Scribd
Upload
348 views2 pages

G R - No - 172161

The employees filed a complaint against their employer for underpayment of wages over four employment periods from 1996 to 1999. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the employees were regular employees, not project employees as claimed by the employer, and were underpaid minimum wage. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that board, lodging, food, electricity, and water provided to employees could not be included in wage computation without written employee consent. The National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court also ruled that the facilities provided could not be included in wage computation as the employer did not meet legal requirements to do so.

Uploaded by

Arnold Jr Amboang
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
348 views2 pages

G R - No - 172161

The employees filed a complaint against their employer for underpayment of wages over four employment periods from 1996 to 1999. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the employees were regular employees, not project employees as claimed by the employer, and were underpaid minimum wage. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that board, lodging, food, electricity, and water provided to employees could not be included in wage computation without written employee consent. The National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court also ruled that the facilities provided could not be included in wage computation as the employer did not meet legal requirements to do so.

Uploaded by

Arnold Jr Amboang
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
  • Facts: Details the background and context of the case, including employment conditions and allegations.
  • Ruling: Explains the court's decision regarding the inclusion of certain benefits in wage calculations.

G.R. No.

172161
March 2, 2011

SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and SONNY L. LAGON, petitioner,


vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4th DIVISION, ROLDAN LOPEZ, EDGARDO ZUÑIGA
and DANILO CAÑETE, respondent.

Facts:

Respondents were supposedly employed by petitioner as project employees in 1996,


1997, 1998, and 1999. They were paid less than the minimum wage for the four periods
of their employment. During their 4th employment, Lagon, the employer, due to
economic constraints, had to cut down on the overtime work of the employees. Thus,
when respondent-employees asked for overtime work, Lagon had to refuse them, and
told them that if they insist, they would have to go home at their own expense and that
they would not be given any more time nor be allowed to stay in their quarters. The
case was brought before the Labor Arbiter, on a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-
payment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, among other things, against the
employer. The employer reasoned that the employees were project employees, since
they were employed for a specific undertaking, and thus were not regular employees
entitled to minimum wage. Further, the employer reasoned that the employees were
actually paid above the minimum wage, since the allowances for snacks, lodging house,
electricity, water, and transportation should be included in the wages.

The LA opined that private respondents were regular employees because they were
repeatedly hired by petitioners and they performed activities which were usual,
necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the employer. With regard to the
underpayment of wages, the LA found that private respondents were underpaid. It ruled
that the free board and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by them could not
be included in the computation of their wages because these were given without their
written consent. The LA, however, found that petitioners were not liable for illegal
dismissal. The LA viewed private respondent's act of going home as an act of
indifference when petitioners decided to prohibit overtime work. The NLRC and CA
affirmed and ruled against the employer.

Issue:

Whether or not the free board and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by the
employees be included in the computation of the wages.

Ruling:
No, board and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by the employees should not
be included in the computation of the wages.

On the issue of whether the facilities should be included as wages, a four-pronged test
must be completed: proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the
trade; second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by
the employee; and finally, facilities must be charged at reasonable value. Mere availment is not
sufficient to allow deductions from employees’ wages.

These requirements, however, have not been met in this case. SLL failed to present any
company policy or guideline showing that provisions for meals and lodging were part of the
employees’ salaries. It also failed to provide proof of the employees’ written authorization,
much less show how they arrived at their valuations.

You might also like