CASE NUMBER 34:

(Compensation for piece workers)

PULP AND PAPER, INC., petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EPIFANIA ANTONIO
[G.R. No. 116593. September 24, 1997]

PANGANIBAN, J .:

COURT RULING:

The appeal is not meritorious.

First Issue: Computation of Minimum Wage

Compensation of Pieceworkers

In the absence of wage rates based on time and motion studies determined by the labor secretary or
submitted by the employer to the labor secretary for his approval, wage rates of piece-rate workers
must be based on the applicable daily minimum wage determined by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Commission. To ensure the payment of fair and reasonable wage rates, Article 101 of the
Labor Code provides that the Secretary of Labor shall regulate the payment of wages by results,
including pakyao, piecework and other noontime work. The same statutory provision also states that
the wage rates should be based, preferably, on time and motion studies, or those arrived at in
consultation with representatives of workers and employers organizations. In the absence of such
prescribed wage rates for piece-rate workers, the ordinary minimum wage rates prescribed by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards should apply. This is in compliance with Section 8 of
the Rules Implementing Wage Order Nos. NCR-02 and NCR-02-A -- the prevailing wage order at the time
of dismissal of private respondent.

Second Issue: Computation of Separation Pay

Petitioner questions not only the basis for computing private respondents monthly wage; it also
contends that private respondents separation pay should not have been computed at one months pay
for every year of service. However, petitioner failed to discern in finding that the services of private
respondent were terminated, merely adopted by analogy the rule on constructive dismissal. Since
private respondent was not reemployed within six (6) months from the suspension of her
employment, she is deemed to have been constructively dismissed. Otherwise, private respondent will
remain in a perpetual floating status. Because petitioner had not shown by competent evidence any
just cause for the dismissal of private respondent, the court ruled that she is entitled to reinstatement
or to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service. Private respondent,
however, neither asked for reinstatement nor appealed from the labor arbiters finding that she was not
illegally dismissed; she merely prayed for the grant of her monetary claims. Thus, the court sustain the
award of separation pay made by public respondent, for employees constructively dismissed are
entitled to separation pay. Because she did not ask for more, the court cannot give her more.

Third Issue: Determination of Salary Differential

The court also dismissed petitioners challenge to the computation of salary differential. As the court
observed, private respondent is entitled to the minimum wage prevailing at the time of the termination
of her employment. Since neither the assailed Decision nor the pleadings of private respondent show
that private respondents work was seasonal, the court is under the presumption that private
respondents work was continuous. In view of the failure of petitioner to support its claim, the
correctness of this computation was sustained.

The petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.

Case Number 35:
(Payment)

SAN MIGUEL JEEPNEY SERVICE and MAMERTO GALACE, petitioners, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EDELBERTO PADUA and 23 OTHERS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 92772. November 28, 1996]

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Court Ruling:

Apparently, San Miguel did not renew its contract because of sliding incomes and not because of serious
business losses, thus, it cannot justify the non-payment of separation pay.

As San Miguel admitted, what they suffered were sliding incomes in other words, decreasing revenues.
What the law speaks of is serious business losses or financial reverses. Clearly, sliding incomes are not
necessarily losses, much less serious business losses within the meaning of the law.

Case Number 36:
(Allowable deductions)

NIA JEWELRY MANUFACTURING OF METAL ARTS, INC. AND ELISEA B. ABELLA v. MADELINE C.
MONTECILLO AND LIZA M. TRINIDAD
[G.R. No. 188169 : March 21, 2012]

REYES, J.:

The Court's Ruling:

The court finds the respondents' arguments tenuous.

The LA and the NLRC both found that the respondents were not illegally dismissed. The CA could not
have taken the opposite stance had it not resorted to a re-evaluation of the evidence presented by the
parties. Besides, even if the court found that the CA re-evaluated the parties' evidence, which ordinarily
is beyond the province of certiorari, the court gave due course to the petition under Rule 45 and
resolved the same on the merits in the interest of substantial justice.

Further, there is no merit in the respondents claim that Nia Jewelry failed to comply with the two-
notice rule in removing them from employment on the ground of abandonment. While it is true that the
employer generally has the burden of proof to establish the validity of a dismissal, however, if the
employer denies the fact of dismissal, the burden to prove that dismissal indeed occurred shifts to the
employee. In the instant petition, the respondents relied on presumptions and bare and uncorroborated
allegations in their attempt to establish that they were dismissed. The respondents then expect Nia
Jewelry to prove that there was compliance with the two-notice rule. The court finds that the
respondents are begging the question. Nia Jewelry could not have complied with the two-notice rule
because in the first place, the respondents were not dismissed at all. Just a day or two after the policy to
post cash deposits was imposed, the respondents stopped reporting for work and filed their complaints
for illegal dismissal.