Professional Documents
Culture Documents
113166-2005-C. Planas Commercial v. National Labor
113166-2005-C. Planas Commercial v. National Labor
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ , J : p
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 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 su cient 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 led 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 dispositive 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 O alda, 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.
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.
With respect to the other claims, i.e., overtime pay and premium pay for
holiday and rest day, We nd no reason to disturb the Labor Arbiter's ruling
thereon, that there is no su cient 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. 1 0
Petitioners led a petition for certiorari 1 1 with prayer for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction before this Court on November 26, 1997. Respondents
were required to le their Comment but only public respondent NLRC, through the Solicitor
General, complied therewith. In a Resolution dated June 28, 1999, 1 2 the petition was
referred to the CA pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC.
On January 19, 2000, 1 3 the CA denied the petition for lack of merit and a rmed 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
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]). HIESTA
Parenthetically, the Court notes that petitioner availed itself of this remedy
without rst 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 justi ed outright dismissal of the petition were it not for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
the Court's desire to resolve the case not on a technicality but on the merits. 1 4
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 15,
2000. 1 5
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.
xxx xxx xxx
(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. DCaEAS
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.
Moreover, in C. Planas Commercial vs. NLRC, 1 9 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 ndings of labor
o cials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their
jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but even nality 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 nality by a rming the factual
ndings 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
(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 led
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). CacEIS
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 a rmed the Labor Arbiter's 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 nding 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 les 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 latter's 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. 2 0 Such quitclaim
and release agreements are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers from claiming the
full measure of their legal rights. 2 1
We nd these two instances not present in private respondents Allauigan and
Morente's case. They failed to refute petitioners' allegation that the settlement was
voluntarily made as they had not led any pleadings before the CA. Notably, we have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
required private respondents to le 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. 2 2 However, they still failed to le their
comment, thus, they were imposed a ne of P1,000.00 2 3 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 le their comment. 2 4 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, 2 5 thus the Court required the
O ce of the Solicitor General to le the comment in behalf of all the respondents. 2 6 The
Court nds 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. DaECST
We do not agree. It bears stressing that at the time of the execution of the release
and quitclaim, the case led 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. 2 7 In
Mercer vs. NLRC, 2 8 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.
7. Id., at p. 51.
8. Id., at p. 52.
9. Id., at pp. 54-62; penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay, concurred in by
Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Rogelio I. Rayala; NLRC Case No. 008537-95.
10. Id., at pp. 58-62.
11. Docketed as G.R. No. 131348.
12. Id., at p. 97.
28. G.R. No. 105606, March 16, 1995, 242 SCRA 376.