Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000
AKLAN ELECTRC COOPERAT!E NCORPORATE" #AKELCO$, petitioner,
vs.
NATONAL LA%OR RELATONS COMMSSON #&our'( ")*)+)on$, RO"OL&O M.
RETSO an, 1-5 OT.ERS,
1
responents.
GON/AGA0RE1ES, J.:
In his petition for certiorari an prohibition !ith pra"er for !rit of preli#inar" in$unction
an%or te#porar" restrainin& orer, petitioner assails 'a( the ecision ate )pril *+,
1,,-, of public responent National .abor Relations /o##ission 'N.R/(, 0ourth '1th(
Division, /ebu /it", in N.R/ /ase No. V2+1132,1 reversin& the 0ebruar" *-, 1,,1
ecision of .abor )rbiter Dennis D. 4uanon an orerin& petitioner to pa" !a&es in the
a&&re&ate a#ount of P5,16-,757.,+ to private responents, an 'b( the resolution ate
4ul" *6, 1,,- en"in& petitioner8s #otion for reconsieration, for havin& been issue
!ith &rave abuse of iscretion.
) te#porar" restrainin& orer !as issue b" this /ourt on October ,, 1,,- en$oinin&
public responent fro# e9ecutin& the :uestione ecision upon a suret" bon poste b"
petitioner in the a#ount of P5,1++,+++.++.
*
The facts as foun b" the .abor )rbiter are as follo!s;
3
These are consoliate cases%clai#s for non2pa"#ent of salaries an !a&es, 13th
#onth pa", </O.) an other frin&e benefits as rice, #eical an clothin& allo!ances,
sub#itte b" co#plainant Roolfo M. Retiso an 153 others, ."n <. =anilla an >ilson
=. Sallaor a&ainst responents )?lan <lectric /ooperative, Inc. ')@<./O(, )tt".
.eovi&ilo Mation& in his capacit" as Aeneral Mana&erB Manuel /aliCo, in his capacit"
as )ctin& =oar Presient, =oar of Directors, )@<./O.
/o#plainants alle&e that prior to the te#porar" transfer of the office of )@<./O fro#
.eCo )?lan to )#on Theater, @alibo, )?lan, co#plainants !ere continuousl" perfor#in&
their tas? an !ere ul" pai of their salaries at their #ain office locate at .eCo, )?lan.
That on 4anuar" **, 1,,*, b" !a" of resolution of the =oar of Directors of )@<./O
allo!e the te#porar" transfer holin& of office at )#on Theater, @alibo, )?lan per
infor#ation b" their Pro$ect Supervisor, )tt". .eovi&ilo Mation&, that their hea office is
close an that it is an&erous to hol office thereatB
Nevertheless, #a$orit" of the e#plo"ees incluin& herein co#plainants continue to
report for !or? at .eCo )?lan an !ere pai of their salaries.
That on 0ebruar" 5, 1,,*, the a#inistrator of N<), Rori&o /abrera, !rote a letter
aresse to the =oar of )@<./O, that he is not interposin& an" ob$ections to the
action ta?en b" responent Mation&. . .
That on 0ebruar" 11, 1,,*, unnu#bere resolution !as passe b" the =oar of
)@<./O !ithra!in& the te#porar" esi&nation of office at @alibo, )?lan, an that the
ail" operations #ust be hel a&ain at the #ain office of .eCo, )?lanB
1
That co#plainants !ho !ere then reportin& at the .eCo office fro# 4anuar" 1,,* up to
Ma" 1,,* !ere ul" pai of their salaries, !hile in the #eanti#e so#e of the
e#plo"ees throu&h the insti&ation of responent Mation& continue to re#ain an !or?
at @alibo, )?lanB
That fro# 4une 1,,* up to March 16, 1,,3, co#plainants !ho continuousl" reporte for
!or? at .eCo, )?lan in co#pliance !ith the afore#entione resolution !ere not pai
their salariesB
That on March 1,, 1,,3 up to the present, co#plainants !ere a&ain allo!e to ra!
their salariesB !ith the e9ception of a fe! co#plainants !ho !ere not pai their salaries
for the #onths of )pril an Ma" 1,,3B
Per alle&ations of the responents, the follo!in& are the facts;
1. That these co#plainants voluntaril" abanone their respective !or?%$ob
assi&n#ents, !ithout an" $ustifiable reason an !ithout notif"in& the #ana&e#ent of the
)?lan <lectric /ooperative, Inc. ')@<./O(, hence the cooperative suffere a#a&es
an s"ste#s lossB
*. That the co#plainants herein efie the la!ful orers an other issuances b" the
Aeneral Mana&er an the =oar of Directors of the )@<./O. These co#plainants !ere
re:ueste to report to !or? at the @alibo office . . . but espite these la!ful orers of the
Aeneral Mana&er, the co#plainants i not follo! an !ilfull" an #aliciousl" efie
sai orers an issuance of the Aeneral Mana&erB that the =oar of Directors passe a
Resolution resistin& an en"in& the clai#s of these co#plainants, . . . uner the
1
principle of Dno !or? no pa"D !hich is le&all" $ustifieB That these co#plainants have
D#ass leaveD fro# their custo#ar" !or? on 4une 1,,* up to March 16, 1,,3 an ha a
Dsit2o!nD stance for these perios of ti#e in their alle&e protest of the appoint#ent of
responent )tt". .eovi&ilo Mation& as the ne! Aeneral Mana&er of the )?lan <lectric
/ooperative, Inc. ')@<./O( b" the =oar of Directors an confir#e b" the
)#inistrator of the National <lectrification )#inistration 'N<)(, EueCon /it"B That
the" en&a&e in D. . . slo!o!n #ass leaves, sit o!ns, atte#pts to a#a&e, estro" or
sabota&e plant e:uip#ent an facilities of the )?lan <lectric /ooperative, Inc.
')@<./O(.
On 0ebruar" *-, 1,,1, a ecision !as renere b" .abor )rbiter Dennis D. 4uanon
is#issin& the co#plaints.
-
Dissatisfie !ith the ecision, private responents appeale to the responent
/o##ission.
On appeal, the N.R/8s 0ourth Division, /ebu /it",
5
reverse an set asie the .abor
)rbiter8s ecision an hel that private responents are entitle to unpai !a&es fro#
4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3, thus;
7
The evience on recors, #ore specificall" the evience sub#itte b" the co#plainants,
!hich are; the letter ate )pril 7, 1,,3 of Perito .. .e"son, Office Mana&er of
)@<./O ')nne9 D/DB co#plainants8 position paperB Rollo, p. 1+*( aresse to
responent )tt". .eovi&ilo T. Mation&B responent )@<./O Aeneral Mana&erB the
#e#oranu# of sai )tt". Mation& ate 11 )pril 1,,3, in ans!er to the letter of Perito
.e"son ')nne9 DDD co#plainants8 position paper(B as !ell as the co#putation of the
unpai !a&es ue to co#plainants ')nne9es D<D to D<23DB co#plainants8 position paper,
Rollo, pa&es 1+*1 to 1+*7( clearl" sho! that co#plainants ha renere services
urin& the perio24une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3. The recor is bereft of an" sho!in&
that the responents ha sub#itte an" evience, ocu#entar" or other!ise, to
controvert this asseveration of the co#plainants that services !ere renere urin& this
perio. DSub$ectin& these eviences sub#itte b" the co#plainants to the crucible of
scrutin", >e fin that responent )tt". Mation& respone to the re:uest of the Office
Mana&er, Mr. .e"son, !hich >e :uote, to !it;
Rest assure that >e shall reco##en "our aforesai re:uest to our =oar of Directors
for their consieration an appropriate action. This pa"#ent, ho!ever, shall be sub$ect,
a#on& others, to the availabilit" of funs.
This assurance is an a#ission that co#plainants are entitle to pa"#ent for services
renere fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3, speciall" so that the reco##enation
an re:uest co#es fro# the office #ana&er hi#self !ho has irect ?no!le&e
re&arin& the services an perfor#ance of e#plo"ees uner hi#. 0or ho! coul one
office #ana&er reco##en pa"#ent of !a&es, if no services !ere renere b"
e#plo"ees uner hi#. )n office #ana&er is the #ost :ualifie person to ?no! the
perfor#ance of personnel uner hi#. )n therefore, an" re:uest co#in& fro# hi# for
pa"#ent of !a&es aresse to his superior as in the instant case shall be &iven
!ei&ht.
0urther#ore, the recor is clear that co#plainants !ere pai of their !a&es an other
frin&e benefits fro# 4anuar", 1,,* to Ma", 1,,* an fro# March 1,, 1,,3 up to the ti#e
co#plainants file the instant cases. In the intere&nu#, fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March
16, 1,,3, co#plainants !ere not pai of their salaries, hence these clai#s. >e coul
see no rh"#e nor reason in responents8 refusal to pa" co#plainants salaries urin&
this perio !hen co#plainants ha !or?e an actuall" renere service to )@<./O.
>hile the responents #aintain that co#plainants !ere not pai urin& this interim
perio uner the principle of Dno !or?, no pa"D, ho!ever, no proof !as sub#itte b" the
responents to substantiate this alle&ation. The labor arbiter, therefore, erre in
is#issin& the clai#s of the co#plainants, !hen he aopte the Dno !or?, no pa"D
principle avance b" the responents.1wphi1.nt
>H<R<0OR<, in vie! of the fore&oin&, the appeale ecision ate 0ebruar" *-, 1,,1
is hereb" Reverse an Set )sie an a ne! one entere orerin& responent
)@<./O to pa" co#plainants their clai#s a#ountin& to P5,16-,757.,+ as sho!n in the
co#putation ')nne9es D<D to D<23D(.
) #otion for reconsieration !as file b" petitioner but the sa#e !as enie b" public
responent in a resolution ate 4ul" *6, 1,,-.
6
Petitioner brou&ht the case to this /ourt alle&in& that responent N.R/ co##itte
&rave abuse of iscretion citin& the follo!in& &rouns;
,
1. PF=.I/ R<SPOND<NT /OMMITT<D AR)V< DIS/R<TION IN R<V<RSINA TH<
0)/TF). 0INDINAS )ND /ON/.FSIONS O0 TH< .)=OR )R=IT<R, )ND
DISR<A)RDINA TH< <GPR<SS )DMISSION O0 PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS TH)T
TH<H D<0I<D P<TITION<R8S ORD<R TR)NS0<RRINA TH< P<TITION<R8S
O00I/I). =FSIN<SS O00I/< 0ROM .<IO TO @).I=O )ND 0OR TH<M TO
R<PORT TH<R<)T.
*. PF=.I/ R<SPOND<NT /OMMITT<D AR)V< )=FS< O0 DIS/R<TION IN
/ON/.FDINA TH)T PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS ><R< R<)..H >OR@INA OR
R<ND<RINA S<RVI/< ON TH< =)SIS O0 TH< /OMPFT)TION O0 >)A<S )ND
TH< =I)S<D R</OMM<ND)TION SF=MITT<D =H .<HSON >HO IS ON< O0 TH<
PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS >HO D<0I<D TH< .)>0F. ORD<RS O0 P<TITION<R.
2
3. PF=.I/ R<SPOND<NT /OMMITT<D AR)V< )=FS< O0 DIS/R<TION IN
/ONSID<RINA TH< )SSFR)N/< =H P<TITION<R8S A<N<R). M)N)A<R
M)TIONA TO R</OMM<ND TH< P)HM<NT O0 TH< /.)IMS O0 PRIV)T<
R<SPOND<NTS )S )N )DMISSION O0 .I)=I.ITH OR ) R</OANITION TH)T
/OMP<NS)=.< S<RVI/<S ><R< )/TF)..H R<ND<R<D.
1. AR)NTINA TH)T PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS /ONTINF<D TO R<PORT )T TH<
.<IO O00I/<, IT IS STI.. AR)V< )=FS< O0 DIS/R<TION 0OR PF=.I/
R<SPOND<NT TO /ONSID<R TH)T P<TITION<R IS .<A)..H O=.IA)T<D TO
R</OANII< S)ID /IR/FMST)N/< )S /OMP<NS)=.< S<RVI/< )ND P)H
>)A<S TO PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS 0OR D<0HINA TH< ORD<R 0OR TH<M TO
R<PORT 0OR >OR@ )T TH< @).I=O O00I/< >H<R< TH< O00I/I). =FSIN<SS
)ND OP<R)TIONS ><R< /ONDF/T<D.
-. PF=.I/ R<SPOND<NT /OMMITT<D AR)V< )=FS< O0 DIS/R<TION )ND
S<RIOFS, P)T<NT )ND P).P)=.< <RROR IN RF.INA TH)T TH< DNO >OR@, NO
P)HD PRIN/IP.< DO<S NOT )PP.H 0OR .)/@ O0 <VID<NTI)RH SFPPORT >H<N
PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS ).R<)DH )DMITT<D TH)T TH<H DID NOT R<PORT
0OR >OR@ )T TH< @).I=O O00I/<.
5. PF=.I/ R<SPOND<NT /OMMITT<D AR)V< )=FS< O0 DIS/R<TION IN
)//ORDINA ><IAHT )ND /R<DI=I.ITH TO TH< S<.02S<RVINA )ND =I)S<D
)..<A)TIONS O0 PRIV)T< R<SPOND<NTS, )ND )//<PTINA TH<M )S PROO0,
D<SPIT< TH< <ST)=.ISH<D 0)/T )ND )DMISSION TH)T PRIV)T<
R<SPOND<NTS DID NOT R<PORT 0OR >OR@ )T TH< @).I=O O00I/<, OR TH)T
TH<H ><R< N<V<R P)ID 0OR )NH >)A<S 0ROM TH< TIM< TH<H D<0I<D
P<TITION<R8S ORD<RS.
Petitioner contens that public responent co##itte &rave abuse of iscretion in
finin& that private responents are entitle to their !a&es fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March
16, 1,,3, thus isre&arin& the principle of Dno !or?, no pa"D. It alle&es that private
responents state in their pleain&s that the" not onl" ob$ecte to the transfer of
petitioner8s business office to @alibo but the" also efie the irective to report thereat
because the" consiere the transfer ille&al. It further clai#s that private responents
refuse to reco&niCe the authorit" of petitioner8s la!ful officers an a&ents resultin& in
the isruption of petitioner8s business operations in its official business office in .eCo,
)?lan, forcin& petitioner to transfer its office fro# .eCo to @alibo transferrin& all its
e:uip#ents, recors an facilitiesB that private responents cannot choose !here to
!or?, thus, !hen the" efie the la!ful orers of petitioner to report at @alibo, private
responents !ere consiere is#isse as far as petitioner !as concerne. Petitioner
also isputes private responents8 alle&ation that the" !ere pai their salaries fro#
4anuar" to Ma" 1,,* an a&ain fro# March 1,, 1,,3 up to the present but not for the
perio fro# 4une 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3 sa"in& that private responents ille&all"
collecte fees an char&es ue petitioner an appropriate the collections a#on&
the#selves for !hich reason the" are clai#in& salaries onl" for the perio fro# 4une
1,,* to March 1,,3 an that private responents !ere pai their salaries startin& onl"
in )pril 1,,3 !hen petitioner8s =oar a&ree to accept private responents bac? to !or?
at @alibo office out of co#passion an not for the reason that the" renere service at
the .eCo office. Petitioner also as that co#pensable service is best sho!n b"
ti#ecars, pa"slips an other si#ilar ocu#ents an it !as an error for public
responent to consier the co#putation of the clai#s for !a&es an benefits sub#itte
#erel" b" private responents as substantial evience.
The Solicitor Aeneral file its Manifestation in lieu of /o##ent pra"in& that the ecision
of responent N.R/ be set asie an pa"#ent of !a&es clai#e b" private
responents be enie for lac? of #erit alle&in& that private responents coul not have
!or?e for petitioner8s office in .eCo urin& the state perio since petitioner transferre
its business operation in @alibo !here all its recors an e:uip#ents !ere brou&htB that
co#putations of the clai#s for !a&es an benefits sub#itte b" private responents to
petitioner is not proof of renition of !or?. 0ilin& its o!n /o##ent, public responent
N.R/ clai#s that the ori&inal an e9clusive $urisiction of this /ourt to revie! ecisions
or resolutions of responent N.R/ oes not inclue a correction of its evaluation of
evience as factual issues are not fit sub$ect for certiorari.
Private responents, in their /o##ent, alle&e that revie! of a ecision of N.R/ in a
petition for certiorari uner Rule 5- oes not inclue the correctness of its evaluation of
the evience but is confine to issues of $urisiction or &rave abuse of iscretion an
that factual finin&s of a#inistrative boies are entitle &reat !ei&ht, an accore not
onl" respect but even finalit" !hen supporte b" substantial evience. The" clai# that
petitioner8s =oar of Directors passe an unnu#bere resolution on 0ebruar" 11, 1,,*
returnin& bac? the office to .eCo fro# @alibo )?lan !ith a irective for all e#plo"ees to
i##eiatel" report at .eCoB that the letter2repl" of )tt". Mation& to the letter of office
#ana&er .e"son that he !ill reco##en the pa"#ent of the private responents8 salar"
fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3 to the =oar of Directors !as an a#ission that
private responent are entitle to such pa"#ent for services renere. Private
responents state that in appreciatin& the evience in their favor, public responent
N.R/ at #ost #a" be liable for errors of $u&#ent !hich, as ifferentiate fro# errors
of $urisiction, are not !ithin the province of the special civil action of certiorari.
Petitioner file its Repl" alle&in& that revie! of the ecision of public responent is
proper if there is a conflict in the factual finin&s of the labor arbiter an the N.R/ an
!hen the evience is insufficient an insubstantial to support N.R/8s factual finin&sB
that public responent8s finin&s that private responent renere co#pensable
services !ere #erel" base on private responents8 co#putation of clai#s !hich is
self2servin&B that the alle&e unnu#bere boar resolution ate 0ebruar" 11, 1,,*,
irectin& all e#plo"ees to report to .eCo Officer !as never i#ple#ente because it !as
not a vali action of )@<./O8s le&iti#ate boar.
3
The sole issue for eter#ination is !hether or not public responent N.R/ co##itte
&rave abuse of iscretion a#ountin& to e9cess or !ant of $urisiction !hen it reverse
the finin& of the .abor )rbiter that private responent refuse to !or? uner the la!ful
orers of the petitioner )@<./O #ana&e#entB hence the" are covere b" the Dno !or?,
no pa"D principle an are thus not entitle to the clai# for unpai !a&es fro# 4une 15,
1,,* to March 16, 1,,3.
