Lecture 04

Meal Period Case

Sime Darby Pilipinas V. NLRC

Sime Darby is an automotive tire manufacturer tapos nag issue sya ng memo sa mga factory workers
nya, kasi before yung set up nila is 30 minutes lang yung lunch break pero on call, it means bayad. Don
sa new memo nag bigay si Sime Darby ng 1 hour lunch break na hindi on call. Nag reklamo yung union
sabi nila unfair labor practice daw. ( pero for today you just have to know unfair labor practices are
these which are committed by the company or the employees na against s the right to self-organization
na gumawa ng sariling group and collective bargaining.)

Sabi nila may unfair labor practice daw nung tinaggal yung 30 mins na paid lunch break, pinalitan ng 1
hour na hindi bayad. Pero what happened here was sabi ng Supreme Court discretion ng company yung
mag ayos ng work schedule so if the company removes the 30 mins paid lunch break at binigyan nya ng
1 hour na unpaid lunch break this is still within the discretion of the company so hindi sya considered as
unfair labor practice. Ang nag aayos ng schedule ay si employer and since yung 1 hour lunch break na
nakalagay sa btas na pwedeng ibigay ng walang bayad, hindi kailangan bayaran yung 1 hour lunch break
kasi they can do anything they want during that 1 hour lunch break that’s it. Walang prejudice to the
right to self-organization, its not considered an act of unfair labor practice.

Overtime Pay Cases

Robina Farms Cebu V. Vila

Si Vila was a sales clerk of RFC, tapos pinakuha sya ng special early retirement, tapos isnuspend sya at
pag balik nya after nyang ma suspend na approved yung special early retirement nya pero later on na dis
approved naman daw pala instead pinag resign na lang sya. So Vila filed a case for illegal dismissal, yung
case for illegall dismissal nya humingi sya ng overtime pay.

For overtime to be paid there must be proof that it was actually performed ang ginawa ng NLRC dito,
nag base lang sila sa daily time record ni Vila and lumabas na more than 8 hours sya don sa work place
sabi ni NLRC, nag overtime sya pero sabi ng Supreme Court di ka pwedenmg mag rely sa daily time
record (DTR) alone. There must be proof of actual work performed and also there must be authorization
from the employer to conduct or to perform overtime so kung walang proof of actual work performed
and walang authorization from the employer para mag overtime hindi sila pwedeng mag render ng
overtime work.
Bisig ng Manggagawa V. Philippine Refining Co.

Meron silang collective bargaining agreement, yung union ng mga workers and yung management na
nakalagay don overtime pay is based on basic wage excluding Christmas bonus and other benefits pero
yung rate instead yung usual na 25% nakalagay 50%. May pinag uusapan dito na NAWAS rulling where it
was stated in computing the overtime pay ang kinukuha is yung regular pay lang plus ang differential like
yung night sshift differential and kung nagtrabaho sya on restday or holiday so when you will compute
your overtime pay it is based on the basic wage lang excluded ang bonuses and other benefits and it is
dependent on other differential and holiday pay and rest day pay pero ang hindi kasama ay Christmas
bonuses and other benefits, tapos yung 50% naman na increase kahit walang differential sabi ng
Supreme Court that is about contractually agreed upon the parties don sa CBA mila so since they agreed
on the 50% instead of the ordinary 25% they are bound by that agreement.

Engineering Equipment V. Minister of Labor

Aspera the employee was a mechanical engineer in Saudi, binabayaran sya ng 750 per day for 6 days
work per week of 10 working hours per day pero itong si Aspera humihingi pa sya ng additional overtime
pay don sa 2 hours ng 10 working hours. 10 hours yung nakalagay sa contract sabi nya yung 2 hours
don na sobra sa 8 hours dapat may overtime pay, pero ang sabi ng Supreme Court in this case he cannot
ask for that additional overtime pay because precisely the contract already considered that the working
hours will be 10 hours and the 750 includes the ovetime pay for those 2 additional hours na nakalagay
sa contract nila, so what Engineering Equipment says is that when the contract already reflects the
increase salary to go inside longer work hours the employee can no longer demand for additional
overtime pay kasi nakalagay na sa kontrata eh kaya nagging 750 yon is kasi 10 hours yung nakalagay sa
kontrata so in that case hindi na pwedeng humingi ng additional overtime pay si Aspera.

Service Incentive Leave

Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit

*talks about service incentive leave

SIL – 5 days of paid leave na ibinibigay sa employees who have already rendered at least 1 years of
service to the company.

Ang hindi lang applicable ang service incentive leave are those who have already the same benefits
given by the employer, like vacation leave na nakalagay sa kontrata and the employees of establishment
who are employed of less than 10 workers.

In this case, si Serrano was a bus conductor, humihingi sya ng service incentive leave don sa retirement
benefits nya. Diba ang field personnel are usually not also entitled to service incentive leave pero here
the Supreme Court consider the driver and conductors not to be field personnel when we discussed field
personnel before sabi natin they are those who are working outside the principal place of business so
itong drivers and conductors hindi naman sila sa principal place of business nagta trabaho they should
not be entitled to SIL pero they made an exception for drivers and conductors na even if they are not
working inside the principal place of business they are not considered as field personnel and they are
entitled to SIL kasi the nature of their work requires them to be present in a different place designated
by the employer so hindi pwedeng sabihin ni employer na since wala ka sa opisina ay hindi kana entiled
sa SIL, eh yun yong trabaho nya e so wala syang magagawa in that case, the drivers and conductors like
Serrano are still entitled to SIL.

Wages

- Are the earnings of an employee however designated, capable of being express in terms of
money, wether fixed na or ika calculate palang wether payable to the employee under the
written contract or an unwritten contract including care and reasonable value of facilities.

- As long it is the compensation being paid to the employee for a work done yun yung wages na
tinatawag, as long as it is capable of being express in terms of money dapat may monetary value
sya.

- When we say it is being capable of being express in terms of money hindi ibig sabihin na
pwedeng ibang bagay na yung ibigay as required in the labor code dapat the wages to be given
as being legal tender.

- When we say legal tender in Philippine Peso

- Dika pwedeng bayadan in any other kind way except in legal tender dapat pera

- Pwedeng ibawas sa wages ay facilities.

The rules on wages apply to all employees except from tenants, domestic service workers, cottage
industries and cooperatives – dinagdag lang ng PD 175.

Cottage – those are the establishment where the product are done primarily at homes, requiring manual
and craftmanship mga ginagawa sa bahay.

Cooperative – mga organization na binubuo ng

isang group of persons na sila sila rin yung bumibili or nakikipag transact don sa business na yon.

While wages are paid generally for work performed based don sa definition nya, pwede pa din
mabayadan ang wages ng isang tao kahit hindi sya nagta trabaho. ( ex. restday, holiday pay na if you
don’t go to work on a holiday you are at least entitled to 100% of your wages for that day also SIL pag
naka 1 year kana you are entitled to 5 days of paid leave.

Company practice can be basis for payment of employees even if that employee does not go to work.

Also, companies practice. Company practice na FOR EXAMPLE nagpaparty yung company wyo every
20th of december so parang it's already a tradition in the company na wlaang papasok ng 21. In that
case, as long as you establish that the practice has already been observed regularly by the company
hindi ka na kelangang pumasok ng 21 and you will still be paid. So COMPANY PRACTICE, can be a basis
for paying an employee even that employee does not go to work. What we will have to distinguish here
is that the failure to report to work must not be due to the employers fault. So if it is not due to the
employers fault, kunware yung example sa book is if you are a driver, driver ka ng bus company.
Papasok ka monday to Saturday pero nag expire yung lisensya mo.

What we will have distinguish here is that the failure to report to work. So if it is not due to the
employees fault. (ex. driver ka ng bus company papasok ka ng Monday to Saturday pero nag expire yung
lisensya mo, di mona ma renew and since dika makapag drive dika makakapag work in that case, nung
driver hindi sya makapag renew hindi babayadan yung driver unless it is the employer itself yung may
cause kung bakit di ka nakapagtrabaho hindi ka mababayadan for work na hindi mo naman ginwa.

