J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)

G.R. No. 202961, February 04, 2015 2. The UNION acknowledges that

under Article 283 of the Labor
EMER MILAN, RANDY MASANGKAY, Code, separation pay is granted
WILFREDO JAVIER, RONALDO DAVID, to employees who are dismissed
BONIFACIO MATUNDAN, NORA MENDOZA, due to closures or cessation of
ET AL., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR operations NOT DUE to serious
RELATIONS COMMISSION, SOLID MILLS, business losses.
INC., AND/OR PHILIP ANG, Respondents.
3. The UNION acknowledges that in
DECISION view of the serious business
losses the Company has been
LEONEN, J.: experiencing as seen in their
audited financial statements,
employees ARE NOT granted
An employer is allowed to withhold terminal
separation benefits under the
pay and benefits pending the employee’s
law.
return of its properties.
4. The COMPANY, by way of
Petitioners are respondent Solid Mills, Inc.’s
goodwill and in the spirit of
(Solid Mills) employees.1  They are represented
generosity agrees to grant
by the National Federation of Labor Unions
financial assistance less
(NAFLU), their collective bargaining agent.2
accountabilities to members of
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

the Union based on length of

As Solid Mills’ employees, petitioners and their
service to be computed as
families were allowed to occupy SMI Village, a
follows: (Italics in this paragraph
property owned by Solid Mills.3  According to
supplied)
Solid Mills, this was “[o]ut of liberality and for
the convenience of its employees . . . [and] on
Number of days - 12.625 for
the condition that the employees . . . would
every year of service
vacate the premises anytime the Company
deems fit.”4
5. In view of the above, the
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

members of the UNION will

In September 2003, petitioners were informed
receive such financial assistance
that effective October 10, 2003, Solid Mills
on an equal monthly installments
would cease its operations due to serious
basis based on the following
business losses.5  NAFLU recognized Solid Mills’
schedule:
closure due to serious business losses in the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

memorandum of agreement dated September

First Check due on January 5,
1, 2003.6  The memorandum of agreement
2004 and every 5th of the
provided for Solid Mills’ grant of separation pay
month thereafter until
less accountabilities, accrued sick leave
December 5, 2004.
benefits, vacation leave benefits, and 13th
month pay to the employees.7  Pertinent 6. The COMPANY commits to pay
portions of the agreement provide: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

any accrued benefits the Union

members are entitled to,
WHEREAS, the COMPANY has incurred
specifically those arising from
substantial financial losses and is currently
sick and vacation leave benefits
experiencing further severe financial losses;
and 13th month pay, less
chanrobleslaw

accountabilities based on the

WHEREAS, in view of such irreversible
following schedule:
financial losses, the COMPANY will cease its
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

operations on October 10, 2003;

One Time Cash Payment to be
chanrobleslaw

distributed anywhere from. . .

WHEREAS, all employees of
.
the COMPANY on account of irreversible
financial losses, will be dismissed from
....
employment effective October 10, 2003; chanrobleslaw

7. The foregoing agreement is

In view thereof, the parties agree as entered into with full knowledge
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

by the parties of their rights

under the law and they hereby
1. That UNION acknowledges that bind themselves not to conduct
the COMPANY is experiencing any concerted action of
severe financial losses and as a whatsoever kind, otherwise the
consequence of which, grant of financial assistance as
management is constrained to discussed above will be
cease the company’s operations.

Page 1 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
withheld.8 (Emphasis in the WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
original) is entered ORDERING respondents SOLID
MILLS, INC. and/or PHILIP ANG (President),
in solido to pay the remaining 21
Solid Mills filed its Department of Labor and complainants: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Employment termination report on September

2, 2003.9 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1)  19 of which, namely EMER MILAN, RAMON
MASANGKAY, ALFREDO JAVIER, RONALDO
Later, Solid Mills, through Alfredo Jingco, sent DAVID, BONIFACIO MATUNDAN, NORA
to petitioners individual notices to vacate SMI MENDOZA, MYRNA IGCAS, RAUL DE LAS ALAS,
Village.10
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
RENATO ESTOLANO, REX S. DIMAFELIX,
MAURA MILAN, JESSICA BAYBAYON, ALFREDO
Petitioners were no longer allowed to report for MENDOZA, ROBERTO IGCAS, ISMAEL MATA,
work by October 10, 2003.11  They were CARLITO DAMIAN, TEODORA MAHILOM,
required to sign a memorandum of agreement MARILOU LINGA, RENATO LINGA their
with release and quitclaim before their separation pay of 12.625 days’ pay per year of
vacation and sick leave benefits, 13th month service, pro-rated 13th month pay for 2003
pay, and separation pay would be released.12  and accrued vacation and sick leaves, plus
Employees who signed the memorandum of 12% interest p.a. from date of filing of the lead
agreement were considered to have agreed to case/judicial demand on 12/08/03 until actual
vacate SMI Village, and to the demolition of payment and/or finality; chanrobleslaw

