Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila
Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
C. PLANAS COMMERCIAL G.R. No. 144619
and/or MARCIAL COHU,
Petitioners, Present:
- versus - *PUNO, Chairman,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS TINGA, and
COMMISSION (Second Division), **CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
ALFREDO OFIALDA,
DIOLETO MORENTE Promulgated:
and RUDY ALLAUIGAN,
Respondents. November 11, 2005
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by C. Planas Commercial and/or Marcial Cohu,
(petitioners) assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 19, 2000
[1]
which
affirmed in toto the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Resolution dated
August 15, 2000
[2]
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
On September 14, 1993, Dioleto Morente, Rudy Allauigan and Alfredo Ofialda (private
respondents) together with 5 others
[3]
filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and premium pay for holiday and rest day and night
shift differential against petitioners with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The case was docketed as
NLRC Case No. 00-09-05804-93.
[4]
In their position paper, private respondents alleged that petitioner Cohu, owner of C. Planas
Commercial, is engaged in wholesale of plastic products and fruits of different kinds with more than 24
employees; that private respondents were hired by petitioners on January 14, 1990, May 14, 1990 and July
1, 1991, respectively, as helpers/laborers; that they were paid below the minimum wage law for the past 3
years; that they were required to work for more than 8 hours a day without overtime pay; that they never
enjoyed holiday pay and did not have a rest day as they worked for 7 days a week; and they were not paid
service incentive leave pay although they had been working for more than one year. Private respondent
Ofialda asked for night shift differential as he had worked from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. the following day for more
than one year.
Petitioners filed their comment admitting that private respondents were their helpers who used to
accompany the delivery trucks and helped in the loading and unloading of merchandise being distributed
to clients; that they usually started their work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; that private respondents stopped
working with petitioners sometime in September 1993 as they were already working in other
establishments/stalls in Divisoria; that they only worked for 6 days a week; that they were not entitled to
holiday and service incentive leave pays for they were employed in a retail and service establishment
regularly employing less than ten workers.
On December 6, 1994, a decision
[5]
was rendered by the Labor Arbiter dismissing private
respondents money claims for lack of factual and legal basis. He made the following findings:
The basic issue raised before us is whether or not complainants are entitled to
the money claims.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that employers who are regularly employing not
more than ten workers in retail establishments are exempt from the coverage of the
minimum wage law.
In connection therewith and in consonance with Sec. 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court, it is incumbent upon the party to support affirmative allegation that an employer
regularly employs more than ten (10) workers.
In the case at bar, complainants failed to substantiate their claim that the
respondent establishment regularly employs twenty (sic) (24) workers.
Accordingly, we have no factual basis to grant salary differentials to
complainants. In the same context, under Sec. 1 (b), Rule IV and Sec. 1(g), Rule V of the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, complainants are not entitled to legal holiday pay
and service incentive leave pay.
We also do not have sufficient factual basis to award overtime pay and premium
pay for holiday and rest day because complainants failed to substantiate that they
rendered overtime and during rest days.
[6]
Private respondents filed their appeal with the NLRC which was opposed by petitioners. However,
pending the appeal, private respondents Morente
[7]
and Allauigan
[8]
filed their respective motions to
dismiss with release and quitclaim before the NLRC.
On September 30, 1997, the NLRC rendered its decision,
[9]
the dispostive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed
from should be, as it is hereby, MODIFIED by directing the respondent to pay Alfredo
Ofialda, Diolito Morente and Rudy Allauigan the total amount of Seventy-Five Thousand
One Hundred Twenty Five Pesos (P75,125.00) representing their combined salary
differentials, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.
The NLRC made the following ratiocinations:
On claims for underpayment/non-payment of legally mandated wages and
fringe benefits where exemption from coverage of the minimum wage law is put up as a
defense, he who invokes such an exemption (usually the employer) has the burden of
showing the basis for the exemption like for instance the fact of employing regularly less
than ten workers.