>e fin #erit in the petition.
)t the outset, !e reiterate the rule that in certiorari proceein&s uner Rule 5-, this
/ourt oes not assess an !ei&h the sufficienc" of evience upon !hich the labor
arbiter an public responent N.R/ base their resolutions. Our :uer" is li#ite to the
eter#ination of !hether or not public responent N.R/ acte !ithout or in e9cess of
its $urisiction or !ith &rave abuse of iscretion in renerin& the assaile resolutions.
1+

>hile a#inistrative finin&s of fact are accore &reat respect, an even finalit" !hen
supporte b" substantial evience, nevertheless, !hen it can be sho!n that
a#inistrative boies &rossl" #isappreciate evience of such nature as to co#pel a
contrar" conclusion, this court ha not hesitate to reverse their factual finin&s.
11

0actual finin&s of a#inistrative a&encies are not infallible an !ill be set asie !hen
the" fail the test of arbitrariness.
1*
Moreover, !here the finin&s of N.R/ contraict
those of the labor arbiter, this /ourt, in the e9ercise of its e:uit" $urisiction, #a" loo?
into the recors of the case an ree9a#ine the :uestione finin&s.
13
>e fin co&ent reason, as sho!n b" the petitioner an the Solicitor Aeneral, not to
affir# the factual finin&s of public responent N.R/.
>e o not a&ree !ith the finin& that private responents ha renere services fro#
4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3 so as to entitle the# to pa"#ent of !a&es. Public
responent base its conclusion on the follo!in&; 'a( the letter ate )pril 7, 1,,3 of
Perito .. .e"son, Office Mana&er of )@<./O aresse to )@<./O8s Aeneral
Mana&er, )tt". .eovi&ilo T. Mation&, re:uestin& for the pa"#ent of private responents8
unpai !a&es fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3B 'b( the #e#oranu# of sai )tt".
Mation& ate 11 )pril 1,,3, in ans!er to the letter re:uest of Perito .e"son !here
)tt". Mation& #ae an assurance that he !ill reco##en such re:uestB 'c( the private
responents8 o!n co#putation of their unpai !a&es. >e fin that the fore&oin& oes
not constitute substantial evience to support the conclusion that private responents
are entitle to the pa"#ent of !a&es fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3. Substantial
evience is that a#ount of relevant evience !hich a reasonable #in #i&ht accept as
ae:uate to $ustif" a conclusion.
11
These eviences relie upon b" public responent
i not establish the fact that private responents actuall" renere services in the
@alibo office urin& the state perio.
The letter of Perito .e"son to )tt". Mation& !as consiere b" public responent as
evience that services !ere renere b" private responents urin& the state perio,
as the reco##enation an re:uest ca#e fro# the office #ana&er !ho has irect
?no!le&e re&arin& the services an perfor#ance of e#plo"ees uner hi#. >e are
not convince. Perito .e"son is one of the herein private responents !ho are
clai#in& for unpai !a&es an !e fin his actuation of re:uestin& in behalf of the other
private responents for the pa"#ent of their bac?!a&es to be biase an self2servin&,
thus not creible.
On the other han, petitioner !as able to sho! that private responents i not rener
services urin& the state perio. Petitioner8s eviences sho! that on 4anuar" **, 1,,*,
petitioner8s =oar of Directors passe a resolution te#poraril" transferrin& the Office
fro# .eCo, )?lan to )#on Theater, @alibo, )?lan upon the reco##enation of )tt".
.eovi&ilo Mation&, then pro$ect supervisor, on the &roun that the office at .eCo !as
an&erous an unsafe. Such transfer !as approve b" then N<) )#inistrator, Rori&o
<. /abrera, in a letter ate 0ebruar" 5, 1,,* aresse to petitioner8s =oar of
Directors.
1-
Thus, the N<) )#inistrator, in the e9ercise of supervision an control over
all electric cooperatives, incluin& petitioner, !rote a letter ate 0ebruar" 5, 1,,*
aresse to the Provincial Director P/%INP @alibo )?lan re:uestin& for #ilitar"
assistance for the petitioner8s tea# in retrievin& the electric cooperative8s e:uip#ents
an other re#ovable facilities an%or fi9tures conse:uential to the transfer of its principal
business aress fro# .eCo to @alibo an in #aintainin& peace an orer in the
cooperative8s covera&e area.
15
The fore&oin& establishes the fact that the continuous
operation of the petitioner8s business office in .eCo )?lan !oul pose a serious an
i##inent threat to petitioner8s officials an other e#plo"ees, hence the necessit" of
te#poraril" transferrin& the operation of its business office fro# .eCo to @alibo. Such
transfer !as one in the e9ercise of a #ana&e#ent prero&ative an in the absence of
contrar" evience is not un$ustifie. >ith the transfer of petitioner8s business office fro#
its for#er office, .eCo, to @alibo, )?lan, its e:uip#ents, recors an facilities !ere also
re#ove fro# .eCo an brou&ht to the @alibo office !here petitioner8s official business
!as bein& conucteB thus private responents8 alle&ations that the" continue to report
for !or? at .eCo to support their clai# for !a&es has no basis.
Moreover, private responents in their position paper a#itte that the" i not report at
the @alibo office, as .eCo re#aine to be their office !here the" continuousl" reporte,
to !it;
17
On 4anuar" **, 1,,1 b" !a" of a resolution of the =oar of Directors of )@<./O it
allo!e the te#porar" holin& of office at )#on Theater, @alibo, )?lan, per infor#ation
b" their pro$ect supervisor, )tt". .eovi&ilo Mation& that their hea office is close an
that it is an&erous to hol office thereat.
4
Nevertheless, #a$orit" of the e#plo"ees incluin& the herein co#plainants, continue to
report for !or? at .eCo, )?lan an !ere pai of their salaries.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
The transfer of office fro# .eCo, )?lan to @alibo, )?lan bein& ille&al for failure to co#pl"
!ith the le&al re:uire#ents uner P.D. *5,, the co#plainants re#aine an continue
to !or? at the .eCo Office until the" !ere ille&all" loc?e out therefro# b" the
responents. Despite the ille&al loc? out ho!ever, co#plainants continue to report
ail" to the location of the .eCo Office, prepare to continue in the perfor#ance of their
re&ular uties.
/o#plainants thus coul not be consiere to have abanone their !or? as .eCo
re#aine to be their office an not @alibo espite the te#porar" transfer thereto.
0urther the fact that the" !ere allo!e to ra! their salaries up to Ma", 1,,* is an
ac?no!le&#ent b" the #ana&e#ent that the" are !or?in& urin& the perio.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
It #ust be pointe out that co#plainants !or?e an continuousl" reporte at .eCo
office espite the #ana&e#ent holin& office at @alibo. In fact, the" !ere pai their
!a&es before it !as !ithhel an then !ere allo!e to ra! their salaries a&ain on
March 1,,3 !hile reportin& at .eCo up to the present.
Responents8 acts an pa"#ent of co#plainants8 salaries an a&ain fro# March 1,,3 is
an une:uivocal reco&nition on the part of responents that the !or? of co#plainants is
continuin& an uninterrupte an the" are therefore entitle to their unpai !a&es for
the perio fro# 4une 1,,* to March 1,,3.
The a#ission is etri#ental to private responents8 cause. Their e9cuse is that the
transfer to @alibo !as ille&al but !e a&ree !ith the .abor )rbiter that it !as not for
private responents to eclare the #ana&e#ent8s act of te#poraril" transferrin& the
)@<./O office to @alibo as an ille&al act. There is no alle&ation nor proof that the
transfer !as #ae in ba faith or !ith #alice. The .abor )rbiter correctl" rationaliCe in
its ecision as follo!s;
16
>e o not subscribe to co#plainants theor" an assertions. The", b" their o!n
alle&ations, have unilaterall" co##itte acts in violation of #ana&e#ent8s%responents8
irectives purel" classifie as #ana&e#ent prero&ative. The" have ta?en a#on&st
the#selves eclarin& #ana&e#ent8s acts of temporarily transferrin& the holin& of the
)@<./O office fro# .eCo to @alibo, )?lan as ille&al. It is never incu#bent upon
the#selves to eclare the sa#e as such. It is lo&e in another foru# or bo" le&all"
#antle to o the sa#e. >hat the" shoul have one !as first to follo! #ana&e#ent8s
orers temporarily transferrin& office for it has the first presu#ption of le&alit". 0urther,
the transfer !as onl" temporary. 0or;
The e#plo"er as o!ner of the business, also has inherent ri&hts, a#on& !hich are the
ri&ht to select the persons to be hire an ischar&e the# for $ust an vali causeB to
pro#ul&ate an enforce reasonable e#plo"#ent rules an re&ulations an to #oif",
a#en or revo?e the sa#eB to esi&nate the !or? as !ell as the e#plo"ee or
e#plo"ees to perfor# itB to transfer or pro#ote e#plo"eesB to scheule, irect, curtail or
control co#pan" operationsB to introuce or install ne! or i#prove labor or #one"
savin&s #ethos, facilities or evicesB to create, #er&e, ivie, reclassif" an abolish
epart#ents or positions in the co#pan" an to sell or close the business.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
<ven as the la! is solicitous of the !elfare of the e#plo"ees it #ust also protect the
ri&ht of an e#plo"er to e9ercise !hat are clearl" #ana&e#ent prero&atives. The free
!ill of #ana&e#ent to conuct its o!n business affairs to achieve its purpose can not
be enie. The transfer of assi&n#ent of a #eical representative fro# Manila to the
province has therefore been hel la!ful !here this !as e#ane b" the re:uire#ents
of the ru& co#pan"8s #ar?etin& operations an the for#er ha at the ti#e of his
e#plo"#ent unerta?en to accept assi&n#ent an"!here in the Philippines. ')bbot
.aboratories 'Phils.(, Inc., et al. vs. N.R/, et al., A.R. No. .275,-,, Oct. 1*, 1,67(.
