Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI
Rosario-Gatuslao Streets, Bacolod City
RENATO RITO,
Complainant,
- versus -

RAB CASE NO.

HDA. SANTOL/ FELIPE DATO


LACSON,
Respondent.
x -------------------------------------- x
POSITION PAPER
Respondent, thru the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable
Commission most respectfully submits this position paper, and states that:
MATERIAL DATES
During the mandatory conciliation conference held on February 24,
2014, the Honorable Labor Arbiter directed the parties to file simultaneously
their respective position papers within twenty (20) days, or no later than
March 17, 2014.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Complainant filed the instant case for alleged non-payment of
retirement pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Respondent in this case is one of the owners of Hacienda Santol, also
known as Hacienda Sta. Maria, consisting of 88.4 hectares of land, more or
less, located at Barangay Zone 15, Talisay City. Hacienda Sta. Maria has
already been subdivided into three lots consisting of 29.5 hectares, more or
less, with one portion belonging to Ma. Jesusa D. Lacson, another portion
belonging to Rene D. Lacson, and the third portion belonging to herein
Respondent.
Payment of the laborers wages for Respondent's farm are managed by
Mr. Rudy M. Monillo as the farm secretary, and has custody of the payrolls,
records of cash advances, and records pertinent to the operations of the farm.

Respondent acknowledges that Complainant was a farm laborer at


Hacienda Santol doing seasonal work on a pakyaw basis, for which he was
paid the applicable pakyaw rates as prescribed by the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) for agricultural workers in the sugar industry.
Complainant Rito began to work for Hacienda Sta. Maria sometime in
1982, when the hacienda has not yet been subdivided, until his retirement in
the year 2011.
Upon his retirement in the year 2011, Respondent instructed
Complainant to proceed to Mr. Monillo for the computation of his retirement
pay on the basis of his payroll records. Mr. Monillo informed Complainant
that based on the records in his custody, Complainants retirement benefit is
P14,762.16, computed as follows:
Average Daily Salary Rate = Total Earnings for 2011 = P13,806.46 = P76.70
Actual days worked
180
Retirement pay = P76.70 x 22.5 days x 29 years = P25,023.38
2
Less Advances of P10,261.22 = P14,762.16

Complainant disagreed on the manner of computation and refused to


accept the retirement pay as computed by Mr. Monillo. Complainant
subsequently filed a complaint before this Honorable Commission, where he
claims non-payment of retirement pay, service incentive leave pay and 13 th
month pay. After having failed to arrive at a settlement during the mandatory
conciliation conference, the parties were ordered to submit their respective
position papers.
ISSUES
Respondent respectfully submits the following issues for the
resolution of the Honorable Commission:
(1)
Whether or not Respondent was correct in computing retirement
pay due to Complainant at P14,762.16;
(2)
Whether or not Respondent is liable for payment of service
incentive leave pay and 13th month pay to the Complainant.
I.
RESPONDENT
CORRECTLY
COMPUTED
THE
RETIREMENT BENEFIT DUE TO COMPLAINANT TO BE
P14,762.16.
In computing the retirement pay due to Complainant, Mr. Monillo
sought guidance from the provisions of the Handbook on Workers
Statutory Monetary Benefits prepared by the Bureau of Working
2

