Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > March 1989 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 72616-17 March 8, 1989 - FRAMANLIS FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 72616-17. March 8, 1989.]

FRAMANLIS FARMS, INC., ELOISA SYCIP and LINCOLN SYCIP, Petitioners, v. HON. MINISTER OF LABOR, MANILA, PAFLU SEPTEMBER CONVENTION, ZOILO ESTANISLAO, EMILIO ANITO, JAIME ARNEJO, CASIMIRO ARRABIS, RENATO BACONADOR, VICENTE BACONADOR, ROMEO BACONADOR, ROGELIO BAYONITA, RODOLFO BAYONITA, ROGELIO BONDOCIO, NAPOLEON BONDOCIO, TEODORO BLANCAFLOR, PANFILO BROÑOLA, ALFREDO DICHOSA, EDGARDO ENOPOSA, WILSON ENOPOSA, SANCHO GALAGATE, GERARDO GALAGATE, NELITO GALLEGO, FRANCISCO INDORES, EDUARDO LOZADA, JESUS LABRADOR, PANFILO LAORENTE, ROGELIO MITRA, FERNANDO MATTE, EDUARDO MARONE, ROSELLER MARONE, IGLESERIO PANOGOT, SILVERIO PANOGOT, ARTURO PANOGOT, ARMANDO SAGAYA, ERNESTO TAGAMTAM, ROMEO GARCIA, TEODORICO ATANGAN, LOURDES DE LA CRUZ, CLARITA DELORIA, DANILO MENDOZA, WILLIAM GONZALES, RAFAEL PADRANES, JUAN PADRANES, JUAN PANOGOT, MAGDALENA PANOGOT, JOSE SAGAYA, PABLO TUNDAG, VIVENCIO NABAY, RAFAEL MARONE, RODOLFO ENOPOSA, BALODOY ACADEMIA and GERARDO GALLEGO, Respondents.

Rodolfo B. Garbanzos, Jr., for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; AGRICULTURAL WORKERS; MINIMUM WAGE OF PAKYAW WORKERS; PAYMENT OF WAGE DIFFERENTIALS. — In 1976, PD No. 928 fixed a minimum wage of P7.00 for agricultural workers in any plantation or agricultural enterprise irrespective of whether or not the worker was paid on a piece-rate basis. However, effective July 1, 1978, the minimum wage was increased to P8.00 (Sec. 1, PD 1389). Subsequently, PD 1614 provided for a P2.00 increase in the daily wage of all workers effective April 1, 1979. The petitioners admit that those were the minimum rates prevailing then. Therefore, the respondent Minister did not err in requiring the petitioners to pay wage differentials to their pakyaw workers who worked for at least eight hours daily and earned less than P8.00 per day in 1978 to 1979.

2. ID.; 13TH MONTH PAY; SUBSTITUTION THEREOF, NOT ALLOWED. — Under Section 3 of PD No. 851, such benefits in the form of food or free electricity, assuming they were given, were not a proper substitute for the 13th month pay required by law. Neither may year-end rewards for loyalty and service be considered in lieu of 13th month pay. Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 provides that: "Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize any employer to eliminate or diminish in any way supplements or other employee benefits or favorable practice being enjoyed by the employee at the time of promulgation of this issuance."


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


In April 1980, eighteen (18) employees of the petitioners filed against their employer, and the other petitioners two labor standard cases which were docketed in the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor in Bacolod City as FAD Cases Nos. 1791-80 and 0792-80 ("PAFLU SEPTEMBER CONVENTION VS. FRAMANLIS FARMS"), alleging that in 1977 to 1979 they were not paid emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), minimum wage, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.cralawnad

In their answer to the amended complaint, petitioners alleged that the private respondents were not regular workers on their hacienda but were migratory (sacadas) or pakyaw workers who worked on-and-off and were hired seasonally, or only during the milling season, to do piece-work on the farms, hence, they were not entitled to the benefits claimed by them. They also alleged that under the decrees, the living allowance shall be paid on a monthly, not percentage, basis depending on the total assets or authorized capital stock of the employer, whichever is higher and applicable. They admitted that their total assets or authorized capital stock exceeded P2 million. However, in 1977 they had applied for exemption under PDs 525 and 1123 but no ruling has been issued by the Ministry of Labor on their application.

