7. As the Labor Arbiter, I will rule in favor of Adonis.

Even if food and lodging were provided and considered as facilities by the employer, the
employer could not deduct such facilities from its workers wages without compliance with law
(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana,458 SCRA 609 [2005]).

In Mabeza v. NLRC (271 SCRA 670[1997]), the Supreme Court held that the employer
simply cannot deduct the value from the employees wages without satisfying the following:
(a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade;
b) the provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the
employee; and
(c) the facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value.

8. Yes, Dodong is entitled to it pursuant to the concept of non-diminution of benefits.

As a general rule, benefits given to the employees cannot be taken back or reduced

unilaterally by the employer because the benefit has become part of the employment contract,
whether written or unwritten EXCEPT to correct an error, otherwise, if the error is not
corrected for a reasonable time, it ripens into a company policy and employees can demand it
as a matter of right.

The concept of non-diminution of benefits is applicable if it is shown that the grant of

the benefit:

1. Is based on an express policy of the law;

2. Has ripened into practice over a long period of time; and
3. The practice is consistent and deliberate and is not due to an error in the
construction/application of a doubtful or difficult question of law.

9. May separation pay be considered as wages?

No, separation pay may not be considered as wages.

Separation pay, as generally understood, refers to the amount due to the employee who has
been terminated from service for causes authorized by law (not due to employees fault or wrong-doing)
such as installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing
or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking.
Separation pay is intended to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period he
is looking for another employment. (See Gabuay v. Oversea Paper Supply, G.R. No. 148837,
August 13, 2004.)

Five Instances when Separation Pay is due to Employee

There are at least five instances in which an employee is entitled to payment of separation pay
upon severance of employment:

1. When the termination of employment is due to causes authorized by law, such as

installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the
closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking. This is provided
under Art. 283, Labor Code of the Philippines. The provision states, viz.:

Article 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor
and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of
termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected
thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay or to at
least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment
to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be
equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

2. When the severance of employment is cause by a disease, particularly when the

employee is found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment
is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as the health of his co-
employees. This is found in Art. 284, ibid., the full text states, viz.:

Article 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services of an
employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as the health of his co-
employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one month salary or
to one-half month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six
months being considered as one whole year.
 3. When the termination from service of the employee has been declared illegal, but his
reinstatement to his former position is no longer feasible for some valid reason, e.g.,
when reinstatement is rendered impossible due to subsequent closure of business, or
when the relationship between employer and employee has become strained (doctrine
of strained relations). (See Gabuay v. Oversea Paper Supply, G.R. No. 148837, August 13,
2004.)

4. In case of pre-termination of employment contract in job-contracting arrangement.

(SeeDepartment Order 18-02, Rules Implementing Article 106 to 109 of the Labor Code.)

5. In exceptional cases, where separation pay is awarded as a measure of social or

compassionate justice. Here, payment of separation pay may be ordered by the court
even if the dismissal from service is found to have been for valid or just cause, i.e., even
if the employee is found to have been at fault. (See PLDT vs. NLRC, No. L-80609, August
23, 1988.)

10. Vague question

11. May A validly refuse the plant managers directive?

Yes, A may validly refuse the plant managers direction.

The normal hours of work should not exceed 8 hours in a general working day but the
same may be shortened, as in this case, provided that no corresponding reduction is made on
the employeess wage

In establishments where work is in different shifts, work done by the employee beyond
his shift is considered overtime work which should be compensated accordingly.

Generally, no employee may be compelled to render overtime work against his will in
instances provided in Article 89 of the Labor Code.

Art. 89. Emergency overtime work. Any employee may be required by the employer to
perform overtime work in any of the following cases:

1. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been
declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive;
 2. When it is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of imminent danger to
public safety due to an actual or impending emergency in the locality caused by serious
accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity;

3. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or equipment, in

order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other cause of similar
nature;

4. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; and

5. Where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth hour is
necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of
the employer.

Any employee required to render overtime work under this Article shall be paid the additional
compensation required in this Chapter.

In these cases, an employee cannot validly refuse to render overtime work if any of the
aforementioned circumstances is present, otherwise, the same may constitute insubordination
for which he may be subjected to disciplinary action.

Here, nothing shows that these circumstances are present. Thus, A may validly refuse
the plant managers directive.