CASE DIGEST: SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST

and SONNY L. LAGON v. NLRC, ROLDAN LOPEZ, et al.

FACTS: Respondents were supposedly employed by petitioner as

project employees in 11996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. They were paid less
than the minimum wage for the four periods of their employment.
During their 4th employment, Lagon, the employer, due to economic
constraints, had to cut down on the overtime work of the employees.
Thus, when respondent-employees asked for overtime work, Lagon had
to refuse them, and told them that if they insist, they would have to go
home at their own expense and that they would not be given any more
time nor be allowed to stay in their quarters. The case was brought
before the Labor Arbiter, on a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-
payment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, among other things,
against the employer. The employer reasoned that the employees were
project employees, since they were employed for a specific undertaking,
and thus were not regular employees entitled to minimum wage.
Further, the employer reasoned that the employees were actually paid
above the minimum wage, since the allowances for snacks, lodging
house, electricity, water, and transportation should be included in the
wages.

The LA opined that private respondents were regular employees because

they were repeatedly hired by petitioners and they performed activities
which were usual, necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the
employer. With regard to the underpayment of wages, the LA found that
private respondents were underpaid. It ruled that the free board and
lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by them could not be
included in the computation of their wages because these were given
without their written consent. The LA, however, found that petitioners
were not liable for illegal dismissal.The LA viewed private respondent's
act of going home as an act of indifference when petitioners decided to
prohibit overtime work. The NLRC and CA affirmed and ruled against
the employer.

ISSUE: [1] Were the employees entitled to minimum wage?

[2] Should the free board and lodging, electricity, water, and
food enjoyed by the employees be included in the computation
of the wages. NO.
HELD: Preliminarily, the Court noted that the case involves factual
disputes decided by the trial courts, whose decisions the Court cannot
disturb. Settled is the fact that decisions by labor arbiters, due to their
expertise, cannot be disturbed and are accorded respect and finality
when supported by substantial evidence. Thus it cannot decide on the
issue of whether the employees are project or regular employees, and
must affirm the ruling that they are regular employees. In any case,
project employees are entitled to the minimum wage, since they are not
among the exclusions enumerated in the Labor Code Implementing
Rules.

On the issue of whether the facilities should be included as wages, a four-

pronged test must be completed: proof must be shown that such facilities
are customarily furnished by the trade; second, the provision of
deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the
employee; and finally, facilities must be charged at reasonable
value.Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from
employees wages.
These requirements, however, have not been met in this case. SLL failed
to present any company policy or guideline showing that provisions for
meals and lodging were part of the employees salaries. It also failed to
provide proof of the employees written authorization, much less show
how they arrived at their valuations.At any rate, it is not even clear
whetherprivaterespondents actually enjoyed said facilities. DENIED.