Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/s

Letran Calamba Faculty v. NLRC
GR No. 156225
29 January 2008
Austria-Martinez, J.
In 1992, the Letran Calamba Faculty
and Employees Association filed
with the NLRC a complaint against
Colegio de San Juan de Letran,
Calamba for collection of various
monetary claims due to its members.
In 1994, the Association held a
strike.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
Association’s money claims, and also
dismissed Letran’s petition to declare
the strike illegal. The NLRC affirmed
the Labor Arbiter on appeal. The CA
also affirmed the NLRC.
W/N the CA can review the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the
NLRC in a special civil action for
certiorari.
W/N a teacher’s overload pay should
be considered in the computation of
his or her 13th month pay.
NO. The Court finds no error in the
ruling of the CA that since nowhere
in the petition is there any acceptable
demonstration that the LA or the
NLRC acted either with grave abuse
of discretion or without or in excess
of its jurisdiction, the appellate court
has no reason to look into the
correctness of the evaluation of
evidence which supports the labor
tribunals’ findings of fact.
NO. Overload pay should be
excluded in the computation of the
13th month pay of the Association’s
members. The peculiarity of an
overload lies in the fact that it may be
performed within the normal eight-
hour working day. This is the only
reason why the DOLE, in its
explanatory bulletin, finds it proper
to include a teacher’s overload pay in
the determination of his or her 13th
month pay. However, the DOLE
loses sight of the fact that even if it is
performed within the normal eight-
hour working day, an overload is still
an additional or extra teaching work
which is performed after the regular
teaching load has been completed.
Hence, any pay given as
compensation for such additional
work should be considered as extra
and not deemed as part of the regular
or basic salary.
The appellate court’s jurisdiction to
review a decision of the NLRC in a
petition for certiorari is confined to
issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion. An extraordinary
remedy, a petition for certiorari is
available only and restrictively in
truly exceptional cases. The sole
office of the writ of certiorari is the
correction of errors of jurisdiction
including the commission of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. The writ of
certiorari does not include correction
of the NLRC’s evaluation of the
evidence or of its factual findings.
Such findings are generally accorded
not only respect but also finality. A
party assailing such findings bears
the burden of showing that the
tribunal acted capriciously and
whimsically or in total disregard of
evidence material to the controversy,
in order that the extraordinary writ of
certiorari will lie.
Settled is the rule that the findings of
the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC
and the CA, are binding on the
Supreme Court, unless patently
erroneous.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts, and this applies with greater
force in labor cases. Findings of fact
of administrative agencies and quasi-
judicial bodies, which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only great
respect but even finality.

Basic wage means all remuneration

or earnings paid by an employer to a
worker for services rendered on
normal working days and hours but
does not include cost of living
allowances, 13th month pay or other
monetary benefits which are not
1

