ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC VS ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY

 Petitioner argues that to allow the deductions stipulated in the Agreement of October 29, 1952
from the minimum daily wage of P4 would be a waiver of the minimum wage fixed by the law
and hence null and void, since RA 602, Sec 20 provides that “no agreement or contract, oral or
written, to accept a lower wage or less than any other under this Act, shall be valid”. – An
agreement to deduct certain facilities received by the labourers is not a waiver of the minimum
wage. Wage, as defined by Sec 2 o RA 602, “includes the fair and reasonable value as
determined by the Sec of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by
the employer to the employee” Thus, the law permits the deduction of such facilities from the
laborer’s minimum wage, as long as their value is “fair and reasonable”

 “Supplements” constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or

received by the labourers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. Facilities are iems
of expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence, so that by
express provision of the law, they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer
are deductible therefrom since if they are not so furnished, the labourer would spend and pay
for them just the same. It is thus clear that the facilities mentioned in the agreement do not
come within the the term “supplements as used in Art. 19 of the Minimum Wage Law.
STATES MARINE CORP VS CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOC INC

 It is argued that the food or meals given to the deck officers, marine engineers and unlicensed
crew members in question, were mere “facilities” which should be deducted from wages, and
not “supplements” which, according to said section 19, should not be deducted from such
wages, because it is provided therein: “Nothing in this Act shall deprive an employee of the
right to such fair wage … or in reducing supplements furnished on the date of enactment.” In
the case of Atok-Big Wedge Assn. v. Atok-Big Wedge Co., L-7349, July 19, 1955; 51 O.G. 3432,
the two terms are defined as follows —

 “Supplements”, therefore, constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by
the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. “Facilities”, on the other hand, are items of
expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence so that by express provision of
law (Sec. 2[g]), they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom,
since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.

 Facilities may be charged to or deducted from wages. Supplements, on the other hand, may
not be so charged. Thus, when meals are freely given to crew members of a vessel while they
were on the high seas, not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance
of the health and efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage, the deductions made
therefrom for the meals should be returned to them, and the operator of the coastwise vessels
affected should continue giving the same benefit.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS NLRC & TRADERS ROYAL BANK UNION

 a bonus is “a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient has no right to demand
as a matter of right” (Aragon v Cebu Portland) “It is something given in addition to what is
ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient” The granting of a bonus is basically a
management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer “who may not be
obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the
employee’s basic salaries or wages”
 The matter of giving them bonuses over and above their lawful salaries and allowances is
entirely dependent on the profits, if any, realized by the Bank from its operations during the past
year.
 The contention of he Union that the granting of bonuses to the employees had ripened into a
company practice that may not be adjusted to the prevailing financial condition of the Bank
has no legal and moral bases. Its fiscal condition having declined, the Bank may not be forced
to distribute bonuses which it can no longer afford to pay and, in effect, be penalized for its
past generosity to its employees.
 Private respondent’s contention that the decrease in the midyear and yer-end bonuses
constituted a diminution of the employees’ salaries, is not correct, for bonuses are not part of
labor standards in the same class as salaries, cost of living allowances, holiday pay, and leave
benefits, which are provided by the Labor Code.
GAA VS CA - ISSUE: Whether or not salaries may be garnished.

Yes. Article 1708 of the Civil Code reads: The laborer’s wage shall not be subject to execution or
attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance.

Gaa’s functions as El Grande Hotel’s manager include “responsible for planning, directing, controlling,
and coordinating the activities of all housekeeping personnel”; “ensure the cleanliness, maintenance and
orderliness of all guest rooms, function rooms, public areas, and the surroundings of the hotel.” Gaa is a
responsibly placed employee and not a mere laborer. As such, Gaa is not receiving a laborer’s wage. She
is receiving salary.

In its broadest sense, the word “laborer” includes everyone who performs any kind of mental or physical labor, but
as commonly and customarily used and understood, it only applies to one engaged in some form of manual or
physical labor. That is the sense in which the courts generally apply the term as applied in exemption acts, since
persons of that class usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support and so are more
in need of the exemption than are other.

Article 1708 used the word “wages” and not “salary” in relation to “laborer” when it declared what are to be
exempted from attachment and execution. The term “wages” as distinguished from “salary”, applies to the
compensation for manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times, and measured by the day, week, month,
or season, while “salary” denotes a higher degree of employment, or a superior grade of services, and implies a
position of office: by contrast, the term wages ” indicates considerable pay for a lower and less responsible
character of employment, while “salary” is suggestive of a larger and more important service.

Only wages, according to the law, are exempt from execution. Salaries may be subject to execution.
SMTFM-UWP V NLRC