CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS

Etom v Aroma Lodging House

FACTS: LAW:

This is a case for illegal dismissal and Article 4, Labor Code of the Philippines.
money claims All doubts in the implementation xxx of
the provisions of this code xxx shall be
Petitioner's version: resolved in favor of labor.
Respondent hired him as a "roomboy" in
1997 with a monthly salary of P2500 per
month. He was assigned to work from CASE HISTORY:
Monday to Saturday, including holidays.
His tasks included cleaning the lodging
house and washing towels and Labor Arbited: (L)
bedsheets.
NLRC: (L)
Sometime in 2008, he was barred by the
respondent from reporting to work CA: (M)
without affording him the opportunity to
SC: (L)
be informed of the cause of his
dismissal and the opportunity to be RULING:
heard.

Respondent's version:
Petitioner was hired in 2000
The petitioner was paid a salary which
was above the minimun wage, including
benefits granted by law. But despite the
benevolence showed to him, he still
caused trouble in the workplace through
acts of theft, a charge of rape and three
counts of attempted killings, and the
petitioner refused the "memo".
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner
underpaid?
The petitioner is underpaid. Under the
law, all doubts in the implementation of
the Labor Code must be resolved in
favor of labor. In the case at bar, the
respondent was NOT able to present
substantial evidence that it paid the
required minimum wage, 13th month
pay and holiday pay in favor of the
petitioner. The burden of proof rests with
the employer to prove such payment /
compliance. Since the respondent was
NOT able to do so, then the petitioner
shall benefit with the presumption that
he is, indeed, underpaid.
is
SLL International Cables vs. NLRC

Money Claims Cases Page 1

CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
FACTS:
This is a case for illegal dismissal and
money claims.
Private respondents Lopez, Zuniga and
Canete were employed were hired by
Petitioner as apprentice or trainee
cable/lineman and were paid the full
minimum wage and other benefits; they
did not report to work regularly, since
they are trainees, but came in
substitutes for other regular workers.
After their training, they were engaged
as Project Employees, upon which they
have to re-apply after every completion,
as alleged by the petitioner.
Due to economic problems, petitioner
was constrained to cut down the
overtime work of its workers. Thus,
when private respondents requested to
work overtime, Lagon refused.
Private respondents went home to Cebu
and filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of wages,
holiday pay, 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay as well as damages
and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners admitted private
respondents’ employment but claimed
that the latter were only project
employees for their services were
merely engaged for a specific project or
undertaking, hence they were not
entitled to the payment of Minimum
Wage.
Money Claims Cases
Petitioners further alleged that the food
allowance of P63.00 per day as well as
private respondents allowance for
lodging house, transportation, electricity,
water and snacks allowance should be
added to their basic pay.
With these, petitioners claimed that
private respondents received higher
wage rate than that prescribed in Rizal
and Manila.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the respondents are project
employees?
(2) Whether the respondents are entitled
to the payment of minimum wage?
(3) Whether the respondents'
allowances given by the petitioner
should be deducted to the wages given
to the former?
LAW:
(1) Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Department Order
No. 19: a project completion must be
filed with the nearest Public
Employment Office every time the
employment of Project Employees are
terminated.
(2) Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules to
Implement the Labor Code: specifically
enumerates those who are not covered
by the payment of minimum wage,
Page 2
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
which does not include Project
Employees in its enumeration; and Art.
98, Labor Code: This Title shall not
apply to farm tenancy or leasehold,
domestic service and persons working
in their respective homes in needle work
or in any cottage industry duly
registered in accordance with law.
(3) Section 1 of DOLE Memorandum
Circular No. 2: an employer may provide
subsidized meals and snacks to his
employees provided that the subsidy
shall not be less that 30% of the fair and
reasonable value of such facilities. In
such cases, the employer may deduct
from the wages of the employees not
more than 70% of the value of the meals
and snacks enjoyed by the latter,
provided that such deduction is with the
written authorization of the employees
concerned.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter: (L)
NLRC: (L)
CA: (L)
SC: (L)
RULING:
(1) No. Under the law, the failure to
comply with the compulsory requirement
to submit a report of termination to the
nearest Public Employment Office every
Money Claims Cases
time project employees employment
were terminated.
In the case at bar, the petitioner did not
comply with this requirement; hence, the
presumption is that the respondents
were not project employees but regular
employees.
(2) Yes. Under the law, as a general
rule, all employees are entitled to the
payment of minimum wage; while it is
true that exceptions exists, project
employees are not listed in those
exceptions. Hence, Project Employees
are entitled to the payment of minimum
wage.
(3) No. Under the law, before the value
of facilities can be deducted from the
employees’ wages, the following
requisites must all be attendant: (1)
proof must be shown that such facilities
are customarily furnished by the trade;
(2) the provision of deductible facilities
must be voluntarily accepted in writing
by the employee; and (3) facilities must
be charged at reasonable value. In the
case at bar, the items provided were
given "freely" (emphasis supplied) by
SLL for the purpose of maintaining the
efficiency and health of its workers while
they were working at their respective
projects.
JP Marketing Promotions vs CA
FACTS:
Page 3
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
This is a case for money claims filed by
the private respondents Noel Gonzales,
Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot.
The Petitioner is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of recruitment
and placement of workers.
The private respondents were employed
by petitioner as merchandisers and as
attendants to the display of California
Marketing Corporation (CMC), one of
petitioners clients.
JPL notified private respondents that
CMC would stop its direct
merchandising activity and they were
advised to wait for further notice as they
would be transferred to other clients
within 6 months.
Abesa and Gonzales applied with and
were employed by the store where they
were assigned to, particularly, by CMC.
Abesa and Gonzales filed before the
NLRC complaints for illegal dismissal,
praying for separation pay, 13th month
pay, service incentive leave pay and
payment for moral damages. Aninipot
filed a similar case thereafter. The
aforementioned complaints were filed
before the expiration of the 6- month
period.
The complaints were consolidated and
submitted for resolution.
ISSUE:
Money Claims Cases
(1) Whether the private respondents
were illegally dismissed?
(2) Whether the private respondents are
entitled to separation pay, 13th month
pay, and service incentive leave pay?
LAW:
(1) Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows
the bona fide suspension of the
operation of a business or undertaking
for a period not exceeding six (6)
months, wherein an
employee/employees are placed on the
so-called floating status. When that
floating status of an employee lasts for
more than six months, he may be
considered to have been illegally
dismissed from the service. Thus, he is
entitled to the corresponding benefits for
his separation, and this would apply to
suspension either of the entire business
or of a specific component thereof.
(2)
Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code:
separation pay is authorized only in
cases of dismissals due to any of these
reasons:
(a) installation of labor saving devices;
(b) redundancy;
(c) retrenchment;
(d) cessation of the employer's
business; and
Page 4
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
(e) when the employee is suffering from
a disease and his continued
employment is prohibited by law or is
prejudicial to his health and to the health
of his co-employees.
However, separation pay shall be
allowed as a measure of social justice in
those cases where the employee is
validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting
on his moral character, but only when
he was illegally dismissed.
Art. 95 of the Labor Code, is a yearly
leave benefit of five (5) days with pay,
enjoyed by an employee who has
rendered at least one year of service.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter: (M)
NLRC: (L)
CA: (L)
SC: (M)
RULING:
(1) No.
Under the law, a period of 6 months is
allowed for the temporary suspension of
the operation of the business.
In the case at bar, private respondents
sought employment from other
Money Claims Cases