the constructed houses inside as condition for

the release of their termination benefits and 2)  the remaining 2 of which, complainants
separation pay.13  Petitioners refused to sign CLEOPATRA ZACARIAS, as she already
the documents and demanded to be paid their received on 12/19/03 her accrued 13th month
benefits and separation pay.14 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
pay for 2003, accrued VL/SL total amount of
P15,435.16, likewise, complainant Jerry L.
Hence, petitioners filed complaints before the Sesma as he already received his accrued 13th
Labor Arbiter for alleged non-payment of month pay for 2003, SL/VL in the total amount
separation pay, accrued sick and vacation of P10,974.97, shall be paid only their
leaves, and 13th month pay.15  They argued separation pay of 12.625 days’ pay per year of
that their accrued benefits and separation pay service but also with 12% interest p.a. from
should not be withheld because their payment date of filing of the lead case/judicial demand
is based on company policy and practice.16  on 12/08/03 until actual payment and/or
Moreover, the 13th month pay is based on law, finality, which computation as of date, amount
specifically, Presidential Decree No. 851.17  to as shown in the attached computation
Their possession of Solid Mills property is not sheet.
an accountability that is subject to clearance
procedures.18  They had already turned over to 3)  Nine (9) individual complaints viz., of Maria
Solid Mills their uniforms and equipment when Agojo, Joey Suarez, Ronaldo Vergara, Ronnie
Solid Mills ceased operations.19 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Vergara, Antonio R. Dulo, Sr., Bryan D.
Durano, Silverio P. Durano, Sr., Elizabeth
On the other hand, Solid Mills argued that Duarte and Purificacion Malabanan
petitioners’ complaint was premature because are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE due to
they had not vacated its property.20 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
amicable settlement, whereas, that of [RONIE
ARANAS], [EMILITO NAVARRO], [NONILON
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of PASCO], [GENOVEVA PASCO], [OLIMPIO A.
petitioners.21  According to the Labor Arbiter, PASCO] are DISMISSED WITHOUT
Solid Mills illegally withheld petitioners’ PREJUDICE, for lack of interest and/or failure
benefits and separation pay.22  Petitioners’ to prosecute.
right to the payment of their benefits and
separation pay was vested by law and The Computation and Examination unit is
contract.23  The memorandum of agreement directed to cause the computation of the award
dated September 1, 2003 stated no condition in Pars. 2 and 3 above.28 (Emphasis in the
to the effect that petitioners must vacate Solid original)
Mills’ property before their benefits could be
given to them.24  Petitioners’ possession should Solid Mills appealed to the National Labor
not be construed as petitioners’ Relations Commission.29  It prayed for, among
“accountabilities” that must be cleared first others, the dismissal of the complaints against
before the release of benefits.25  Their it and the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s
possession “is not by virtue of any employer- decision.30
employee relationship.”26  It is a civil issue,
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

which is outside the jurisdiction of the Labor The National Labor Relations Commission
Arbiter.27 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

affirmed paragraph 3 of the Labor Arbiter’s

dispositive portion, but reversed paragraphs 1
The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s and 2.  Thus:
decision reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Page 2 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Labor Arbiter discretion.45  As a consequence of Solid Mills’
Renaldo O. Hernandez dated 10/17/05 is closure and the resulting termination of
AFFIRMED in so far as par. 3 thereof is petitioners, the employer-employee
concerned but modified in that paragraphs 1 relationship between them ceased to exist. 
and 2 thereof are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. There was no more reason for them to stay in
Accordingly, the following complainants, Solid Mills’ property.46  Moreover, the
namely: Emir Milan, Ramon Masangkay, memorandum of agreement between Solid
Alfredo Javier, Ronaldo David, Bonifacio Mills and the union representing petitioners
Matundan, Nora Mendoza, Myrna Igcas, Raul provided that Solid Mills’ payment of
De Las Alas, Renato Estolano, Rex S. employees’ benefits should be “less
Dimaf[e]lix, Maura Milan, Jessica Baybayon, accountabilities.”47 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Alfredo Mendoza, Roberto Igcas, Cleopatra

