View full case

SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST v. NLRC

FACTS:

The case involves SLL International Cables Specialist (SLL) and its manager, Sonny L. Lagon, appealing the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC held the petitioners not liable for the illegal dismissal of Roldan Lopez, Danilo Cañete, and Edgardo Zuñiga but found them jointly and severally liable for certain monetary claims. The CA affirmed the NLRC's findings.

The employees, Lopez, Cañete, and Zuñiga, were initially hired by petitioner Lagon as apprentice or trainee cable/linemen. After their training, they were employed as project employees in different projects. However, they received wages below the prescribed minimum wage for their respective regions. They were later rehired for other projects until their termination. The employees then filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, and other claims.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) decided that his office had jurisdiction over the complaint because it covered the workplace, including the place where the employees were supposed to report back after temporary assignments. The LA also determined that the employees were regular employees. Both the NLRC and the CA upheld these findings, which included the conclusion that petitioners failed to submit a report of termination.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the private respondents were regular employees or project employees.

  2. Whether the failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirement to submit a report of termination to the nearest Public Employment Office proves that the private respondents were regular employees.

  3. Whether the private respondents were underpaid.

  4. Whether the private respondents were entitled to 13th month pay.

  5. Whether there was illegal dismissal.

  6. Whether respondent Roldan Lopez was entitled to wage differentials.

  7. Whether the computation of wage differentials based on the minimum daily wage of P223.00 was correct.

  8. Whether the employer is allowed to deduct from the wages of employees the value of meals and snacks provided, as long as it does not exceed 70% of the fair and reasonable value of such facilities.

  9. Whether the employer has complied with the requisites for deducting the value of facilities from the employees' wages.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the findings that the private respondents were regular employees. They performed functions which were the regular and usual business of the petitioners and were members of a work pool from which the petitioners drew their project employees.

  2. The failure of the petitioners to comply with the requirement to submit a report of termination to the nearest Public Employment Office is proof that the private respondents were regular employees.

  3. The Court agreed with the finding that the private respondents were underpaid. The board and lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by the private respondents could not be included in the computation of their wages because these were given without their written consent.

  4. The private respondents were entitled to 13th month pay.

  5. There was no illegal dismissal. It was the petitioners' prerogative to grant or deny any request for overtime work and the private respondents' act of leaving the workplace after their request was denied was an act of abandonment.

  6. Respondent Roldan Lopez was not entitled to wage differentials as he did not work in the Antipolo project.

  7. The computation of wage differentials based on the minimum daily wage of P223.00 was incorrect. The prevailing minimum daily wage at that time was only P213.00.

  8. The Court makes a distinction between "facilities" and "supplements." The food and lodging, or the electricity and water allegedly consumed by the employees in this case were classified as supplements, not facilities. Supplements are considered as extra remuneration or special privileges above the ordinary wages, while facilities are items of expense necessary for the laborer's existence and subsistence. Only facilities can be deducted from the employees' wages.

  9. The employer failed to comply with the requisites for deducting the value of facilities from the employees' wages. There was no company policy or guideline showing that provisions for meals and lodging were part of the employees' salaries. There was also a lack of proof of the employees' written authorization, and the valuation of the facilities was not properly explained. Furthermore, it was not established whether the employees actually enjoyed the said facilities.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Factual findings of labor officials, who have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.

  • The burden of proving payment of monetary claims in labor cases rests on the employer.

  • Project employees are entitled to be paid the minimum wage.

  • An employer may provide subsidized meals and snacks to employees, but the subsidy must not be less than 30% of the fair and reasonable value.

  • The distinction between "facilities" and "supplements" is based on the purpose for which the benefit or privilege is given. Facilities form part of the laborers' basic wage and are necessary for their existence, while supplements are additional remuneration above the ordinary earnings.

  • Deductions from employees' wages for the value of facilities can only be made if the employer can show that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade, the provision of facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee, and the facilities are charged at a reasonable value.

  • Mere availment of facilities is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees' wages. The employer must comply with the requisites set forth by law.