Scribd
Upload
20 views3 pages

SHS Vs Diaz - 072900

The case involves SHS Perforated Materials, Inc. and its employee Manuel F. Diaz, focusing on the legality of withholding Diaz's salary. The court ruled that the temporary withholding of wages without the employee's consent is unlawful under Article 116 of the Labor Code, and the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that Diaz did not fulfill his work obligations. Consequently, the withholding of his salary was deemed invalid as it did not fall under any exceptions outlined in the Labor Code.

Uploaded by

lothy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views3 pages

SHS Vs Diaz - 072900

The case involves SHS Perforated Materials, Inc. and its employee Manuel F. Diaz, focusing on the legality of withholding Diaz's salary. The court ruled that the temporary withholding of wages without the employee's consent is unlawful under Article 116 of the Labor Code, and the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that Diaz did not fulfill his work obligations. Consequently, the withholding of his salary was deemed invalid as it did not fall under any exceptions outlined in the Labor Code.

Uploaded by

lothy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

SHS vs.

Diaz

GR 185814 October 13 2010


Facts:

Petitioner SHS Perforated Materials, Inc. (SHS) is a start-up


corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of
the Philippines and registered with the Philippine Economic Zone
Authority. Petitioner Winfried Hartmannshenn (Hartmannshenn), a
German national, is its president, in which capacity he determines
the administration and direction of the day-to-day business affairs of
SHS. Manuel F. Diaz (respondent) was hired by petitioner SHS as
Manager for Business Development on probationary status.
On November 29, 2005, Hartmannshenn instructed Taguiang not to
release respondent’s salary. Later that afternoon, respondent called
and inquired about his salary. Taguiang informed him that it was
being withheld and that he had to immediately communicate with
Hartmannshenn. Respondent denied having received such directive.
The next day, on November 30, 2005, respondent served on SHS a
demand letter and a resignation letter. In the evening of the same
day, November 30, 2005, respondent met with Hartmannshenn in
Alabang. The latter told him that he was extremely disappointed for
the following reasons: his poor work performance; his unauthorized
leave and malingering from November 16 to November 30, 2005;
and failure to immediately meet Hartmannshenn upon his arrival
from Germany.
Issue: WON the temporary withholding of respondent’s
salary/wages by petitioners was a valid exercise of management
prerogative.
Held:

Although management prerogative refers to “the right to regulate


all aspects of employment,” it cannot be understood to include the
right to temporarily withhold salary/wages without the consent of
the employee. To sanction such an interpretation would be contrary
to Article 116 of the Labor Code, which provides:
ART. 116. Withholding of wages and kickbacks prohibited. – It shall
be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any
amount from the wages of a worker or induce him to give up any
part of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any
other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent.
Any withholding of an employee’s wages by an employer may only
be allowed in the form of wage deductions under the circumstances
provided in Article 113 of the Labor Code, as set forth below:
ART. 113. Wage Deduction. – No employer, in his own behalf or in
behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of
his employees, except:
(a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the
employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the
amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;
(b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his
union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or
authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or
regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
Absent a showing that the withholding of complainant’s wages falls
under the exceptions provided in Article 113, the withholding
thereof is thus unlawful.
Petitioners argue that Article 116 of the Labor Code only applies if it
is established that an employee is entitled to his salary/wages and,
hence, does not apply in cases where there is an issue or
uncertainty as to whether an employee has worked and is entitled to
his salary/wages, in consonance with the principle of “a fair day’s
wage for a fair day’s work.” Petitioners contend that in this case
there was precisely an issue as to whether respondent was entitled
to his salary because he failed to report to work and to account for
his whereabouts and work accomplishments during the period in
question.
The Court finds petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove that
respondent did not work from November 16 to November 30, 2005.
As can be gleaned from respondent’s Contract of Probationary
Employment and the exchanges of electronic mail
messages between Hartmannshenn and respondent, the latter’s
duties as manager for business development entailed cultivating
business ties, connections, and clients in order to make sales. Such
duties called for meetings with prospective clients outside the office
rather than reporting for work on a regular schedule. In other words,
the nature of respondent’s job did not allow close supervision and
monitoring by petitioners. Neither was there any prescribed daily
monitoring procedure established by petitioners to ensure that
respondent was doing his job. Therefore, granting that respondent
failed to answer Hartmannshenn’s mobile calls and to reply to two
electronic mail messages and given the fact that he admittedly
failed to report to work at the SHS plant twice each week during the
subject period, such cannot be taken to signify that he did not work
from November 16 to November 30, 2005.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy