Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, x x x. Respondent is further ordered to pay its workers salaries at the plantsite at Amacan, New Leyte, Maco, Davao del Norte or whenever not possible, through the bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte as already been practiced subject, however to the provisions of Section 4 of Rule VIII, Book III of the rules implementing the Labor Code as amended.’ Thus, public respondent Labor Arbiter Antonio M.
Accordingly, in his Order dated April 14, 1992 (p. 109, Vol. 1, Record), the Regional Director, Regional Office No. XI, Department of Labor and Employment, Davao City, ordered petitioner NDMC, among others, as follows: WHEREFORE, x x x. Respondent is further ordered to pay its workers salaries at the plantsite at Amacan, New Leyte, Maco, Davao del Norte or whenever not possible, through the bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte as already been practiced subject, however to the provisions of Section 4 of Rule VIII, Book III of the rules implementing the Labor Code as amended. Thus, public respondent Labor Arbiter Antonio M. Villanueva correctly held that: From the evidence on record, we find that the hours spent by complainants in collecting salaries at a bank in Tagum, Davao del Norte shall be considered compensable hours worked. Considering further the distance between Amacan, Maco to Tagum which is 2½ hours by travel and the risks in commuting all the time in collecting complainants salaries, would justify the granting of backwages equivalent to two (2) days in a month as prayed for. Corollary to the above findings, and for equitable reasons, we likewise hold respondents liable for the transportation expenses incurred by complainants at P40.00 round trip fare during pay days. (p. 10, Decision; p. 207, Vol. 1, Record) On the contrary, it will be petitioners burden or duty to present evidence of compliance of the law on labor standards, rather than for private respondents to prove that they were not paid/provided by petitioners of their backwages and transportation expenses." Other than the bare denials of petitioners, the above findings stands uncontradicted. Indeed we are not at liberty to set aside findings of facts of the NLRC, absent any capriciousness, arbitrariness, or abuse or complete lack of basis. In Maya Farms Employees Organizations vs. NLRC, [16] we held: "This Court has consistently ruled that findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality and are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record." WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the assailed Resolution by SETTING ASIDE and deleting the award for "additional separation pay of 17.5 days for every year of service," and AFFIRMING it in all other aspects. No costs. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 116960 - BERNARDO JIMENEZ AND JOSE JIMENEZ, AS OPERATORS OF JJ’S TRUCKING, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO JUANATAS AND FREDELITO JUANATAS.
G.R. No. 116960 -
CaseG.R. No. 104860 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND MARIA ANITA RUIZ.
G.R. No. 104860 -
CaseG.R. No. 193421 - MCMER CORPORATION, INC., MACARIO D. ROQUE, JR. AND CECILIA R. ALVESTIR, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND FELICIANO C. LIBUNAO, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 193421 -