The claims for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, social amelioration bonus and underpayment of minimum wage were not controverted. With respect to the complainants’ other claims, the petitioners submitted only random payrolls which showed that the women workers were underpaid as they were receiving an average daily wage of P5.94 only, although the male workers received P10 more or less, per day.

In an Order November 10, 1980, the Minister of Labor, through Assistant Regional Director Dante Ardivilla, adopting the recommendations of the Chief of the Labor Regulation Section, Bacolod District Office, directed the respondents (now petitioners) to pay the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Deficiency payment of P2.00 per day to female workers under PD 925 * from May 1, 1976 to April 30, 1979;

"2. Deficiency payment of P3.00 per day to female workers and P1.00 per day to male workers, under PD 1614 from April 1, 1979 to August 17, 1980;

"3. Deficiency payment of P5.50 per day to female workers and P3.50 to male workers under Ministry Order No. 5 effective at the start of grinding (sic) for the crop year 1979-80;

"4. Effective August 18, 1980, P6.50 per day to female workers and P4.50 to male workers up to the date of restitution;

"5. Deficiency payment of emergency living allowance at P60 per month under PD 1678 and another P60 per month under Ministry Order No. 5;

"6. Service incentive leave pay, holiday pay and social amelioration bonus for 3 years for 1977 to 1979;

"7. The claims for 13th month pay for 1977 and emergency living allowance under PD 1123 and 525 are held in abeyance due to the application for exemption which is unacted up to the present.

"Compliance must be made within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order." (p. 34, Rollo.)

Upon the petitioners’ appeal of that Order, the Deputy Minister of Labor Vicente Leogardo, Jr. modified it on January 18, 1983 by ordering the employer to pay:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. all non-pakyaw workers their claim for holiday and incentive leave pay for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979;

"2. all complainants their 13th month pay for the years 1978 and 1979;

"3. all ‘pakyaw’ workers for the same period on days they worked for at least eight (8) hours and earned below P8.00 daily, their pay differentials.

"The claims for 13th month pay for 1977, as well as for ECOLA under PD Nos. 525 and 1123 shall, pending outcome of respondent’s application for exemption therefrom, be held in abeyance." (Annex H, p. 55, Rollo.)

The Deputy Minister clarified that pakyaw workers were excluded from holiday and service incentive leave pay (p. 54, Rollo).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Upon the denial of its motion for reconsideration, Framanlis Farms, Inc. filed this petition for certiorari alleging that the Deputy Minister erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. in awarding pay differentials, holiday and service incentive leave for pakyaw workers who are not regular employees but are merely paid on piece-rate, contrary to Art. 82 of the Labor Code;

2. in requiring the petitioners to pay 13th month pay despite the fact that they (petitioners) had substantially complied with the requirement by extending yearly bonuses and other benefits in kind and in cash to the complainants, pursuant to Section 3(c) of PD 851 which exempts the employer from paying 13th month pay when its equivalent has already been given; and

3. in not precisely stating who among the private respondents are pakyaw and non-pakyaw workers.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

In 1976, PD No. 928 fixed a minimum wage of P7.00 for agricultural workers in any plantation or agricultural enterprise irrespective of whether or not the worker was paid on a piece-rate basis. However, effective July 1, 1978, the minimum wage was increased to P8.00 (Sec. 1, PD 1389). Subsequently, PD 1614 provided for a P2.00 increase in the daily wage of all workers effective April 1, 1979. The petitioners admit that those were the minimum rates prevailing then. Therefore, the respondent Minister did not err in requiring the petitioners to pay wage differentials to their pakyaw workers who worked for at least eight hours daily and earned less than P8.00 per day in 1978 to 1979.

With regard to the 13th month pay, petitioners admitted that they failed to pay their workers 13th month pay in 1978 and 1979. However, they argued that they substantially complied with the law by giving their workers a yearly bonus and other non-monetary benefits amounting to not less than 1/12th of their basic salary, in the form of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. a weekly subsidy of choice pork meat for only P9.00 per kilo and later increased to P11 per kilo in March 1980, instead of the market price of P10 to P15 per kilo;

2. free choice pork meat in May and December of every year; and

3. free light or electricity.

all of which were allegedly "the equivalent" of the 13th month pay.

