TABIAN, JIEZA SYRA A.

Our Haus Realty Corporation vs Parian et., al.

GR. NO. 204651, August 6, 2014

FACTS:

Respondents were all laborers working for petitioner Our Haus Realty Development
Corporation, a company engaged in the construction business.

Respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for underpayment of their daily wages
which is below from the prescribed Wage Order from 2007-2010. However, petitioner argued
that they complied with the law’s minimum requirement by subsidizing their meals 3 times a day,
and giving them free lodging near the construction project they were assigned to.

On the other hand, respondents contested that those subsidiaries should not be considered in
determining their wages’ total amount since the requirements set under Section 4 of DOLE
Memorandum Circular No. 2 were not complied with.

ISSUE:

Is the petitioner complied with the requirements for the deductibility of the value of the facilities?

LAW APPLICABLE:

Section 4 of DOLE Memorandum Circular No. 2 provides that the minimum wage rates shall
be the basic, cash wages without deducting there from whatever benefits, supplements or
allowances which the employees enjoy free of charge aside from the basic pay.

CASE HISTORY:

 Labor Arbitration Ruling- The LA ruled in favor of Our Haus. He held that if the
reasonable values of the board and lodging would be taken into account, the
respondents’ daily wages would meet the minimum wage rate. As to the other benefits,
the LA found that the respondents were not able to substantiate their claims for it.

 NLRC Ruling- It reversed the decision of LA, Citing the case of Mayon Hotel &
Restaurant v. Adana, the NLRC noted that the respondents did not authorize Our Haus
in writing to charge the values of their board and lodging to their wages. Thus, the same
cannot be credited.

 CA’s Ruling- It affirmed NLRC’s ruling in toto.

RULING OF THE COURT:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The employer’s’ argument is a vain attempt to
circumvent the minimum wage law by trying to create a distinction where none exists. There is
no substantial distinction between deducting and charging a facility’s value from the employee’s
wage. Hence, the legal requirements for creditability apply to both.

Wherein, these requirements are (a) proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily
furnished by the trade; (b) the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in
writing by the employee; and (c) the facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value

OPINION

The court’s decision is correct in favoring the employees because the law is clear with DOLE’s
Memorandum. Wherein, the minimum wage rates shall be the basic, cash wages without
deducting there from whatever benefits, supplements or allowances which the employees enjoy
free of charge
TABIAN, JIEZA SYRA A.

SITA, ET. AL., vs THEODORE L. HULIGANGA

G.R. No. 215504, August 20, 2018.

FACTS:
Huliganga was hired by SITA as Technical Assistant to the Representative-Manager and
eventually became the Country Operating Officer, the highest accountable officer of SITA in
the Philippines and that was his current position at the time of his retirement. He received
his retirement benefits computed at 1.5 months of basic pay for each year of service.

Meanwhile, he filed a complaint against SITA for unfair labor practices, underpayment of
salary/wages etc. SITA alleges that he is a managerial employee and SITA’s retirement
benefits for managerial employees, which are different from those of the rank-and-file
employees, should apply to him.

ISSUE/S:
Is Huliganga a managerial employee?
Thus, the CBA-provided retirement benefit plan of SITA for rank-and-file employees
applicable to him?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Article 82 (2) of the Labor Code definition of a managerial employee. " refers to those
whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are
employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the
managerial staff.

Article 245 of the Labor Code prohibits managerial employees to be a member of a labor
organization.

Case History

LA Ruling: It favored SITA

NLRC Ruling: Denied the appeal of Huliganga.

CA’s Ruling: It partly granted Huliganga’s motion for reconsideration and granted deficiency
in his retirement benefit.

Ruling
Yes, Huliganga was a managerial employee. The Court held that it is an indisputable fact
that he was a managerial employee and as such, he is not entitled to the retirement benefits
exclusively granted to the rank-and-file employees under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.

Here, Huliganga has the burden of proving such practice but according to the Supreme
Court, he failed to sufficiently establish such practice; as the presented evidence, which is
an affidavit from the Administrative Assistant of SITA is insufficient because of the assistant’s
lack of competency to determine what is considered as company policy.

OPINION:
The Labor Code is very clear that managerial employees are not allowed to associate
themselves with labor organizations. The case provides that Huliganga, as the highest
accountable officer of SITA is considered as managerial employee. Therefore, Article 245 of
the Labor Code applies to him.

Whereas, the said practice of the company of giving such benefits was not sufficiently
proven by petitioner, as he only presented an affidavit of then admin assistant.

Hence, I agree with the contention of the court.

TABIAN, JIEZA SYRA A.

Pigcaulan vs. Security and Credit Investigation, Inc

G.R. No. 173648, January 16, 2012

FACTS:

Canoy and Pigcaulan were both employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to
SCII’s different clients. They filed with the Labor Arbiter separate complaints for
underpayment of salaries and non-payment of overtime, holiday, rest day, service incentive
leave and 13th month pays which later on consolidated.

In support of their claim, they submitted their respective daily time records reflecting the
number of hours served and their wages for the same. They likewise presented itemized lists
of their claims for the corresponding periods served.

Respondents maintained that the petitioners were paid their just salaries and other benefit,
copies of payroll listings and lists of employees who received their 13th month pay.

ISSUE:

Are the petitioners entitled with overtime pay?

LAW APPLICABLE

Article 87 of the Labor Code. Overtime work. Work may be performed beyond eight hours
a day provided that the employee is paid for the overtime work an additional compensation
equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five percent thereof. Work performed
beyond eight hours on a holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional compensation
equivalent to the rate for the first eight hours on a holiday or rest day plus at least 30 percent
thereof.

CASE HISTORY:

LA Ruling: The arbiter awarded their money claims because the payroll listings presented by
the respondents did not prove that the petitioners were duly paid.

NLRC Ruling: The LA’s ruling was sustained.

CA’s Ruling: Its decision set aside the rulings of both the LA and NLRC after noting that
there were no factual and legal bases mentioned. Consequently, it dismissed all the
monetary claims of the petitioners.

RULE OF THE COURT:

The court find nothing contention that he had rendered service beyond eight hours to entitle
him to overtime pay and during Sundays to entitle him to rest day pay.

The handwritten itemized computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial

evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime pay. Thus, the
NLRC’s and LA’s ruling are affirmed.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the court in not awarding the petitioners their overtime pay. The
unsigned and unauthenticated documents can hardly be verified, making it as inadmissible
evidence in court.