Conditions- Department of Labor and Employment, specifically Chapter


14(D), which prescribes the manner of computation of Retirement Benefits
of Workers who are Paid by Results, to wit:
For covered workers who are paid by results and do not have a
fixed monthly salary rate, the basis for the determination of the salary
for fifteen (15) days shall be their average daily salary (ADS). The
ADS is derived by dividing the total salary or earnings for the last
twelve months reckoned from the date of retirement by the number of
actual working days in that particular period, provided that the
determination of rates of payment by results are in accordance with
the established regulations.
Mr. Monillo was able to get the total earnings received by
Complainant for the year 2011 from the 13 th month payroll, hereto attached
as Annex ____, in the amount of P13,806.46. To get the ADS of
Complainant, Mr. Monillo divided this amount by _____ days, which, based
on the payrolls from January 2011 to December 2011, was the number of
actual working days of Complainant in the year 2011. Respondent
respectfully submits the payrolls for the year 2011, hereto attached as
Annexes _______.
Mr. Monillo then multiplied the ADS by 22.5 days and 29 years, as
prescribed by Chapter 13(A) of the Handbook, and arrived at the amount of
P50,046.75. Mr. Monillo divided this amount by two, in consonance with the
practice in the sugar industry, for retirement purposes only, of taking into
account that seasonal workers only work for a fraction of the year and do not
work during the off-season, as opposed to regular workers who work for the
whole year. This practice is in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme
Court in the case of Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company, Inc. vs. NLRC,
(G.R. No. 84272, November 21, 1991), which states that:
While under prevailing jurisprudence, Canete may be
considered as in regular employment even during those years when
she was merely a seasonal worker, that legal conclusion will hold true
only in cases involving the determination of an employer-employee
relationship or security of tenure. But for retirement purposes, the
distinction between a seasonal and a regular worker must be
drawn in view of the materiality of the length of service being
rendered by the employee in a year. To equate the seasonable
worker with a regular employee grant him the same retirement
benefits is grossly unfair to the regular employee who has
rendered service throughout the entire year.
Indeed, by the very nature of his work, the seasonal laborer
cannot enjoy the same retirement privileges as the regular worker.
The seasonal laborer works only for a fraction of year. And more
3

often than not, he is allowed by his employer to seek employment


elsewhere during off-season or temporary lay-off for economic
necessity.
From the amount of P25,023.38 computed by Mr. Monillo, he
deducted the remaining balance of the advances made by Respondent to
Complainant in the amount of P10,261.22, leaving the amount of
P14,762.16 as the retirement benefit due for payment to the Complainant.
Respondent respectfully submits that the computation made by Respondent
of the retirement benefit due to Complainant is in accordance with the
manner prescribed by law.
II.
COMPLAINANT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID HIS 13TH
MONTH PAY
Respondent has already paid the 13th month pay due to the
Complainant. Mr. Monillo who as farm secretary personally released the 13 th
month pay to herein Complainant and attests to the fact of payment. In
support thereof, Respondent respectfully submits the 13th month payrolls for
the years 2010 and 2011. (Annexes A-1 and A-2, respectively) The
amount of 13th month pay paid to Complainant was based on the actual work
done by the Complainant for the applicable year, which in turn were based
on the pakyaw rates prescribed by the DOLE for agricultural workers in the
sugarcane industry. Entries in the payrolls, being entries in the course of
business, enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of
the Rules of Court, and are prima facie evidence of the fact of payment of
the 13th month pay to herein Complainant. As such, Complainants claim for
the payment of 13th month pay must be dismissed. (Kar Asia, Inc. vs.
Corona, G.R. No. 154985, August 24, 2004)
III. COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY
It must be stressed that herein Complainant is a farm laborer who is
paid for services rendered on the basis of pakyaw rates as prescribed by the
DOLE for agricultural workers in the sugar industry. As a pakyaw worker,
Complainant is an employee who is engaged on task or contract basis, or
who is paid a fixed amount for performing his work, and is therefore not
entitled to service incentive leave pursuant to Section 1(d), Rule V, Book III
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. In light thereof,
Complainants claim for the payment of service incentive leave pay must be
denied.
The foregoing clearly shows that Respondent has not committed
anything illegal or in violation of Complainants rights. Respondent is
willing and ready to comply with his obligation to pay retirement pay to the
Complainant in the manner prescribed by law. He has likewise paid all of

Complainants wages and benefits in accordance with the rates and in the
manner mandated by the law.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Labor Arbiter that an order be issued confirming the computation
of Complainants retirement benefit at P14,762.16 and to dismiss all other
claims made by the Complainant for lack of merit.
Respondent prays for such other just and equitable reliefs under the
premises.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
March 17, 2014, Bacolod City.

MICHELLE VARCA GONZAGA


Counsel for the Respondent
2nd Flr. St. Therese Bldg.
Cor. Rizal-Locsin Sts. Bacolod City
Tel. No. (034)4340049
Roll No. 49584
MCLE IV No. 0011199/2-5-2013
IBP No. 906130/1-9-2013/Bacolod City
PTR No. 5058282/1-9-2013/Bacolod City
Copy furnished:
RENATO RITO
Bacolod City

Centres d'intérêt liés