Zacarias and Jerry L. Sesma’s monetary claims On petitioners’ claim that there was no
in the form of separation pay, accrued 13th evidence that Teodora Mahilom already
month pay for 2003, accrued vacation and sick received her retirement pay, the Court of
leave pays are held in abeyance pending Appeals ruled that her complaint filed before
compliance of their accountabilities to the Labor Arbiter did not include a claim for
respondent company by turning over the retirement pay.  The issue was also raised for
subject lots they respectively occupy at SMI the first time on appeal, which is not
Village Sucat Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila to allowed.48  In any case, she already retired
herein respondent company.31 before Solid Mills ceased its operations.49 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The National Labor Relations Commission The Court of Appeals agreed with the National
noted that complainants Marilou Linga, Renato Labor Relations Commission’s deletion of
Linga, Ismael Mata, and Carlito Damian were interest since it found that Solid Mills’ act of
already paid their respective separation pays withholding payment of benefits and
and benefits.32  Meanwhile, Teodora Mahilom separation pay was proper.  Petitioners’
already retired long before Solid Mills’ terminal benefits and pay were withheld
closure.33  She was already given her because of petitioners’ failure to vacate Solid
retirement benefits.34 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Mills’ property.50 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The National Labor Relations Commission ruled Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that Carlito
that because of petitioners’ failure to vacate Damian already received his separation pay
Solid Mills’ property, Solid Mills was justified in and benefits.51  Hence, he should no longer be
withholding their benefits and separation awarded these claims.52 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

pay.35  Solid Mills granted the petitioners the

privilege to occupy its property on account of In the resolution promulgated on July 16,
petitioners’ employment.36  It had the 2012, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’
prerogative to terminate such privilege.37  The motion for reconsideration.53 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

termination of Solid Mills and petitioners’

employer-employee relationship made it Petitioners raise in this petition the following
incumbent upon petitioners to turn over the errors:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

property to Solid Mills.38

I
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners filed a motion for partial

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT
reconsideration on October 18, 2010,39 but this
OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
was denied in the November 30, 2010
WHEN IT RULED THAT PAYMENT OF THE
resolution.40
MONETARY CLAIMS OF PETITIONERS SHOULD
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING COMPLIANCE

Petitioners, thus, filed a petition for
OF THEIR ACCOUNTABILITIES TO
certiorari41 before the Court of Appeals to assail
RESPONDENT SOLID MILLS BY TURNING OVER
the National Labor Relations Commission
THE SUBJECT LOTS THEY RESPECTIVELY
decision of August 31, 2010 and resolution of
OCCUPY AT SMI VILLAGE, SUCAT,
November 30, 2010.42
MUNTINLUPA CITY.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On January 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals

II
issued a decision dismissing petitioners’
petition,43 thus:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
WHEN IT UPHELD THE RULING OF THE NLRC
ordered DISMISSED.44
DELETING THE INTEREST OF 12% PER ANNUM
IMPOSED BY THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER
The Court of Appeals ruled that Solid Mills’ act HERNANDEZ ON THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE
of allowing its employees to make temporary DATE OF FILING OF THE LEAD CASE/JUDICIAL
dwellings in its property was a liberality on its DEMAND ON DECEMBER 8, 2003 UNTIL
part.  It may be revoked any time at its ACTUAL PAYMENT AND/OR FINALITY.
Page 3 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
III ordinary meaning.66  Thus, it should be
interpreted as “a state of being liable or
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT responsible,” or “obligation.”67  Petitioners’
OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR differentiation between accountabilities
WHEN IT UPHELD THE RULING OF THE NLRC incurred while performing jobs at the worksite
DENYING THE CLAIM OF TEODORA MAHILOM and accountabilities incurred outside the
FOR PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS worksite is baseless because the agreement
DESPITE LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHE with NAFLU merely stated “accountabilities,”
RECEIVED THE SAME. without qualification.68 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