In the instant case, complainants alleged that despite employing more than
twenty-four (24) workers in his establishment, hence covered by the minimum wage law,
nevertheless the individual respondent did not pay his workers the legal rates and
benefits due them since their employment. By way of answer, respondents countered
that they employ less than ten (10) persons, hence the money claims of complainants lack
factual and legal basis.
Stated differently, against complainants charge of underpayment in wages and
non-payment of fringe benefits legally granted to them, the respondents raised the
defense of exemption from coverage of the minimum wage law and in support thereof
alleged that they regularly employed less than ten (10) workers to serve as basis for their
exemption under the law, they (respondents) must prove that they employed less than
ten workers, instead of more than twenty-four (24) workers as alleged by the
complainants.
However, apart from their allegation, respondents presented no evidence to show
the number of workers they employed regularly. This failure is fatal to respondents
defense. This in turn brings us to the question of whether the complainants were
underpaid and unpaid of legal holiday pay and service incentive leave pay due them.
Stated earlier are the different amounts that each complainant was receiving by
way of salary on certain periods of their employment with respondents, which amounts
according to complainants are way below the minimum wage then prevailing.
Considering that respondents failed to present the payrolls or vouchers which could
prove otherwise, the money claims deserve favorable consideration.
Taking note of the 3 year prescription, the period covered is from September 14,
1990 to September 14, 1993 when the instant case was filed, and based on a 6-day work
per week, the underpayment (salary differential), legal holiday pay, and service incentive
leave pay due to complainants, as computed, are as follows:
Salary Diff. Holiday Pay SILP
1. A.
OFIALDA
P14,934.00 P2,362.00 P1,180.00
2. D.
MORENTE
23,964.00 3,258.00 1,730.00
3. R. ALLAUIGAN 22,609.00 3,258.00 1,730.00
With respect to the other claims, i.e., overtime pay and premium pay for holiday
and rest day, We find no reason to disturb the Labor Arbiters ruling thereon, that there is
no sufficient factual basis to award the claims because complainants failed to substantiate
that they rendered overtime and during rest days. These claims, unlike claims for
underpayment and non-payment of fringe benefits mandated by law, need to be proven
by the claimants.
[10]
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
[11]
with prayer for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction before this Court on November 26, 1997. Respondents were required to file their
Comment but only public respondent NLRC, through the Solicitor General, complied therewith. In a
Resolution dated June 28, 1999,
[12]
the petition was referred to the CA pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin
Funeral Homes vs. NLRC.
On January 19, 2000,
[13]
the CA denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the NLRC
decision. It said:
Having claimed exemption from the coverage of the minimum wage laws or
order, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove such claim. Apart from simply denying
private respondents allegation that it employs more than 24 workers in its business,
petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove that it is, indeed, a retail establishment
which employs less than ten (10) employees. Its failure to present records of its workers
and their respective wages gives rise to the presumption that these are adverse to its
claims. Indeed, it is hard to believe that petitioner does not keep such records. More so,
considering private respondents claim that petitioner employs more than twenty four
(24) employees and engaged in both wholesale and retail business of fruits by volume on
CONTAINER BASIS, not by price of fruit, but by container size retail, involving millions of
pesos capital, fruits coming from China, Australia and the United States (p. 170, Rollo).
Needless to say, the inclusion of respondents Morente and Allauigan in the NLRC
award is in order. In its decision, public respondent awarded P75,125.00, representing the
combined salary differentials, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay of all three (3)
private respondents. Of this, P28,952.00 is earmarked for respondent Morente,
and P27,597.00 for respondent Allauigan, both of whom executed quitclaims after
receiving P3,000.00 and P6,000.00 respectively, from petitioner.
On this score, the Court quotes with approval the arguments advanced by the
Solicitor General thus:
While a compromise agreement or amicable settlement is not
against public policy per se it must be shown however that it was
voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, and the
consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable (Santiago v.
NLRC, 198 SCRA 111 [1991]). For the law usually looks with disfavor
upon quitclaims and releases executed by employees usually resulting
from a compromise with their employers. (Velasco v. DOLE, 200 SCRA
201 [1991]). This is so because the employers and the employees
obviously do not stand on equal footing. Driven against the wall by the
employer, the employee is in no position to resist the money offered.
(Lopez Sugar Corp v. FFW-PLU, 189 SCRA 179 [1990]).
Thus, Fuentes v. NLRC, 167 SCRA 767 (1988) enunciates:
In the absence of any showing that the compromise settlement
and the quitclaims and releases entered into and made by the employees
were free, fair and reasonable- especially as to the amount or
consideration given by the employer in exchange therefore, the fact that
they executed the same and received their monetary benefits thereunder
does not militate against them. The Law does not consider as valid any
agreement to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to
receive.
In the case at bar, it will be noticed that the vouchers dated
September 13, 1995 and September 20, 1996 (pp. 194 and 197, NLRC
Record), submitted by petitioners (pp. 191-192, Record), show that
private respondent Allauigan was only paid P6,000.00 and
Morente, P3,000.00 --- when they are legally entitled to
receive P28,952.00 and P27,597.00, respectively. Under the
circumstances, subject compromise settlements cannot be considered
valid and binding upon the NLRC as they do not represent fair and
reasonable settlements, nor do they demonstrate voluntariness on the
part of private respondents Morente and Allauigan. These employees
should still be paid the full amounts of their salary differentials, holiday
pay and service incentive leave pay less the amounts they had already
received under the compromise settlements with petitioners (pp. 174-
175, Rollo).
Parenthetically, the Court notes that petitioner availed itself of this remedy
without first seeking a reconsideration of the assailed decision. As a general rule,
certiorari will not lie unless an inferior court, has through a motion for reconsideration, a
chance to correct the errors imputed to it. While the rule admits of exceptions, petitioner
has not shown any reason for this Court not to apply said rule, which would have justified
outright dismissal of the petition were it not for the Courts desire to resolve the case not
on a technicality but on the merits.
[14]
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 15, 2000.
[15]
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners.
Petitioners insist that C. Planas Commercial is a retail establishment principally engaged in the
sale of plastic products and fruits to the customers for personal use, thus exempted from the application
of the minimum wage law; that it merely leases and occupies a stall in the Divisoria Market and the level
of its business activity requires and sustains only less than ten employees at a time. Petitioners contend
that private respondents were paid over and above the minimum wage required for a retail establishment,
thus the Labor Arbiter is correct in ruling that private respondents claim for underpayment has no factual
and legal basis. Petitioners claim that since private respondents alleged that petitioners employed 24
workers, it was incumbent upon them to prove such allegation which private respondents failed to do.
Petitioners also contend that the CA erred in applying strictly the rules of evidence against them
by holding that it was incumbent upon them to prove that their company is exempted from the minimum
wage law. They contend that they could not present records of their workers and their respective wages
because by the very nature of their business, the system of management is very loose and informal, thus
salaries and wages are paid by merely handing the money to the worker without the latter being required
to sign anything as proof of receipt. Thus, it would be unreasonable to insist upon petitioner to present
documents that they do not possess or keep in the first place.
We are not persuaded.
R.A. No. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization Act provides for the statutory minimum wage
rate of all workers and employees in the private sector. Section 4 of the Act provides for exemption from
the coverage, thus:
Sec. 4.
. . .
(c) Exempted from the provisions of this Act are household or domestic helpers
and persons employed in the personal service of another, including family drivers.
Retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers
may be exempted from the applicability of this Act upon application with and as
determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules
and regulations issued by the Commission. Whenever an application for exemption has
been duly filed with the appropriate Regional Board, action on any complaint for alleged
non-compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending resolution of the application for
exemption by the appropriate Regional Board.
