#14 LAGATIC vs. NLRC G.R. No. 121004 January 28, 1998 THIRD DIVISION: ROMERO, J.

: FACTS: Cityland employed Petitioner, Romeo Lagatic, as a marketing specialist in May 1986. He was tasked with with soliciting sales for the company as well as accepting call-ins, referrals, and making client calls and cold calls. It was believed by Cityland that cold calls is an effective and cost-efficient method of finding clients and required all marketing specialist to make the same but requires submissions of daily progress reports on cold calls for assessment and to determine its results. Petitioner was suspended for 3 days on November 1992, for his failure to submit cold call reports on different days of September and October 1992 despite a written reprimand for infractions of the same committed a year earlier and a warning that if he continues to not comply with the requirement it will result in termination. Petitioner failed again to submit cold call reports for 5 days of February 1993 despite the aforesaid suspension and warning. He was then verbally reminded to submit the reports and was given an extension up to Feb. 17, 1993. Petitioner still did not comply and instead wrote a note with the words, TO HELL WI TH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?, and exhibiting it to his co-employees. He left the note lying on top of his desk where everyone could see it to worsen the matter. On Feb. 23, 1993, a memorandum was received by the Petitioner requiring him to explain why Cityland should not implement their previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports, as well as, for the written statement he exhibited. The petitioner replied through a letter that his not complying with the submission of cold call reports must not be deemed as gross insubordination and he denied having knowledge about the damaging statement that was being accused of him. Cityland found the petitioner of guilty of gross insubordination and then served upon him a notice of dismissal on Feb. 26, 1993. The petitioner then felt wronged by the dismissal and filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, damages and attorneys fees. The labor arbiter dismissed it but it was appealed and affirmed by the NLRC. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding the petitioner illegally dismissed. HELD: The petition lacks merit. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must be met, namely: (1) the employee must be afforded due process, and (2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. Petitioner loses sight of the fact that except as provided for, or limited by, special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. Employers may, thus, make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees, and when employees, with knowledge of an established rule, enter the service, the rule becomes a part of the contract of employment. It is also generally recognized that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with. Corollarily, an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. An employer cannot rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose x x x lack of regard for his employers rules x x x has so plainly and completely been bared. Petitioners continued infraction of company policy requiring cold call reports, as evidenced by the 28 instances of non-submission of aforesaid reports, justifies his dismissal. He cannot be allowed to arrogate unto himself the privilege of setting company policy on the effectivity of solicitation methods. To do so would be to sanction oppression and the selfdestruction of the employer. More than that, his written statement shows his open defiance and disobedience to lawful rules and regulations of the company. Likewise, said company policy of requiring cold calls and the concomitant reports thereon is clearly reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to petitioner, and in connection with the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. There is, thus, just cause for his dismissal.

#56 JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE vs. NLRC and NATOW G.R. No. L-65482 December 1, 1987 Ponente: J. Paras FACTS: Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It has three groups of employees categorized as follows: (a) personnel on monthly basis, who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year, irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays; (b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they receive unworked holiday pay and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. Before the start of the semester they sign contracts with the college undertaking to meet their classes as per schedule. Unable to receive their corresponding holiday pay, as claimed, from 1975 to 1977. ISSUE: The sole issue in this case is whether or not the school faculty who according to their contracts are paid per lecture hour and are entitled to unworked holiday pay. HELD: Petitioner maintains the position among others, that it is not covered by Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations considering that it is a non- profit institution and that its hourly paid faculty members are paid on a "contract" basis because they are required to hold classes for a particular number of hours. if a regular week day is declared a holiday, the school calendar is extended to compensate for that day. Thus petitioner argues that the advent of any of the legal holidays within the semester will not affect the faculty's salary because this day is not included in their schedule while the calendar is extended to compensate for special holidays. Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days;" certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts. On the other hand, both the law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday pay are silent as to payment on Special Public Holidays. Declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the monthly income of the employees on account of work interruptions is defeated when a regular class day is cancelled on account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working day to make up for time lost in the school calendar. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby set aside, and a new one is hereby RENDERED: (a) exempting petitioner from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular holidays, whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during semestral, Christmas, or Holy Week vacations; (b) but ordering petitioner to pay said faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declared as special holidays or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught, whether extensions of class days be ordered or not; in case of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they teach during said extensions.