Philippine Airlines v. Ligan
GR No. 146408
30 April 2009
Carpio-Morales, J.
Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal
25 employees were terminated by
Synergy Services Corporation in the
guise of retrenchment. They filed a
complaint against Philippine Airlines
with regard to their regularization
and under-/non-payment of their
benefits with respect to their
termination.
13 out of the 25 terminated
employees also filed an illegal
dismissal case against PAL, the
resolution of which was held in
abeyance until the Court has done
ruling on the present case.
The Court ruled, for the present case,
in the employees’ favor, declaring
them as regular employees and
W/N the Decision of the Court NO. The Court’s prior decision ruled
ordering PAL to “accept” the on the regular status of the
respondents also means that they respondents, but said decision should
should be “reinstated” with be deemed without prejudice to the
backwages. resolution of the issue of illegal
dismissal in the proper case. The
Court could not take cognizance of
the validity of the eventual dismissal
of respondents because the matter of
just or authorized cause is beyond the
issues of the case.
considered as part of or integrated
into the regular salary of the workers.
Overload vs. Overtime: Overtime
work is work rendered in excess of
normal working hours of eight in a
day. Overload work is additional
work after completing the regular
workload, may be performed either
within or outside eight hours in a day,
and may or may not be considered
overtime work.
What are deemed not part of the
basic salary:
a. Cost of living allowances
granted pursuant to PD
525 and LOI 174;
b. Profit sharing payments;
c. All allowances and
monetary benefits which
are not considered or
integrated as part of the
regular basic salary of the
employee at the time of
the promulgation of the
Decree;
d. Overtime pay, earnings,
and other remunerations
as provided for by PD
851’s IRR.
The Court cannot take cognizance of
issues which were not brought up by
the parties of the case on appeal.
2
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal
directing PAL to accept them as
such.
PAL submitted a Motion for
Reconsideration, while the
respondents filed for a Motion for
Clarification and/or Reconsideration.
P.I. Manufacturing v. P.I. RA 6640 was signed into law on 10
Manufacturing Supervisors and December 1987, providing, among
Foremen Association others, an increase in the statutory
GR No. 167217 minimum wage and salary rates of
4 February 2008 employees and workers in the private
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. sector. It provides that the minimum
wage of workers and employees in
the private sector shall be increased
by P10, except those outside Manila
who shall receive an increase of P11,
provided those that are already
receiving above the minimum wage
shall receive an increase of P10. PI
Manufacturing Supervisors and
Foremen Association (PIMASUFA)
entered into a new CBA whereby the
supervisors were granted an increase
of P625 per month and the foremen,
P475 per month. The increases were
made to retroact to 12 May 1987, or
prior to the passage of RA 6640. The
application of said CBA resulted in a
wage distortion, which prompted the
PIMASUFA together with the
National Labor Union to file a case
against PIMA for violation of RA
6640. PIMA asseverates that the The
Company and Supervisors and
Foremen Contract absolves,
quitclaims, and releases the company
for any monetary claim that the
supervisors and the foremen may
have previous to the signing of the
agreement on 17 December 1987.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
PIMASUFA and ordered PIMA to
give the PIMASUFA members wage
increases equivalent to 13.5% of their
basic pay. The CA affirmed, but
raised the wage increase to 18.5%.
TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC In 1999, TSPIC and the Union
W/N the PIMASUFA, by signing
The Company and Supervisors and
Foremen Contract, has waived any
benefit it may have under RA 6640.
W/N the 13.5% increase in the
supervisors and foremen’s basic
salary should be increased to 18.5%
to correct the wage distortion brought
about by the implementation of RA
6640.
W/N charging the overpayments
NO. The increase resulting from any
wage distortion brought about by the
implementation of the new minimum
wage law is not waivable.
NO. Although there was a wage
distortion, the same was cured or
remedied when PIMASUFA entered
into the 1987 CBA with PIMA after
the effectivity of RA 6640. The 1987
CBA increased the monthly salaries
of the supervisors by P626 and P475,
which re-establishes the gap not only
between supervisors and foremen but
also between them and the rank-and-
file employees. Such gap as re-
established by virtue of the CBA is
more than a substantial compliance
with RA 6640. Moreover, requiring
PIMA to pay 18.5%, over and above
the negotiated wage increases
provided under the 1987 CBA, is
highly unfair and oppressive to the
former.
A CBA constitutes the law between
the parties when freely and
voluntarily entered into. It was not
shown that PIMASUFA was coerced
or forced by PIMA to sign the 1987
CBA. All of its 13 officers signed the
CBA with the assistance of NLU.
They signed it fully aware of the
passage of RA 6640. The duty to
bargain requires that the parties
deal with each other with open and
fair minds. PIMASUFA cannot
invoke the beneficial provisions of
the 1987 CBA but disregard the
concessions it voluntarily extends to
PIMA.
NO. Diminution of benefits is the
Quitclaims by laborers are generally
frowned upon as contrary to public
policy and are held to be ineffective
to bar recovery for the full measure
of the worker’s rights. The reason for
the rule is that the employer and the
employee do not stand on the same
footing.
Article 1149 of the Civil Code states
that: When the law sets, or authorizes
the setting of a minimum wage for
laborers, and a contract is agreed
upon by which a laborer accepts a
lower wage, he shall be entitled to
recover the deficiency.
According to RA 6727, wage
distortion is a situation where an
increase in prescribed wage results in
the elimination or severe contraction
of intentional quantitative differences
in wage or salary rates between and
among employee groups in an
establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied
in such wage structure based on
skills, length of service, or other
logical bases of differentiation.
Otherwise stated, wage distortion
means the disappearance or virtual
disappearance of pay differentials
between lower and higher positions
in an enterprise because of
compliance with a wage order.
The goal of collective bargaining is
the making of agreements that will
stabilize business conditions and fix
fair standards of working conditions.
The CBA is the law between the
3
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 2 – Stef Macapagal
Employees Union entered into a CBA for the years
GR No. 163419 2000 to 2004. The CBA included a
13 February 2008 provisions on
Velasco, Jr., J. 1. Yearly salary increases
starting January 2000
until January 2002.
2. Employees who acquire
regular employment status
within the year but after
the effectivity of a
particular increase shall
receive a proportionate
part of the increase upon
attainment of their regular
status.
On 1 January 2000, all the regular
rank-and-file employees of TSPIC
received a 10% increase in their
salary. On 6 October 2000, the
Regional Tripartite Wage and
Productivity Board issued Wage
Order No. 8 which raised the daily
minimum wage. More employees
reached the regular status and
received increases in their salaries as
mandated by the CBA. On January
2001, the TSPIC implemented the
new wage rates as mandated by the
CBA. 9 employees who were senior
to those who were recently
regularized received less wages.
Subsequently, the HR Department of
TSPIC notified 24 employees that
they were overpaid due to an error in
the automated payroll system, and
that these would be deducted from
their salaries in a staggered basis.
made to 16 employees through
staggered deductions from their
salaries amounts to diminution of
benefits.
unilateral withdrawal by
employer of benefits already enjoyed
by the employees.
the parties and they are obliged to
comply with its provisions. As in all
contracts, the parties in a CBA
There is diminution of benefits when
it is shown that:
1. The grant or benefit is
founded on a policy or has
ripened into a practice
over a long period;
2. The practice is consistent
and deliberate;
3. The practice is not due to
error in the construction
or application of a
doubtful or difficult
question of law;
4. The diminution or
discontinuance is done
unilaterally by the
employer.
An erroneously granted benefit may
be withdrawn without violating the
prohibition against non-diminution of
benefits.
Although it is the state’s
responsibility to afford protection to
labor, this policy should not be used
as an instrument to oppress
management and capital.
In resolving disputes between labor
and capital, fairness and justice
should always prevail.
Social justice does not mandate that
every dispute should be automatically
decided in favor of labor. In any case,
justice is to be granted to the
deserving and dispensed in the light
of the established facts and the
applicable law and doctrine.