It is the e#plo"er8s prero&ative to abolish a position !hich it ee#s no lon&er
necessar", an the courts, absent an" finin&s of #alice on the part of the
#ana&e#ent, cannot erase that initiative si#pl" to protect the person holin& office
'Areat Pacific .ife )ssurance /orporation vs. N.R/, et al., A.R. No. 66+11, 4ul" 3+,
1,,+(.
Private responents clai# that petitioner8s =oar of Directors passe an unnu#bere
resolution ate 0ebruar" 11, 1,,* returnin& bac? the office fro# its te#porar" office in
@alibo to .eCo. Thus, the" i not ef" an" la!ful orer of petitioner an !ere $ustifie in
continuin& to re#ain at .eCo office. This alle&ation !as controverte b" petitioner in its
Repl" sa"in& that such unnu#bere resolution !as never i#ple#ente as it !as not a
vali act of petitioner8s =oar. >e are convince b" petitioner8s ar&u#ent that such
unnu#bere resolution !as not a vali act of petitioners le&iti#ate =oar consierin&
the subse:uent actions ta?en b" the petitioner8s =oar of Directors ecr"in& private
responents ini#ical act an efiance, to !it '1( Resolution No. 111, s. of 1,,* on
Septe#ber ,, 1,,*, is#issin& all )@<./O e#plo"ees !ho !ere on ille&al stri?e an
!ho refuse to return to !or? effective 4anuar" 31, 1,,* espite the irective of the
N<) pro$ect supervisor an petitioner8s actin& &eneral #ana&erB
1,
'*( Resolution No.
177, s. of 1,,3 ate March 1+, 1,,3 acceptin& bac? private responents !ho sta&e
5
ille&al stri?e, efie le&al orers an issuances, out of co#passion, reconciliation,
/hristian values an hu#anitarian reason sub$ect to the conition of Dno !or?, no pa"D
*+
'3( Resolution No. 1,5, s. of 1,,3 ate 4une 1, 1,,3, re$ectin& the e#ans of private
responents for bac?!a&es fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 1,,3 aoptin& the polic" of
Dno !or?, no pa"D as such e#an has no basis, an irectin& the /OOP .e&al
/ounsel to file cri#inal cases a&ainst e#plo"ees !ho #isappropriate collections an
officers !ho authoriCe isburse#ents of funs !ithout le&al authorit" fro# the N<)
an the )@<./O =oar.
*1
If inee there !as a vali boar resolution transferrin& bac?
petitioner8s office to .eCo fro# its te#porar" office in @alibo, there !as no nee for the
=oar to pass the above2cite resolutions.
>e are also unable to a&ree !ith public responent N.R/ !hen it hel that the
assurance #ae b" )tt". Mation& to the letter2re:uest of office #ana&er .e"son for the
pa"#ent of private responents8 !a&es fro# 4une 1,,* to March 1,,3 !as an
a#ission on the part of &eneral #ana&er Mation& that private responents are inee
entitle to the sa#e. The letter repl" of )tt". Mation& to .e"son #erel" state that he !ill
reco##en the re:uest for pa"#ent of bac?!a&es to the =oar of Directors for their
consieration an appropriate action an nothin& else, thus, the ulti#ate approval !ill
co#e fro# the =oar of Directors. >e fin !ell2ta?en the ar&u#ent avance b" the
Solicitor Aeneral as follo!s;
**
The alle&ation of private responents that petitioner ha alrea" approve pa"#ent of
their !a&es is !ithout basis. Mation&8s offer to reco##en the pa"#ent of private
responents8 !a&es is harl" approval of their clai# for !a&es. It is $ust an unerta?in&
to reco##en pa"#ent. Moreover, the offer is conitional. It is sub$ect to the conition
that petitioner8s =oar of Directors !ill &ive its approval an that funs !ere available.
