FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 244629, July 28, 2020
MARBY FOOD VENTURES CORPORATION, MARIO VALDERRAMA, AND EMELITA VALDERRAMA, PETITIONERS, V. ROLAND DELA CRUZ, GABRIEL DELA CRUZ, JOSE PAULO ANZURES, EFREN TADEO, BONGBONG SANTOS, MARLON DE RAFAEL, CRIS C. SANTIAGO, ELMER MARANO, ARMANDO RIVERA, AND LOUIE BALMES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the review of the Decision2 dated October 19, 2018 and Resolution3 dated January 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151531 & 151557 wherein the CA affirmed the Decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which in turn partially reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA).
WHEREFORE, premised on all the foregoing, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and the Decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED conformably with the above findings.Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. For the first time, petitioners presented payrolls of respondents while reiterating their argument that the latter are receiving the basic minimum wage as they are paid a "premium" called "overtime pay" on top of their basic salary which must be included in the computation of their daily wage rate.11
Accordingly, [Marby and co-respondents are hereby directed to pay the following complainants their wage differentials and 13th month differentials as follows:
1. RONALD DELA CRUZ P20,308.16 2. JOSE PAULO ANZURES P26,223.16 3 BONGBONG SANTOS P17,773.16
4. MARJON DE RAFAEL P18,590.00 5. CRIS C. SANTIAGO P20,308.16 6. ELMER MARANO P26,223.16 7. ARMANDO RIVERA P21.998.16 8. LOUIE BALMES P21.998.16 9. GABRIEL DELA CRUZ P19.970.16
TOTAL P193,392.28
Respondents are likewise directed to pay attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award amounting to P19,339.22.
In all other aspects the Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the petition in CA-G.R. SP. No. 151531 is hereby GRANTED.The CA ruled that respondents are regular employees entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay. This is because based on the position paper of petitioners, respondents are tasked to deliver Marby's goods at a specified time and place. In short, they were still bound by a specific timetable within which to make deliveries even if they have the freedom to choose which route to take in order to deliver the goods. To support the foregoing, the CA highlighted the admission made by petitioners that respondents are required to log their time-in and time-out in the company and as such, actual work hours were ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
Respondents-employers are hereby ORDERED to pay complainants-employees double their salary differentials, overtime pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay and 13lh month pay.
Respondents-employers are likewise ORDERED to REIMBURSE to complainants-employees the deductions made from their salaries.
Respondents-employers are also ORDERED to pay ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney's fees.
Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment.
CA-G.R. SP. No. 151557 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The present case is hereby REMANDED to the concerned Labor Arbiter for proper computation.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners reiterate their position that respondents (complainants a quo) are field personnel who are not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave. They also claim to have paid the correct minimum wage and 13th month pay. Aside from that, they assail the award of reimbursements for deductions, the grant of attorney's fees and double indemnity.20cralawred
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE PETITION OF THE RESPONDENTS
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS 19
ART. 82. Coverage. — The provisions of this title [Working Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista,21 this Court clarified that the definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer. We held that field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Therefore, to determine whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to confirm if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the employee's time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer.22
x x x x
"Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
In complainants-employees' Position Paper, Efren Tadeo was receiving a daily rate of P120.00 for 2013, Php294.00 for 2014, Php349.00 for 2015 and Php364.00 for 2016.Respondents are entitled to
The Wage Orders for Region III covering these periods are:
"Wage Order No. 111-17, daily rate - P336, effectivity October 1, 2012 - October 30, 2014
Wage Order No. Ill-18, daily rate - P349, effectivity November 1,2014- December 31,2015
Wage Order No. 111-19, daily rate - P364. effectivity January 1,2016"
For failure of respondents-employers to refute the allegation on Tadeo's daily wage rate, the same is deemed admitted. Comparing the said rate to the minimum wage rate, there is no dispute that Efren Tadeo had received salary below the minimum wage rate except for the year 2016. As such, he is entitled to salary differentials.
Here, we agree with the ruling of the CA that the respondents are entitled to attorney's fees often percent (10%) of the monetary awards after being compelled to litigate by the failure of petitioner to pay minimum wage and labor standards benefits.
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 12. Any person, corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or entity which refuses or fails to pay any of the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates made in accordance with this Act shall be punished by a fine not less than Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) nor more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor more than four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court: Provided, That any person convicted under this Act shall not be entitled to the benefits provided for under the Probation Law.In the instant case, the petitioners argue that the rule on double indemnity applies only if there is refusal or failure to pay the adjustment in wage rate. They deny that they unjustly refused any payment that respondents are legally entitled to.
