Jackson building vs nlrc –SKIP (2 PAGES)

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS v.

QUISUMBING
333 SCRA 13
G.R. No. 128845
June 1, 2000
FACTS: International School Alliance of Educators (the School) hires both foreign and local teachers as
members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.

In which, the School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires including housing,
transportation, shipping costs, taxes, home leave travel allowance and a salary rate 25% more than local
hires based on “significant economic disadvantages”

The labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members of the School,
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires.

The Union claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to
Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Union can invoke the equal protection clause to justify its claim of parity.

RULING: Yes. The Labor Code’s and the Constitution’s provisions impregnably institutionalize in this
jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work." Persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid
similar salaries.

If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees
perform equal work. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to
explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. That would be adding insult to injury.

The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires
perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and
responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions.

Hence, the Court finds the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the
distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no
reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires.

Philippine Duplicators vs. NLRC

GR 110068 February 15, 1995

Facts:
Facts: Petitioner Corporation pays its salesmen a small fixed or guaranteed wage; the greater part of the latter’s
wages or salaries being composed of the sales or incentive commissions earned on actual sales of duplicating
machines closed by them. Thus the sales commissions received for every duplicating machine sold constituted part
of the basic compensation or remuneration of the salesmen of the Philippine Duplicators for doing their job.
The Labor Arbiter directed Petitioner Duplicators to pay 13 th month pay to private respondent employees computed
on the basis of their fixed wages plus sales commission.
Sec. 4 of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 (Revised Guidelines Implementing
13th Month Pay) provides that overtime pay, earning and other remuneration which are not part of the basic salary
shall not be included in the computation of the 13th month pay.
Petitioner Corporation contends that their sales commission should not be included in the computation of the
13th month pay invoking the consolidated cases of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs Hon. Dionisio dela Serna and
Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. vs Hon. Crecencio Trajano, were the so-called commissions of medical representatives of
Boie-Takeda Chemicals and rank-and-file employees of Fuji Xerox Co. were not included in the term “basic salary” in
computing the 13th month pay.
Issue: WON sales commissions comprising a pre-determined percent of the selling price of the goods are included in
the computation of the 13th month pay.
Held: Yes. These commission which are an integral part of the basic salary structure of the Philippine Duplicator’s
employees-salesmen, are not overtime payments, nor profit-sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit. Thus,
salesmen’s commissions comprising a pre-determined percent of the selling price of the goods were properly
included in the term “basic salary” for purposes of computing the 13thmonth pay.
Commissions of medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals and rank-and-file employees of Fuji Xerox Co.
were not included in the term “basic salary” because these were paid as “productivity bonuses” which is not included
in the computation of 13th month pay.

Antonio W. Iran v. NLRC

(G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)

FACTS:

 Petitioner Antonio Iran is engaged in softdrinks merchandising and distribution in Mandaue City,
Cebu, employing truck drivers who double as salesmen, truck helpers, and non-field personnel in
pursuit thereof.
 Petitioner hired private respondents Godofredo Petralba, Moreno Cadalso, Celso Labiaga and
Fernando Colina as drivers/salesmen while private respondents Pepito Tecson, Apolinario Gimena,
Jesus Bandilao, Edwin Martin and Diosdado Gonzalgo were hired as truck helpers.
 Drivers/salesmen drove petitioner’s delivery trucks and promoted, sold and delivered softdrinks to
various outlets in Mandaue City. The truck helpers assisted in the delivery of softdrinks to the
different outlets covered by the driver/salesmen.
 As part of their compensation, the driver/salesmen and truck helpers of petitioner received
commissions per case of softdrinks sold at the following rates:

SALESMEN:
 Ten Centavos (P0.10) per case of Regular softdrinks.
Twelve Centavos (P0.12) per case of Family Size softdrinks.

TRUCK HELPERS:

Eight Centavos (P0.08) per case of Regular softdrinks.

