Mabeza Vs NLRC

Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio
City were asked by the hotels management to sign an instrument attesting to the latters
compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision. The instrument
provides that they have no complaints against the management of the Hotel Supreme as
they are paid accordingly and that they are treated well. The petitioner signed the affidavit
but refused to go to the Citys Prosecutors Office to confirm the veracity and contents of
the affidavit as instructed by management. That same day, as she refused to go to the
City Prosecutors Office, she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys
to her living quarters and to remove her belongings to the hotels premises. She then filed
a leave of absence which was denied by her employer. She attempted to return to work
but the hotels cashier told her that she should not report to work and instead continue
with her unofficial leave of absence. Three days after her attempt to return to work, she
filed a complaint against the management for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City. In addition to that, she alleged underpayment of
wages, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, night
differential and other benefits. Peter Ng, in their Answer, argued that her unauthorized
leave of absence from work is the ground for her dismissal. He even maintained that her
alleged of underpayment and non-payment of benefits had no legal basis. He raises a
new ground of loss of confidence, which was supported by his filing of criminal case for
the alleged qualified theft of the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel
management on the ground of loss of confidence. She appealed to the NLRC which
affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision. hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of petitioner constitutes an
unfair labor practice.
Held: The NLRCs decision is reversed. The pivotal question in any case where unfair
labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has
exerted pressure, in the form of restraint, interference or coercion, against his employees
right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment. Without
doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer
observed labor standard provisions of the law when he might not have, together with the
act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employees scheme
constitutes unfair labor practice. The labor arbiters contention that the reason for the
monetary benefits received by the petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the
minimum wage was because petitioner did not factor in the meals, lodging, electric
consumption and water she received during the period of computations. Granting that
meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could
not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements.
Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from
the employees ages.
1. proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade.
2. the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntary accepted in writing by the
employee.
3. facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value.
These requirements were not met in the instant case. Private respondent failed to present
any company policy to show that the meal and lodging are part of the salary. He also
failed to provide proof of the employees written authorization and he failed to show how
he arrived at the valuations. More significantly, the food and lodging, or electricity and
water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or
privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. The
criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind but the
purpose. Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work on different shifts
and are expected to be available at various odd hours, their ready availability is a
necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel, such as the private respondents
hotel.

Mabeza Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mabeza Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Mabeza Vs NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio

You might also like