The employer concerned shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to double the unpaid benefits owing to the employees: Provided, That payment of indemnity shall not absolve the employer from the criminal liability imposable under this Act.
If the violation is committed by a corporation, trust or firm, partnership, association or any other entity, the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the entity's responsible officers, including, but not limited to, the president, vice president, chief executive officer, general manager, managing director or partner. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court, however, finds no basis to hold Dusit Hotel liable for double indemnity. Under Section 2 (m) of DOLE Department Order No. 10, Series of 1998,30 the Notice of Inspection Result "shall specify the violations discovered, if any, together with the officer's recommendation and computation of the unpaid benefits due each worker with an advice that the employer shall be liable for double indemnity in case of refusal or failure to correct the violation within five calendar days from receipt of notice". A careful review of the Notice of Inspection Result dated 29 May 2002, issued herein by the DOLE-NCR to Dusit Hotel, reveals that the said Notice did not contain such an advice. Although the Notice directed Dusit Hotel to correct its noted violations within five days from receipt thereof, it was not sufficiently apprised that failure to do so within the given period would already result in its liability for double indemnity. The lack of advice deprived Dusit Hotel of the opportunity to decide and act accordingly within the five-day period, as to avoid the penalty of double indemnity. By 22 October 2002, the DOLE-NCR, through Dir. Maraan, already issued its Order directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its employees the total amount of P1,218,240.00, corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO No. 9, plus the penalty of double indemnity, pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No 6727, as amended by Republic Act No. 8188.31cralawlawlibraryHere, there was no order from any competent authority advising the petitioners to pay unpaid employee benefits with sanctions for double indemnity in case of refusal or failure to correct the violation. Hence, it cannot be said that it refused or failed to pay any of the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates to come within the purview of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6727, as amended by RA No. 8188. As such, there is no basis to hold the petitioners for double indemnity.
Endnotes:
1Rollo,p. 11-27.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Priseilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Henri Jean Paul B. hiring (now a member of this Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 45-59.
3Id. at 38-40.
4 Decision was not attached.
5Rollo, p. 45.
6Id.
7Id. at 46.
8Id.
9Id.
10Id.
11Id. at 46-47.
12Id. at 47.
13 Also known as the Wage Rationalization Act.
14 AN ACT INCREASING RUN PENALTY AND INCREASING DOUBLE INDEMNITY FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRESCRIBED INCREASES OR ADJUSTMENT IN THE. WAGE RATES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION TWELVE OR REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SIXTY-SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE WAGE RATIONALIZATION ACT.
15Id. at 48.
16Id. at 49.
17 Supra note 2.
18Id. at 49-58.
19Id. at 15.
20Id. at 11-27.
21Veterans Security Agency. Inc. v. Gonzalvo. Jr., 514 Phil. 488 (2005).
22Id. at 873-874, citing the Bureau of Working Conditions, Advisory Opinion to Philippine Technical-Clerical Commercial Employees Association.
23 G.R. No. 175689, August 13,2014.
24Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Ouerimit. 424 Phil. 721 (2002); Sevillana v. IT (International) Corp., 3408 Phil. 570 (2001); Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission,387 Phil. 620 (2000); Auction Electric Co, Inc. v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 620 (1999); Ropali Trading Corporation v. NLRC, 357 Phil. 551 (1998); National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission (4th Division), 353 Phil. 551 (1998); Pacific Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ranay, 341 Phil. 716 (1997); Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, 326 Phil. 84 (1996); Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 44, 49 (1996); Good Earth Emporium, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. 272 Phil. 373 (1991); Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, 192 SCRA 680, 690 (1990); Biala v. Court of Appeals, 269 Phil. 53 (1990); Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 255 Phil. 787 (1989).
25Villar v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 706 (2000).
26Article 113. Wage Deduction. — No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from 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
In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by Secretary of Labor.
27Rule VIII, Section 10. Deductions from the wages of the employees may be made by the employer in any of the following cases:
(a) When the deductions are authorized by law, including deductions for the insurance premiums advanced by the employer in behalf of the employee as well as union dues adhere the right to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual employee himself;(b) When the deductions are with the written authorization of the employees for payment to a third person and the employer agrees to do so, provided that the latter does not receive any pecuniary benefit, directly or indirectly, from the transaction.
28Article 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.
29 613 Phil 491-507.
30 Guidelines on the Imposition of Double Indemnity for Non-Compliance with the Prescribed Increases or Adjustments in Wage Rates.||
31 Constitute compliance order defined under Section 2 (n) of DOL.F Department Otuer No. 10 as "the order issued by fhe regional director after due notice and hearing conducted by himself or a duly authorized hearing officer finding that a violation has been committed and directing the employer to pay the amount due each worker within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof."chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary