G.R. No. 181972 August 25, 2009 Chico-Nazario., Chico-Nazario., J. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC., DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO-MANILA petitioner, vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN) - DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER, respondent . •
•
•
•
•
11/5/01 - Wage Order No. 9 (WO#9) took effect. effect. It granted granted P 30 ECOLA to all private sector workers and employees in NCR NCR with a daily wage wage rate of P 250 to P 290. 290. 3/20/02 - NUWHRAIN (Union) sent a letter to Director Director Maraan of DOLE-NCR reporting reporting the noncompliance of Dusit with the ECOLA required under WO#9 while there was an ongoing compulsory arbitration before the NLRC due to a bargaining deadlock between the Union and Dusit. Labor Standards Officer Navidad conducted 2 inspections of the hotel. hotel. The first first inspection inspection revealed revealed the employees were receiving more than P 290 daily wage, hence WO#9 did not apply (note: payrolls were not submitted yet). The second inspection revealed there were 144 employees affected by WO#9. WO#9. 10/09/02 - NLRC rendered a decision in the compulsory arbitration granting 3 rounds of wage increases (P 500/mo. retroacting to Jan. 1, 2001; P 550/mo. in Jan 1, 2002; P 600/mo. in Jan. 1, 2003). 10/22/02 - DOLE-NCR issued issued a Compliance Compliance Order directing the hotel to pay the 144 affected affected employees the total amount of P1,218,240 corresponding to unpaid ECOLA under WO#9, plus the penalty of double indemnity, pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6727. Dusit filed filed an MR. It alleged the DOLE-NCR Order had become become moot and academic considering considering the o wage increase granted by the NLRC, which took the employees out of the coverage of WO#9. DOLE-NCR set aside its Order and dismissed the complaint of the Union. The Union appealed appealed before the DOLE DOLE Secretary, maintaining the the wage increases increases granted by the o NLRC should not be deemed compliance by Dusit with WO#9. DOLE Acting Sec. Imson initially granted the Union's appeal, but later reversed upon Dusit's MR. He admitted he had disregarded that the wage increase granted in the NLRC decision retroacted to Jan. 1, 2001. Hence, the wage increase already constituted complience with WO#9. Union filed an MR which was denied. The Union appealed to the CA, which ruled in their favor. Referring Referring to Section 13 of WO#9, the CA CA o declared that wage increases/allowances granted by the employer shall not be credited as compliance with the prescribed increase in the WO, unless so provided in the law or the CBA itself. CA ordered Dusit to pay ECOLA to the 144 employees. Dusit filed an MR which was denied.
W/N the 144 affected employees are still entitled to the ECOLA under WO#9 despite the wage increases NO. Only 82 employees are still entitled to the ECOLA (1st tranch) after applying the wage increase. The reliance reliance of the the Union on Section 13 of WO#9 is misplaced. misplaced. This section would would apply only if Dusit were proposing to pay its employees the wage increases in place of the the ECOLA. ECOLA. The position of Dusit is merely that the retroactive increases place said employees beyond the coverage of coverage of WO No. 9. The retroactively retroactively increased increased salaries salaries of the employees granted in the NLRC decision should should be used as bases for determining W/N they were entitled to ECOLA under WO#9. Otherwise, the Court would be sanctioning unjust enrichment on the part of the employees. After applying the 1st round of the wage increase, only 82 hotel employees had daily salary rates falling within the range of P250 to P290. Thus, upon the effectivity of WO#9, only the said 82 employees were entitled to receive the first tranch of ECOLA, equivalent to P15 per day. After the 2nd round of the wage increase, the the daily salary rates rates of all hotel employees were already above P 290. Consequently, by 01/01/02, no hotel employee was qualified to receive ECOLA. W/N (as Dusit argues) the 82 employees' receipt of their shares in the service charges already constituted substantial compliance with WO#9 NO. Pursuant to Labor Code Art. 96, the hotel employees have a right to their share in the service service charges. Undoubtedly, their right to their shares in the service charges collected by Dusit is distinct and separate from their right to ECOLA; gratification by Dusit of one does not result in the satisfaction of the other. W/N Dusit is liable for the penalty of double indemnity NO. Under Section 2(m) 2(m) of DOLE Department Department Order No. 10, Series of 1998, the Notice of Inspection Result (issued prior to the Compliance Order) should contain an advice that the employer shall be liable for double indemnity in case of refusal/failure refusal/failure to correct the violation within 5 calendary days. Here, the Notice of Inspection Reult dated 05/29/02 did not contain such an advice. This deprived Dusit of the opportunity to decide and act accordingly within the 5-day period so as to avoid the pen alty. •
•
•
•
•
•
Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama
