8/11/2019 Labor Case 287- 293

1/5

CASE # 287

MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC., JORGE LEDESMA and CECILIO G. INOCENCIO, petitioners,vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

November 15, 1989

FACTS:

private respondents herein, have been working for petitioner Makati Haberdashery, Inc. as tailors,seamstress, sewers, basters (manlililip) and "plantsadoras".

They are paid on a piece-rate basis. except for two petitioners,Maria Angeles and LeonilaSerafina who are paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piece-rate,

They are given a daily allowance of three (P 3.00) pesos provided they report for work before9:30 a.m. everyday \

On July 20, 1984 , the Sandigan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a labor organization of therespondent workers, filed a complaint for: (a) underpayment of the basic wage; (b)underpayment of living allowance; (c) non-payment of overtime work; (d) non-payment ofholiday pay; (e) non-payment of service .

On June 10, 1986, Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in fa vo r of comp la in an ts wh ic h th e

NLRC affirmed but limited back wages to one year.

ISSUE:

Whether or not employees paid on piece-rate basis are entitled to service incentive pay

HELD:

While private respondents are entitled to Minimum Wage, COLA and 13th Month Pay, they arenot entitled to service incentive leave pay because as piece-rate workers being paid at a fixedamount for performing work irrespective of time consumed in the performance thereof, they fallunder one of the exceptions stated in Section 1(d), Rule V, Implementing Regulations, Book III,Labor Code. For the same reason private respondents cannot also claim holiday pay (Section1(e), Rule IV, Implementing Regulations, Book III, Labor Code).

Section 1(d) , Rule V, Imp lementing Regula tions, Bo ok II I:

Service Incentive Leave : This rule shall apply to all employees except:

(d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer includingthose who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid a fixed

amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof

Section 1(e), Rule IV, Implementin g Regula tion s, Boo k II I, Labor Code

Holidays with Pay : This rule shall apply to all employees except(e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employerincluding those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are

paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof

8/11/2019 Labor Case 287- 293

2/5

CASE # 289

AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC . , pe ti t ioner, vs. ANTONIO BAUTISTA, r e spondent .

Facts: Respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc.

(Autobus), as driver-conductor with travel routes Manila. Respondent was paid on commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross income per

travel, on a twice a month basis. On 03 January 2000, while respondent was driving Autobus No. 114 along Sta. Fe, Nueva

Vizcaya, the bus he was driving accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. 124 A month after the incident, management sent him a letter of termination respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of

13 th month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus.

Issue:Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave

Held:

YES. In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his service incentive leave nordemanded for its commutation until his employment was terminated by petitioner. Neither didpetitioner compensate his accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. Itwas only upon his filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, one month from the time of hisdismissal, that respondent demanded from his former employer commutation of his accumulatedleave credits. His cause of action to claim the payment of his accumulated service incentive leavethus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulatedleave credits.

The Supreme Court observed that the service incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to otherbenefits granted by the law to every employee. In the case of service incentive leave, the employee may

choose to either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary equivalent if not exhausted at the

end of the year. Furthermore, if the employee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or

commute the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of hisaccrued service incentive leave.

8/11/2019 Labor Case 287- 293

3/5

8/11/2019 Labor Case 287- 293

4/5

CASE # 293

AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO), petitioner,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division), RODOLFO M.

RETISO and 165 OTHERS , [1] respondents.

Complainant Rodolfo M. Retiso and 163 others, Lyn E. Banilla and Wilson B. Sallador Respondents Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO), Atty. Leovigildo Mationg in his

capacity as General Manager; Manuel Calizo, in his capacity as Acting Board President,Board of Directors, AKELCO

FACTS:

On January 22, the Board of AKELCO allowed the temporarytransfer holding of office at Kalibo, Aklan

Majority of the employees continued to work at Lezo Aklan and werepaid of their salaries. An unnumbered resolution was passed byAKELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at kalibo,Aklan and that daily operation be held again at the main office of Lezo,Aklan.

From June 1992 to March 1993, complainants who reported at Lezowere not paid their salaries. From March up to the present,complainants were allowed to draw their salaries, with the exception ofa few who were not paid their salaries for April and May 1993.

The respondents allege that the complainants voluntarily abandoned theirwork assignments and that they defied the lawful orders by the Generalmanager and thus the Board of Directors passed a resolution resisting anddenying the claims of these complainants under the principle of no work, nopay. NLRC held that private respondents are entitled to unpaid wages fromJune 1992 up to march 1993.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are covered by the no work, nopay principle and thus not entitled to the claim for unpaid wages from June1992 to March 1993.

HELD: Yes. Petitioner was able to show that the private respondents did notrender services during the stated period. Also, private respondents in theirposition paper admitted that they did not report at the Kalibo office, as Lezoremained to be their office where they continuously reported. The court

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/121439.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/121439.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/121439.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/121439.html#_ftn1

8/11/2019 Labor Case 287- 293

5/5

found that the letter of the exchange of letters between Leyson (one of thecomplainants) and Mationg (the general manager), as well as thecomputation used as basis for the request of the unpaid wages are selfserving and that the temporary resolution of AEO should be given credence.

If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage payunless the laborer was able willing and ready to work but was ILLEGALLYlocked out, suspended or dismissed. In this case, the company legally

transferred it business to Kalibo without prejudice to its workers. NLRCdecision reversed.