establishments even before the
expiration of the six (6)-month period
provided by law. Also, there was no
dismissal to speak of. Private
respondents were simply not dismissed
at all. What they received from JPL was
not a notice of termination of
employment, but a memo informing
them of the termination of CMCs
contract with JPL. More importantly,
they were advised that they were to be
reassigned. At that time, there was no
severance of employment to speak of.
Thus, they were not dismissed at all.
(2) The Private Respondents are not
entitled to the payment of the
Separation pay, but are entitled to the
payment of the 13th month pay and
Service incentive Leave.
Under the law, there is an enumeration
of the cases wherein the awarding of
Separation Pay is just and proper, and a
unilateral act of severing the employer-
employee relationship committed by the
employee is not one of them. In the
case at bar, JPL did not terminate their
employment; the Private Respondents
themselves severed their relations with
JPL. Thus, they are not entitled to
separation pay.
Autobus Transport System vs
Bautista
FACTS:
Page 5
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
This is a complaint for illegal dismissal
and money claims.
Respondent Antonio Bautista has been
employed by petitioner Auto Bus
TransportSystems, Inc., since May
1995, as driver conductor with travel
routes Manila Tuguegarao via Baguio,
Baguio-Tuguegarao via Manila and
Manila-Tabuk via Baguio. Respondent
was paid on commission basis, 7% of
the total gross income per travel, on a
twice a month basis.
There are inspectors assigned by the
petitioner at strategic places who board
the bus and inspect the passengers, the
punched tickets, and the conductors
reports.
Respondent met an accident when he
made a sudden stop on a sharp curve
while driving Autobus #144. The
respondent alleged that the accident
happened due to the command given to
him to return to Isabela, and because he
was driving for almost 24 hours.
The respondent alleged that he was not
allowed to work until he fully paid 30%
of the amount of the cost of repair of the
damage caused to the buses (the bus
he was driving and the bus which
collided to it). After a month, the
management sent a letter of termination
to the respondent.
Hence, a complaint for illegal dismissal
with money claims for nonpayment of
13th month pay and service incentive
leave, one month after the dismissal.
Money Claims Cases
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
payment of 13th Month pay and Service
Incentive Leave.
LAW:
(1) Article 82, Labor Code: field
personnel shall refer to non-agricultural
employees who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of
business or branch office of the
employer and whose actual hours of
work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter: (L)
NLRC: (L)
CA: (L)
SC: (L)
RULING:
Yes, the respondent is entitled to the
payment of 13th Month pay and Service
Incentive Leave.
Under the law, field personnel are non-
agricultural employees who regularly
perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch
Page 6
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
office of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.
In the case at bar, in each and every
depot, there is always the Dispatcher
whose function is precisely to see to it
that the bus and its crew leave the
premises at specific times and arrive at
the estimated proper time. Bautista was
therefore under constant supervision
while in the performance of this work.
Hence, he is NOT a field personnel, and
is entitled to 13th Month Pay and
Service Incentive Leave.
Note: The complaint for illegal dismissal
was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter,
whose decision was affirmed by the
higher forums.
Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. vs.
Castro
FACTS:
This is a case for illegal dismissal and
money claims.
Respondent was employed by petitioner
as a call center agent. After six (6)
months, he was promoted to the Mentor
position, and thereafter to the Coach
position. A Coach is a team supervisor
who is in charge of dealing with
customer complaints which cannot be
resolved by call center agents.
Money Claims Cases
Respondent noticed that some of the
call center agents under him would often
make excuses to leave their work
stations. Their most common excuse
was that they would visit the companys
medical clinic. To verify that they were
not using the clinic as an alibi to cut their
work hours, respondent sent an e-mail
to the clinics personnel requesting for
the details of the agents alleged medical
consultation. His request was denied on
the ground that medical records of
employees are highly confidential and
can only be disclosed in cases involving
health issues, and not to be used to
build any disciplinary case against them.
Respondent received a notice requiring
him to explain why he should not be
penalized for: (1) violating Green Dot
Companys Policy and Procedure for
Direct Deposit Bank Info Request when
he accessed a customers online
account and then gave the latters
routing and reference numbers for direct
deposit; and (2) gravely abusing his
discretion when he requested for the
medical records of his team members.
Respondent did not deny allegations,
however, justified his actuations by
explaining that the customer begged
him to access the account because she
did not have a computer or an internet
access; and that he merely requested
for a patient tracker, not medical
records.
A poster showing SITEL's organizational
chart was posted on the companys
bulletin board, but respondents name
Page 7
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
and picture were conspicuously missing,
and the name and photo of another
employee appeared in the position
which respondent was supposedly
occupying.
On February 12, 2007, he received a
Notice of Termination.
These events prompted him to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal; non-
payment of overtime pay, rest day pay,
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay;
full backwages; damages; and attorneys
fees before the Labor Arbiter
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the respondent was illegally
dismissed; and
(2) Whether the respondent is entitled to
the money claims that he prays for.
LAW:
(2) Article 82, Labor Code: the
provisions of the Labor Code on working
conditions and rest periods shall not
apply to managerial employees.
Generally, managerial employees are
not entitled to overtime pay for services
rendered in excess of eight hours a day.
Money Claims Cases
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(c): Managerial
Employees are those:
1) The primary duty consists of the
performance of work directly related to
management of policies of their
employer;
2) Customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgment;
3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a
proprietor or a managerial employee
whose primary duty consists of
management of the establishment in
which he is employed or subdivision
thereof; or (ii) execute under general
supervision work along specialized or
technical lines requiring special training,
experience, or knowledge; or (iii)
execute, under general supervision,
special assignment and tasks; and
4) Who do not devote more than 20
percent of their hours worked in a
workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely related to the
performance of the work described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter: (L)
NLRC: (M)
CA: (L)
SC: (L)
Page 8
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS

RULING: workweek to activities which are not

directly and closely related to the
(1) performance of the work.
No. The respondent failed to make an However, in the case at bar, the
appeal on CAs Decision finding him not respondent is NOT a managerial
illegally dismissed rendered the decision employee. The respondent failed to
regarding the illegal dismissal final and pass the test of being a managerial
executory. employee. Since the respondent is not a
(2) managerial employee, he is entitled to
such benefits.
Yes. Under the law, managerial
employees are not entitled to such
benefits. Managerial employees are
those: ROBERTO GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
1) The primary duty consists of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
performance of work directly related to COMMISSION, PEPSI COLA
PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
management of policies of their
INC., respondents.
employer;
FACTS:
2) Customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgment; Gonzales was both an employee, being
3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a route manager, and a
proprietor or a managerial employee concessionaire/dealer of herein
whose primary duty consists of respondent PCPPI. Being a dealer of
management of the establishment in Pepsi cola he is entitled to “concession”
which he is employed or subdivision which is the cash equivalent of the value
thereof; or of empty bottles and its contents given
to a dealer who met the monthly quota
(ii) execute under general required by PCPPI.
supervision work along specialized or
technical lines requiring special training, As dealer he purchased PCPPI products
experience, or knowledge; or on credit amounting to 116,182 php to
which he issued a post- dated checks.
(iii) execute, under general Three days before the issued checks is
supervision, special assignment and going to be due and demandable he
tasks; and offered new post dated checks to cover
his credit and ordered salesman
4) Who do not devote more than 20
Alhambra, his subordinate, to issue an
percent of their hours worked in a