In the event that applications for exemptions are not granted, employees shall
receive the appropriate compensation due them as provided for by this Act plus interest
of one percent (1%) per month retroactive to the effectivity of this Act.
Clearly, for a retail/service establishment to be exempted from the coverage of the minimum
wage law, it must be shown that the establishment is regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers
and had applied for exemptions with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance
with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission. Petitioners main defense in
controverting private respondents claim for underpayment of wages is that they are exempted from the
application of the minimum wage law, thus the burden of proving
[16]
such exemption rests on petitioners.
Petitioners had not shown any evidence to show that they had applied for such exemption and if they had
applied, the same was granted.
In Murillo vs. Sun Valley Realty, Inc.
[17]
where the respondents claim that petitioners therein are
not entitled to service incentive leave pay inasmuch as establishment employing less than ten (10)
employees are exempted by the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules from paying service incentive
leave pay, we held:
..the clear policy of the Labor Code is to include all establishments, except a few
classes, under the coverage of the provision granting service incentive leave to workers.
Private respondents' claim is that they fell within the exception. Hence, it was incumbent
upon them to prove that they belonged to a class excepted by law from the general rule.
Specifically, it was the duty of respondents, not of petitioners, to prove that there were
less than ten (10) employees in the company. Having failed to discharge its task, private
respondents must be deemed to be covered by the general rule, notwithstanding the
failure of petitioners to allege the exact number of employees of the corporation. In
other words, petitioners must be deemed entitled to service incentive leave.
[18]
Moreover, in C. Planas Commercial vs. NLRC,
[19]
where herein petitioners are also involved in a
case filed by one of its employees, we ruled:
Petitioners invoke the exemption provided by law for retail establishments which
employ not more than ten (10) workers to justify their non-liability for the salary
differentials in question. They insist that PLANAS is a retail establishment leasing a very
small and cramped stall in the Divisoria market which cannot accommodate more than
ten (10) workers in the conduct of its business.
We are unconvinced. The records disclose de los Reyes' clear entitlement to
salary differentials. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials who are
deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction are generally
accorded not only respect but even finality and bind this Court when supported by
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Thus, as long as their decisions are devoid of
any unfairness or arbitratriness in the process of their deduction from the evidence
proferred by the parties before them, all that is left is our stamp of finality by affirming
the factual findings made by them. In this case, the award of salary differentials by the
NLRC in favor of de los Reyes was made pursuant to RA 6727 otherwise known as
the Wage Rationalization Act, and the Rules Implementing Wage Order Nos. NCR-01 and
NCR-01-A and Wage Order Nos. NCR-02 and NCR-02-A.
Petitioners claim exemption under the aforestated law. However, the best proof
that they could have adduced was their approved application for exemption in
accordance with applicable guidelines issued by the Commission. Section 4, subpar. (c) of
RA 6727 categorically provides:
Retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than
ten (10) workers may be exempted from the applicability of this Act upon
application with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the
Commission. Whenever an application for exemption has been duly filed
with the appropriate Regional Board, action on any complaint for alleged
non-compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending resolution of the
application for exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. In the
event that applications for exemptions are not granted, employees shall
receive the appropriate compensation due them as provided for by this
Act plus interest of one percent (1%) per month retroactive to the
effectivity of this Act (emphasis supplied).
Extant in the records is the fact that petitioners had persistently raised the matter
of their exemption from any liability for underpayment without substantiating it by
showing compliance with the aforecited provision of law. It bears stressing that the NLRC
affirmed the Labor Arbiters award of salary differentials due to underpayment on the
ground that de los Reyes' claim therefor was not even denied or rebutted by petitioners.
