FACTS: Private respondents M.S and O where employed as security guards be petitioner and assigned to CHR which was petitioners client. About 18 of petitioners’ security guards detailed at CHR, including M, S and O filed a compliant for money claims against petitioner. Upon petitioners request that the security guards withdraw the complaint, each except for M.S and O signed a released and quitclaim in favor of petitioner. M, S and O averred that he was being pressured by petitioner to sign a release and quit claim so he went on leave from work. He was later informed that he was suspended from work. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal and underpayment of back wages against petitioner. Petitioner claims that M, S and O abandoned their employment. Petitioner filed a third party complaint against the CHR claiming the latter failed to effect the increase in the minimum wage of respondents security guards from July 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990 pursuant to RA 6727. The CHR denied that it had the obligation to pay the increase in the wage rates as it had been paying more than P100 a day even before the affectivity of said law. The Labor Arbiter found that there was neither a dismissal nor abandonment; also, it ruled that there was underpayment of respondent guard’s salaries.
ISSUES:
1) W/N there was illegal dismissal or abandonment
2) W/N there was underpayment
HELD: 1) No. There was no clear proof that petitioners had in fact dismissed respondent’s security guards. None of the respondents exerted efforts to conform from petitioners’ office whether they had in fact been dismissed. Absent any showing of an overt of positive act proving that petitioner had dismissed M, S and O their claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained. As to the claim of abandonment, they must have failed to report for work without justifiable reason and there must have been a clear intention to report to work without justifiable reason and there must have been a clear intention to saver the er-ee relationship manifested by some obverts acts. The filing M, S and O of their complaints negates the existence of any intention on their part to abandonee their employment.
2) The discrepancy between the minimum wage prevailing for the periods concerned and the wages and other benefits received served as basis for underpayment, in case of payment of wages in construction projects, security, janitorial services, the contractor and principal or client are jointly and severally liable. Thus CHR is the party liable for the wage increase; while petitioner is solitarily liable for the payment of wages, including wage increases.
0 comments:
Post a Comment