31\epublic of tbe llbtlippine!

i
upreme QCourt
.manila

SECOND DIVISION

MONCHITO R. AMPELOQUIO, G.R. No. 196936

Petitioner,

Present:

CARPIO,J,
Chairperson,
- BRION,
versus- DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ

Promulgated:
JAKA DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
Respondent. JUL 0 2 2014
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PEREZ,J.:

We here have a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court posing a question on the scope of the reinstatement relief
afforded an illegally dismissed employee.

Petitioner Monchito R. Ampeloquio (Ampeloquio) is a reinstated

employee of respondent Jaka Distribution, Inc. (JAKA), formerly RMI
Marketing Corporation (RMI).

Previously, Ampeloquio had filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

against RMI before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter found RMI guilty of illegal dismissal:
Decision 1 G.R. No. 196936

WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring that

[Ampeloquio] is a regular employee of respondent RMI Marketing (now
known as JAKA DISTRIBUTION, INC.) and that he was illegally
dismissed.

The respondents RMI Marketing Corp., (now known as JAKA

DISTRIBUTION, INC.) and Teodoro Barzabal, are ordered to reinstate
[petitioner] Monchito Ampeloquio in his former position as merchandiser
without loss of seniority rights and other benefits and to pay him
backwages and attorney’s fees in the total amount of THREE HUNDRED
THIRTY THREE THOUSAND FOUR PESOS & 42/100 ( 333,034.42).1

On 6 August 2004, Ampeloquio resumed work as merchandiser at

JAKA and reported at JAKA’s outlets within Metro Manila, Shopwise
Makati and Alabang. He received a daily wage of 252.00, without meal
and transportation allowance.

On 4 April 2005, Ampeloquio was transferred outside of Metro

Manila, to Lucena City and subsequently to San Pablo City. At that time, he
was receiving the same daily wage of 252.00, without meal and
transportation allowance. Ampeloquio was given a monthly cost of living
allowance (COLA) of 720.00.

In a Letter dated 16 March 2005 addressed to JAKA’s general

manager, Ampeloquio requested for salary adjustment and benefits
retroactive to the date of his reinstatement, 6 August 2004, and payment of
salary differential in the total amount of 42,196.00.

In another Letter dated 7 July 2006, Ampeloquio wrote JAKA

reiterating his request for salary adjustment and payment of benefits
retroactive to his reinstatement, and an increase from his previous request of
salary differential which amounted to a total of 180,590.00.

Ampeloquio based his request on what other merchandisers of JAKA

received:

[The] supposed daily wage [prevailing at the time of his

reinstatement] was 394.12, COLA at 1,200.00 per month, meal
allowance of 60.00 and transportation allowance from house to outlet
[and] vice-versa that his co-employees in the same job received 4,500.00
or 281.25 daily wage actual cost of transportation expenses and meal

1 Rollo, p. 277.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 196936

allowance of 60.00 per day; that a messengerial employee receives

394.21 or 9,641.00 monthly salary plus transportation and meal
allowance; x x x.2

Because of the discrepancy in wages, Ampeloquio filed anew before

the NLRC, a complaint for underpayment of wages, COLA, non-payment of
meal and transportation allowances docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-
06-04702-06.3

The NLRC summarized the claims and defenses of the parties, to wit:

x x x [Ampeloquio] seeks entitlement to underpayment or wage

differential of 142.00, COLA differential of 500.00 a month, meal
allowance of 60.00 per day and average transportation allowance of
100.00 per day; that he called the attention of [JAKA’s general
manager], Mr. Ariel Villasenor about his concern on 16 March 2005 but to
no avail although upon second demand his ECOLA was increased to
1,200.00 per month starting 16 July 2006.

For their part, [JAKA] avers that it is engaged in the business of

distribution of consumer goods; that [Ampeloquio] is their only regular
employee as merchandiser; that at the time of the filing of this case,
[Ampeloquio] is still working in a supermarket with a monthly salary of
7,985.00; that their other merchandiser[s] are outsourced from
manpower agencies or are seasonal employees hired during peak season;
that the salary of [Ampeloquio] was based on the minimum wage of
250.00 and ECOLA of 50.00 per day; that it is in the process of
computing the wage distortion in the implementation of 2005 wage
increase of 25.00; that their exemption in the implementation of wage
increase expired last 25 June 2006 prior to the filing of this complaint; that
they did not act on [Ampeloquio’s] demand for money claims due to the
pendency of this case.