Unfortunately, under Section 3 of PD No. 851, such benefits in the form of food or free electricity, assuming they were given, were not a proper substitute for the 13th month pay required by law. PD 851 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 3. Employees covered — The Decree shall apply to all employees except to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"The term ‘its equivalent’ as used in paragraph (c) hereof shall include Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, profit-sharing payments and other cash bonuses amounting to not less than 1/12 of the basic salary but shall not include cash and stock dividends, cost of living allowances and all other allowances regularly enjoyed by the employee, as well as non-monetary benefits.

"Where an employer pays less than 1/12 of the employee’s basic salary the employer shall pay the difference."cralaw virtua1aw library

Neither may year-end rewards for loyalty and service be considered in lieu of 13th month pay. Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 provides:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 10. Prohibition against reduction or elimination of benefits — Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize any employer to eliminate or diminish in any way supplements or other employee benefits or favorable practice being enjoyed by the employee at the time of promulgation of this issuance."cralaw virtua1aw library

The failure of the Minister’s decision to identify the pakyaw and non-pakyaw workers does not render said decision invalid. The workers may be identified or determined in the proceedings for execution of the judgment.

WHEREFORE the petition for certiorari is dismissed with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Should be PD 928.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 34695 March 7, 1989 - PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CEBU, ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF CEBU COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45330 March 7, 1989 - EXALTACION CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2385 March 8, 1989 - JOSE TOLOSA v. ALFREDO CARGO

  • A.C. No. 2694 March 8, 1989 - MANUEL LEAÑO v. ERNESTO ANDICO

  • G.R. No. 32864 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 34285 March 8, 1989 - B. JOSE CASTILLO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41859 March 8, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47004 March 8, 1989 - MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61704 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUEPE M. WAGAS

  • G.R. Nos. 69337-38 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO S. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72616-17 March 8, 1989 - FRAMANLIS FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72686 March 8, 1989 - JAIME RAMOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73057 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MADRIAGA IV

  • G.R. No. 74470 March 8, 1989 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78261-62 March 8, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIEL C. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78730 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LACAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82144 March 8, 1989 - RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL (BOHOL), INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83239 March 8, 1989 - PHILIPPINE JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 36391-92 March 9, 1989 - ARTURO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54161-62 March 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. YMANA

  • G.R. Nos. 71632-33 March 9, 1989 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67634 March 13, 1989 - AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. 77423 March 13, 1989 - DIOSDADO NUGUID, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82197 March 13, 1989 - MANUEL L. SIQUIAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58094-95 March 15, 1989 - MAMERTO B. ASIS v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35475 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. 57642 March 16, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61243 March 16, 1989 - PEDRO CASTAÑEDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 64262 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO A. VIOLA

  • G.R. No. 66038 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE LUALHATI

  • G.R. No. 68619 March 16, 1989 - LOURDES SORIANO, ET AL. v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69374 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ALMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76262-63 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. LAGGUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78491 March 16, 1989 - STARLITE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79907 March 16, 1989 - SAMUEL CASAS LIM v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80685 March 16, 1989 - ALFREDO S. MARQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83578 March 16, 1989 - PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK FORCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47354 March 21, 1989 - HORACIO G. ADAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61516 March 21, 1989 - FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74903 March 21, 1989 - PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. v. CATALINO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76093 March 21, 1989 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76552 March 21, 1989 - CHURCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, INC. v. VICENTE P. SIBULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78591 March 21, 1989 - PURE FOODS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80194 March 21, 1989 - EDGAR JARANTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82211-12 March 21, 1989 - TERESITA MONTOYA v. TERESITA ESCAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51208 March 29, 1989 - GODOFREDO BACAR v. AMELIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66645 March 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN BACHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84462-63 March 29, 1989 - GABRIEL CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38669 March 31, 1989 - PARAMOUNT SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46713 March 31, 1989 - CESAR LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49529 March 31, 1989 - VALLEY TRADING CO., INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55952 March 31, 1989 - COMMODITIES SALES CORPORATION v. LA SUERTE BUS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60952 March 31, 1989 - LEONILA L. SANTIAGO v. WILSON TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68873 March 31, 1989 - LUCILDA DAEL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68898 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTOTO LAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69746-47 March 31, 1989 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71311 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ESQUILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 71771-73 March 31, 1989 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72975 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO JUTIE

  • G.R. No. 74271 March 31, 1989 - MARINERS POLYTECHNIC SCHOOL, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75379 March 31, 1989 - REYNALDO JAVIER, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78209 March 31, 1989 - DAVAO GRAINS INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82068 March 31, 1989 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85302 March 31, 1989 - BICOL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.