AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) GR. No. 121439 Janua! 2"# 2$$$ Gon%a&a'R!# J.* +a,-*
These are consolidated cases/claims for non-payment of salaries and wages, 13th month pay, ECOLA and other fringe benefits as rice, medical and clothing allowances, sbmitted by complainant !odolfo "# !etiso and 1$3 others, Lyn E# %anilla and &ilson %# 'allador against respondent A(lan Electric Cooperati)e, *nc# +AELCO# On .anary , 100, by way of resoltion of the %oard %o ard of irectors of AELCO allowed the temporary transfer holding ho lding of office at Amon Theater, alibo, A(lan and that their head office was closed# 2e)ertheless, maority of the employees inclding herein complainants contined to report for wor( at Le4o A(lan and were pa id of their salaries# On 5ebrary 11, 100, nnmbered resoltion was passed by b y the %oard of AELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at alibo, A(lan, and that the daily operations mst be held again at the main office of Le4o, A(lan# Complainants who were then reporting at the Le4o office from .anary 100 p to "ay 100 were dly paid of their salaries, while in the meantime some of the employees throgh the instigation of respondent "ationg contined to remain and wor( at alibo, A(lan# 6owe)er, from .ne 100 p to "arch 17, 1003, complainants who continosly reported for wor( at Le4o, A(lan in compliance with the aforementioned resoltion were not paid their salaries# The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, which was re)ersed by the 2L!C and held that the pri)ate respondents are entitled to their np aid wages# Iu*
&hether or not pri)ate respondents are entitled for npaid wages# Ru/n&*
8ri)ate respondents are not entitled for npaid wages# The 'preme Cort held that 2L!C committed gra)e abse of discretion amonting to e9cess or want of risdiction risdiction when it re)ersed the findings of the Labor Arbiter that pri)ate respondents refsed to wor( nder the lawfl orders of the petitioner AELCO management: hence they are co)ered b y the ;no wor(, no pay; principle and are ths not entitled to the claim for npaid wages from .ne 1$, 100 to "arch 17, 1003#
The 'preme Cort affirmed the LAeneral "anager, the complainants did not follow sch order# The %oard of irectors passed a !esoltion resisting and denying the claims of these complainants, nder the principle of ;no wor( no pay; which is legally stified# These complainants ha)e ;mass lea)e; from their cstomary wor( on .ne 100 p to "arch 17, 1003 and had a ;sit-down; stance for these periods of time in their alleged protest of the appointment of respondent Atty# Leo)igildo "ationg as the new >eneral "anager of the AELCO# The age-old rle go)erning the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a ;fair days wage for a fair days labor; remains as the basic factor in determining employees wages# *f there is no wor( performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay nless, of corse, the laborer was able, willing and ready to wor( bt was illegally loc(ed ot, sspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally pre)ented from wor(ing, a sitation which is not present in the instant case# *t wold neither be fair nor st to allow pri)ate respondents to reco)er something they ha)e not earned and cold not ha)e earned becase they did not render ser)ices at the alibo office dring the stated period# 6ence, the 'preme Cort re)ersed 2L!C
