View full case

DOMINICO C. CONGSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

FACTS:

The dispute in this case arose between petitioner Dominico Congson and private respondents regarding their employment relationship. Petitioner owns Southern Fishing Industry and hired private respondents as regular piece-rate workers. The private respondents were paid a rate of P1.00 per tuna weighing thirty (30) to eighty (80) kilos per movement. They performed various tasks, including unloading tuna from fishing boats, storing and cleaning them at petitioner’s cold storage plant, and loading the processed tuna for shipment. The private respondents worked seven days a week.

In June 1990, petitioner proposed a reduction in the rate per tuna movement due to the scarcity of tuna. However, the private respondents resisted the rate reduction. When the private respondents reported for work the next day, they were informed that they had been replaced by new workers. They requested dialogue with management but were instructed to wait for further notice, which was never given. As a result, the private respondents filed a case against petitioner for underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, 13th-month pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and service incentive leave pay. They also claimed constructive dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter held that private respondents were constructively dismissed and ordered petitioner to pay separation pay and monetary claims. The decision of the Labor Arbiter was affirmed by the NLRC.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding petitioner's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration?

  2. Did the NLRC err in its computation of the wage differentials for the private respondents?

    • Whether the employer's practice of paying the minimum wage by means of legal tender combined with tuna liver and intestines is in violation of Article 102 of the Labor Code.
    • Whether the grant of separation pay to the private respondents is proper despite the absence of a finding or allegation of a strained relationship between the employer and employees.

  5. Whether or not the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is proper

  6. Whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in upholding the grant of separation pay

RULING:

  1. No, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding petitioner's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration.

  2. No, the NLRC did not err in its computation of the wage differentials for the private respondents.

    • The employer's practice of paying the minimum wage by means of legal tender combined with tuna liver and intestines is in violation of Article 102 of the Labor Code, which states that wages shall be paid only by means of legal tender. The exception for payment by checks or money order is only allowed under specific circumstances, which were not present in this case. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter's award of salary differentials in favor of the private respondents was upheld by the NLRC.
    • The grant of separation pay to the private respondents is proper in this case because there is evidence of a strained relationship between the employer and employees. The employer consistently refused to re-admit the private respondents, replacing them with a new set of workers. Additionally, the private respondents themselves indicated a desire to sever their working ties with the employer by filing a separate case for separation pay. Therefore, the award of separation pay as an alternative to reinstatement was upheld by the NLRC.

  5. The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC upholding the grant of separation pay. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in granting the prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee is forced to resign or when an act of clear discrimination, insensitivity, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to resign from his employment.

  • The burden of proof to establish that an employee abandoned his job rests on the employer. Mere imputation in an answer is not sufficient evidence to prove abandonment, especially when there is no supporting evidence to substantiate the allegations.

  • The Labor Code provides that the minimum wage includes an allowance for transportation, where such is customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. The actual cash wage received by the employees should not fall below the minimum wage fixed by law.

  • Under Article 102 of the Labor Code, wages shall be paid only by means of legal tender. Payment by checks or money order is only allowed when specified circumstances are present.

  • The grant of separation pay as an alternative to reinstatement is permissible when there is a strained relationship between the employer and employee, as evidenced by consistent refusal of the employer to accept the dismissed employee or the employee's refusal to be re-admitted.

  • It is within the power of the NLRC to grant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

  • The grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is a valid remedy in cases where the employment relationship has already been strained and its restoration is no longer feasible.