Anda di halaman 1dari 3

JRU v NLRC GR.

65482 WON faculty members paid by the hour are


entitled to holiday pay?
Q: A non- profit institution pays its faculty members on the basis of student contract
hour. Are such teaching personnel, who are paid on an hourly basis entitled to
holiday pay?
A: No, Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and
faculty members as no class days; certainly the latter do not expect payment for
said unworked days, and this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the
teaching contracts. (JRU v NLRC GR.65482, Dec. 1, 1987)
Honda v Samahan GR.145561 what constitutes the basic salary
insofar as computing the 13th month pay is concerned?
Q: HPI Company and SMM UNION forged a collective bargaining agreement
granting that the computation of the 14 th month pay is the same as the 13 th month
pay. SMM went on strike, but was ordered to return to work and HPI accepted
them back. Thereafter the management of HPI company announced a new
formula for the computation of the 13 th and 14th month pay. As per the companys
new formula, the amount equivalent to 1/12 of the employees basic salary shall
be deducted from these bonuses, with a commitment however that in the event
that the strike is declared legal, Honda shall pay the amount deducted. Does this
proposed computation constitute the basic salary insofar as computing the 13 th
month pay is concerned?
A: The basic salary of an employee for the purpose of computing the 13 th month
pay shall include all remunerations or earnings paid by his employer for
services rendered but does not include allowances and monetary benefits
which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary, such
as the cash equivalent of unused vacation and sick leave credits, overtime
premium, night differential and holiday pay, and cost-of-living allowances.
For employees receiving regular wage, basic salary has been interpreted to
mean, not the amount actually received by an employee, but 1/12 of their
standard monthly wage multiplied by their length of service within a given
calendar year. Thus, excluded from the computation of basic salary are
payments for sick, vacation and maternity leaves, night differentials, regular
holiday pay and premiums for work done on rest days and special holidays as
held previously (Honda Phils., Inc. vs. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawasa
Honda, G. R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005).
Domingo v. Rayala GR.155831 WON it is essential that a demand,
request, or requirement made as a condition for continued
employment or promotion in sexual harassment?
CONTRA with: Atty Aquino v. Judge Acosta CTA 01-1
Q: Y filed a Compliant for sexual harassment against Z for committing the
following acts: Holding and squeezing her shoulders; Running his fingers across
her neck and tickling her ear; Having inappropriate conversations wither her;

Giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges; and Making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones. Z was
found guilty of the offense charged. Z assailed the decision claiming his acts do
not constitute sexual harassment. Is Z guilty of sexual harassment?
A: YES If we were to test Zs acts strictly by the standards set in Section 3, RA
7877, he would still be administratively liable. It is true that this provision calls for
a "demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor." But it is not necessary that
the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a
categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude,
from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Ys shoulders, running his
fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations
with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones all
these acts of Z resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual
favor.
It is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be
articulated in a categorical oral or written statement to be considered as sexual
harassment. It is enough that the respondents acts result in creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee
Apex Mining v NLRC criteria of being a househelper; difference
between a househelper and houseworker
Q: APX Company hired X to perform laundry services at its staff house. X
accidentally slipped and hit her back on a stone. As a result of which, she was
not able to continue her work. The petitioner subsequently disallowed her to
return to work. The labor Arbiter ordered APX company to pay X the following: 1)
salary; 2) Emergency Living; 3) 13 th Month Pay; and 4) Separation Pay. Should
X be treated as a mere househelper or domestic servant and not as a regular
employee entitled to the amounts granted by the Labor Arbiter?
A: No. Under Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, The term
"househelper" as used is synonymous to the term "domestic servant" and shall
refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about
the employer's home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for
the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the
personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family.
The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen
working in staffhouses of a company, like X who attends to the needs of the
company's guest and other persons availing of said facilities. By the same token,
it cannot be considered to extend to the driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively
working in the company, the staffhouses and its premises. They may not be
considered as within the meaning of a "househelper" or "domestic servant" as
above-defined by law.
The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer

in the home of said employer. While it may be true that the nature of the work of
a househelper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company
staffhouse may be similar in nature, the difference in their circumstances is that
in the former instance they are actually serving the family while in the latter case,
whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or
industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in
the staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the employer. In such
instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the business
concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee. (Apex mining
company, inc. V. National labor relations commission and sinclitica candido, G.r.
no. 94951, April 22, 1991)