GR 116593; (September, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116593 September 24, 1997
PULP AND PAPER, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EPIFANIA ANTONIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Epifania Antonio was a regular wrapper for petitioner Pulp and Paper, Inc., starting in 1975 and paid on a piece-rate basis. On June 29, 1991, she was temporarily laid off due to a lack of available work. On November 29, 1991, she was called to the office, allegedly to receive her 13th-month pay, but was also presented with a quitclaim and release form, which she refused to sign. She subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal claim, finding the layoff was due to a bona fide reduction of work, but awarded separation pay and a substantial amount for wage differentials, concluding she was paid below the legal minimum wage. The NLRC affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
The core legal issue is how to properly compute the separation pay and salary differential for a piece-rate worker when no specific wage rates for such work have been prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s decision. On the computation of separation pay, the Court held that in the absence of a specifically prescribed rate for piece-rate workers, the basis should be the applicable minimum wage rate, not the worker’s average earnings. Since the Secretary of Labor had not issued wage rates for the specific piece-work in question, the minimum wage was the proper legal benchmark. The award of one month’s pay per year of service was correct as the termination was due to authorized causes (retrenchment due to lack of work).
Regarding the salary differential, the Court upheld the use of the minimum wage as the basis for computing underpayment. The petitioner failed to present evidence, such as time and motion studies, to prove that the piece-rates it paid resulted in earnings at least equivalent to the statutory minimum wage for an eight-hour workday. Consequently, the labor tribunals correctly presumed the wage shortfall and computed the differential by comparing the amount actually received by Antonio against what she should have earned at the prevailing minimum wage rates throughout her employment. The awards were thus based on law and substantial evidence.