301 Lambo V NLRC

Case: Lambo v NLRC
Topic:
DOCTRINE: The awards for overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay are in
accordance with our finding that petitioners are regular employees, although paid on a
piece-rate basis.
Petitioner Respondents
AVELINO LAMBO and VICENTE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BELOCURA COMMISSION and J.C. TAILOR SHOP
and/or JOHNNY CO
ACTION SEQUENCE: La ruled in favor of the petitioners granting money claims
Commission reversed the ruling due to abandonment
FACTS:
Petitoners Lambo and Belo cura were employed as tailors by the reswpondetns.
They worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, including Sundays and holidays.
they were paid on piece-work basis based on the style of the suits that they produce but
regardless of whether they finished piece or not they were given a daily pay of 64 php
they petitioners filed for illegal dismissal and for overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay on
holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, separation pay, 13th month pay, and
attorney’s fees.
the LA ruled in favor of the petitioners and added back wages, overtime pay, holiday
pay, 13th month pay and separation pay with Attorney’s fees
the Commission reversed the ruling because it was found out that the petitioners abandoned
their work when they negotiated for a straight payment of their minimum wage but the
respondent tailor shop declined stating that it would lead to the closure of the business. The
petitioners walked out of the meeting and did not return to work.
the commission dismissed the all the claims except the 13th month pay.
hence this case
Petitioners allege that they were dismissed by private respondents as they were about to file a
petition with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for the payment of benefits
such as Social Security System (SSS) coverage, sick leave and vacation leave. They deny
that they abandoned their work.
ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners were entitled to their money claims despite being
piece-work basis employees
RULING:
they were regular employees despite being paid on a piece-work basis
there was no abandonment.
the Money Claims:
The Labor Arbiter awarded back wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay,
separation pay and attorney’s fees, corresponding to 10% of the total monetary awards, in
favor of petitioners.
As petitioners were illegally dismissed, they are entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
Considering that petitioners were dismissed from the service on January 17, 1989, i.e., prior
to March 21, 1989, 18 the Labor Arbiter correctly applied the rule in the Mercury Drug case,
19 according to which the recovery of backwages should be limited to three years without
qualifications or deductions. Any award in excess of three years is null and void as to the
excess. 20
The Labor Arbiter correctly ordered private respondents to give separation pay. Considerable
time has lapsed since petitioners’ dismissal, so that reinstatement would now be impractical
and hardly in the best interest of the parties. In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay should be
awarded to petitioners at the rate of one month salary for every year of service, with a fraction
of at least six (6) months of service being considered as one (1) year.
The awards for overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay are in accordance with
our finding that petitioners are regular employees, although paid on a piece-rate basis.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations

Commission is SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED ordering private respondents to
pay petitioners the total amount of One Hundred Eighty-One Thousand One Hundred Two
Pesos and 40/100 (P181,102.40), as computed above.
NOTES:
Regular and piece- work basis:

The mere fact that they were paid on a piece-rate basis does not negate their status as
regular employees of private respondents. The term "wage" is broadly defined in Art. 97 of the
Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of money
whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the
piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations. 7
Nor does the fact that petitioners are not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee
relationship.
Indeed, the following factors show that petitioners, although piece-rate workers, were regular
employees of private respondents: (1) within the contemplation of Art. 280 of the Labor Code,
their work as tailors was necessary or desirable in the usual business of private respondents,
which is engaged in the tailoring business; (2) petitioners worked for private respondents
throughout the year, their employment not being dependent on a specific project or season;
and, (3) petitioners worked for private respondents for more than one year.
The respondent failed to show that there was an intentions to abandon to work and that
when they left the meeting they spent no time in filing a case for illegal dismissal
This fact negates any intention on their part to sever their employment relationship.
Abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.

301 Lambo V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

301 Lambo V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

301 Lambo V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: Lambo v NLRC

AVELINO LAMBO and VICENTE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

ACTION SEQUENCE: La ruled in favor of the petitioners granting money claims

Commission reversed the ruling due to abandonment

hence this case

they were regular employees despite being paid on a piece-work basis

there was no abandonment.

the Money Claims:

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations

Regular and piece- work basis:

You might also like