Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 29 | Comments: 0 | Views: 353
of 3
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Pag-asa Steel Works v. CA
[G.R.No. 166647.March 31, 2006]
RTWPB issued a Wage Order providing for an increase of 13 pesos in the salaries of
receiving the minimum wage and a consequent increase in the rate to 198.
Subsequent to this,
petitioner-company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement
which granted an
increase of 15 pesos for the first year, 25 for the second year and 30 for the third
year. Months later, a
wage order was issued by the NCR providing for a 25 pesos increase in the salary of
receiving the minimum wage and increased the minimum wage to 223.50.
Petitioner paid the 25
pesos increase to all its employees. A year after, the employees were granted the
second year
increase provided in the CBA. On that same year, a wage order was issued which
provided for the
setting of the new minimum wage at 250.00 or an increase of 26 pesos.
The Union then requested the company to implement the latest wage order.
Petitioner company
rejected, claiming that since none of the employees were receiving a daily salary
rate lower than 250
and there was no wage distortion, it was not obliged to grant the wage increase.
Whether or not the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under the
Wage Order issued as
a matter of practice

No. It is not obliged to grant the wage increase. The wage order provides that only
those in the
private sector in the NCR receiving the daily minimum wage rate of 223 per day
would receive an
increase, thereby setting the wage rate to 250 pesos. There is no dispute that when
the wage order
was issued, the lowest paid employee of the company was receiving a wage higher
than 250 pesos.
As such, employees had not right to demand for the increase.

ETHELWOLDO R. OVEJERA et. al., respondents
G.R. No. L-59743
May 31, 1982
NFSW struck against private respondent Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC) to
compel the latter for the payment of the 13th month pay under PD 851 (13th Month
Pay Law) in addition to the Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses being
enjoyed by CAC workers which amount to 1-½ months’ salary.
Labor Arbiter Ovejera declared the strike as illegal and no pronouncement was
made as to the demand on the 13th month pay. This caused petitioner to file an
instant petition with SC.
WON under PD 851, an employer is obliged to give its workers a 13th month salary
in addition to Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses, the aggregate of which
exceeds the 13th month pay.
The intention was to grant some relief — not to all workers — but only to the
unfortunate ones not actually paid a 13th month salary or what amounts to it, by

whatever name called; but it was not envisioned that a double burden would be
imposed on the employer already paying his employees a 13th month pay or its
equivalent — whether out of pure generosity or on the basis of a binding agreement
and, in the latter ease, regardless of the conditional character of the grant, so long
as there is actual payment. Otherwise, what was conceived to be a 13th month
salary would in effect become a 14th or possibly 15th month pay.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips


Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in