Mation&8s repl" to .e"son8s letter for pa"#ent of !a&es i not constitute approval or
assurance of pa"#ent. The fact is that, the =oar of Directors of petitioner re$ecte
private responents e#an for pa"#ent '=oar Resolution No. 1,5, s. 1,,3(.
>e are accorin&l" constraine to overturn public responent8s finin&s that petitioner is
not $ustifie in its refusal to pa" private responents8 !a&es an other frin&e benefits
fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to March 16, 1,,3B public responents state that private
responents !ere pai their salaries fro# 4anuar" to Ma" 1,,* an a&ain fro# March
1,, 1,,3 up to the present. )s cite earlier, petitioner8s =oar in a Resolution No. 111
ate Septe#ber ,, 1,,* is#isse private responents !ho !ere on ille&al stri?e an
!ho refuse to report for !or? at @alibo office effective 4anuar" 31, 1,,*B since no
services !ere renere b" private responents the" !ere not pai their salaries. Private
responents never :uestione nor controverte the Resolution is#issin& the# an
no!here in their /o##ent is it state that the" :uestione such is#issal. Private
responents also have not rebutte petitioner8s clai# that private responents ille&all"
collecte fees an char&es ue petitioner an appropriate the collections a#on&
the#selves to satisf" their salaries fro# 4anuar" to Ma" 1,,*, for !hich reason, private
responents are #erel" clai#in& salaries onl" for the perio fro# 4une 15, 1,,* to
March 1,,3.
Private responents !ere is#isse b" petitioner effective 4anuar" 31, 1,,* an !ere
accepte bac? b" petitioner, as an act of co#passion, sub$ect to the conition of Dno
!or?, no pa"D effective March 1,,3 !hich e9plains !h" private responents !ere
allo!e to ra! their salaries a&ain. Notabl", the letter2re:uest of Mr. .e"son for the
pa"#ent of bac?!a&es an other frin&e benefits in behalf of private responents !as
#ae onl" in )pril 1,,3, after a =oar Resolution acceptin& the# bac? to !or? out of
co#passion an hu#anitarian reason. It too? private responents about ten #onths
before the" re:ueste for the pa"#ent of their bac?!a&es, an the lon& inaction of
private responents to file their clai# for unpai !a&es cast oubts as to the veracit" of
their clai#.
The a&e2ol rule &overnin& the relation bet!een labor an capital, or #ana&e#ent an
e#plo"ee of a Dfair a"8s !a&e for a fair a"8s laborD re#ains as the basic factor in
eter#inin& e#plo"ees8 !a&es. If there is no !or? perfor#e b" the e#plo"ee there
can be no !a&e or pa" unless, of course, the laborer !as able, !illin& an rea" to
!or? but !as ille&all" loc?e out, suspene or is#isse,
*3
or other!ise ille&all"
prevente fro# !or?in&,
*1
a situation !hich !e fin is not present in the instant case. It
!oul neither be fair nor $ust to allo! private responents to recover so#ethin& the"
have not earne an coul not have earne because the" i not rener services at the
@alibo office urin& the state perio.
0inall", !e hol that public responent erre in #erel" rel"in& on the co#putations of
co#pensable services sub#itte b" private responents. There #ust be co#petent
proof such as ti#e cars or office recors to sho! that the" actuall" renere
co#pensable service urin& the state perio to entitle the# to !a&es. It has been
establishe that the petitioner8s business office !as .transferre to @alibo an all its
e:uip#ents, recors an facilities !ere transferre thereat an that it conucte its
official business in @alibo urin& the perio in :uestion. It !as incu#bent upon private
responents to prove that the" inee renere services for petitioner, !hich the" faile
to o. It is a basic rule in evience that each part" #ust prove his affir#ative alle&ation.
Since the buren of evience lies !ith the part" !ho asserts the affir#ative alle&ation,
the plaintiff or co#plainant has to prove his affir#ative alle&ations in the co#plaint an
the efenant or the responent has to prove the affir#ative alle&ation in his affir#ative
efenses an counterclai#.
*-
>H<R<0OR<, in vie! of the fore&oin&, the petition for CERTIORARI is AR)NT<D.
/onse:uentl" the ecision of public responent N.R/ ate )pril *+, 1,,- an the
Resolution ate 4ul" *6, 1,,- in N.R/ /ase No. V2+1132,1 are hereb" R<V<RS<D
an S<T )SID< for havin& been renere !ith &rave abuse of iscretion a#ountin& to
6
lac? or e9cess of $urisiction. Private responents co#plaint for pa"#ent of unpai
!a&es before the .abor )rbiter is DISMISS<D.1wphi1.nt
SO ORD<R<D.
Melo, Vitug, angani!an an" uri#ima, $$., concur.
7