In their reply, [JAKA] admits that [Ampeloquio] was reinstated in

accordance with the Labor Arbiter’s decision in the illegal dismissal case;
that he received the same rate as that of his co-employees, hence there is
no basis for [Ampeloquio’s] money claims. On the other hand,
[Ampeloquio] stressed the discrepancy and discrimination in the payment
of wages which he allegedly suffered as he received lower than that of his
co-workers and to substantiate his arguments he submitted the payslips of
his co-employees.4

The Court of Appeals would summarize the position of JAKA, thus:

2 Id. at 167.
3
Id. at 173-179.
4
Id. at 167-168.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 196936

x x x [Ampeloquio] is receiving a basic rate of 6,545.00, ECOLA

of 1,200.00, transportation allowance of 240.00, and medicine
allowance of 200.00; and that the company had made clear to
merchandisers as early as 2004 that transportation reimbursement can only
be made in such eventuality and does not include an instance where the
employee (merchandiser) leaves his house to go to his assigned outlet or if
he leaves his last outlet to go home.5

On 25 May 2007, Labor Arbiter Renaldo O. Hernandez granted

Ampeloquio’s complaint for underpayment of wages, basic and COLA and
non-payment of allowances, meal and transportation:

WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] judgment is entered finding

that [Ampeloquio] was illegally (sic) in bad faith, underpaid his wages,
basic, COLA not paid his meal allowance and transportation allowance by
[JAKA], ORDERING, hence [JAKA] (sic):

1. to pay him from 04/04/2005 to 06/14/2005 the total

underpayment of COLA 3.85/day + unpaid nonstandard benefit of
60.00 meal allowance/day + nonstandard benefit of 36.06 transportation
allowance/day, total of 99.85/day or 2,596.00/month x 2.53 months =
6,568.00 unpaid benefits and to pay him from 06/15/2005 – 06/05/2006
the underpayment of 122.96/day or 3,196.96/month x 11.6 months =
37,084.73 total unpaid wage differential, both to earn 12% legal interest
from date of suit on 06/05/2006 until finally paid, plus 10% attorney’s fees
on the total amount in accord with Article 111 of the Labor Code.

2. to pay him moral damage[s] of 50,000.00 and exemplary

[damages] of 10,000.00.6

In ruling for Ampeloquio, the Labor Arbiter used the following

guideposts:

1. The claim should be limited to the three (3) year prescriptive period,
that is, from date of filing 06/05/2006 and back, to 06/05/2003;

2. The existing statutory minimum wages and COLA during said 3-year
period, viz:

1. 06/05/2003 – 07/09/2004 Era of (Basic) W.O. No. NCR-08

effective 11/01/2000 and (COLA) NCR 09 effective 11/05/2001 and
02/01/2002
Basic P250/day x 26 = P6,500/month + COLA P30.00/day x 26 =
P780/month

5 Id. at 80.
6 Id. at 179.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 196936

Daily Take Home P250 + P30 = P280

Monthly Take Home P6,500 + P780 = P7,280

2. 07/10/2004 – 06/14/2005 Era of W.O. NCR-10 COLA increase of

P20.00/day effective 07/10/2004
Basic same + COLA P50.00 x P26 = P1,300
Daily Take Home P250 + P50 = P300
Monthly Take Home P6,500 + P1,300 = P7,800

3. 06/15/2005 – 06/05/2006 Era of W.O. NCR 11 Basic increase of

P25.00/day effective 06/15/2005
Basic P275/day x 26 = P7,150/month + COLA P50.00/day x 26 =
P1,300/month
Daily Take Home P275 + P50 = P325
Monthly Take Home P7,150 + P1,300 = P8,450.007

On appeal by JAKA, the NLRC proper, in its Resolution dated 29

November 2007 in NLRC LAC NO. 08-002252-07,8 noted the exemption of
JAKA from the pertinent Wage Order Nos. 10 & 11, and consequently,
modified the amounts ordered by the Labor Arbiter to be paid by JAKA to
Ampeloquio:

In this case it is undisputed that [Ampeloquio’s] claim for salary

differential covers the period from his date of reinstatement on 06 August
2004 to the date of the filing of this case on 05 June 2006. x x x.

A close examination of the Wage Orders material to

[Ampeloquio’s] claim show that under Wage Order No. 10 [on] ECOLA
was granted in the amount of P20.00/day from July 10, 2004 and Wage
Order No. 11 granted an increase of P25.00/day in the basic daily wage of
workers from 16 June 2005 until 10 July 2006.

It appears however, that [JAKA] applied for an exemption in the

implementation of Wage Order Nos. 10 and 11 x x x before the National
Capitol Region Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board and the
latter in their Orders and dated 11 November 2004 and 28 September 2005
respectively granted the former twelve (12) months exemption from 10
July 2004 up to 09 July 2005 and 16 June 2005 until 15 June 2006. x x x.

In view of the foregoing, [Ampeloquio] is only entitled to a salary

differential, as follows:

1. From 06 August 2004 to 15 June 2005 there are 269 days at 26

days per month.

7
Id. at 176-177.
8
Id. at 166-171.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 196936

The basic salary under the Wage Order is P250.00 per day plus
P50.00 ECOLA. Applying the 12 months exemption or non-
implementation of the P20.00 increase in ECOLA, [Ampeloquio] is only
entitled to P280.00 per day but since he was paid P252.00 which he
admitted, the salary differential for the 269 days period at P28.00 per day
is SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO (P7,532.00)
PESOS only.