Facilities

ito yung isa sa exemption sa wages na pwedeng ikonsider as part of your wages na mga benefits na
binibigay sa isang employee. There are articles and services even for the benefit of the employee or his/
her family and not for the benefit or convenient of the employer. So itong mga facilities na ito if they are
regularly furnished by the employer can be considered as a facility deductible from wages. EXAMPLE,
yung workplace mo ay sa factory na Malayo and wala kang mabibilhan ng food mo don sa 30 minutes
mo na lunch break. Eh binibigyan ka ng food ng employer mo, yung food na yun or lunch can considered
as facility kase kung there were no other places to eat magbabayad ka pa din ng food eh or
magpprepare ka pa din sa bahay para dalhin mo don so gagastos ka pa din. Kaya this facilities are
deductable from wages. So instead of you paying from them the company will be paying them for your
benefit. Kaya they can be deductive from wages.

Under the labor code walang distinction ang wages and salaries. So when we say wages also means
salaries and vice versa. There's only one exemption where wages and salaries are not considered as the
same. This difference was discussed in the case of GAA VS. CA.

Gaa v. CA

Gaa was then the building administrator. Europhil filed an action for damages against Gaa alleging that
the latter perpetrated certain acts that can be considered a trespass upon its rights namely, cutting of its
electricity and removing its name from the building directory and gate passes of its officials and
employees. Tapos kinasuhan ni EUROPIL si GAA kase nagtress pass daw siya don sa property nila and
nanalo si EUROPIL ang sabi ng Court kay GAA bigyan mo sila ng 20k na danyos. Yung nangyare
is.ginarnish or inexecute ng Court yung sweldo ni GAA sa hotel na pinapasukan niya. Sabi ni Court
kukunin ko yung sweldo mo pambayad don sa danyos na natalo mo don sa court. So sabi ni GAA,
nakalagay sa article 1708 ng civil code na wages are not subject to garnishment or execution, what the
supreme court said was that yung nakalagay sa 1708 na exemption from garnishment or execution ng
wages only pertains to wages paid to manually laborers. So, if you are not a manual laborer kase itong si
GAA is actually a managerial employee don sa hotel. Hindi siya pasok don sa exemption from
garnishment of wages kase salaries yung tinatanggap niya. So while wages and salaries are practically
interchangeable when it comes to garnishment of salaries. Saláries/can be garnish but wages is cannot
be garnish if those are wages of manual laborers.

Mabeza v. NLRC
this talks about the requirements, paano maging deductible ang facilities from wages. Kase parang
instead na pera yung nakukuha ng employee, benefits na hindi niya pwedeng gastusin kase they are
given not in cash and even in a separate form like food or something else. Si Mabeza kase employee din
siya sa hotel pinapapirma siya ng something nong hotel niya kase nasilip yung hotel na hindi daw
sumusunod sa mga labor requirements. Pero ayaw pa notaryo ni Mabeza, ayaw niyang pasumpaan
iyung pinapapirmahan sa kanya. Sa what happened was nong pagleave siya pagbalik niya sinabihan siya
na huwag ka na bumalik. So what she did was nagfile siya ng complaint for illegal dismissal. What
happened here was si mabesa even she was illegally dismissed kinampihan ng Labor arbiter and NLRC
yung hotel kase apparently may finile na complaint yung hotel against Mabesa for theft kase may kinuha
daw siyang gamit don sa hotel. We will not talk. about the illegal dismissal aspect of this case, we will
talk about the damages which she was supposed to receive. Kase aside from illegally dismissed hindi din
binabayaran ng tama si Mabesa. Ang depensa nong hotel dito, meron kase siyang facilities so itong
facilities na to yung alternative kaya mababa yung wages na tinatanggap niya. Sabi ng supreme court for
facilities to become deductible this requirements must be present :

