10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

THIRDDIVISION

PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC.,

G.R.No.181972
DUSIT
HOTEL
NIKKO

MANILA,
Present:
Petitioner,

CARPIOMORALES,*J.,

CHICONAZARIO,**
versus
ActingChairperson,

VELASCO,JR.,

NACHURA,and
NATIONAL
UNION
OF
PERALTA,JJ.
WORKERS
IN
HOTEL,

RESTAURANT, AND ALLIED

INDUSTRIES
(NUWHRAIN
Promulgated:
APLIUF)
DUSIT
HOTEL

NIKKOCHAPTER,

Respondents.
August25,2009
xx

DECISION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:

BeforethisCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,underRule45oftheRulesofCourt,
[1]
assailing the Decision dated 10 September 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
92798 granting the P30.00perday Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), under Wage
Order (WO) No. NCR09 (WO No. 9), to 144 employees of petitioner Dusit Hotel Nikko (Dusit
[2]
Hotel) and imposing upon the latter the penalty of double indemnity under Republic Act No.
[3]
6727,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.8188.LikewiseassailedhereinistheResolution dated4
March 2008 of the appellate court in the same case denying the Motion for Reconsideration of
DusitHotel.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

1/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

Theantecedentfactsofthecaseareasfollows:

WONo.9,approvedbytheRegionalTripartiteWagesandProductivityBoard(RTWPB)of
theNationalCapitalRegion(NCR),tookeffecton5November2001.ItgrantsP30.00ECOLAto
particularemployeesandworkersofallprivatesectors,identifiedasfollowsinSection1thereof:

Section1.UpontheeffectivityofthisWageOrder,allprivatesectorworkersandemployees
in the National Capital Region receiving daily wage rates of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS
(P250.00) up to TWO HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P290.00) shall receive an emergency cost of
living allowance in the amount of THIRTY PESOS (P30.00) per day payable in two tranches as
follows:

AmountofECOLAEffectivity
P15.005November2001
P15.001February2002

On20March2002,respondentNationalUnionofWorkersinHotel,RestaurantandAllied
IndustriesDusitHotelNikkoChapter(Union),throughitsPresident,ReynaldoC.Rasing(Rasing),
[4]
sent a letter to Director Alex Maraan (Dir. Maraan) of the Department of Labor and
EmploymentNationalCapitalRegion(DOLENCR),reportingthenoncomplianceofDusitHotel
with WO No. 9, while there was an ongoing compulsory arbitration before the National Labor
RelationsCommission(NLRC)duetoabargainingdeadlockbetweentheUnionandDusitHotel
and requesting immediate assistance on this matter. On 24 May 2002, Rasing sent Dir. Maraan
anotherletterfollowinguphispreviousrequestforassistance.

ActingonRasingsletters,theDOLENCRsentLaborStandardsOfficerEstrellitaNatividad
(LSO Natividad) to conduct an inspection of Dusit Hotel premises on 24 April 2002. LSO
[5]
NatividadsInspectionResultsReport dated2May2002stated:

Based on interviews/affidavits of employees, they are receiving more than P290.00 average
dailyratewhichisexemptedinthecomplianceofWageOrderNCR09

Remarks: There is an ongoing negotiation under Case # NCMBNCRNS1236901 &

NCMBNCRNS0101902nowforwardedtotheNLRCofficeforthecompulsoryarbitration.

NOTE:Payrollstofollowlateruponrequestincludingpositionpaperof[DusitHotel].

[6]
By virtue of Rasings request for another inspection, LSO Natividad conducted a second
[7]
inspectionofDusitHotelpremiseson29May2002.InherInspectionResultsReport dated 29
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

2/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

May2002,LSONatividadnoted:

*Nonpresentationofrecords/payrolls

*Based on submitted payrolls & list of union members by NUWHRAINDUSIT HOTEL

NIKKO Chapter, there are one hundred fortyfour (144) affected in the implementation of Wage
OrderNo.NCR09>ECOLAcoveringtheperiodsfromNov.5/01topresent.

Accordingly,theDOLENCRissuedaNoticeofInspectionResult directing Dusit Hotel to

effect restitution and/or correction of the noted violations within five days from receipt of the
Notice,andtosubmitanyquestiononthefindingsofthelaborinspectorwithinthesameperiod,
otherwise, an order of compliance would be issued. The Notice of Inspection Result was duly
[8]
receivedbyDusitHotelAssistantPersonnelManagerRogelioSantos.

[9]
Inthemeantime,theNLRCrenderedaDecision dated9October2002inNLRCNCRCC
No.00021502the compulsory arbitration involving the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
deadlock between Dusit Hotel and the Union granting the hotel employees the following wage
increases,inaccordwiththeCBA:

EffectiveJanuary1,2001P500.00/month

EffectiveJanuary1,2002P550.00/month

EffectiveJanuary1,2003P600.00/month

On22October2002,basedontheresultsofthesecondinspectionofDusitHotelpremises,
[10]
DOLENCR, through Dir. Maraan, issued the Order
directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its
employees the total amount of P1,218,240.00, corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO
[11]
No.9plus,thepenaltyofdoubleindemnity,pursuanttoSection12ofRepublicActNo.6727,
[12]
asamendedbyRepublicActNo.8188,
whichprovides:

Sec.12.Anyperson,corporation,trust,firm,partnership,associationorentitywhichrefuses
orfailstopayanyoftheprescribedincreasesoradjustmentsinwageratesmadeinaccordancewith
this Act shall be punished by a fine not less than Twentyfive thousand pesos (P25,000) nor more
than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor
morethanfour(4)yearsorbothsuchfindandimprisonmentatthediscretionofthecourt:Provided,
ThatanypersonconvictedunderthisActshallnotbeentitledtothebenefitsprovidedforunderthe
ProbationLaw.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

3/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

The employer concerned shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to double the
unpaidbenefitsowingtotheemployees:Provided,Thatpaymentofindemnityshallnotabsolve
theemployerfromthecriminalliabilityunderthisAct.

If the violation is committed by a corporation, trust or firm, partnership, association or any

other entity, the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the entitys responsible officers
including but not limited to the president, vice president, chief executive officer, general manager,
managingdirectororpartner.(Emphasisours.)

[13]
Dusit Hotel filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the DOLENCR Order dated 22
October 2002, arguing that the NLRC Decision dated 9 October 2002, resolving the bargaining
deadlockbetweenDusitHotelandtheUnion,andawardingsalaryincreasesundertheCBAtohotel
employees retroactive to 1 January 2001, already rendered the DOLENCR Order moot and
academic.WiththeincreaseinthesalariesofthehotelemployeesorderedbytheNLRCDecisionof
9 October 2002, along with the hotel employees share in the service charges, the 144 hotel
employees, covered by the DOLENCR Order of 22 October 2002, would already be receiving
salariesbeyondthecoverageofWONo.9.

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of Dusit Hotel, DOLENCR issued a

[14]
Resolution
on 27 December 2002, setting aside its earlier Order dated 22 October 2002 for
being moot and academic, in consideration of the NLRC Decision dated 9 October 2002 and
dismissingthecomplaintoftheUnionagainstDusitHotel,fornoncompliancewithWONo.9,for
lackofmerit.

[15]
The Union appealed
the 27 December 2002 Resolution before the DOLE Secretary
maintainingthatthewageincreasesgrantedbytheNLRCDecisionof9October2002shouldnot
bedeemedascompliancebyDusitHotelwithWONo.9.

[16]
TheDOLE,throughActingSecretaryManuelG.Imson,issuedanOrder
dated22 July
2004 granting the appeal of the Union. The DOLE Secretary reasoned that the NLRC Decision
dated 9 October 2002 categorically declared that the wage increase under the CBA finalized
betweenDusitHotelandtheUnionshallnotbecreditedascompliancewithWOsNo.8andNo.9.
Furthermore,Section1ofRuleIVoftheRulesImplementingWONo.9,whichprovidesthatwage
increases granted by an employer in an organized establishment within three months prior to the
effectivityofsaidWageOrdershallbecreditedascompliancewiththeECOLAprescribedtherein,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

4/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

appliesonlywhenanagreementtothiseffecthasbeenforgedbetweenthepartiesoraprovisionin
theCBAallowingsuchcreditingexists.Hence,theDOLESecretaryheld:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theappealisherebyGRANTED.TheResolutiondated
December27,2002issuedbytheRegionalDirectorisSETASIDEandhisOrderdatedOctober22,
2002isherebyREINSTATED.DusitHotelNikkoManilaisherebyorderedtopayitsOneHundred
FortyFour(144)employeestheaggregateamountofOneMillionTwoHundredEighteenThousand
Two Hundred Forty Pesos (Php1,218,240.00) representing their Emergency Cost Of Living
Allowance (ECOLA) under Wage Order No. NCR09 and the penalty of double indemnity under
[17]
RepublicAct.No.8188,asamended.

[18]
Expectedly,DusitHotelsoughtreconsideration
ofthe22July2004OrderoftheDOLE
[19]
Secretary.InanOrder
dated16 December 2004, the DOLE Secretary granted the Motion for
ReconsiderationofDusitHotelandreversedhisOrderdated22July2004.TheDOLESecretary,in
reversinghisearlierOrder,admittedthathehaddisregardedthereinthatthewageincreasegranted
bytheNLRCinthelattersDecisiondated9October2002retroactedto1January2001.The said
wageincrease,takentogetherwiththehotelemployeesshareintheservicechargesofDusitHotel,
alreadyconstitutedcompliancewiththeWONo.9.AccordingtotheDOLESecretary:

To stress, the overriding consideration of Wage Order NCR09 is quite simple, to provide
workerswithimmediatereliefthroughthegrantofEmergencyCostofLivingAllowancetoenable
them to cope with the increases in the cost of living. Conformably with the evident intent of the
subject Wage Order as expressed in its preamble, this Office finds that the substantial share in the
servicechargebeingreceivedbytheemployeesofappellee(DusitHotel)morethancompensatesfor
[20]
theEmergencyCostofLivingAllowanceofP30.00givenunderWageOrderNCR09.

[21]
ItwasthentheturnoftheUniontofileaMotionforReconsideration,
butitwasdenied
[22]
bytheDOLESecretaryinanOrder
dated13October2005.TheDOLESecretaryfoundthatit
would be unjust on the part of Dusit Hotel if the hotel employees were to enjoy salary increases
retroactiveto1January2001,pursuanttotheNLRCDecisiondated9October2002,andyetsaid
salaryincreaseswouldbedisregardedindeterminingcompliancebythehotelwithWONo.9.

TheUnionappealedtheOrdersdated16December2004and13October2005oftheDOLE
[23]
SecretarywiththeCourtofAppealsviaaPetitionforReview
under Rule 43 of the Rules of
[24]
Court.On10September2007,theCourtofAppealspromulgateditsDecision
rulinginfavorof
the Union. Referring to Section 13 of WO No. 9, the Court of Appeals declared that wage
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

5/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

increases/allowances granted by the employer shall not be credited as compliance with the
prescribedincreaseinthesameWageOrder,unlesssoprovidedinthelawortheCBAitselfand
therewasnosuchprovisioninthecaseatbar.TheappellatecourtalsofoundthatDusitHotelfailed
tosubstantiateitspositionthatreceiptbyitsemployeesofsharesintheservicechargescollectedby
the hotel was to be deemed substantial compliance by said hotel with the payment of ECOLA
requiredbyWONo.9.TheCourtofAppealsadjudgedthatDusitHotelshouldbeliablefordouble
indemnity for its failure to comply with WO No. 9 within five days from receipt of notice. The
appellate court stressed that ECOLA is among the laborers financial gratifications under the law,
and is distinct and separate from benefits derived from negotiation or agreement with their
employer.Intheend,theCourtofAppealsdisposed:

WHEREFORE, finding the existence of grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
assailedOrdersdatedDecember16,2004andOctober13,2005,thesameareherebyREVERSED
ANDSETASIDEandtheOrderdatedJuly22,2004oftherespondentDOLEActingSecretaryin
[25]
OSLS063020030105isREINSTATED.

[26]
TheMotionforReconsideration
ofDusitHotelwasdeniedforlackofmeritbytheCourt
[27]
ofAppealsinitsResolution
dated4March2008.

[28]
Hence,DusitHotelsoughtrecoursefromthisCourtbyfilingtheinstantPetition,
atthe
crux of which is the sole issue of whether the 144 hotel employees were still entitled to ECOLA
grantedbyWONo.9despitetheincreasesintheirsalaries,retroactiveto1January2001,ordered
byNLRCinthelattersDecisiondated9October2002.

