Demand
for a
car loan
payments
not an
issue
in a labor
dispute
Following
dismissal
of certain
employees
who have
availed
of the
company’s
car loan
policy,
Nestle
Phils.
demanded
payment
of the
remaining
balance
of their
car loan
or return
the cars
to the
company.
Acting
on the
employees’
petition
for a
temporary
restraining
order
against
the company’s
demand
pending
resolution
of their
complaint
for illegal
dismissal,
the NLRC
issued
the relief
prayed
for upon
the supposition
that the
car loan
issue
is an
offshoot
of the
illegal
dismissal
case.
(Under
Art. 218,
Labor
Code,
authority
of the
National
Labor
Relations
Commission
to issue
writs
of injunction
can only
be exercised
in a labor
dispute).
The Court
annulled
the questioned
NLRC order,
holding
that the
company’s
demand
vis’-a’-vis’
the car
loans
“x
x x is
not a
labor,
but a
civil,
dispute.
It involved
debtor-creditor
relations,
rather
than employee-employer
relations”
(G.R.
No. 81597,
March
18, 1991).
- - - o - - -
BI
assures
overstaying
aliens
of leniency
Overstaying
aliens
in the
country
are urged
by the
Bureau
of Immigration
(BI) to
legalize
their
status
with the
assurance
that they
will not
be arrested
if they
voluntarily
update
their
stay.
BI
Commissioner
Marcelino
Libanan
urged
the overstaying
aliens
to avail
of the
BI’s
new policy
liberalizing
its rules
on visa
extension
for all
foreign
tourists
regardless
of their
nationality.
The
Commissioner
assured
these
aliens
that they
will not
be arrested
as long
as they
update
their
stay,
pay the
necessary
fees,
and if
they have
been living
here for
more than
two years,
voluntarily
leave
the country.
- - - o - - -
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement?
The
general
rule is
that employees
who are
illegally
dismissed
are entitled
to backwages
and reinstatement
to their
former
position
without
loss of
seniority
rights.
There
are instances,
however,
where
reinstatement
is no
longer
viable
as in
these
cases:
1)
Where
the business
of the
employer
has closed;
2)
Where
the relations
between
the employer
and the
employee
have become
severely
strained
that it
becomes
inadvisable
to order
reinstatement;
or
3)
Where
the employee
decides
not to
be reinstated.
In
the foregoing
instances,
the employer
will instead
be ordered
to grant
separation
pay (G.R.
117936-37,
5/20/98).
- - - o - - -
Q
and A
–
A brief
primer
on Wage
Order
No. NCR-13
covering
the national
capital
region
(NCR)
Q:
What areas
are covered
by WO-NCR-13?
A:
NCR covers
the cities
of Caloocan,
Manila,
Pasay
and Quezon,
Las Piñas,
Makati,
Malabon,
Mandaluyong,
Marikina,
Muntinlupa,
Navotas,
Parañaque,
Pasig,
Pateros,
San Juan,
Taguig,
Cainta
and Valenzuela.
Q:
What is
the amount
of wage
increase
for NCR?
A:
WO-NCR-13
mandates
integration
of the
COLA (P30.00
per WO-NCR-09
and P20.00
per WO-NCR-10)
into the
basic
wage,
and after
such
integration,
an increase
of P12.00
per day
in the
basic
wage
effective
August
28, 2007.
Q:
What are
now the
effective
daily
minimum
wage rates
for workers
in the
NCR?
A:
Effective
August
28, 2007,
the daily
minimum
wages
in NCR
are
shown
in the
table
hereunder:
Sector/Industry
Basic
Wage
Basic
Wage
New
After
COLA
Increase
Minimum
Integration
Wage
Rates
Non-Agriculture
P350.00
P12.00
P362.00
Agriculture
P313.00
P12.00
P325.00
(Plantation
&
Non-Plantation)
Private
Hospitals
P313.00
P12.00
w/bed
capacity
of
100
or
less
Retail/Service
P313.00
P12.00
P325.00
Establishments
employing
15
workers
or
less
Manufacturing
P313.00
P12.00
P325.00
Establishments
regularly
employing
less
than
10
workers
Q:
Who are
entitled
to the
P12.00
wage increase
prescribed
under
WO NCR-13?
A:
Only workers
in the
private
sector
who are
minimum
wage earners
on the
effectivity
of WO-NCR-13
are entitled
to the
P12.00
increase
regardless
of their
position
or status
of employment
and the
method
of their
income
payment.
This Wage
Order
does not
cover
domestic
helpers,
persons
in the
personal
service
of another,
including
family
drivers
and workers
of duty
registered
BMBEs
(under
RA 9178).
Q:
What establishments
may be
exempted
from compliance
with WO
NCR-13?
Upon
application
with and
as determined
by the
Wage Board,
the following
may be
exempted
from compliance
with WO
NCR-13:
A:
Mere absence
does not
constitute
abandonment
Mere
absence
or failure
to report
for work
does not
constitute
abandonment
of work.
There
must be
clear
proof
of deliberate
and unjustified
intent
to
sever
the employer-employee
relationship
(413 SCRA
162).
1.
Distressed
establishments;
2. Establishments
facing
potential
losses;
3. Retail/Service
establishment
employing
not more
than ten
(10) Workers;
4. Establishments
whose
total
assets,
including
those
arising
from loans,
but exclusive
of the
land on
which
the particular
business
entity’s
office,
plant
and equipment
are situated,
are not
more than
Three
Million
Pesos
(P=3,000,000.00);
and,
5.
Establishments
adversely
affected
by natural
calamities.
Application
for exemption
shall
be filed
with the
Wage Board
within
75 days
from the
publication
date of
the implementing
Rules
of WO
NCR-13
with complete
supporting
documents
specified
in the
Rules.