Ten Centavos (P0.10) per case of Family Size softdrinks.

 Sometime in June 1991, petitioner, while conducting an audit of his operations, discovered cash
shortages and irregularities allegedly committed by private respondents. Pending the investigation of
irregularities and settlement of the cash shortages, petitioner required private respondents to report
for work everyday. They were not allowed, however, to go on their respective routes. A few days
thereafter, despite aforesaid order, private respondents stopped reporting for work, prompting
petitioner to conclude that the former had abandoned their employment. Consequently, petitioner
terminated their services. He also filed on November 7, 1991, a complaint for estafa against private
respondents.
 On the other hand, private respondents filed complaints against petitioner for illegal dismissal, illegal
deduction, underpayment of wages, premium pay for holiday and rest day, holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, allowances, separation pay, recovery of cash bond, damages and
attorney’s fees.
 The labor arbiter found that petitioner had validly terminated private respondents, there being just
cause for the latter’s dismissal. Nevertheless, he also ruled that petitioner had not complied with
minimum wage requirements in compensating private respondents, and had failed to pay private
respondents their 13th month pay.
 The NLRC, in its decision of December 21, 1994, affirmed the validity of private respondents
dismissal, but found that said dismissal did not comply with the procedural requirements for
dismissing employees. Furthermore, it corrected the labor arbiters award of wage differentials to
Jesus Bandilao.

ISSUE:

Whether or not commissions are included in determining compliance with the minimum wage
requirement.

RULING:

Yes. The petition is impressed with merit.

 Article 97(f) of the Labor Code defines wage as follows:

Art. 97(f) Wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however
designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a
time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is
payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of
employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and
includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board,
lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.
  While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire employees
to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them, still these
commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered. In fact, commissions have been
defined as the recompense, compensation or reward of an agent, salesman, executor, trustee,
receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount
of his transactions or on the profit to the principal. The nature of the work of a salesman and
the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that
commissions are part of a salesmans wage or salary.
 Thus, the commissions earned by private respondents in selling softdrinks constitute part of
the compensation or remuneration paid to drivers/salesmen and truck helpers for serving as
such, and hence, must be considered part of the wages paid them.
 Likewise, there is no law mandating that commissions be paid only after the minimum wage has been
paid to the employee. Verily, the establishment of a minimum wage only sets a floor below
which an employees remuneration cannot fall, not that commissions are excluded from
wages in determining compliance with the minimum wage law.

METRO vs. NLRC and SEAM

G.R. No. 116008

July 11, 1995

FACTS: Petitioner Metro Transit Organization, Inc. is the operator and manager of
the LRT System in Metro Manila. Private respondent THE SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF METRO (SEAM) is a union composed
of supervisory employees of petitioner Metro.
Prior to December 1989– Metro had a CBA only with its rank-and-file
employees. During the period when no CBA governed the terms and conditions of
employment between Metro and its supervisory employees, whenever rank-and-file
employees were paid a statutorily mandated salary increase, supervisory employees
were, as a matter of practice, also paid the same amount plus P50.00.
**
April 1989– Metro paid its rank-and-file employees a salary increase of P500.00
per month in accordance with the terms of their CBA. Metro, however,
did not extend a corresponding salary increase to its supervisory employees.
In December 1989, the 1st CBA between Metro and SEAM took effect. In compliance
therewith, Metro paid its supervisory employees a salary increase. The 2nd and 3rd
year salary increases due rank-and-file and supervisory employees were paid on as
scheduled in their corresponding CBAs.
In March 1992, SEAM filed a Notice of Strike before the NCMB charging Metro with
(a) discrimination in terms of wages. SEAM vigorously asserts that an already
existing wage distortion in respect of the salaries of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees was aggravated when Metro, on April 1989, paid its rank-and-file
employees their CBA-stipulated P500.00 increase but did not grant a corresponding
increase (and a premium) to its supervisory employees.
Upon the other hand, petitioner Metro firmly maintains that its practice of giving
higher increases to supervisory employees whenever rank-and-file employees were
given increases, should not be regarded as compulsory. The grant of a corresponding
increase to supervisory employees is a prerogative or discretionary act of generosity
by management considering there is no law or company policy mandating it.
ISSUE: IS THE BONUS (HIGHER INCREASE) TO SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES DEMANDABLE?
HELD: YES
Basically, Metro’s argument is that such increase was merely a bonus given to
supervisory employees. A “bonus” is an amount granted and paid to an employee for
his industry and loyalty which contributed to the success of the employer’s business
and made possible the realization of profits. It is something given in addition to what
is ordinarily received by or strictly due to the recipient.
The general rule is that a bonus is a gratuity or an act of liberality which the
recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right. A bonus, however, is
a demandable or enforceable obligation when it is made part of the wage or salary
or compensation of the employee.
Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the circumstances and
conditions for its payment. If it is additional compensation which the employer
promised and agreed to give without any conditions imposed for its payment, such
as success of business or greater production or output, then it is part of the
wage. But if it is paid only if profits are realized or if a certain level of productivity
is achieved, it can not be considered part of the wage. Where it is not payable to all
but only to some employees and only when their labor becomes more efficient or
more productive, it is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize therefor, not a part of
the wage.
In the case at bar, the increase of P550.00 sought by private respondent SEAM
was neither an inducement nor was it contingent on (a) the success of the business
of petitioner Metro; or (b) the increased production or work output of the company or
(c) the realization of profits.
The demand for this increase was based on a company practice, admitted by
Metro, of granting a salary increase (and a premium) to supervisory employees
whenever rank-and-file employees were granted a salary increase. That those
increases were precisely designed to correct or minimize the wage distortion effects of
increases given to rank-and-file employees (under their CBA or under Wage Orders),
highlights the fact that those increases were part of the wage structure of supervisory
employees. The demanded increase therefore is not a bonus that is generally not
demandable as a matter of right. The demanded increase, in this instance, is
an enforceable obligation so far as the supervisory employees of Metro are
concerned.

Marcos, et. al. vs. NLRC AND Insular Life Assurance (1995)

FACTS:
Petitioners herein have served respondent Insular for more than 20 years in multiples of five (20-
30 years). They were terminated due to redundancy and thus were given special redundancy
benefits. But they were denied their service awards which was set apart from the redundancy
fund. They were made to sign a quit claim, which they complied, but they still submitted a letter of
protest. They inquired from the DOLE-LS on the validity of the denial of their service awards, to
which DOLE decided in their favour. The service awards were part of the Employee’s Manual and
were therefore company policies. The award was earned on the anniversary date. Even if the
employees were separated from service before the anniversary date, they were still entitled to the
material benefits of the award.

However, respondent still refused to pay this. On its 80th anniversary, the company approved an
anniversary equivalent of one-month salary to its employees. The petitioners alleged that they
were entitled to this.

The LA ruled in petitioners’ favour, but NLRC reversed this, upholding the validity of the quitclaim
they signed voluntarily.

ISSUE:
W/N the quitclaim was invalid and if so, petitioners would be entitled to their service award.

HELD:
Release and Quitclaim INVALID, petitioners were ENTITLED to the service awards.

A deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding payment to which he is
entitled. Quitclaims are against public policy and are therefore null and void. The Court does not
believe that petitioners signed the Release and Quitclaim voluntarily, as the subsequent
submission of a letter of protest and the inquiry before the NLRC contradicted their willingness to
execute the quitclaim.
The special redundancy package could not have covered the service awards, and respondent’s actions
estopped it from claiming such. Service awards are not bonuses. They are stated in the Employees
Manual, which is contractual in nature therefor the law between the parties. It is company policy and has
been in practice by the company.

DOMINICO C. CONGSON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

NOE BARGO,ROGER HIMENO, RAYMUNDO BADAGOS, PATRICIO SALVADOR, SR.,
NEHIL BARGO, JOEL MENDOZA, andEMMANUEL CALIXIHAN, respondents.

FACTS: Private respondents were hired by petitioner as regular piece-rate workers. They were
uniformlypaid at a rate of P1.00 per tuna weighing 30 to 80 kilos per movement. In
addition to the amount ofP1.00 per 'bariles' per movement herein complainants get the
intestines and liver of the tuna as part oftheir salary.

ISSUE: Whether the intestines and liver the private respondents get form part of their salary.

HELD:Article 102. Forms of Payment. —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, evenwhen expressly requested by the employee.Petitioner's practice of paying the
private respondents the minimum wage by means of legaltender combined with tuna liver
and intestines runs counter to the above cited provision of the LaborCode. The fact that said
method of paying the minimum wage was not only agreed upon by both partiesin the
employment agreement but even expressly requested by private respondents, does not
shieldpetitioner. Article 102 of the Labor Code is clear. Wages shall be paid only by means of
legal tender. Theonly instance when an employer is permitted to pay wages informs other
than legal tender, that is, bychecks or money order, is when the circumstances prescribed in the
second paragraph of Article 102 are present.

Norma Mabeza vs NLRC

FACTS: Norma Mabeza was an employee hired by Hotel Supreme in Baguio City. In 1991,
an inspection was made by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at Hotel
Supreme and the DOLE inspectors discovered several violations by the hotel management.
Immediately, the owner of the hotel, Peter Ng, directed his employees to execute an
affidavit which would purport that they have no complaints whatsoever against Hotel
Supreme. But Mabeza refused to certify said affidavit with the fiscal’s office so this led to
her dismissal. She sued Peter Ng and one of her complaints against him is underpayment
because her wage was less than the minimum wage. Peter Ng argued that the reason for
such low payment was because she was being given free lodging, water, electricity, and
water consumption by the hotel.
ISSUE: Whether or not such amenities provided by the hotel be considered as facilities
which are deductible from Mabeza’s wage.
HELD: No. There are requisites before such can be done and they are:
1. Proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade.
2. The provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the
employee.
3. Facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value.

None of these were complied with in the case at bar. More significantly, the food and
lodging, or the electricity and water consumed by Mabeza were not facilities but
supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the
employer is not a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much
lies in the kind (food, lodging) but the purpose. Considering, therefore, that hotel workers
are required to work different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours,
their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel, such as Hotel
Supreme.

Alpha Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC

G.R. No. 111722 (May 27, 1997)

FACTS:
Petitioner provides security services. One of its clients is Don Mariano MarcosState University (DMMSU).
Security guards working in DMMSU filed before the RegionalOffice of the DOLE a complaint against Petitioner
for noncompliance with the currentminimum wage order. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding
Petitioner andDMMSU solidarily liable for the salary differential owed to the security guards.Petitioner alleges that
payment of the wage increase should be borne by DMMSU.

ISSUE:
W/N Petitioner may be held jointly and severally liable with DMMSU for nonpaymentof minimum wage.

HELD:
Yes, Petitioner is jointly and severally liable with DMMSU for the payment ofwage increases. Section 6 of RA
6727 (Wage Rationalization Act) provides that incase of wage increases resulting in a salary differential, the
liability of the principaland contractor shall be joint and several. The same liability attaches under Articles106, 107
and 109 of the Labor Code. Petitioner contends that the matter involved inthe case at bar hinges on wage
differentials and wage increases, as prescribed inSection 6 of RA 6727, and not wages in general as provided by
the Labor Code. Thisinterpretation is not acceptable. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that ininterpreting
the meaning and scope of a term used, a careful review of the wholelaw, as well as the intendment of the law, must
be made. Legislative intent must beascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole and not of an
isolatedpart or a particular provision alone.