Money Claims Cases Page 9

CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
official receipt which they issue only to
customers paying in cash.
Upon notice of discrepancy as to official
receipt and cash on hand of PCPPI
investigation ensued. On October 6 ,
1993 Gonzales was served a notice of
termination for engaging in fictitious
transaction, fake invoicing , and breach
of trust and confidence.
Aggrieved Gonzales then filed a case
for illegal dismissal, back wages and
attorneys fees.
CASE HISTORY:
October 15, 1996, Labor Arbiter –
(Labor)
NLRC – (Management) Reversed
Hence this petition.
APPLICABLE LAW:
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code,
an employer can terminate the
employment of the employee concerned
for "fraud or willful breach by an
employee of the trust reposed in him by
his employer or duly authorized
representative." The loss of trust and
confidence must be based on the willful
breach of the trust reposed in the
employee by his employer.”
ISSUE:
1) Whether Gonzales is legally
dismissed?
2) Whether Gonzales’ dismissal is
procedurally correct?
Money Claims Cases
RULING:
Petition denied (Management)
1)YES. First, petitioner gave himself
a credit extension without proper
authorization. Second, petitioner, as
route manager prevailed upon
salesman Alhambra, his subordinate,
over whom he exercises moral and
professional ascendancy to carry out
his machination. Third, upon the
discovery by the settlement clerk of
the fraudulent official receipt,
petitioner issued on December 31,
1992 another post-dated check dated
January 15, 1993 together with a
post-dated check receipt (PDCR)
signed by petitioner himself although
he was not authorized to do so.
Third, upon the discovery by the
settlement clerk of the fraudulent
official receipt, petitioner issued on
December 31, 1992 another post-
dated check dated January 15, 1993
together with a post-dated check
receipt (PDCR) signed by petitioner
himself although he was not
authorized to do so.
2) YES. While the notice does not
show on its face that the petitioner
acknowledged receipt thereof, it is
undisputed that petitioner freely,
voluntarily and actively participated in
the administrative investigation on
the charges filed against him, as
evidenced by his signature affixed on
each page of the minutes of the
hearings conducted on April 16, 1993
and June 25, 1993.
Page 10
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
PAMELA FLORENTINA P.
JUMUAD, Petitioner,
vs.
HI-FLYER FOOD, INC. and/or JESUS
R. MONTEMAYOR, Respondents.
FACTS:
Hi-flyer a corporation licensed to
operate KFC restaurant in the
Philippines is the employer of Jumuad
ranked area manager of region 1 of
whole Visayas and Mindanao, herein
petitioner. Under the employment
Jumuad was entitled to a car loan
wherein she will pay 40% of the car’s
price and the remaining 60% will be
deducted to his salary.
Upon series of audits, Hi- flyer noticed
that the branches under the supervision
of Jumuad violates sanitary
requirements and involves a scheme for
covering of cash shortages.
Hi-flyer wanting to make Jumuad
accountable sent notice of charges to
Jumuad on Septmeber 5, 2005. After
due investigation Hi-flyer sent the notice
of dismissal to Jumuas on October
17,2005.
Aggrieved, Jumuad filed a case for
illegal dismissal.
CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter – (Labor)and ordered the
return of 40% of the price of the car
loaned by Jumuad which the latter had
already paid.
NLRC – (Labor) Affirmed in toto LA’s
decision
Money Claims Cases
April 20, 2009, CA – (Management)
Reversed
Hence this petition.
APPLICABLE LAW:
Art. 282. Termination by Employer
(c) Fraud or willful breach
by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative;
ISSUE:
1) Whether Jumuad was legally
dismissed.
2) Whether the award for return the
40 % of the car’s price is proper?
RULING:
Petition denied (Management)
1)Yes. As correctly noted by the
appellate court, Jumuad executed
management policies and had the
power to discipline the
employees of KFC branches in her
area. On the principle of respondeat
superior or command responsibility
alone, Jumuad may be held liable for
negligence in the performance of her
managerial duties. Based on
established facts, the mere existence
of the grounds for the loss of trust
and confidence justifies petitioner’s
dismissal. Pursuant to the Court’s
ruling in Lima Land, Inc. v.
Cuevas, as long as there is some
basis for such loss of confidence,
such as when the employer has
reasonable ground to believe that
the employee concerned is
Page 11
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS

responsible for the purported 31 March 1989 Labor Arbiter –

misconduct, and the nature of his Management
participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence NLRC – (Labor) reversed
demanded of his position, a
managerial employee may be Hence this petition.
dismissed.
LAW APPLICABLE:
2) No. The rights and obligations of
the parties to a car loan agreement 1) PD 4429 which prohibits
is not a proper issue in a labor diminution of benefits.
dispute but in a civil one. It involves 2) PD 851, the 13th month pay law
the relationship of debtor and 3) Wage Order no. 6 which increase
creditor rather than employee- the minimum wage.
employer relations.43 Jurisdiction, 4) Article 94 of Labor Code which
therefore, lies with the regular courts provides for holiday pay.
in a separate civil action.
ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE were intitled to all their claims.
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs. RULING:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and PRODUCERS Petition denied (Management)
BANK EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,1respondents. 1) Bonuses- A "bonus" is a gratuity
or act of liberality of the giver
FACTS: which the recipient has no right to
demand as a matter of right.
Prior to this case the petitioner bank had Furthermore, the bank was
already experienced some losses which operating in losses that’s why it
put them under conservation of was put under conservatorship,
Monetary Board. Herein private therefore, it can justify the
respondents filed this case for alleged diminution of bonuses because
violation of non diminution of benefits doing the contrary will result
when the petitioner did not gave the instead to closure of the bank.
proper amount of bonuses as it 2) 13th month pay – Under the law
religiously been giving for 13 years, 13th employers already paying their
month pay, difference between the new employees 13th month pay or its
wage order and the basic pay, and equivalent are not covered by law
holiday pay and consequently prayed for on 13th month pay. Equivalent
damages. mentioned includes mid-year
bonus and Christmas bonus
CASE HISTORY: which the petitioner has been

Money Claims Cases Page 12

CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
religiously paying already hence
they are justified in diminishing
the 13th month pay.
3) Wage differentials - there is
nothing in the collective
bargaining agreement that would
prevent the petitioner from
crediting the first salary and
allowance increases against the
increases prescribed by the wage
order no. 6. Thus, petitioner is not
liable for wage differentials.
4) Holiday pay – At was proven that
the use of 303 days as divisor
was not used in computing for
payment of holiday pay rather the
same was only used for
computation of overtime pay
thus, the petitioner did not
diminish the holiday pay of the
private respondent as it was
being paid by using 314 days in
computing the same.
5) Damages – Consequently there
is no ground to grant the same.
LOURDES G. MARCOS, ALEJANDRO
T. ANDRADA, BALTAZARA J. LOPEZ
AND VILMA L. CRUZ, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and INSULAR LIFE
ASSURANCE CO., LTD., respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners worked for respondent
company until they were terminated
sometime in 1990 due to redundancy of
position. They were awarded special
redundancy benefit and subsequently
signed a document for release and
quitclaim. After the petitioners asked for
Money Claims Cases
the opinion of DOLE for their right to
service awards and anniversary and
performance bonus they filed this case
to claim the same.
CASE HISTORY:
October 8, 1992 Labor Arbiter – (Labor)
granted the prayer
NLRC – (Management) reversed
Hence this petition.
APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 6 and 22 of Civil Code which
provides for validity of waiver of rights
and unjust enrichment.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not petitioners is
entitled to their claims given that
they had already signed a
release and quitclaim after
accepting the special redundancy
package?
2) Whether they are entitled to their
claims.
RULING:
Petition granted (Labor)
1) YES. Under prevailing
jurisprudence, the fact that an
employee has signed a
satisfaction receipt for his claims
does not necessarily result in the
waiver thereof. A deed of release
or quitclaim cannot bar an
employee from demanding
benefits to which he is legally
entitled. The reason is that
Page 13
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS
employer and the employee
obviously do not stand on the
same footing.
2) Since each of the complainants
have rendered services to
respondent in multiple(s) of five
years prior to their separation
from employment which the
collective bargaining agreement
requires, respondent should be
paid their service awards for
1990. With regard to anniversary
and performance bonus , equity
demands that the performance
and anniversary bonuses should
be prorated to the number of
months that petitioners actually
served respondent company in
the year 1990.
Money Claims Cases
CIRINEO BOWLING PLAZA, INC.,
vs.
GERRY SENSING
FACTS:
Paolo an employee of herein petitioner
Corporation, Cireneo, filed a letter
complaint before the DOLE requesting
an inspection/investigation for alleged
violation of Labor Code particularly on
giving the proper wages and benefits.
DOLE Regional Director found Cireneo
guilty and ordered them to pay the
claims which exceeds P 5000.
CASE HISTORY:
On April 22, 1996 DOLE Regional
Director – Labor
March 30, 1999 Secretary of DOLE –
(Labor) Affirmed
August 31, 2000 CA – (Labor)
dismissed petition for failure to attach
copy of complaint and failure to state the
material date of receipt of the assailed
order of Regional Director.
Hence this petition.
APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 128 of Labor Code and
RA 7730 it amendatory law
ISSUE:
1) Whether the case should be
dismissed solely on mere
technicalities.
2) Whether DOLE Regional Director
has the authority to issue orders
Page 14
CASES ON LABOR STANDARDS

for payment of money claims orders to give effect to the labor

above P 5000? standards provisions of this Code
and other labor legislation based
RULING: on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement
Petition dismissed (Labor) officers or industrial safety
engineers made in the course of
1) Yes. The material dates not inspection, sans any restriction
specified in the petition before the with respect to the jurisdictional
Court of Appeals is not a mere amount of P5,000.00 provided
technicality because it is under Article 129 and Article 217
determinative whether the of the Code.
petition was filed within the
reglementary period of sixty days.
2) Yes. The contention of the
petitioner corporation that the
Regional Director has no
jurisdiction to issue assailed
orders because the same is a
money claim above P 5000 is
untenable.

While it is true that under Articles

129 and 217 of the Labor Code,
the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
to hear and decide cases where
the aggregate money claims of
each employee
exceeds P5,000.00, said
provisions of law do not
contemplate nor cover the
visitorial and enforcement powers
of the Secretary of Labor or his
duly authorized representatives.

Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic

Act 7730 [Approved on June 2,
1994] which amended Article 128
(b) of the Labor Code, the
Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly
authorized representative, in the
exercise of their visitorial and
enforcement powers, are now
authorized to issue compliance

Money Claims Cases Page 15