Q:
May a
wage increase
granted
by an
employer
prior
to August
28, 2007
be deemed
compliance
with WO
NCR-13?
A:
In an
organized
or unionized
establishment
a wage
increase
granted
by the
employer
within
three
(3) months
prior
to August
28, 2007
shall
be credited
as compliance
with the
wage order
provided
there
is an
agreement
by the
parties
or CBA
provision
allowing
such crediting.
In
an unorganized
establishment,
a wage
increase
granted
by the
employed
within
five (5)
months
prior
to August
28, 2007
shall
be credited
as compliance
with the
Wage Order.
Q:
What is
meant
by “wage
distortion”?
A
wage distortion
results
where
the prescribed
wage increase
effectively
erases
the quantitative
differences
in wage
rates
between
or among
employee
groups
based
on skills,
length
of service
or other
logical
bases
of wage
differentiation.
Where
the increase
under
WO NCR-13
results
in distortions
in the
wage structure
in the
establishment,
the same
shall
be corrected
in accordance
with the
procedure
under
Article
12 of
the Labor
Code.
- - - o - - -
Visitor’s
visa extendible
up to
two years
The
steady
increase
in foreign
tourists
prompted
the Bureau
of Immigration
to authorize
them to
extend
their
stay in
the country
for up
to two
years.
Under
the Memorandum
Order
issued
by the
BI dated
July 31,
2007 foreigners
with temporary
visitor’s
visa may
extend
their
stay in
the country
from two
months
up to
16 months
even without
the approval
of any
BI official.
Visa
extensions
can even
be as
long as
24 months
or two
years
with approval
by the
Bureau’s
Immigration
Regulation
Division.
However,
extension
of stay
after
24 months
requires
the approval
of the
BI Commissioner.
- - - o - - -
Non-performance
by carrier
In an
action
for breach
of contract
of carriage,
the aggrieved
party
does not
have to
prove
that the
common
carrier
was at
fault
or was
negligent.
All that
is necessary
to prove
is the
existence
of the
contract
and the
fact of
its non-performance
by the
carrier
(G.R.
142305,
12/10/03).
- - - o - - -
Rule
against
forum
shopping
does not
cover
responsive
pleading
For
resolution
before
the Supreme
Court
is a petition
for certiorari
alleging
that the
trial
court
and the
Court
of Appeals
gravely
abused
their
discretion
in not
dismissing
the respondent
bank’s
counterclaim
for lack
of certification
against
forum
shopping.
Petitioners’
contention
of grave
abuse
of discretion
by the
lower
courts
is “utterly
baseless,”
ruled
the highest
court.
-Section
5, Rule
7 of the
1997 Rules
of Civil
Procedure
provides
that the
required
certification
against
forum
shopping
is intended
to cover
only an
initiatory
pleading
which
is an
“incipient
application
of a party
asserting
a claim
for relief.”
The
respondent
bank’s
answer
with counterclaim
is a responsive
as opposed
to an
initiatory
pleading,
and filed
merely
to counter
petitioners’
complaint
that initiates
the civil
action.
The rule
banning,
forum
shopping
does not
cover
a defendant’s/respondent’s
claim
for relief
that arises
from,
or is
directly
connected
with the
main action
or complaint.
In fact,
declared
the Court,
failure
of the
plaintiff
to comply
with such
requirement
will result
in the
“dismissal
of the
case without
prejudice”--not
the dismissal
of the
respondent’s
counterclaim
(CA-G.R.
SP No.
58995).
- - - o - - -
Fixed-period
of employment
is not
void per
se
At issue
in Brent
School
v. Zamora
was the
employment
contract
between
the school
and its
Athletic
Director
which
fixed
a specific
term of
five years
from the
date of
its execution.
The Supreme
Court
upheld
the validity
of the
contract
between
the school
and the
Director
fixing
the latter’s
period
of employment.
Although
Article
280 of
the Labor
Code [defining
regular
and casual
employment]
seeks
to prevent
circumvention
of the
employee’s
right
to security
of tenure,
it
should
not apply,
said the
court,
to all
instances
of fixed-period
of employment.
As it
ruled
in the
Brent
case,
the Court
reiterated
that Article
280 should
not apply
---
“to
instances
where
a fixed
period
of employment
was agreed
upon knowingly
and voluntarily
by the
parties,
without
any force,
duress
or improper
pressure
xxx upon
the employee
and any
other
circumstances
vitiating
his consent
xxx or
where
the employer
and employee
dealt
with each
other
on more
or less
equal
terms
with no
moral
dominance
whatever
being
exercised
by the
former
over the
latter”
(G.R.
168052)
- - - o - - -
Meaning
of “to
be heard”
in due
process
To
be heard”
does not
only means
verbal
arguments
in court.
One may
also be
heard
through
pleadings
(G.R.
2023;
Llora
Motors
v. Drilon).
- - - o - - -
BRIEFLY
NOTED
Actual
use a
pre-requisite
to ownership
Actual
use in
commerce
in the
Philippines
is a pre-requisite
to the
acquisition
of ownership
over a
trademark
or tradename.
Adoption
alone
of a trademark
is not
considered
actual
use and
would
not give
exclusive
rights
to the
holder
of such
trademark
(G.R.
75420,
11/25/91).
Domestic
helper
or regular
employee?
A
househelper
hired
by a company
to do
work inside
company
premises--as
in the
staff
house--is
a regular
employee
rather
than a
domestic
helper
(G.R.
94951.
4/22/91).
Conflict
of interest
bars affiliation
A
supervisory
union
is disqualified
from affiliating
with a
national
federation
of labor
organizations
which
includes
the company’s
rank-and-file
employees’
union
(Atlas
Lithographic
vs. DOLE,
1/6/92).