1. It must be customarily furnish – it means practice na ng company ng nagbibigay ng mga

facilities na ganon.
2. the facilities must be y voluntarily accepted by the employee in writing.
3. there must be fair and reasonable value of the deductions of the facilities.
Kase ang nangyare dito si Mabeza dahil employee siya don siya natutulog. So sabi ng hotel yung
kuryente na ginagamit mo don sa kwarto na binigay namin sayo, yung tubig na ginagamit mo don
babawas namin sa sweldo mo. Sabi ng Supreme Court wrong yun, since yung second requirement is
clearly absent kase hindi naman pumayag yung employee na bayaran siya ng facilities. Hindi siya
binabayaran ng facilities so hindi pwedeng paltan yung wages niya ng facilities na supposedly na
binibigay nong employer. May counterpart kase si facilities yung tinatawag na "SUPPLEMENTS". The
important tule of the nondemonotion of benefits, in this ARTICLE 100 of the labor code sabi yung mga
naibigay na or mga binibigay na mga benefits sa mga empleyado ay hindi pwedeng tanggalin. If base on
contract or established practice, so kung binibigay ito regularly sa isang empleyado the employer cannot
unilaterally withdraw the benefits already given to the employee. Kase there's already rights they
become rights of the employees, so this benefits was given voluntarily without condition will be a right,
which be can be demanded by the employee.

More significantly, the food and lodging, or the electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were
not facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the
employer is not a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the
kind (food, lodging) but the purpose.

Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work different shifts and are expected to be
available at various odd hours, their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small
hotel, such as the private respondent’s hotel.

It is therefore evident that petitioner is entitled to the payment of the deficiency in her wages
equivalent to the full wage applicable from May 13, 1988 up to the date of her illegal dismissal.
Now SUPPLEMENTS, supplements yung counterpart ng facilities. Kase facilities was the benefits given to
the employee they Are deductible in wages. Si SUPPLEMENTS naman ay hindi part ng wages so hindi siya
deductible. They are also a benefits granted to employees about their wages but hindi sila deductible
like facilities. To determine whether something is a facility or a benefit you will look at the purpose kung
bakit siya binibigay. If it is given as a benefit to the worker it is considered as facility. If it is given for the
convenience of the employer it is a SUPPLEMENT. So dapat for the benefit of the worker siya binibigay,
benefit of the employee.

Now yung non diminution, principle of non-diminution applies to supplements kasi once benefits are
given under the non-diminution principle dina sya pwedeng bawiin. Supplements are benefits once the
supplements are given over and above of the wages dina sya pwedeng bawiin pero first the
supplements must be shown to have comply with this requirements:

1. the benefits became company practice over a long period of time.

2. This consistent and deliberately given by the employer
3. If it is not due to any error in apply without full or difficult provision of law.

1. Una dapat maging company practice na sya for a long period of time ( ex. Company Christmas party
on December 20 kunwari 10 years na nila ginagawa yon na walang pumapasok ng December 21 because
of the party if also that is consistent and deliberate na ginagawa nung employer then that 1 day leave
will be considered as benefit as supplement in favor of the employees.

2.Consistent and deliberate ibig sabihin alam nung employer na binibigay nya yon and hindi required na
ibigay sa kanya under the law pero binibigay nya pa rin so generous pa din si employer. Given the
generousity of the employer and hindi sya napipilitan kasi required ng batas

Asis v. Minister of Labor

Sabi don while supplement which have become regularly given can no longer be withdrawn, pwede daw
syang ma withdraw if it is that place by something of equal or greater value yung nangyari dito may gas
allowance yata yung mga employees tapos instead of giving them gas allowance what they ask to the
employee to do e sila yung magbayad ng gas ibigay nalang ni yung resibo tapos ire reimburse nila so
hindi Nawala yung benefits ng gas allowance dito but instead it was replace something of equal value
yung reimbursement nung gas payments .

Another thing in the withdrawal of the supplements. Supplements can be withdrawn if the purpose their
grant no longer exist for example employee ka yung principal place of business is sa Metro Manila na
assign ka maging officer sa Cebu Office so binigyan ka ng plane ticket allowance pero nung natapos yung
trabaho mo with the cebu office and fulltime kana ulit sa Manila hindi mo pwedeng hingin ulit yung
plane ticket allowance mo kasi the only reason why it is given to you was due to your job as officer for
the Cebu office kung hindi kana ganon hindi na kailangan ibigay yung benefit because it was clearly given
only for specific purpose ayon one of the requirements kanina is consistent and deliberate and it is not
due to error in apply without full or difficult provison of law.

Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing -United Workers of the Philippines v. NLRC
May lumabas na batas si R.A. No. 6727 na nagbibigay ng wage increase. Don RA 6727 yung wage
increase nya is one time pay, so isang beses lang na increase yung wages nila pero itong mga employees
they want it to happened it again so the fact that their wages increase once will not make that increases
benefits which will be demandable by the employees.

Don ulit sa third requirement.

Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC

Kung hindi lang naintindihan nung company kung pano I apply yung batas and nagbigay sya ng benefits
sa employees nya tapos nung nalaman nyang mali pala yung ginagawa nya binawi nya, yung mga
benefits na yon na binawi cannot be demandable by the employee kasi they were given due to a mistake
of the interpretation, the law require in that benefit this is also part it relates to the principle of solution
indebiti na kung binigay yung benefit na yon eh hindi ka naman entitled don dapat mong ibalik.

Supplement Case

Arco Metal Products v. SAMARCO (GR 170734)

In this case it talks about ilang taon ba dapat bago maging establish company practice ang pagbibigay ng
benefit. Dito kasi may talong empleyado si Arco na nagrereklamo kasi less than a year lang sila
nagtrabaho tapos naka pro rate yung 13 th month pay nila as we will see later on pwede naman talaga I
pro rate ang 13th month pay for example you only work for 10 months in a year you’ll only get 5 th 6th or
10th 12th of your 13th month pay so sabi nung tatlong employees bat yung samin pro rated eh yung iba
hindi, yung iba na yon are the 7 other employees out of 170 employees na hindi na pro rate yung mga
13th month benefit nila so itong 7 employees nato were given 13 th month pay na hindi pro-rated for
seven years so sabi ng Supreme Court in this case since clearly binigay sya don sa seven employees
previously for seven years before it shows that its already a company practice not to pro-rate, yung
binigay sa mga 7 employees nato are not pro-rated 13 th month pay so kahit 7 months lang sila pumasok
or 8 months lang sila pumasok they were given the entire 1 month 13 th month pay . The supreme court
said here nag site sya ng ibang kaso, na meron nga yung iba 3 years or 2 years lang kinonsider lang as
company practice so the bottom line is walang minimum period for something to be considered as
company practice probably even if it is short as a year kung consistent talaga ginagawa ng employer can
already considered as company practice. Additionally in this case of Arco marami naman daw pwedeng
ilabas na evidence si Arco na proof na mistake lang yung pagbibigay don sa 7 employees ng non pro-
rated na 13th month pay nila pero wala silang nilabas so it appears that the non-pro rating is already ay
company practice since ginagawa na nila to for the past 7 years before nagreklamo tong mga tatlong
employees nato.
Petitioner cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely claiming that it was a mistake or an error,   supported
only by an affidavit of its manufacturing group head.

In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer has the burden of proving that  the  employees  did 
receive  the  wages   and  benefits  and  that  the  same  were paid in accordance with law.

Petition denied
National Sugar Refineries Corporation v. NLRC (GR 101761)

Talks about also the length of the time period for the practice to be for something to be considered as
company practice.

Kasi what happened here was si National Sugar Refineries Corporation nag establish sya ng program
called the Job Evaluation Program or the JE Program. So itong JE Program na ito nag re-organize sila ng
buong company nila so yung ibang rank and file employees before naging supervisory, we talked about
before na rank and file employees are entitled to overtime, restday, holiday pay unlike managerial
employees and supersor employees na hindi so itong mga naging supervisory employees nagreklamo
sila kasi dati silang rank and file may ot sila holiday pay nung naging supervisory sila Nawala na sabi ng
NLRC they ____ into practice yung pagbibigay ng mga ot pay to supervisory employees so dapat ibigay
daw but it was reversed kasi sabi ng supreme court bago yung position e, the company re organized the
entire ___ of workers since may bago ng posisyon hindi mo masasabi that this benefits were withdrawn
from the supervisory employees since they were actually promoted from being rank and file na may
holiday pay and ot to supervisory employee na kahit wala silang ot at holiday pay and rest day mas
mattas naman yung sweldo nila the benefits here were given according to function and not due to
employes generosity, so since you are rank and file meron kang gantong benefits and ngayong
supervisory kana wala ka ng ganitong benefits so it was given based on junction and not based on any
kind of company practice so hindi sya naging supplement na subject to non-diminution. Under the facts
obtaining in this case, the union members should be considered as officers and members of the
managerial staff and are, therefore, exempt from the coverage of Article 82 hence they are not entitled
to overtime, rest day and holiday.

Bonuses

- are amount granted by the employer out of his generosity. Generally, ang bonuses, since
bonuses lang sila they are not demandable obligations kase binibigay lang sila ng employer
which are not considered as covered by non-diminution principle pero pwede siyang maging
demandable if it is given without any condition to it's grant or even though may condition, the
condition has been materialize. FOR EXAMPLE, may kontrata kayo, nakalagay don perfect
attendance bonus na kung wala kang absent sa 1 month may 1k ka. So in that case, the
condition of perfect attendance has materialized so you are in titled to thw bonus pero kung
may absent kang isa hindi na materialize yung condition, so hindi ka intitled sa bonus. If it is
given unconditionally, it can considered as part of an employee wages.

13TH MONTH PAY is a payment to employees which is equivalent to 1/ 12 of the salaries of employee
for a year.
WHO ARE GIVEN 13TH MONTH PAY:

-all employees in the private sector, pag government wala agad 13th month pay. Meron kase siyang
alternative,mga mid year bonus nila. Bonuses in the government sector which are equivalent to 13th
month pay, kaya hindi sila kasama sa 13th month pay law. So kelangang ibigay sa lahat ng private
employees except those na mayroon ng ibinibigay na equivalent. So if you entered in the company at
may CBA don, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ng union and ng management. Ang sabi instead
giving you 13th month pay, bibigyan namin kayo ng Christmas bonus worth of 1 month salary. In that
case, pagkasabi ng ganon edi hindi na niya kayo bibigyan ng 13th month pay kase it is already converted
in to a Christmas bonus. -Also, employees persons in personal service of another, household workers,
drivers. bodyguards, employees paid you through commission tasks basis and not also entitled to 13th
month pay. And those paid for a fix amount for specific work regardless of time consume. This kinds of
employees are those who are not entitled to 13th month pay. BASIS OF THE 13TH MONTH PAY ARE THE:

-basic wage excluding allowances, profit sharing payments, benefits, overtime and authorize leaves. So,
yung pinaka basic wage lang ang basis ng 13th month pay. -yung nabanggit ko kanina about don sa
EXAMPLE na Christmas bonus na alternative sa 13th month pay is called the "EXCLUSIONARY RULE" or
the "NO DOUBLE BURDEN PRINCIPLE" na pag may binibigay ng isang klaseng benefit intended as an
alternative to 13th month pay hindi na niya kelangang binigay yung 13th month pay. Tapos if it is
intended as an alternative to 13th month pay pero hindi siya equivalent sa 1 month salary yung
difference na lang ang ibibigay ng employer. FOR EXAMPLE, ang nakalagay sa CBA niyo, wala na tayong
13th month pay pero the company will give you 75% of your monthly salary as Christmas bonus. So the
difference na 25% iyun na lang yung macconsider na kailangang ibigay ng employer para makompleto
yung mandatory na kailangang ibigay na 13th month pay.

SAMARCO FARMS VS MINISTER OF LABOR

In the case of SAMARCO FARMS VS MINISTER VS LABOR, non monetary benefits cannot be considered
as an alternative to 13th month pay. So while pwede kang magbigay ng althernative sa 13th month pay
should always be in cash kase yung binigay ata dito, like the other case kanina libreng pakuryente,
libreng patubig sabi nila "13th month pay yan" it is the alternative to your 13th month pay, Sabi ng
Supreme Court, you cannot give alternatives to 13th month pay which are not monetary in nature.

SAINT MICHAEL ACADEMY VS. NLRC

This case of SAINT MICHAEL ACADEMY VS. NLRC, proportional 13th month pay na binibigay. So if, FOR
EXAMPLE, you are in the company for 2 years and 8 months. Yung 8 months mo you are still intitled to
13th month pay, in a proportion of 8 out of 12 months. So makakatanggap ka pa din ng 13th month pay
mo.

PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION VS NLRC

This case also of PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION VS NLRC,
this also a case about drivers and conductors ksse nagcclaim yung mga drivers and conductors ng 13th
month pay from their employer which is MALACART TRANSIT Ang sabi lang ng Supreme Court dito this
case talks about employees, regularly paid employees vs commission base employees. The Supreme
Court said is simply as long as may nareceived na guarantee wage in addition to commissions you are
intitled to 13th month pay. So if you are paid minimum wage tapos your commission is less than the
minimum wage or you are paid commission tapos your commission exceed the minimum wage. As long
as merong fix or guarantee wages na binibigay sayo in a month you will be intitled to 13th month pay.
Regardless if you are earning commissions primarily or the wages primarily as long as may wages fix
every month you will be entitled to 13th month pay. -This is in contrast to purely commission paid
employees na since they are commission paid wala silang ganon.

PAL VS. NLRC

This next case of PAL VS. NLRC. What happened here was si PAL marami yang unions ng mga employees
nila kalaban ng PAL dito yung mga union nong mga pilots. Kase don sa CBA nila collective bargaining
agreement nila ni PAL at nong union nong pilots na bibigyan sila ng Christmas bonus ang problema don
sa CBA hindi nabanggit na itong Christmas bonus na ito ay kapalit ng 13th month pay. So itong mga
pilots, sabi nila pwera don sa Christmas bonus natin sa CBA, kelangan niyo pa kaming bigyan ng 13th
month. What happened here was, the Supreme Court sided in favored of pilots kase itong CBA na ito it
was entered into on 1988, so nong 1988 ginawa yung CBA andon yung Christmas bonus provision kahit
1986 pa lang ang binibigyan na ng 13th month ang employees. The pilots here was considered as rock
and file. The Supreme Court said na if PAL had the intent to equate the CBA provision with the grant of
13th month pay dapat sinabi niya yun don sa CBA na "itong Christmas bonus na to kapalit ng 13th
month pay" pero walang nakalagay na ganon. The other option was to delect the Christmas bonus
provision entire to the CBA. Hindi ginawa ng PAL yun, so lumalabas base on the existence of that
provision in the CBA na hindi naman sinabi na kapalit siya ng 13th month pay. What the supreme court
decided was that balak niya ibigay pareho yung Christmas bonus and 13th month pay as separate
payments to the pilots. And yung napagkasunduan ng Supreme Court dito was that the with the other
unions of PAL like yung mga ano nila. flight attendants nila meron din silang CBA don na may binibigay
na benefit na kung yung pilots Tang yung hindi binibigyan ng 13th month pay eh discrimination yun. So
dapat bigyan bigyan yung mga pilots ng bonuses nila in addition to the 13th month pay.

HOW WAGES ARE PAID

-as the form of the payment sabi natin it must be in legal tender. Legal tender dapat pera. Hindi
pwedeng, kunware empleyado ka Miguel ay babarayan ka ng redhorse, pera dapat ang ibabayad sayo.
For sime, she work from a company making paper products hindi pwedeng bayaran ka ng mga karton. It
must be in legal tender Pero the exemption is pwede by icheck pero may requirement. Para mabayaran
ka by check: -first of all dapat pumayag yung employee either pumayag siya don sa contract niya merong
CBA na nagsasabi na pwedeng magbayad si company ng check. -Second, dapat may malapit na bangko
or any other similar facility kung saan pwede mag incash yung mga employee. -Third, wala dapat benefit
na makukuha yung mga employer sa gantong klaseng transaction or sa gantong klaseng set-up. And
kung mag iincash yung mga employees during work hours dapat bigyan sila ng time within the day na
mag incash and bayad yung oras nila sa pagpunta at pagpila.

