evidence pointing to no other
conclusion than her innocence. She urges the review of the CAs ruling on the credibility of the
witnesses in view of the two opposing versions of the facts involved.
In support of her appeal, she argues that, among others, the sums she exacted and received
from the complainants represented only the reimbursement of the expenses incurred during
her
trips; that the failure of the complainants to produce receipts showing that she had collected
money from them in connection with her assurances of their employment in Taiwan was fatal to
the State's case against her; and that although only four of the nine named complainants had
appeared and testified in court, the Prosecution did not explain why the five other complainants
had desisted from testifying against her.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the defense of the accused, that she was merely seeking reimbursements, is
credible
2. Whether or not the absence of a receipt negates a finding of illegal recruitment
Held:
The petition is denied.
Since the accused was said that he got engage in acts of recruitment and placement of
workers defined under Article 13 of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article
43 of the Labor Code and without any authority. Therefore, this issue should not be easily
accused to him without proper knowing what really happen. It is true that what he did was
wrong and he denies it, but it’s still needed to be research by the court. It is the lack of the
necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that
renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the
State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had
the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced
to part with their money for that end.
UNIT III. LABOR STANDARDS
ASSESSMENT:
Read the facts and the rulings of this labor case on wages, then provide your own
judgement of
the case.
States Marine Corp. vs. Cebu Seamen’s Assc.
GR L 12444 February 28, 1963
Facts:
On September 12, 1952, the respondent union filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR),
a petition (Case No. 740-V) against the States Marine Corporation, later amended on May 4,
1953, by including as party respondent, the petitioner Royal Line, Inc. The Union alleged that
that after the Minimum Wage Law had taken effect, the petitioners required their employees on
board their vessels, to pay the sum of P.40 for every meal, while the masters and officers were
not required to pay their meals.
The petitioners’ shipping companies, answering, averred that in enacting Rep. Act No. 602
(Minimum Wage Law), the Congress had in mind that the amount of P.40 per meal, furnished to
employees should be deducted from the daily wages.
Issue:
Whether or not meals are deductible from wages.
Held:
It is argued that the food or meals given to the deck officers, marine engineers and unlicensed
crew members in question, were mere “facilities” which should be deducted from wages, and
not “supplements” which, according to said section 19, should not be deducted from such
wages, because it is provided therein: “Nothing in this Act shall deprive an employee of the
right
to such fair wage … or in reducing supplements furnished on the date of enactment.” In the
case of Atok-Big Wedge Assn. v. Atok-Big Wedge Co., L-7349, July 19, 1955; 51 O.G. 3432,
the two terms are defined as follows — “Supplements”, therefore, constitute extra
remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and
above their ordinary earnings or wages. “Facilities”, on the other hand, are items of expense
necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence so that by express
provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), 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.
Facilities may be charged to or deducted from wages. Supplements, on the other hand, may not
be so charged. Thus, when meals are freely given to crew members of a vessel while they were
on the high seas, not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the
health and efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage, the deductions made therefrom
for the meals should be returned to them, and the operator of the coastwise vessels affected
should continue giving the same benefit.
Petition dismissed.
I agree by the decision in this issue that the meals for the crew members are given for
free, not as part to be deducted or to be charged on their wages. And as of the issue, the
deducted payment for meals should be returned to them because it is stated under the CIR that
erred in holding that inasmuch as with regard to meals furnished to crew members of a vessel,
section 3(f) of Act No. 602 is the general rule, which section 19 thereof is the exception, the
cost of said meals may not be legally deducted from the wages or salaries of the aforesaid crew
members by the herein petitioners Aside from that, maintaining health, safety and efficiency of
the crew personnel should be prioritized.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Famindalan, Nerissa F. Labor Law Bsba HRM 3-1N July 11, 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Famindalan, Nerissa F. Labor Law Bsba HRM 3-1N July 11, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAMINDALAN, NERISSA F.

BSBA HRM 3-1N July 11, 2021

UNIT I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997)

Judgement on the case:

G.R. No. 168651: March 16, 2011

Judgement on the case:

States Marine Corp. vs. Cebu Seamen’s Assc.

GR L 12444 February 28, 1963

not required to pay their meals.

employees should be deducted from the daily wages.

should continue giving the same benefit.

You might also like