Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorporated (AKELCO) v. NLRC [G.R. 121439, January 25, 2000]

FACTS: On January 22, the Board of AKELCO allowed the temporary transfer holding of office at Kalibo, Aklan. Nevertheless, majority of the employees continued to work at Lezo Aklan and were paid of their salaries. An unnumbered resolution was passed by AKELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at kalibo, Aklan and that daily operation be held again at the main office of Lezo, Aklan. From June 1992 to March 1993, complainants who reported at Lezo were not paid their salaries. From March up to the present, complainants were allowed to draw their salaries, with the exception of a few who were not paid their salaries for April and May 1993. The respondents allege that the complainants voluntarily abandoned their work assignments and that they defied the lawful orders by the General manager and thus the Board of Directors passed a resolution resisting and denying the claims of these complainants under the principle of “no work, no pay.” NLRC held that private respondents are entitled to unpaid wages from June 1992 up to march 1993.


ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are covered by the “no work, no pay” principle and thus not entitled to the claim for unpaid wages from June 1992 to March 1993.


HELD: Yes. Petitioner was able to show that the private respondents did not render services during the stated period. Also, private respondents in their position paper admitted that they did not report at the Kalibo office, as Lezo remained to be their office where they continuously reported. Their excuse that the transfer to Kalibo was illegal; however it was not for private respondents to declare the management’s act of transferring the AKELCO office to Kalibo as an illegal act as there was no allegation of proof that such was made in bad faith or with malice. The unnumbered resolution returning the office from Kalibo to Lezo was not a valid act of petitioner’s legitimate board and was never implemented. Private respondents were dismissed by petitioner effective January 1992 and were accepted back, subject to the condition of ‘no work, no pay” effective March 1993 which is they were allowed to draw their salaries again. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his allegations in the complaint.