Congson v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents were regular piece-rate workers hired by petitioner Dominico C. Congson, owner of Southern Fishing Industry. They were paid P1.00 per tuna movement, with their average monthly earnings not exceeding P1,000.00. During the first week of June 1990, petitioner proposed a rate reduction due to tuna scarcity. Private respondents resisted, and upon reporting for work the next day, they were informed they had been replaced. They were instructed to wait for further notice, which never came. Procedural History: On June 15, 1990, private respondents filed a case for underpayment of wages, non-payment of various monetary claims, and constructive dismissal. On July 2, 1990, they filed another case for separation pay. The cases were consolidated. After conciliation failed, the parties were directed to submit position papers. Petitioner sought an extension, while private respondents filed theirs. Petitioner later argued that only monetary claims were at issue and that private respondents abandoned their work. Labor Arbiter Arturo Aponesto ruled that private respondents were constructively and illegally dismissed, ordering petitioner to pay separation pay and monetary claims totaling P502,865.00. The claims for overtime, holiday, and rest day pay were dismissed. The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner arbitrarily replaced the workers due to their resistance to the proposed rate reduction and that the instruction to wait for notice confirmed their dismissal. The Arbiter also granted wage differentials, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay, noting petitioner's failure to prove compliance with the minimum wage law. Petitioner's defense of abandonment was rejected, citing the immediate filing of the case and lack of proof of repeated demands to return. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration were denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC for disregarding his motions, which raised issues regarding the computation of wage differentials and the propriety of awarding separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding petitioner's motions for reconsideration. Whether the computation of wage differentials was erroneous. Whether the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was proper.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the NLRC is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The petitioner's motions for reconsideration, while raising issues concerning computations and the propriety of separation pay, did not present new substantial matters that would warrant a different conclusion. The NLRC's denial of these motions, after due consideration, was within its authority. The Court emphasized that the NLRC's affirmation of the Labor Arbiter's decision was based on substantial evidence and applicable law. On the issue of wage differentials: The Court upheld the Labor Arbiter's award of wage differentials. Petitioner admitted that the P1.00 per tuna movement was the agreed wage rate and that private respondents were entitled to retrieve tuna intestines and liver as part of their compensation. However, Article 102 of the Labor Code mandates that wages shall be paid in legal tender. The practice of supplementing cash wages with the value of tuna intestines and liver, even if agreed upon or requested, does not shield the employer from complying with the minimum wage law. The Court found that petitioner failed to adduce evidence showing that private respondents' actual cash wage met the minimum wage, thus validating the award of salary differentials based on their alleged average monthly income not exceeding P1,000.00. On the issue of separation pay: The Court found the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to be proper. Petitioner argued that reinstatement should have been the remedy, and separation pay is only permissible due to strained relationship, which he claimed was not established. The Court disagreed, finding that a strained relationship existed. This was evidenced by petitioner's consistent refusal to re-admit private respondents, replacing them with new workers, and his insincere argument for reinstatement while only seeking the deletion of separation pay. Furthermore, the private respondents' filing of a second case specifically for separation pay indicated their aversion to continued employment. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that consistent refusal to re-admit and the employee's unwillingness to return constitute strained relations, justifying separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to maintain industrial peace.
Main Doctrine
The payment of wages must be in legal tender. Compensation in the form of tuna intestines and liver, even if agreed upon or requested by the employee, cannot be considered as part of the cash wage for purposes of complying with the minimum wage law. In cases of illegal dismissal, separation pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relationship, which can be established by the employer's consistent refusal to re-admit the dismissed employee and the employee's own aversion to continued employment.