IV On the removal of the award of 12% interest

per annum, respondents argue that such
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER CARLITO removal was proper since respondent Solid
DAMIAN IS ENTITLED TO HIS MONETARY Mills was justified in withholding the monetary
BENEFITS FROM RESPONDENT SOLID MILLS.54 claims.69 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners argue that respondent Solid Mills Respondents argue that Teodora Mahilom had
and NAFLU’s memorandum of agreement has no more cause of action for retirement benefits
no provision stating that benefits shall be paid claim.70  She had already retired more than a
only upon return of the possession of decade before Solid Mills’ closure.  She also
respondent Solid Mills’ property.55  It only already received her retirement benefits in
provides that the benefits shall be “less 1991.71  Teodora Mahilom’s claim was also not
accountabilities,” which should not be included in the complaint filed before the Labor
interpreted to include such possession.56  The Arbiter.  It was improper to raise this claim for
fact that majority of NAFLU’s members were the first time on appeal.  In any case, Teodora
not occupants of respondent Solid Mills’ Mahilom’s claim was asserted long after the
property is evidence that possession of the three-year prescriptive period provided in
property was not contemplated in the Article 291 of the Labor Code.72 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

agreement.57  “Accountabilities” should be

interpreted to refer only to accountabilities that Lastly, according to respondents, it would be
were incurred by petitioners while they were unjust if Carlito Damian would be allowed to
performing their duties as employees at the receive monetary benefits again, which he,
worksite.58  Moreover, applicable laws, admittedly, already received from Solid
company practice, or policies do not provide Mills.73
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

that 13th month pay, and sick and vacation

leave pay benefits, may be withheld pending I
satisfaction of liabilities by the employee.59 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners also point out that the National The National Labor Relations
Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Commission may preliminarily
Appeals have no jurisdiction to declare that determine issues related to rights
petitioners’ act of withholding possession of arising from an employer-employee
respondent Solid Mills’ property is illegal.60  The relationship
regular courts have jurisdiction over this
issue.61  It is independent from the issue of The National Labor Relations Commission has
payment of petitioners’ monetary benefits.62 jurisdiction to determine, preliminarily, the
parties’ rights over a property, when it is
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

For these reasons, and because, according to necessary to determine an issue related to
petitioners, the amount of monetary award is rights or claims arising from an employer-
no longer in question, petitioners are entitled employee relationship.
to 12% interest per annum.63
Article 217 provides that the Labor Arbiter, in
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners also argue that Teodora Mahilom his or her original jurisdiction, and the National
and Carlito Damian are entitled to their Labor Relations Commission, in its appellate
claims.  They insist that Teodora Mahilom did jurisdiction, may determine issues involving
not receive her retirement benefits and that claims arising from employer-employee
Carlito Damian did not receive his separation relations.  Thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

benefits.64
ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

AND THE COMMISSION. – (1) Except as

Respondents Solid Mills and Philip Ang, in their
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor
joint comment, argue that petitioners’ failure
Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
to turn over respondent Solid Mills’ property
jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty
“constituted an unsatisfied accountability” for
(30) calendar days after the submission of the
which reason “petitioners’ benefits could
case by the parties for decision without
rightfully be withheld.”65  The term
extension, even in the absence of stenographic
“accountability” should be given its natural and

Page 4 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
notes, the following cases involving workers, termination, and should be entered as a
whether agricultural or non-agricultural: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.75

1. Unfair labor practice cases; Bañez was cited in Domondon v. National

2. Termination disputes; Labor Relations Commission.76  One of the
3. If accompanied with a claim for issues in Domondon is whether the Labor
reinstatement, those cases that Arbiter has jurisdiction to decide an issue on
workers may file involving wages, the transfer of ownership of a vehicle assigned
rates of pay, hours of work and to the employee.  It was argued that only
other terms and conditions of regular courts have jurisdiction to decide the
employment; issue.77
4. Claims for actual, moral,
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

exemplary and other forms of This court ruled that since the transfer of
damages arising from the ownership of the vehicle to the employee was
employer-employee relations; connected to his separation from the employer
5. Cases arising from any violation and arose from the employer-employee
of Article 264 of this Code, relationship of the parties, the employer’s
including questions involving the claim fell within the Labor Arbiter’s
legality of strikes and lockouts; jurisdiction.78
and
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6. Except claims for Employees As a general rule, therefore, a claim only

Compensation, Social Security, needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor
Medicare and maternity benefits, issue raised and must arise from an employer-
all other claims, arising from employee relationship for the labor tribunals to
employer-employee relations have jurisdiction.
including those of persons in
domestic or household service, In this case, respondent Solid Mills claims that
involving an amount exceeding its properties are in petitioners’ possession by
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), virtue of their status as its employees. 
regardless of whether Respondent Solid Mills allowed petitioners to
accompanied with a claim for use its property as an act of liberality.  Put in
reinstatement. other words, it would not have allowed
petitioners to use its property had they not
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive been its employees.  The return of its
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by properties in petitioners’ possession by virtue
Labor Arbiters. (Emphasis supplied) of their status as employees is an issue that
must be resolved to determine whether
Petitioners’ claim that they have the right to benefits can be released immediately.  The
the immediate release of their benefits as issue raised by the employer is, therefore,
employees separated from respondent Solid connected to petitioners’ claim for benefits and
Mills is a question arising from the employer- is sufficiently intertwined with the parties’
employee relationship between the parties. employer-employee relationship.  Thus, it is
properly within the labor tribunals’ jurisdiction.
Claims arising from an employer-employee
relationship are not limited to claims by an II
employee.  Employers may also have claims
against the employee, which arise from the Institution of clearance procedures
same relationship. has legal bases

In Bañez v. Valdevilla,74 this court ruled that Requiring clearance before the release of last
Article 217 of the Labor Code also applies to payments to the employee is a standard
employers’ claim for damages, which arises procedure among employers, whether public or
from or is connected with the labor issue.  private.  Clearance procedures are instituted to
Thus: ensure that the properties, real or personal,
belonging to the employer but are in the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Whereas this Court in a number of occasions possession of the separated employee, are
had applied the jurisdictional provisions of returned to the employer before the
Article 217 to claims for damages filed by employee’s departure.
employees, we hold that by the designating
clause “arising from the employer-employee As a general rule, employers are prohibited
relations” Article 217 should apply with equal from withholding wages from employees.  The
force to the claim of an employer for actual Labor Code provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

damages against its dismissed employee,

where the basis for the claim arises from or is Art. 116. Withholding of wages and
necessarily connected with the fact of kickbacks prohibited. It shall be unlawful for
any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold

Page 5 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
any amount from the wages of a worker or the term “accountability” does not limit the
induce him to give up any part of his wages by definition of accountability to those incurred in
force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any the worksite.  As long as the debt or obligation
other means whatsoever without the worker’s was incurred by virtue of the employer-
consent. employee relationship, generally, it shall be
included in the employee’s accountabilities that
The Labor Code also prohibits the elimination are subject to clearance procedures.
or diminution of benefits. Thus:
It may be true that not all employees enjoyed
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Art. 100. Prohibition against elimination the privilege of staying in respondent Solid
or diminution of benefits. Nothing in this Mills’ property.  However, this alone does not
Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any imply that this privilege when enjoyed was not
way diminish supplements, or other employee a result of the employer-employee
benefits being enjoyed at the time of relationship.  Those who did avail of the
promulgation of this Code. privilege were employees of respondent Solid
Mills.  Petitioners’ possession should, therefore,
be included in the term “accountability.”
However, our law supports the employers’
institution of clearance procedures before the Accountabilities of employees are personal. 
release of wages.  As an exception to the They need not be uniform among all
general rule that wages may not be withheld employees in order to be included in
and benefits may not be diminished, the Labor accountabilities incurred by virtue of an
Code provides: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

employer-employee relationship.

Art. 113. Wage deduction. No employer, in Petitioners do not categorically deny

his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall respondent Solid Mills’ ownership of the
make any deduction from the wages of his property, and they do not claim superior right
employees, except: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

to it.  What can be gathered from the findings

of the Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations
1. In cases where the worker is insured with Commission, and the Court of Appeals is that
his consent by the employer, and the respondent Solid Mills allowed the use of its
deduction is to recompense the employer for property for the benefit of petitioners as its
the amount paid by him as premium on the employees.  Petitioners were merely allowed to
insurance; chanrobleslaw

possess and use it out of respondent Solid

Mills’ liberality.  The employer may, therefore,
2. For union dues, in cases where the right of demand the property at will.79
the worker or his union to check-off has been
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

recognized by the employer or authorized in The return of the property’s possession

writing by the individual worker concerned; became an obligation or liability on the part of
and the employees when the employer-employee
relationship ceased.  Thus, respondent Solid
3. In cases where the employer is authorized Mills has the right to withhold petitioners’
by law or regulations issued by the Secretary wages and benefits because of this existing
of Labor and Employment.  (Emphasis supplied) debt or liability.  In Solas v. Power and
Telephone Supply Phils., Inc., et al.,  this court
The Civil Code provides that the employer is recognized this right of the employer when it
authorized to withhold wages for debts due: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ruled that the employee in that case was not
constructively dismissed.80  Thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Article 1706. Withholding of the wages, except

for a debt due, shall not be made by the There was valid reason for respondents’
employer. cralawred
withholding of petitioner’s salary for the month
of February 2000. Petitioner does not deny
that he is indebted to his employer in the
“Debt” in this case refers to any obligation due
amount of around P95,000.00. Respondents
from the employee to the employer.  It
explained that petitioner’s salary for the period
includes any accountability that the employee
of February 1-15, 2000 was applied as partial
may have to the employer.  There is no reason
payment for his debt and for withholding taxes
to limit its scope to uniforms and equipment,
on his income; while for the period of February
as petitioners would argue.
15-28, 2000, petitioner was already on
absence without leave, hence, was not entitled
More importantly, respondent Solid Mills and
to any pay.81
NAFLU, the union representing petitioners,
agreed that the release of petitioners’ benefits
shall be “less accountabilities.” The law does not sanction a situation where
employees who do not even assert any claim
“Accountability,” in its ordinary sense, means over the employer’s property are allowed to
obligation or debt.  The ordinary meaning of take all the benefits out of their employment

Page 6 of 7
J Leonen Labor Cases (2014-2018)
while they simultaneously withhold possession
of their employer’s property for no rightful Our laws provide for a clear preference for
reason. labor.  This is in recognition of the
asymmetrical power of those with capital when
Withholding of payment by the employer does they are left to negotiate with their workers
not mean that the employer may renege on its without the standards and protection of law. 
obligation to pay employees their wages, In cases such as these, the collective
termination payments, and due benefits.  The bargaining unit of workers are able to get more
employees’ benefits are also not being benefits and in exchange, the owners are able
reduced.  It is only subjected to the condition to continue with the program of cutting their
that the employees return properties properly losses or wind down their operations due to
belonging to the employer.  This is only serious business losses.  The company in this
consistent with the equitable principle that “no case did all that was required by law.
one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at
the expense of another.”82 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The preferential treatment given by our law to
labor, however, is not a license for abuse.84  It
For these reasons, we cannot hold that is not a signal to commit acts of unfairness
petitioners are entitled to interest of their that will unreasonably infringe on the property
withheld separation benefits.  These benefits rights of the company.  Both labor and
were properly withheld by respondent Solid employer have social utility, and the law is not
Mills because of their refusal to return its so biased that it does not find a middle ground
property. to give each their due.

III Clearly, in this case, it is for the workers to

return their housing in exchange for the
release of their benefits.  This is what they
Mahilom and Damian are not agreed upon.  It is what is fair in the premises.
entitled to the benefits claimed
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The
Teodora Mahilom is not entitled to separation Court of Appeals’ decision is AFFIRMED.
benefits.

Both the National Labor Relations Commission

and the Court of Appeals found that Teodora
Mahilom already retired long before
respondent Solid Mills’ closure.  They found
that she already received her retirement
benefits. We have no reason to disturb this
finding.  This court is not a trier of facts. 
Findings of the National Labor Relations
Commission, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are binding upon this
court.83chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Moreover, Teodora Mahilom’s claim for

retirement benefits was not included in her
complaint filed before the Labor Arbiter. 
Hence, it may not be raised in the appeal.

Similarly, the National Labor Relations

Commission and the Court of Appeals found
that Carlito Damian already received his
terminal benefits.  Hence, he may no longer
claim terminal benefits.

The fact that respondent Solid Mills has not yet

demolished Carlito Damian’s house in SMI
Village is not evidence that he did not receive
his benefits.  Both the National Labor Relations
Commission and the Court of Appeals found
that he executed an affidavit stating that he
already received the benefits.

Absent any showing that the National Labor

Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals
misconstrued these facts, we will not reverse
these findings.
Page 7 of 7