DENTECH MANUFACTURING V NLRC (MARBELLA)

172 SCRA 588

GANCAYCO; April 19, 1989

FACTS
- Dentech Manufacturing Corporation is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine laws owned and managed by the
petitioner Jacinto Ledesma. The firm is engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental equipment and supplies.
- Private respondents Benjamin Marbella, Armando Torno, Juanito Tajan, Jr. and Joel Torno are members of the
Confederation of Citizens Labor Union (CCLU), a labor organization registered with the DOLE. They used to be the employees
of Dentech, working as welders, upholsterers and painters. They were already employed with the company when it was still a sole
proprietorship. They were dismissed from the firm beginning February 14, 1985.
- They filed a Complaint with the NLRC against Dentech and Ledesma for, among others, illegal dismissal and violation of PD 851.
They were originally joined by another employee, one Raymundo Labarda, who later withdrew his Complaint. At first, they only sought
the payment of their 13th month pay under PD 851 as well as their separation pay, and the refund of the cash
bond they filed with the company at the start of their employment. Later on, they sought their reinstatement as well as the payment of
their 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, and separation pay in the event that they are not reinstated. It is alleged that they
were dismissed from the firm for pursuing union activities.
- Dentech argued that they are not entitled to a 13th month pay. They maintained that each of the private respondents receive a total
monthly compensation of more than P1,000 and that under Section 1 of PD 851, such employees are not entitled to receive a 13th month
pay. Also, the company is in bad financial shape and that pursuant to Section 3, the firm is exempted from complying with the provisions
of the Decree. Dentech also contended that the refund of the cash bond filed by the Marbella, et al., is improper inasmuch as the proceeds
of the same had already been given to a certain carinderia to pay for their outstanding accounts.

ISSUES
1. WON the private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to a 13th month pay
2. WON the refund of the cash bond is proper

HELD
1. YES
- PD 851 was signed into law in 1975 by then President Ferdinand Marcos. Under the original provisions of Section 1, all employers are
required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment,
a 13th month pay not later than December 24 of every year. Under Section 3 of the rules and
regulations implementing PD 851, financially distressed employers, i., e., those currently incurring substantial losses, are not covered by
the Decree. Section 7 requires, however, that such distressed employers must obtain the prior authorization of the Secretary of Labor
before they may qualify for such exemption.
- On May 1, 1978, PD 1364 was signed into law. The Decree enjoined the DOLE to stop accepting applications for exemption under PD
851. On August 13, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 28 which modified Section 1 of PD 851. The said
issuance eliminated the P1,000 salary ceiling.
- It clearly appears that Dentech has no basis to claim that it is exempted from complying with the provisions of the law relating to the 13th
month pay. The P1,000 salary ceiling provided in PD 851 pertains to basic salary, not total monthly compensation. Dentech admits that
Marbella, at al., work only five days a week and that they each receive a basic daily wage of P40 only. A simple computation of the basic
daily wage multiplied by the number of working days in a month results in an amount of less than P1,000. Thus, there is no basis for the
contention that the company is exempted from the provision of PD 851 which mandated the payment of 13th month
compensation to employees receiving less than P1,000 a month.
[NOTE: Cory’s Memo (1986) is not yet applicable as of the time Marbella, et al., were dismissed (1985).]
- Even assuming, arguendo, that Marbella, et al., are each paid a monthly salary of over P1,000, Dentech is still not in a
position to claim exemption. The rules and regulations implementing PD 851 provide that a distressed employer shall qualify for
exemption from the requirements of the Decree only upon prior authorization from the Secretary of Labor. No such prior authorization
had been obtained by Dentech.

2. YES
- The refund of the cash bond is in order. Article 114 of the Labor Code prohibits an employer from requiring his employees
to file a cash bond or to make deposits, subject to certain exceptions.
- Art. 114. Deposits for loss or damage.
- No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss
of or damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer, except when the employer is engaged
in such trades, occupations or business where the practice of making deductions or requiring deposits is a
recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations.
- Dentech has not satisfactorily disputed the applicability of this provision to the case at bar. Considering further that it failed to show that
it is authorized by law to require Marbella, et al., to file the cash bond in question, the refund is in order.
- The allegation that the proceeds of the cash bond had already been given to a certain carinderia to pay for the accounts of the private
respondents does not merit serious consideration. No evidence or receipt has been shown to prove such payment.

Disposition: Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.