Section1ofWONo.9veryplainlystatedthatonlyprivatesectorworkersandemployeesin
the NCR receiving daily wage rates of P250.00 to P290.00 shall be entitled to ECOLA.
Necessarily, private sector workers and employees receiving daily wages of more than P290.00
were no longer entitled to ECOLA. The ECOLA was to be implemented in two tranches:
P15.00/daybeginning5November2001andthefullamountofP30.00/daybeginning1February
2002.

WONo.9tookeffecton5November2001.TheDecisionrenderedbytheNLRCon9 October
2002 ordered Dusit Hotel to grant its employees salary increases retroactive to 1 January 2001
and1January2002.IndeterminingwhichofitsemployeeswereentitledtoECOLA,DusitHotel
usedasbasesthedailysalariesofitsemployees,inclusiveoftheretroactivesalaryincreases. The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

6/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

UnionprotestedandinsistedthatthebasesforthedeterminationofentitlementtoECOLAshould
bethehotelemployeesdailysalaries,exclusiveoftheretroactivesalaryincreases.Accordingtothe
Union,DusitHotelcannotcreditthesalaryincreasesascompliancewithWONo.9.

MuchoftheconfusioninthiscasearisesfromtheinsistenceoftheUniontoapplySection13
ofWONo.9,whichstates:

Section13.Wageincreases/allowancesgrantedbyanemployerinanorganizedestablishment
withthree(3)monthspriortotheeffectivityofthisOrdershallbecreditedascompliancewiththe
prescribedincreasesetforthherein,providedthecorrespondingbargainingagreementprovision
allowing creditability exists. In the absence of such an agreement or provision in the CBA, any
increasegrantedbytheemployershallnotbecreditedascompliancewiththeincreaseprescribedin
thisOrder.

In unorganized establishments, wage increases/allowances granted by the employer within

three(3)monthspriortotheeffectivityofthisOrdershallbecreditedascompliancetherewith.

Incasetheincreasesgivenarelessthantheprescribedadjustment,theemployershallpaythe
difference. Such increases shall not include anniversary increases, merit wage increases and those
resultingfromtheregularizationorpromotionofemployees.(Emphasisours.)

TheUnionharpsonthefactthatitsCBAwithDusitHoteldoesnotcontainanyprovisionon
creditability, thus, Dusit Hotel cannot credit the salary increases as compliance with the ECOLA
requiredtobepaidunderWONo.9.

TherelianceoftheUniononSection13ofWONo.9inthiscaseismisplaced.DusitHotelis
notcontendingcreditabilityofthehotelemployeessalaryincreasesascompliancewiththeECOLA
mandatedbyWONo.9.CreditabilitymeansthatDusitHotelwouldhavebeenallowedtopayits
employeesthesalaryincreasesinplaceoftheECOLArequiredbyWONo.9.This,however,isnot
whatDusitHotelisafter.ThepositionofDusitHotelismerelythatthesalaryincreasesshouldbe
takenintoaccountindeterminingtheemployeesentitlementtoECOLA.Theretroactiveincreases
could raise the hotel employees daily salary rates above P290.00, consequently, placing said
employeesbeyondthecoverageofWONo.9.Evidently,Section13ofWONo.9oncreditability
isirrelevantandinapplicableherein.

TheCourtagreeswithDusitHotelthattheincreasedsalariesoftheemployeesshouldbeusedas
basesfordeterminingwhethertheywereentitledtoECOLAunderWONo.9.Theveryfactthatthe
NLRC decreed that the salary increases of the Dusit Hotel employees shall be retroactive to 1
January2001and1January2002,meansthatsaidemployeeswerealreadysupposedtoreceivethe
saidsalaryincreasesbeginningonthesedates.Theincreasedsalariesweretherightfulsalariesof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

7/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

thehotelemployeesby1January2001,thenagainby1January2002.Althoughbelatedlypaid,the
hotelemployeesstillreceivedtheirsalaryincreases.

