Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 112658 March 16, 1995

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SPEECH and/or WILMA CRUZ TAPALLA, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MA. CORAZON D. MAMUYAC, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

The instant case was precipitated by a complaint, dated April 18, 1990, filed by
private respondent Ma. Corazon D. Mamuyac against petitioners International School
of Speech and/or Wilma Cruz Tapalla, charging the latter with unfair labor
practice; illegal deduction; non-payment of wages, overtime pay, legal holiday pay,
premium pay for holiday and rest day; and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos.
525, 851 and 928.1

On June 20, 1990, petitioners filed a counter-complaint charging private respondent

with abandonment and violation of contract, with a prayer for P150,000.00 as actual
damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 for exemplary damages.2

It appears that sometime in June, 1989, private respondent was hired as an English
teacher paid on an hourly basis, and she served as such up to March 15, 1990. She
avers that petitioners committed acts constitutive of unfair labor practice, that
is, by preventing employees of the school from socializing with each other for fear
that a labor organization might be formed, not furnishing her a copy of her
contract, imposing stiff penalties for tardiness, imposing inhuman and unbearable
working conditions such as lunch-break of only 15 minutes, violating labor standard
laws, prohibiting stay-in employees from eating in adjoining restaurants, and
hitting a teacher for allegedly refusing to sign a contract.3

She likewise cited several unauthorized deductions made from her salary, namely,
P1,000.00 for cash bond, P460.00 for books, and P1,500.00 for alleged tardiness.4

On unpaid wages, she claimed that she was not compensated from March 15 up to
September 15 (the year was not specified but, based on the records, it was in 1990)
at the agreed sum of P3,000.00 per month, or a total sum of P21,000.00. She further
asseverates that she was constructively dismissed from the service when she was
divested of her assigned load of subjects. Finally, she was allegedly not paid for
services she rendered on weekends and legal
holidays.5

On their part, petitioners contended that private respondent abandoned her job when
she failed to report for work in the summer of 1990 contrary to their agreement,
hence they prayed for an award of damages in their favor.6

After a careful evaluation of the position papers of the contending parties, labor
arbiter found that only the claims for illegal deduction, 13th month pay, unpaid
wages, and legal holiday pay were meritorious. Accordingly, petitioners were
ordered to pay private respondent the aggregate sum of P11,335.96 and attorney's
fees in the amount of P1,133.60 while petitioners' counter-complaint was
dismissed.7
For the ratio decidendi of said ruling, we reproduce with approval the following
discussion in the decision of the labor arbiter:

. . . This Branch cannot give due course to the alleged illegal dismissal. In the
first place, illegal dismissal was not among the causes of action cited in the
complaint. The complainant is not permitted by the rules to implead additional
causes of action in her position paper without first amending her complaint. To
allow her such stance would unduly prejudice the respondents who are entitled to
due process inasmuch as under the ordinary course of procedure summons must first
be issued before additional causes of action could be cited against the
respondents. Besides, how could there be illegal dismissal when it was the
complainant who ceased reporting for work on April 12, 1990? The reason advanced by
the complainant in support of her alleged illegal dismissal is that her subject
loads were withdrawn from her. Granting that her subject loads as an English
Teacher were withdrawn, it appears that when that was done, complainant yielded
without any remonstrance as in fact she agreed to work as Course Adviser instead
during the summer time.

Regarding the claim of unfair labor practice, the acts complained of and being
attributed to the respondents as hereinbefore discussed cannot be categorized as
unfair labor practice acts as understood and contemplated by the Labor Code, as
amended, particularly Art. 248, paragraph (a) to (i), inclusive. The alleged
attempts of the respondents not to let (sic) the employees to socialize for fear of
the organization of a labor union is just a mere conclusion of fact not supported
by the evidence.

Anent the alleged violations of PD 525 and PD 928, these charges do not have merit.
PD 525 refers to emergency living allowance already integrated into the basic wage
sometime in 1980. PD 928 refers to wage increase granted sometime in 1982 not
applicable to the case the complainant.

With respect to the claim for overtime pay, it appears from the evidence (Exh. "3-
b" to "3-j") that the complainant being paid on per hour basis did not render any
overtime work or services beyond eight (8) hours everyday. Most of the time, her
teaching loads did not keep her at work to no (sic) more than four (4) hours
everyday.

On legal holiday pays, it appears from the evidence that complainant reported for
work on November 30 and December 30, 1989, at four (4) hours each. Being legal
holidays, complainant is entitled to an additional 100% of her daily rate which was
P30.00 per hour. Thus, complainant for the total eight (8) hours for the two (2)
legal holidays, she must be paid P240.00.

On unpaid wages, it appears that complainant was paid P500.00 only for the period
from March 15, 1990 up to April 12, 1990 instead of the P3,500.00 per month as
agreed upon between her and the respondents. Thus, the respondents must pay the
balance in the sum of P3,000.00. The complainant's claim for unpaid salaries from
April 15, 1990 up to September 15, 1990 cannot be granted where it appears that she
was already out of work starting April 12, 1990.

Regarding the complainant's claim for illegal deduction, the alleged deduction of
P460.00 for books was admitted by the respondents. Said deduction without any
written authorization from the complainant cannot be made. Besides, there was no
agreement before complainant was hired that she had to buy books from the
respondents. Hence, respondent must reimburse the complainant the said sum of
P460.00. This Branch also awards the claim of P1,000.00 to complainant by way of
reimbursement of what was also deducted as cash bond. As between the affirmative
declaration of the complainant and the negative denial of the respondents, the
former deserves more evidentiary weight. Besides, in case of doubt in case of two
(2) unsubstantiated but opposing assertions, such doubt must be resolved in favor
of workingmen.

On the claim for 13th month pay (violation of PD 851), it appears from the evidence
submitted by the respondents that no such payment by way of proportionate 13th
month pay for 1990 and 1989 was paid to the complainant. From July, 1989 up to
December 31, 1989, the complainant received a total compensation amounting to
P7,319.00, then, from January 1, 1990 up to April, 1990, she received a total of
P10,205.00. Thus, her proportionate 13th month pay is computed, follows:

1989

6 mos. x P7,319.00 = P3,659.50

———————————

12

1990

3.5 x P10,205.00 = P2,976.46

———————————

12 —————

TOTAL 13TH MONTH PAY = P6,635.96

With respect to the counter-complaint that respondents filed against the

complainant for damages, for want of basis the same, is dismissed. The complainant
has been forced to be absent on account of the failure of the respondents to pay
her salaries. In fact, for that reason and her other money claims against the
respondents, complainant without further delay instituted her suit against the
respondents in less than a week after she absented herself. The complainant cannot
be faulted. Part of the blame is imputable to the respondents. It has been said
that one who comes to court must do so with clean hands. The respondents do not
belong to this category. Apart from their non-observance of certain labor standard
laws as hereinabove discussed, it even appears that they do not keep the required
payrolls, daily time records, and pay slips as required by Book III, Rule X,
Section 6,
to 12, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, as amended. 8

Dissatisfied with the aforequoted ruling, both petitioners and private respondent
lodged separate appeals before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The
latter affirmed the appealed decisions,9 hence the instant petition.

In this action for certiorari, petitioners assail the public respondent's judgment
on two points, viz.: (1) in awarding 13th month pay in the amount of P6,635.96 in
favor of private respondent, and (2) in dismissing its counter-complaint. 10

The appeal with regard to the first issue is meritorious. The NLRC, as earlier
illustrated, adopted the labor arbiter's computation of private respondent's 13th
month pay as follows:

1989

6 mos. x P7,319.00 = P3,659.50

———————————

12

1990

3.5 mos. x P10,205.00 = P2,976.46

———————————

12 —————

TOTAL 13TH MONTH PAY = P6,635.9611

According to No. 4(a) of the Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the 13th
Month Pay Law (Presidential Decree No. 851) dated November 16, 1987, the 13th month
pay of an individual is (not less than) one-twelfth (1/12) of the total basic
salary earned by an employee within a calendar year. Moreover, in No. 6 thereof, it
is provided that an employee who has resigned or whose services were terminated at
any time before the time for payment of the 13th month pay is entitled to this
monetary benefit in proportion to the length of time he worked during the year,
reckoned from the time he started working during the calendar year up to the time
of his resignation or termination from the service. Thus, if he worked only from
January up to September, his proportionate 13th month pay should be equivalent to
the total basic salary he earned during that period.

Since no evidence was adduced by private respondent that petitioners observe a

different formula in the computation of the 13th month pay for their employees, the
aforementioned mode of computation should be applied.