More importantly, NLRC correctly upheld the Labor Arbiter's finding that PLANAS
employed around thirty (30) workers. We have every reason to believe that petitioners
need at least thirty (30) persons to conduct their business considering that Manager Cohu
did not submit any employment record to prove otherwise. As employer, Manager Cohu
ought to be the keeper of the employment records of all his workers. Thus, it was well
within his means to refute any monetary claim alleged to be unpaid. His inability to
produce the payrolls from their files without any satisfactory explanation can be
interpreted no less as suppression of vital evidence adverse to PLANAS.
Petitioners aver that the CA erred in ruling that private respondents Morente and Allauigan are still
entitled to monetary awards despite the latters execution of release and quitclaims because the
settlement was not voluntarily entered into by private respondents. Petitioners insist that both private
respondents Morente and Allauigan voluntarily entered into an amicable settlement with them on
September 17 and 18, 1995, respectively; that they were the ones who initiated the talks for settlement
and who pegged the amount; that they both voluntarily appeared before the Labor Arbiter to move for
the dismissal of their case insofar as their claims are concerned as well as submitted to the Labor Arbiter
their respective quitclaims and releases which were duly subscribed before the Labor Arbiter and duly
notarized.
We find merit in petitioners argument.
It has been held that not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where
there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the
terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face. In these cases, the law will step in to annul the
questionable transactions.
[20]
Such quitclaim and release agreements are regarded as ineffective to bar
the workers from claiming the full measure of their legal rights.
[21]
We find these two instances not present in private respondents Allauigan and Morentes case.
They failed to refute petitioners allegation that the settlement was voluntarily made as they had not filed
any pleadings before the CA. Notably, we have required private respondents to file their comment on the
instant petition, however, they failed to do so. They were then required to show cause why they should
not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt.
[22]
However, they still failed to file their comment,
thus, they were imposed a fine of P1,000.00
[23]
which was subsequently increased to P2,000.00 as there
was still no compliance. In a Resolution dated July 22, 2002, the Court ordered the National Bureau of
Investigation to arrest and detain private respondents and the private respondents to file their
comment.
[24]
As private respondents could not be located at their given address and they are not known
in their locality, the order of arrest and commitment was returned unserved,
[25]
thus the Court required the
Office of the Solicitor General to file the comment in behalf of all the respondents.
[26]
The Court finds
such inaction on the part of private respondents Allauigan and Morente an indication that they already
relented in their claims and gives credence to petitioners claim that they had voluntarily executed the
release and quitclaim and the motion to dismiss.
The CA found that the subject compromise agreements are not valid considering that they did not
represent the fair and reasonable settlements, i.e., that private respondent Allauigan was only
paid P6,000.00 and Morente, P3,000.00 --- when they are legally entitled to receive P28,952.00
and P27,597.00, respectively.
We do not agree. It bears stressing that at the time of the execution of the release and quitclaim,
the case filed by private respondents against petitioners was already dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and it
was pending appeal before the NLRC. Private respondents could have executed the release and quitclaim
because of a possibility that their appeal with the NLRC may not be successful. Since there was yet no
decision rendered by the NLRC when the quitclaims were executed, it could not be said that the amount
of the settlement is unconscionable. In any event, no deception has been established that would justify
the annulment of private respondents quitclaims.
[27]
In Mercer vs. NLRC,
[28]
we held that:
In Samaniego v. NLRC, we ruled that: A quitclaim executed in favor of a company
by an employee amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement between them."
Recently, we held that in the absence of any showing that petitioner was
"coerced or tricked" into signing the above-quoted Quitclaim and Release or that the
consideration thereof was very low, she is bound by the conditions thereof.
As computed by the NLRC, private respondent Alfredo Ofialda is entitled to the payment
of P14,934.00 as salary differential, P2,362.00 as legal holiday pay and P1,180.00 as service incentive leave
pay, all in the total amount of P18,476.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
January 19, 2000 and its Resolution dated August 15, 2000 areAFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
petitioners are ordered to pay private respondent Alfredo Ofialda the total amount of P18,476.00 and the
monetary awards in favor of private respondents Rudy Allauigan and Dioleto Morente are
hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
(On leave)
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice