Jose Songco V NLRC GR No.

50999 March 23, 1990 – Wages vs Salary

This case is a petition to modify the decision of the National Labor Relations Commision which
dismissed the appeal of the petitioners herein and in effect affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter, resulting the order of private respondents to pay petitioners separation pay
equivalent to their one month salary ( exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc) for every year
of service.

Victims/people:
Petitioners (Employees):
1. Jose Songco
2. Romeo Cipres
3. Amancio Manuel

Respondents:
1. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
2. Labor Arbiter Flavio Aguas
3. F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc. (Employer)

The victims in this case would be the petitioners, Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio
Manuel, who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed from their employment. They sought
legal remedies to address their concerns, particularly regarding the calculation of separation
pay.

Appellate: Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel

Key facts:

1. F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc. filed a request with the Department of Labor seeking clearance to
terminate the services of Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel, citing
retrenchment due to financial losses.
2. The employees opposed the termination, alleging that the company was not suffering
losses and that they were being dismissed due to their union membership.
3. The CBA between the company and the employees' association included a provision
about retirement gratuity, stating that an employee separated due to lay-off shall
receive a retirement gratuity equivalent to one month's salary per year of service.
4. The employees appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), which was dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of a petition for certiorari
before a higher court.
5. The main issue revolved around whether the earned sales commissions and allowances
of the employees should be included in the computation of their separation pay.
Court’s Ruling:
The court,concluded that commissions should be considered part of the employees' wage or
salary for the purpose of computing separation pay. The decision of the NLRC was modified
accordingly, and the case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the
separation pay.

Legal points:
1. Termination Grounds: The case involves the termination of employees by F.E. Zuellig
(M), Inc., citing retrenchment due to financial losses. The legality of the termination
under the grounds of retrenchment and the company's compliance with procedural
requirements are legal points of consideration.
2. Implementing Rules: Sections 9(b) and 10, Rule 1, Book VI of the Rules Implementing
the Labor Code, provide additional guidance on the computation of separation pay in
cases of retrenchment. The interpretation and application of these rules are legal
considerations.
3. Definition of Wage: The interpretation of Article 97(f) of the Labor Code, which defines
the term "wage" and includes commissions as part of one's salary, is a pivotal point in
determining the components to be considered in separation pay calculations.
4. Judicial Notice: The court takes judicial notice of industry practices, specifically noting
that some salesmen rely solely on commissions, and the court applies this
understanding to its interpretation of the law.
5. Separation Pay Computation: The primary concerns were whether earned sales
commissions should be included in the computation of separation pay, and the court
concludes that they should be considered part of the employees' wage or salary.

In summary, the court ruled that earned sales commissions should be included in the
computation of separation pay, interpreting relevant provisions in the Labor Code, CBAs, and
implementing rules.

Republic vs Pacheco, En Banc GR no. 178021 January 25, 2012 – No work, no pay

The crux revolves around the validity of the BIR’s reassignment of Minerva Pacheo from Quezon
City to San Fernando, Pampanga. The main problem is whether this reassignment amounted to
a constructive dismissal, essentially forcing Pacheo to resign. Furthermore, the issue of
pecuniary compensation arises, questioning whether Pacheo is entitled to back wages for the
period during which she was not actively engaged in her duties due to this dispute.

Victims/people:

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Respondent: Minerva M.P. Pacheo
CIR: Rene G. Banez
Deputy commissioner of internal revenue (CIR): Edmundo P. Guevara
Another individual affected: Amado Rey. B Pagarigan
 1. Reassignment: Minerva Pacheo, a BIR employee, was reassigned from Quezon City to
San Fernando, Pampanga.
2. Complaint: Pacheo contested the reassignment, citing economic and personal burdens.
3. CSC Ruling: Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially ruled the reassignment as not valid
but justified withholding Pacheo's salary.
4. CA Decision: Court of Appeals reversed CSC, declared constructive dismissal, and
awarded reinstatement with full backwages.
5. Legal Challenge: The Republic of the Philippines, through the CSC, appealed to the
Supreme Court.
6. Supreme Court Decision: SC affirmed constructive dismissal but limited backwages to
five years from the invalid reassignment in 2002.

Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Minerva M.P. Pacheo, affirming constructive dismissal due
to the invalid reassignment. Pacheo was granted reinstatement, but the backwages awarded
were limited to five years from the date of her reassignment in 2002.

Legal Points:

1. Detail - A detail is the movement of an employee from one agency to another without
the issuance of an appointment and shall be allowed, only for a limited period in the
case of employees occupying professional, technical and scientific positions. If the
employee believes that there is no justification for the detail, he may appeal his case to
the Commission. Pending appeal, the decision to detail the employee shall be executory
unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. [Underscoring supplied]
2. Reassignment.—An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to
another in the same agency; Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a
reduction in rank, status or salaries.
3. Requirement of Filing. – The appellant shall furnish a copy of his appeal to the head of
department or agency concerned who shall submit his comment, together with the
records, to the Commission within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Proof of service of
the appeal on the head of department or agency shall be submitted with the
Commission.
4. Grounds for Dismissal. – An appeal involving non-disciplinary cases shall be dismissed on
any of the following grounds:

a. The appeal is filed beyond the reglementary period;

b. The filing fee of Three Hundred (₱ 300.00) has not been paid, or

c. The appeal does not contain a certification on non-forum shopping.

In Summary, the petition is denied and are hereby affirmed with modification that respondent
Minerva M.P. Pacheo be reinstated without loss of seniority rights but is only entitled to the payment
of the back salaries corresponding to five (5) years from the date of her invalid reassignment.