GENERAL RULE NI LEGAL TENDER -pwedeng by check subject to those requirements as to time and
frequency. -once every 2 weeks or twice a month at intervals of not more than 15 days. So, dapat within
15 days makatanggap ka ng sweldo or atleast twice a month. FOR EXAMPLE, pano kung biglang
bumagyo. February 14 ngayon, pay day bukas kaso pagdating ng 15 bumagyo ng malakas, hindi nakapag
bigay si employer ng sweldo. What happen is the payment must be made immediately after the
calamities ends. So paglagpas ng bagyo dapat agad ibigay ni employer yung bayad niya on the 15.

THERE'S ANOTHER SPECIAL RULE FOR PROJECT BASED EMPLOYEES -na kunware yung project mo ay
hindi matatapos within the period of 2 weeks. Dapat merong proportional na binibigay every 2 weeks
for atleast 16 days na bayad. Kunware, mag aassemble ng something, communications tower na
matatapos in 2 months. What they do is dapat merong progress payments na every 2 weeks not
exceeding intervals of 16 days ay may ibinibigay based on completion tas pag nakompleto na ying
project tskaa magkakaroon ng final settlements na kung may kulang na mas malaki don sa actual na
binibigay magsesettlement don sa after the end of the project. -as to place of payments dapat GENERAL
RULE yung place of business. Kung san nagttrabaho or malapit sa place of business.

EXEMPTIONS

first there are unfavorable peace in order conditions or actual or pending emergencies cause by a
calamity. FOR EXAMPLE, in your principal base business biglang yung kabilang union nagwilga at
namamato sila ng mga bato sa building niyo pwedeng sa ibang lugar magbayad si employer or if
nagkabagyo ulit hindi naman nirerequire na pumunta sa lugar na may bagyo para lang mabayaran kayo.
So, pwedeng exemption yung calamity or peace in order conditions.

Second, pwede ding sa ibang lugar as long as bayaran ni employer yung pamasahe mo and pabalik.

Third, another analogous circumstances. Like don sa payment by check the time spend by the
employees collecting their wages will be considered as compensable hours. So, 3 ka umalis papunta don
sa place na pagbabayaran ka. Nakabalik ka ng 5, yung 3 - 5m na yung will be considered as compensable
work hours. -Ang bawal is bayaran ka ng sweido mo sa bar, bawal kang bayaran sa night club, bawla
kang bayaran sa inuman place, sa massage clinic, sa casino, sa tugstogs. Bawal kang bayaran sa mga
place na ganon. In gambling places unless you are an employee of that establishment. The reason is,
obviously para dika matempt na pagbigay ng sweldo mo gastusin mo lahat yun sa places na yun.

AS TO WHOM PAYMENT WAS MADE -it talks about as to form dapat legal tender generally -second, as
to time or frequency. Dapat ever 2 weeks not exceeding 16 days na difference. -as to place, dapat sa
place of work or dapat malapit sa place of work -fourth, as to home payment is made, kung kanino ba
ibinibigay yung sweldo. GENERAL RULE, dapat binibigay sa employee himself of herself.

2 EXEMPTIONS

First, is pag may calamity ulit or circumstance na hindi pwedw Eng ibigay don sa employee directly na in
which case pwedeng ibigay to a representative who is authorized in writing. So pag, binabantaan kayo
ng nanay or tatay niyo na dederetso siya sa place of work niyo at sila ang kukuha ng sweldo niyo as long
as long as hindi niyo sila bigyan ng written authority, the employer cannot be compelled to give it to
anyone else. So thats the first exemption in case of force mature or any other circumstance na hindi
kayang ibigay directly sa employee himself or herself. –

Second, pag namatay na yung employee. Pag namatay na yung employee hindi na maiibigay sa kanya
directly. Instead it can be made to the heirs of the employee. Hindi na kailangang dumaan ss korte para
lang matanggap yung sweldo as long as gumawa ng affidavit yung mga heirs na to na tatanggap ng
sweldo na sila lang talaga yung heirs nong employee and wala na siyang ibang heirs. So, ayun pag
nagbayad si employer based on that representation, based on the affidavit wala na siyang liability for
that particular sweldo na binigay niya don sa heirs.