#77 DE RACHO VS. MUNICIPALITY OF ILIGAN G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 Ponente: Bengzon, J.P., J. FACTS: Plaintiff Juana T. Vda. de Racho and the decedent, Manuel Racho, were spouses and had five minor children. On July 1, 1954 the decedent was appointed as market cleaner in the Municipality of Ilagan, Isabela, at the rate of P660.00 per annum (P55.00 monthly) which amount he received up to June 30, 1958. On July 1, 1958, decedent's salary was increased to P720.00 per annum (P60.00 monthly) by virtue of a promotional appointment extended to him by the Municipal Mayor. Decedent was then paid the money value of his accumulated leaves. Decedent died intestate at Ilagan. Plaintiff then filed on December 9, 1960 a claim for salary differentials with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor, which dropped the case later for lack of jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing facts, the Court of First Instance of Isabela ruled that defendant Municipality of Ilagan must pay P1,766.00 to plaintiff representing the wage differentials and adjusted terminal leave of the decedent from December 9, 1957 to May 23, 1960, based on the monthly wage rate of P120.00 pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law. ISSUE: Whether or not the shortage and lack of available funds and expected revenue of a municipality validly exempt from complying with the Minimum Wage Law. HELD: The appealed judgment is affirmed. Lack of funds of a municipality does not excuse it from paying the statutory minimum wages to its employees, which, after all, is a mandatory statutory obligation of the municipality. To uphold such defense of lack of available funds would render the Minimum Wage Law futile and defeat its purpose. This also disposes of the implication appellant is trying to make that its duty to pay minimum wages is not a statutory obligation which would command preference in the municipal budget and appropriation ordinance. Moreover, we cannot sanction appellant's proposition that it would eventually and gradually implement the Minimum Wage Law, "if and when its revenues can afford." The law insofar as it affects government employees took effect in 1952. It should have been implemented or at least steps to implement it should have been taken right then. To excuse the defendant municipality now would be to permit it to benefit from its non-feasance. It would also make the effectivity of the law dependent upon the will and initiative of said municipality without statutory sanction. Defendant's remedy, therefore, is not to seek an excuse from implementing the law but, as the lower court suggested, to upgrade and improve its tax collection machinery with a view towards realizing more revenues. Or, it could for the present forego all non-essential expenditures.

#98 ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS et. al. vs MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT G.R. No. L-60403 August 3, 1983 FACTS: The Philippine Government Employees Association (PGEA) filed a motion pursuant to P.D. No. 851 in 1983. P.D. No. 851 requires all employers to pay 13th month pay to their employees with a single exception that is found in Sec. 2 which provides that employers who are already paying their employees 13 th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree. It is contended by the petitioners that the Sec. 3 of the IRR of P.D. 851 also includes other types of employers who are not exempted by the decree. They aver that the secretary, now Minister of Labor and Employment, is not included in the decree or is not given authority by the decree to exempt from the requirement other types of employers. ISSUE: Whether or not the private sectors or of government-owned and controlled corporations and government agencies, are thereunder obligated to pay their employees, receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24th of every year? HELD: It is the legislature or, in proper cases, the administrative heads of government and not the collective bargaining process nor the concessions wrung by labor unions from management that determine how much the workers in governmentowned or controlled corporations may receive in terms of salaries, 13th month pay, and other conditions or terms of employment. There are government institutions, which can afford to pay two weeks, three weeks, or even 13th-month salaries to their personnel from their budgetary appropriations. Here as in other countries, government salaries and wages have always been lower than salaries, wages, and bonuses in the private sector. However, civil servants have no cause for despair. Service in the government may at times be a sacrifice but it is also a welcome privilege. Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 is, therefore, a correct interpretation of the decree. It has been implemented and enforced from December 22, 1975 to the present; the petitioners have shown no valid reason why it should be nullified because of their petition filed six and a half years after the issuance and implementation of the rule. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

#119 ECOP vs. NWPC G.R. No. 96169 September 24, 1991 Ponente: J. SARMIENTO

FACTS: Petitioners ECOP questioned the validity of the wage order issued by the RTWPB dated October 23, 1990 pursuant to the authority granted by RA 6727. The wage order increased the minimum wage by P17.00 daily in the National Capital Region. The wage order is applied to all workers and employees in the private sector of an increase of P 17.00 including those who are paid above the statutory wage rate. ECOP appealed with the NWPC but dismissed the petition. The Solicitor General in its comment posits that the Board upon the issuance of the wage order fixed minimum wages according to the salary method. Petitioners insist that the power of RTWPB was delegated, through RA 6727, to grant minimum wage adjustments and in the absence of authority, it can only adjust floor wages. ISSUE: Whether or not the wage order issues by RTWPB dated October 23, 1990 is valid. HELD: The Court agrees with the Solicitor General. It noted that there are two ways in the determination of wage, these are floor wage method and salary ceiling method. The floor wage method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage while the salary ceiling method involves where the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling. RA 6727 gave statutory standards for fixing the minimum wage. The Commission noted that the increasing trend is toward the salary -cap method, which has reduced disputes arising from wage distortions (brought about, apparently, by the floor-wage method). Precisely, Republic Act No. 6727 was intended to rationalize wages, first, by providing for full -time boards to police wages round-the-clock, and second, by giving the boards enough powers to achieve this objective. The Court is of the opinion that Congress meant the boards to be creative in resolving the annual question of wages without labor and management knocking on the legislature's door at every turn. The petition is DENIED.