It is only fair and just, therefore, that in determining entitlement of the hotel employees to
ECOLA,theirincreasedsalariesby1January 2001 and 1 January 2002 shall be made the bases.
There is no logic in recognizing the salary increases for one purpose (i.e., to recover the unpaid
amountsthereof)butnotfortheother(i.e.,todetermineentitlementtoECOLA).FortheCourtto
rule otherwise would be to sanction unjust enrichment on the part of the hotel employees, who
would be receiving increases in their salaries, which would place them beyond the coverage of
Section1ofWONo.9,yetstillbepaidECOLAundertheverysameprovision.

TheNLRC,initsDecisiondated9October2002,directedDusitHoteltoincreasethesalaries
of its employees by P500.00 per month, retroactive to 1 January 2001. After applying the said
[29]
salaryincrease,only82hotelemployees
wouldhavehaddailysalaryratesfallingwithinthe
rangeofP250.00toP290.00.Thus,upontheeffectivityofWONo.9on5November2001, only
thesaid82employeeswereentitledtoreceivethefirsttranchofECOLA,equivalenttoP15.00per
day.

TheNLRCDecisiondated9October2002alsoorderedDusitHoteltoeffectasecondround
of increase in its employees salaries, equivalent to P550.00 per month, retroactive to 1 January
2002.Asaresultofthisincrease,thedailysalaryratesofallhotelemployeeswerealreadyabove
P290.00. Consequently, by 1 January 2002, no more hotel employee was qualified to receive
ECOLA.

Given that 82 hotel employees were entitled to receive the first tranch of ECOLA from 5
November2001to31December2001,theCourtmustaddresstheassertionofDusitHotelthatthe
receiptbysaidhotelemployeesoftheirsharesintheservicechargesalreadyconstitutedsubstantial
compliancewiththeprescribedpaymentofECOLAunderWONo.9.

TheCourtrulesinthenegative.
Itmustbenotedthatthehotelemployeeshavearighttotheirshareintheservicechargescollected
byDusitHotel,pursuanttoArticle96oftheLaborCodeof1991,towit:

Article 96. Service charges. All service charges collected by hotels, restaurants and similar
establishmentsshallbedistributedattherateofeightyfivepercent(85%)forallcoveredemployees
and fifteen percent (15%) for management. The share of employees shall be equally distributed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

8/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

among them. In case the service charge is abolished, the share of the covered employees shall be
consideredintegratedintheirwages.

Since Dusit Hotel is explicitly mandated by the aforequoted statutory provision to pay its
employeesandmanagementtheirrespectivesharesintheservicechargescollected,thehotelcannot
claimthatpaymentthereoftoits82employeesconstitutesubstantialcompliancewiththepayment
ofECOLAunderWONo.9.Undoubtedly,thehotelemployeesrighttotheirsharesintheservice
chargescollectedbyDusitHotelisdistinctandseparatefromtheirrighttoECOLAgratificationby
thehotelofonedoesnotresultinthesatisfactionoftheother.

TheCourt,however,findsnobasistoholdDusitHotelliablefordoubleindemnity.UnderSection
[30]
2(m)ofDOLEDepartmentOrderNo.10,Seriesof1998,
theNoticeofInspectionResultshall
specify the violations discovered, if any, together with the officers recommendation and
computation of the unpaid benefits due each worker with an advice that the employer shall be
liablefordoubleindemnityincaseofrefusalorfailuretocorrecttheviolationwithinfivecalendar
daysfromreceiptofnotice.AcarefulreviewoftheNoticeofInspectionResultdated29May2002,
issuedhereinbytheDOLENCRtoDusitHotel,revealsthatthesaidNoticedidnotcontainsuchan
advice. Although the Notice directed Dusit Hotel to correct its noted violations within five days
from receipt thereof, it was not sufficiently apprised that failure to do so within the given period
wouldalreadyresultinitsliabilityfordoubleindemnity.ThelackofadvicedeprivedDusitHotelof
theopportunitytodecideandactaccordinglywithinthefivedayperiod,astoavoidthepenaltyof
double indemnity. By 22 October 2002, the DOLENCR, through Dir. Maraan, already issued its
Order directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its employees the total amount of P1,218,240.00,
corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO No. 9 plus the penalty of double indemnity,
[31]
pursuanttoSection12ofRepublicActNo.6727,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.8188.

AlthoughtheCourtismindfulofthefactthatlaborembracesindividualswithaweakerand
unletteredpositionasagainstcapital,itisequallymindfuloftheprotectionthatthelawaccordsto
capital.WhiletheConstitutioniscommittedtothepolicyofsocialjusticeandtheprotectionofthe
workingclass,itshouldnotbesupposedthateverylabordisputewillbeautomaticallydecidedin
favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and
[32]
enforcementintheinterestofsimplefairplay.

In sum, the Court holds that the retroactive salary increases should be taken into account in the
determinationofwhichhotelemployeeswereentitledtoECOLAunderWONo.9.Afterapplying
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

9/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

the salary increases retroactive to 1 January 2001, 82 hotel employees still had daily salary rates
betweenP250.00andP290.00,thus,entitlingthemtoreceivethefirsttranchofECOLA,equivalent
to P15.00 per day, beginning 5 November 2001, the date of effectivity of WO No. 9, until 31
December2001.Followingthesecondroundofsalaryincreasesretroactiveto1January2002, all
thehotelemployeeswerealreadyreceivingdailysalaryratesaboveP290.00,hence,leavingnoone
qualified to receive ECOLA. Receipt by the 82 hotel employees of their shares from the service
chargescollectedbyDusitHotelshallnotbedeemedpaymentoftheirECOLAfrom5 November
2001to31December2001.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 10 September 2007 and the
Resolution dated 4 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 92798 are hereby
AFFIRMED WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: (1) Dusit Hotel Nikko is
ORDEREDtopayits82employeeswho,afterapplyingthesalaryincreasesfor1January2001,
haddailysalariesofP250.00toP290.00thefirsttranchofEmergencyCostofLivingAllowance,
equivalenttoP15.00perday,from5November2001to31December2001,withinten(10)days
fromfinalityofthisDecisionand(2)thepenaltyfordoubleindemnityisDELETED.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

10/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*Per Special Order No. 679, dated 3August 2009, signed by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno designatingAssociate Justice Conchita
CarpioMoralestoreplaceAssociateJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago,whoisonofficialleave.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

11/12

10/2/2016

G.R.No.181972

**PerSpecialOrderNo.681,dated3August2009,signedbyChiefJusticeReynatoS.PunodesignatingAssociateJusticeMinitaV.
ChicoNazarioasActingChairpersontoreplaceAssociateJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago,whoisonofficialleave.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeSesinandoE.VillonwithAssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.andNoelG.Tijam.,concurring.Rollo,
pp.7282.
[2]
OwnedbypetitionerPhilippineHoteliers,Inc.(PHI).AnyreferenceintheDecisiontoDusitHotel,mustalsobedeemedapplicableto
PHI.
[3]
Rollo,pp.8490.
[4]
Id.at92.
[5]
Rollo,p.94.
[6]
CArollo,p.53.
[7]
Rollo,p.181.
[8]
Id.at94.
[9]
Id.at103149.
[10]
Id.at97102.
[11]
WageRationalizationAct.
[12]
DoubleIndemnityAct.
[13]
Id.at150167.
[14]
Id.at183185.
[15]
Id.at186199.
[16]
Id.at202206.
[17]
Id.at205206.
[18]
Id.at207227.
[19]
Id.at412421.
[20]
Id.at415.
[21]
Id.at422439.
[22]
Id.at442443.
[23]
Id.at444474.
[24]
Id.at7282.
[25]
Id.at81.
[26]
CArollo,pp.487516.
[27]
Id.at578584.
[28]
Rollo,pp.2667.
[29]
Id.at923925.
[30]
GuidelinesontheImpositionofDoubleIndemnityforNonCompliancewiththePrescribedIncreasesorAdjustmentsinWageRates.
[31]
Constitutesthecomplianceorder,definedunderSection2(n)ofDOLEDepartmentOrderNo.10astheorderissuedbytheregional
director,afterduenoticeandhearingconductedbyhimselforadulyauthorizedhearingofficerfindingthataviolationhasbeen
committedanddirectingtheemployertopaytheamountdueeachworkerwithinten(10)calendardaysfromreceiptthereof.
[32]
Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corporation, 240 Phil. 373, 377 (1987) Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc. v. National Labor
RelationsCommission,G.R.No.88683,18October1990,190SCRA747,752.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/181972.htm

12/12