Nina Jewelry v Montecillo November 28, 2011 | Reyes, Reyes, J. | Prohibition against wage dedction Facts Madeline Montecillo and !i"a #rinidad were em$loyed as goldsmiths in Nina Jewelry Madeline%s wee&ly rate ' P1,(00 !i"a%s wee&ly rate ' P2,(00 • •
)ncidents o* the*t involving the goldsmiths cased Nina Jewelry to re+ire them to $ost cash bonds or de$osits to answer *or any loss or damage by reason o* the goldsmiths% *alt or negligence in handling the gold e$osits vary in amonts bt in no case e-ceed 1( o* their wee&ly salary e$osits shall be retrned $on com$letion o* wor& and a*ter acconting o* the gold • •
Nina Jewelry claims goldsmiths were also given the o$tion to sign athori"ations in $lace o* the de$osits. Nina Jewelry cold dedct *rom their salaries an amont not e-ceeding 1( o* their ta&e/home $ay, shold it be *ond that they lost gold owever, Madeline and !i"a claim that Nia Jewelry le*t the them with no o$tion bt to $ost the de$osits. #hey were allegedly constrctively constrctively dismissed becase their em$loyments were made de$endent on their readiness to $ost the re+ired de$osits. #hey claim they were made to sign blan& trst recei$ts Nia Jewelry claim the res$ondents sto$$ed re$orting *or wor& and signied their deance against the new $olicy which at that $oint had not even been im$lemented yet Madeline and !i"a led a com$laint *or illegal dismissal. !3 ismissed com$laint, bt ordered Nina Jewelry to $ay Madeline and !i"a their 14th month $ay *or 2015 #hey were not made to sign blan& blan& trst recei$ts, recei$ts, bt lled $ trst recei$ts recei$ts #hey were not dismissed, dismissed, they were only in*ormed in*ormed to $t $ the cash bond be*ore be*ore they cold be allowed to retrn bac& to wor& which they $reviosly re*sed re*sed to $er*orm • •
N!R63 7rmed !, bt deleted 14th month $ay Madeline and !i"a had n$aid loans with Nina Jewelry •
63 Reversed. Reversed. N!R6 was wrong in holding that there was abandonment o* wor& )* the em$loyee *ails to ma&e the re+ired de$osit, he will not be given gold to wor& on. In accordance with Art 113 (Wage Deduction) and Art 114 (Deposits for Loss or Damage), Nina ewe!r" fai!ed to pro#e that there is an e$isting !aw or regu!ation authori%ing it to impose such &urden on its emp!o"ees' And, in case of deposit, that it is engaged in a trade, occupation or &usiness where such reuirement is a recogni%ed practice' •
•
ART. ART. 113. Wage Wage Deduction. No employer, employer, in his own behalf or in in behalf of any any person, shall shall mae any deduction from the wages of his employees, e!cept" a. #n cases where the worer is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance$ b. %or union dues, in cases where the right of the worer or his union to chec&o' has been recogni(ed by the employer or authori(ed in writing by the indi)idual worer concerned$ and c. #n cases where the employer is authori(ed by law or regulations issued by the *ecretary of +abor.
Article 11. Deposits for loss or damage. No employer shall re-uire his worer to mae deposits from which deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials, or e-uipment supplied by the employer, e!cept when the employer is engaged in such trades, occupations or business where the practice of maing deposits is a recogni(ed one, or is necessary or desirable as determined by the *ecretary of +abor in appropriate rules and regulations. Issues 1 9N there was constrctive dismissal / N: 1 WN the po!ic" of posting cash &ondsma*ing deductions from the sa!aries is proper + N -e!d.atio
1
•
• •
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
#here was no constrctive dismissal. Nina Jewelry did not whimsically or arbitrarily im$ose the $olicy to $ost cash bonds or ma&e dedctions *rom the wor&ers% salaries. s attested to by the res$ondents% *ellow goldsmiths in their Joint 7davit, the wor&ers were convened and in*ormed o* the reason behind the im$lementation o* the new $olicy. )nstead o* airing their concerns, the res$ondents ;st $rom$tly sto$$ed re$orting *or wor&. /onstructi#e dismissa!0 occrs when there is cessation o* wor& becase contined em$loyment is rendered im$ossible, nreasonable or nli&ely< when there is a demotion in ran& or dimintion in $ay or both< or w hen a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an em$loyer becomes nbearable to the em$loyee Madeline and !i"a merely sto$$ed re$orting *or wor& #he new $olicy was an additional brden on them, bt it was not intended to reslt in demotion imintion in $ay is not intended becase as long as the wor&ers observe de diligence in the $er*ormance o* their tas&s, no loss or damage shall reslt *rom their handling o* the gold entrsted to them, hence, all the amonts de to the goldsmiths shall still be $aid in *ll #he new $olicy was intended to merely crb the incidences o* gold the*t in the wor& $lace. #he new $olicy can hardly be said to be disdain*l or insensible to the wor&ers as to render their contined em$loyment nreasonable, nli&ely or im$ossible. Nina ewe!r" fai!ed to pro#e that their imposition of the new po!ic" upon their go!dsmiths fa!!s under the e$ceptions specied in Artic!es 113 and 114 of the La&or /ode rt 114 and 115 are clear as to the e-ce$tions. #here is no need *or stattory constrction. #he $osting o* cash bonds and the ma&ing o* dedctions *rom the wages wold inargably im$ose an additional brden $on the em$loyees. hile the $etitioners are not absoltely $reclded *rom im$osing the new $olicy, they can only do so $on com$liance with the re+irements o* the law. Nina Jewelry *ailed in this res$ect. o Nina Jewelry shold rst establish that the ma&ing o* dedctions *rom the salaries is athori"ed by law, or reglations issed by the =ecretary o* !abor. o #he $osting o* cash bonds shold be $roven as a recogni"ed $ractice in the ;ewelry man*actring bsiness, or alternatively, the $etitioners shold see& *or the determination by the =ecretary o* !abor throgh the issance o* a$$ro$riate rles and reglations that the $olicy the *ormer see&s to im$lement is necessary or desirable in the condct o* bsiness. ithot $roo*s that re+iring de$osits and e>ecting dedctions are recogni"ed $ractices, or withot secring the =ecretary o* !abor%s determination o* the necessity or desirability o* the same, the im$osition o* new $olicies relative to dedctions and de$osits can be made sb;ect to abse by the em$loyers. #his is not what the law intends.
?R?@:R?, the instant $etition is PR#)!!A BRN#?. #he assailed ecision and Resoltion o* the 6 dated Janary C, 200C and May 2D, 200C, res$ectively, are R?E?R=? only in so *ar as they declared that the res$ondents were constrctively dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and $ayment o* bac&wages, allowances and benets. owever, the 6%s rling that the $etitioners% im$osition o* its new $olicy $on the res$ondents lac&s legal basis, stands.
