Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Dentech v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    This case involves employees of Dentech Manufacturing Corporation filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of their rights under Presidential Decree 851, which includes the right to a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, finding that they earned less than P1,000 per month and were entitled to 13th month pay. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court also ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the basic salary was less than P1,000 per month and that the company did not obtain authorization from the Secretary of Labor to claim exemption due to financial distress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dentech v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    75 views2 pages
    This case involves employees of Dentech Manufacturing Corporation filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of their rights under Presidential Decree 851, which includes the right to a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, finding that they earned less than P1,000 per month and were entitled to 13th month pay. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court also ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the basic salary was less than P1,000 per month and that the company did not obtain authorization from the Secretary of Labor to claim exemption due to financial distress.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    166. Dentech v. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves employees of Dentech Manufacturing Corporation filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of their rights under Presidential Decree 851, which includes the right to a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, finding that they earned less than P1,000 per month and were entitled to 13th month pay. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court also ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the basic salary was less than P1,000 per month and that the company did not obtain authorization from the Secretary of Labor to claim exemption due to financial distress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views2 pages

    Dentech v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    This case involves employees of Dentech Manufacturing Corporation filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of their rights under Presidential Decree 851, which includes the right to a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, finding that they earned less than P1,000 per month and were entitled to 13th month pay. When appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court also ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the basic salary was less than P1,000 per month and that the company did not obtain authorization from the Secretary of Labor to claim exemption due to financial distress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    166. Dentech Manufacturing Corporation v. NLRC G.R. No.

    81477 (13 th month pay)

    FACTS:

     Local corporation Dentech was previously a sole proprietorship known as JL Ledesma


    Enterprises which is owned by Jacinto Ledesma who is now Dentech’s president, general
    manager and owner.
     Marbella et al. are union members who were employed since the company was still a sole
    proprietorship. In 1985, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of PD 851,
    alleging that they were dismissed because of their union activities.
     At first they only wanted to collect their monetary claims but 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.
     Dentech, on the other hand, alleged that the employees abandoned their work without
    informing the company about their reasons. The company also argued that each of the
    complainant (respondent) received a total monthly compensation of more than P1,000.00 and
    that under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 851, such employees are not entitled to receive
    a 13th month pay. The company added that pursuant to Sec. 3 of the decree, it was in bad
    financial shape so it was exempted from complying with its provision.
     LA – ordered the reinstatement of complainants. According to the LA, P1,000.00 a month ceiling
    in the matter of 13th month pay has been removed and the complainants are entitled to receive
    at least the unprescribed 13th month pay for the last three years based on their uncontroverted
    pleadings, which includes This order includes the money value of the service incentive leave pay
    and the cash bond.
     On appeal, both parties maintained their arguments. The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision and
    stated that Memorandum Order No. 28 issued by then Pres. Corazon Aquino modified PD 851
    which now required all employers to pay all their rank-and-file employees 13th month pay. The
    NLRC added that the reason of financial distress is not enough reason to exempt the company
    from paying the 13th month pay of its employees.
     When the case was elevated to the SC, the company pointed out that the Memorandum cannot
    be applied retroactively because the case was instituted (1985) long before the Memo was
    signed into law in 1986.
     The OSG commented that the complainants were entitled to a 13th month pay. The SolGen
    argued that under the rules and regulations implementing the said Decree, a distressed
    employer shall qualify for exemption from the requirements of the Decree only upon prior
    authorization from the Secretary of Labor and Employment, which in this case, was absent.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the employees are entitled to a 13 th month pay as a matter of right. Yes.

    RULING:

    The SC held that the employees are entitled to a 13 th month pay. According to the provisions of Sec. 1 of
    PD 851, all employers are required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than
    Pl,000.00 a month. It is the basic salary that’s being referred to and not the total monthly compensation.
    Furthermore, in this case, the employees were actually just receiving a daily wage of P40 and working 5
    days a week, which if computed would result to a less than P1,000 monthly basic salary.
    Even if the employees were paid more than P1,000 a month, the company still cannot claim exemption
    because as correctly pointed out by the SolGen, to qualify for the exemption as per the IRR of PD 851,
    there must be prior authorization from the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

    You might also like