G.R. No. 196936 , July 2, 2014
Monchito R. Ampeloquio, Petitioner, vs. Jaka Distribution, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Monchito R. Ampeloquio was a reinstated employee of respondent Jaka Distribution, Inc. (JAKA), having been previously found illegally dismissed by a Labor Arbiter. The Arbiter ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and benefits and payment of backwages. Ampeloquio resumed work on August 6, 2004, as a merchandiser, receiving a daily wage of ₱252.00 without meal and transportation allowances. He was later transferred outside Metro Manila and given a monthly cost of living allowance (COLA) of ₱720.00. Ampeloquio requested salary adjustment and benefits retroactive to his reinstatement, claiming he was underpaid compared to other merchandisers who received higher wages and allowances. He filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, COLA, and non-payment of meal and transportation allowances. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding wage differentials and damages. On appeal, the NLRC modified the award, noting that JAKA had been granted exemptions from implementing Wage Order Nos. 10 and 11, thus reducing the salary differential. The NLRC also denied claims for transportation allowance (from house to outlet and back) based on company policy and deleted the moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee entitles him to the same wages and benefits as his co-employees, or only to the statutory minimum wage or his previous wage rate, and whether he is entitled to the claimed allowances and damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. The Court held that reinstatement entitles the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but does not automatically grant him the same salary as his co-employees. The salary upon reinstatement is governed by the minimum wage rate prevailing at the time of reinstatement or the employee’s actual daily wage rate at the time of dismissal, whichever is higher. The reduction of the salary differential award was correct due to the exemptions from Wage Order increases granted to JAKA. The claim for transportation allowance from house to outlet and back was not allowed as it was contrary to the company’s clear policy. The deletion of moral and exemplary damages was upheld due to the absence of proof of bad faith on the part of JAKA in the payment of wages.