View full case

MARBY FOOD VENTURES CORPORATION v. ROLAND DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

Marby Food Ventures Corporation (Marby) is a domestic corporation engaged in the production and distribution of baked goods. Petitioners Mario Valderrama and Ma. Emelita Valderrama are the President/CEO and Vice-President of Marby, respectively. Respondents Roland dela Cruz, Jose Paulo Anzures, Efren Tadeo, Bongbong Santos, Marlon de Rafael, Cris Santiago, Jr., Elmer Maraño, Armando Rivera, Louie Balmes, Raymond Pagtalunan, Gabriel dela Cruz, and Mark Francis Bernardino, were employed by Marby as drivers (and salesman in the case of Bernardino). They filed a complaint for various labor violations against the petitioners, including underpayment of wage, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, sick and vacation leave pay, among others. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, but the NLRC partially reversed the ruling, ordering Marby to pay certain wage differentials and 13th month pay to the respondents.

The complainants filed a complaint against their employers, Marby Foods Corporation and its officers, for various labor law violations. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the complainants and ordered the employers to pay wage differentials and 13th month differentials, as well as attorney's fees. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, but these were denied by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The employers and one of its officers filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The complainants also filed their own petition for certiorari. The CA granted the petition of the complainants and ordered the employers to pay salary differentials, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. The CA also ruled that the employers were liable for illegal deductions and awarded attorney's fees.

The employers filed a petition before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's decision. They argued that the complainants were not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave, and that they had paid the correct minimum wage and 13th month pay. The issues raised by the employers were the subject of the petition before the Supreme Court.

This case involves a dispute regarding the grant of an occupational permit. Petitioner, a law student, sought to establish a business selling chicken barbecue and other food items. He applied for a business permit from the Municipal Treasurer's Office but was denied on the grounds that his proposed business location was within a residential zone. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Office of the Mayor, arguing that his business would not cause any disturbance or inconvenience to the neighborhood. Despite presenting his case, the Office of the Mayor affirmed the denial of his application. Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner filed a petition for review with the Regional Trial Court, which also ruled against him. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which likewise affirmed the previous decisions. In his petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the refusal to grant him an occupational permit violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the law and the prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondents are entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.

  2. Whether the respondents are entitled to minimum wage salary differentials.

  3. Whether the respondents are entitled to minimum wage pay differentials, salary differentials, 13th month pay differentials, reimbursements of deductions, and attorney's fees.

  4. Whether the petitioners are liable for double the unpaid benefits owing to the employees.

  5. Whether the rule on double indemnity applies in this case

  6. Whether there was a refusal or failure to pay the adjustment in wage rate

RULING:

  1. The respondents are entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. The Court held that the respondents are not field personnel but regular employees who perform tasks necessary and desirable to the petitioners' business. The respondents' actual work hours can be determined with reasonable certainty and their time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer. Consequently, they are entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees, which includes overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay.

  2. The respondents are entitled to minimum wage salary differentials. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the amount labeled as "overtime pay" should be included in the computation of minimum wage. The nomenclature "overtime pay" in the respondents' payslips provides a presumption that overtime was rendered. The burden of proving payment rests on the employer, and the petitioners failed to present evidence to prove that they were given premium pay for work not rendered. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to receive the minimum wage salary differentials.

  3. The respondents are entitled to minimum wage pay differentials, salary differentials, 13th month pay differentials, reimbursements of deductions, and attorney's fees.

  4. The petitioners are not liable for double the unpaid benefits owing to the employees.

  5. The rule on double indemnity does not apply in this case. The Notice of Inspection Result issued by the DOLE-NCR did not specify the violation or include an advice regarding the employer's liability for double indemnity. The lack of advice deprived the employer of the opportunity to act accordingly within the given period. Therefore, there is no basis to hold the employers liable for double indemnity.

  6. There was no refusal or failure to pay the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates. Without an order from a competent authority advising the employers to pay the unpaid benefits with sanctions for double indemnity, it cannot be concluded that they refused or failed to pay. Hence, there is no basis to hold the employers liable for double indemnity.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Field personnel are non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

  • The characterization of employees as regular employees or field personnel depends not only on the location where they perform their duties but also on whether their performance is supervised by the employer.

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

  • Proof of payment of contested benefits is necessary and the burden of proof lies with the employer.

  • Failure to refute allegations on daily wage rate is deemed as admission.

  • 13th month pay should be based on accurate computation of salaries.

  • Deductions from wages are only allowed under certain circumstances and with the written authorization of the employee.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded in certain cases listed in the New Civil Code.

  • Petitioners are not liable for double the unpaid benefits unless required by law.

  • Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6727, as amended by Republic Act No. 8188, provides for double indemnity in case of a refusal or failure to correct a violation within a specified period.

  • The lack of advice regarding double indemnity in the Notice of Inspection Result deprives the employer of the opportunity to avoid the penalty.

  • In order to be liable for double indemnity, there must be a refusal or failure to pay the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates.