MILAN v. NLRC

G.R. No.
202961, February 04, 2015

EMER MILAN, RANDY MASANGKAY, WILFREDO JAVIER, RONALDO DAVID, BONIFACIO
MATUNDAN, NORA MENDOZA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, SOLID MILLS, INC., AND/OR PHILIP ANG, Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
An employer is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the employees
return of its properties.
As Solid Mills employees, petitioners and their families were allowed to occupy SMI Village, a
property owned by Solid Mills. According to Solid Mills, this was [o]ut of liberality and for the
convenience of its employees . . . [and] on the condition that the employees . . . would vacate the
premises anytime the Company deems fit.
In September 2003, petitioners were informed that effective October 10, 2003, Solid Mills would
cease its operations due to serious business losses. NAFLU recognized Solid Mills closure due
to serious business losses in the memorandum of agreement dated September 1, 2003. The
memorandum of agreement provided for Solid Mills grant of separation pay less accountabilities,
accrued sick leave benefits, vacation leave benefits, and 13th month pay to the employees.
Later, Solid Mills, through Alfredo Jingco, sent to petitioners individual notices to vacate SMI
Village.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioners were no longer allowed to report for work by October 10, 2003. They were required to
sign a memorandum of agreement with release and quitclaim before their vacation and sick leave
benefits, 13th month pay, and separation pay would be released. Employees who signed the
memorandum of agreement were considered to have agreed to vacate SMI Village, and to the
demolition of the constructed houses inside as condition for the release of their termination
benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused to sign the documents and demanded to be paid
their benefits and separation pay.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Hence, petitioners filed complaints before the Labor Arbiter for alleged non-payment of separation
pay, accrued sick and vacation leaves, and 13th month pay. They argued that their accrued
benefits and separation pay should not be withheld because their payment is based on company
policy and practice. Moreover, the 13th month pay is based on law, specifically, Presidential
Decree No. 851. Their possession of Solid Mills property is not an accountability that is
subject to clearance procedures. They had already turned over to Solid Mills their uniforms
and equipment when Solid Mills ceased operations.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PAYMENT OF THE MONETARY CLAIMS OF PETITIONERS
SHOULD BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING COMPLIANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNTABILITIES
TO RESPONDENT SOLID MILLS BY TURNING OVER THE SUBJECT LOTS THEY
RESPECTIVELY OCCUPY AT SMI VILLAGE, SUCAT, MUNTINLUPA CITY.
HELD:
Requiring clearance before the release of last payments to the employee is a standard procedure
among employers, whether public or private. Clearance procedures are instituted to ensure that
the properties, real or personal, belonging to the employer but are in the possession of the
separated employee, are returned to the employer before the employees departure.
Our law supports the employers institution of clearance procedures before the release of wages.
As an exception to the general rule that wages may not be withheld and benefits may not be
diminished, the Labor Code provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Art. 113. Wage deduction. No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make
any deduction from the wages of his employees, except:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
XXXX
3. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. (Emphasis supplied)
The Civil Code provides that the employer is authorized to withhold wages for debts
due:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Article 1706. Withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the
employer.cralawred
Debt in this case refers to any obligation due from the employee to the employer. It includes
any accountability that the employee may have to the employer. There is no reason to limit its
scope to uniforms and equipment, as petitioners would argue.
More importantly, respondent Solid Mills and NAFLU, the union representing petitioners, agreed
that the release of petitioners benefits shall be less accountabilities.
Accountability, in its ordinary sense, means obligation or debt. The ordinary meaning of the
term accountability does not limit the definition of accountability to those incurred in the
worksite. As long as the debt or obligation was incurred by virtue of the employer-employee
relationship, generally, it shall be included in the employees accountabilities that are subject to
clearance procedures.
The return of the propertys possession became an obligation or liability on the part of the
employees when the employer-employee relationship ceased. Thus, respondent Solid Mills has
the right to withhold petitioners wages and benefits because of this existing debt or liability.
The law does not sanction a situation where employees who do not even assert any claim over
the employers property are allowed to take all the benefits out of their employment while they
simultaneously withhold possession of their employers property for no rightful reason.
Withholding of payment by the employer does not mean that the employer may renege on its
obligation to pay employees their wages, termination payments, and due benefits. The
employees benefits are also not being reduced. It is only subjected to the condition that the
employees return properties properly belonging to the employer. This is only consistent with the
equitable principle that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.

MILAN v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MILAN v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MILAN v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

202961, February 04, 2015

You might also like