Thus, considering that in 1989 private respondent rendered service for only 6
months, her 13th month pay should be one-twelfth (1/12) of the total compensation
she received for that year, that is, P7,319.00. Consequently her 13th month pay for
the year 1989 should be P610.00.

Following the same formula, private respondent should receive a 13th month pay of
P850,00 for the year 1990 for services rendered for three months wherein she
received a total compensation of P10,205.00, that is, P10,205.00 divided by 12
equals P850.00.

On this particular aspect, therefore, the Court takes exception to the rule that
the findings on technical matters by administrative bodies like respondent NLRC are
accorded respect and finality on appeal,12 since it is clear that a palpable and
demonstrable mistake has been committed and should be rectified. Petitioners
should, therefore, pay private respondent the total amount of P1,460,00, instead or
P6,635.96, as her 13th month pay for 1989 and 1990.

With regard to the second issue, on whether or not petitioners are entitled to
damages in view of private respondent's abandonment of her job, the Court upholds
and approvingly quotes respondent NLRC's ruling on this matter which affirmed that
of the labor arbiter, to wit:

As regards respondents' counterclaim on the allegation that complainant is guilty

of having abandoned her job, we likewise vote for a dismissal thereof. It is a
well-settled rule that to constitute abandonment, there must be a deliberate
unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. This circumstance
does not however exist in complainant's case, the assertions in her testimony given
during the hearing standing unrebutted, and which is hereunder quoted as:
THE LABOR ARBITER
(to witness)

What did you do as Course Adviser?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A As Course Adviser whenever there are enrollees, we advise them on the course that
they have to take.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q So, after you agreed with Mrs. Tapalla, did you report for the two month period,
April and May, 1990 as Course Adviser?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A As Course Adviser, yes, Your Honor.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q For the two month period April and May?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Not for the two month period. I was not able to finish since when I waited for
the salary, there were two fifteen that were not given.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q In other words, there were two (2) pay periods that you were not paid?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Yes, Your Honor.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q What in particular were the periods involved?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A The first month.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q You mean April?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Yes, Your Honor, March 15 to April 15.

xxx xxx xxx

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q In other words, your agreement involving rendition of your services as Course

Adviser started March 15, 1990?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Yes, Your Honor.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q And according to you, you were not paid your salary for March 15 up to March 31?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Yes, Your Honor.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q And also from April 1 to April 15 because according to you two pay periods?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A Yes, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q All right, after that conference with Mrs. Tapalla, did you still report for work
as Course Adviser?

THE WITNESS
(answering)

A I wasn't able to report anymore because I don't have any money. In fact I
borrowed money from people without my husband's knowledge.

THE LABOR ARBITER

(to witness)

Q Did you inform Mrs. Tapalla About the fact that you will no longer report anymore
to your work?

THE WITNESS
(answering)
A I was not able to inform her since they sent me a letter at once. So, they did
not give me any chance to call them up because I received a letter the following
day, and I think that is a Sunday.

xxx xxx xxx

Had respondents been free from any participation in the adverted cause for
complainant's failure to report for work, this Commission could have taken a
different course from that of the Labor Arbiter. It appears, however, that
respondents are not free from any wrong as it is also clear from the records of the
case that they have been remiss in fully observing the letter of the law concerning
labor standards provisions. As such, we concur with the Labor Arbiter in invoking
the principle in equity that he who comes to court must do so with "clean hands."
Accordingly, respondents do not deserve the remedial relief asked.13

WHEREFORE, as MODIFIED by awarding private respondent her 13th month pay for 1989
and 1990 in the reduced total amount of P1,460.00, the assailed decision of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby AFFIRMED in all other
respects.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, 14.

2 Ibid., id.

3 Ibid., 15.

4 Ibid., 16.

5 Ibid., id.

6 Ibid., id.

7 Ibid., id.

8 Ibid., 16-20.

9 Per Presiding Commissioner Bartolome S. Carale, with the concurrence of

Commissioners Vicente S.E. Veloso and Alberto H. Quimpo.

10 Petition, 5; Rollo, 6.

11 Rollo, 26.

12 See Latchme Motoomull, et al. vs. Dela Paz, et al., G.R. No. 45302, July 24,
1990, 187 SCRA 743.

13 Rollo, 29-34.