2. From 16 June 2005 up to 05 June 2006 there are 305 working

days at 26 days per month.

The basic salary under Wage Order No. 11 was increase by P25.00
or has become P275.00 plus the P50.00 ECOLA making the minimum
wage P325.00 per day.

Applying the exemption for 12 months to [Ampeloquio] his basic

salary remained at P250.00 but her ECOLA has increased to P50.00
because of the expiration of the period for exemption, hence his salary is
P300.00. Considering that he was paid only P252.00 pesos, his salary
differential for the period is P48.00 pesos or the total amount of
FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY (P14,640.00)
PESOS only.

[Ampeloquio] is therefore entitled to a total salary differential of

only P22,172.00.

[JAKA’s] contention that [Ampeloquio] is not entitled to

reimbursement of transportation expenses from the latters house to the
outlet where he was assigned and back is impressed with merit. [JAKA]
submitted a copy of their policies and the pertinent portion, states:

“7. The only transportation expenses allowed to be reimbursed are

those incurred from the first outlet to succeeding outlets. The
transportation reimbursement shall not include house to first outlet and
last outlet to house.” x x x.

[JAKA’s] contention that [Ampeloquio] is not entitled to

attorney’s fees is untenable. Article III of the Labor Code expressly
provides that in cases of unlawful withholding or recovery of wages,
attorney’s fee may be granted to the worker.

However, we agree with [JAKA] that [Ampeloquio] is not entitled

to moral and exemplary damages. [Ampeloquio] failed to prove his
entitlement with substantial proof that there was bad faith on the part of
[JAKA] by its failure to voluntarily pay his salary differential.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTLY

GRANTED and the Decision dated 25 May 2007 is MODIFIED
Decision 6 G.R. No. 196936

ordering [JAKA] to pay [Ampeloquio] his salary differential in the total

amount of 22,172.00 and ten percent (10%) thereof as attorney’s fees.9

Aggrieved by the NLRC’s modification of what Ampeloquio

obviously perceived as an acceptable monetary award, the latter filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals bewailing grave abuse of
discretion in: (1) the reduction of his award of salary differential to only
22,172.00; (2) the deletion of his entitlement to transportation expenses;
and (3) the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages.

The appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 10444510 dismissed

Ampeloquio’s petition for certiorari finding no grave abuse of discretion in
the NLRC’s ruling and finding that, in fact, it is supported by substantial
evidence:

x x x [Ampeloquio] was employed under circumstances far

different from that of his other co-employees. In fact, he never disputed
the fact that he is the lone regular merchandiser of JAKA while his other
co-employees either work as casual or contractual employees. Thus, since
his employment condition or status is different than that of his co-
employees, there is no point of comparison as far as their wages and other
remunerations are concerned. Precisely, the minimum wage law exists to
provide as guideposts for the least pay that an employee must receive for a
day’s work. It does not serve as restrictions on the right of the employer to
provide other monetary or non-monetary benefits to its employees. For as
long as [Ampeloquio] is paid the minimum statutory wage rate or his wage
rate prior to his illegal dismissal, whichever is higher, he has no cause of
action against his employer JAKA as far as wage differential is concerned.

Further, [Ampeloquio] cannot [anchor] his right to equal pay based

on wage distortions. For well-settled is the rule that the issue of whether or
not a wage distortion exists is a question of fact that is within the
jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial tribunals below. Factual findings of
administrative agencies are accorded respect and even finality in this
Court if they are supported by substantial evidence. As a rule, judicial
review by this court does not extend to a reevaluation of the factual
circumstances of the case. Specialized agencies are presumed to have
gained expertise on matters within their respective fields. Thus, their
findings of fact, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to
great respect and are generally rendered conclusive upon this Court,
except only upon a clear showing of palpable error or arbitrary disregard
of evidence. A thorough examination of the records of this case reveals no
reason to justify a reversal of the factual findings of the NLRC.

9
Id. at 169-171.
10
Id. at 78-90.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 196936

Again, after carefully reviewing the [NLRC’s] assailed resolutions,

this Court finds the same to have been amply supported by substantial
evidence.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Certiorari is DENIED.11

Hence, this appeal by certiorari raising the following grounds:

1
x x x THE HONORABLE COURT [OF APPEALS] COMMITTED A
SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT MONCHITO IS
ONLY ENTITLED TO WAGES OR SALARY SCALE THAT
GOVERNS THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE THEN PREVAILING OR
HIS ACTUAL DAILY WAGE RATE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER AND
NOT EQUAL TO THE WAGES AND BENEFITS RECEIVED BY
MONCHITO’S CO-EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE
SERVICE OF THE COMPANY FOR LESSER YEARS BUT WHO ARE
RECEIVING FAR MORE BENEFITS AND BIGGER WAGES.

2
THE HONORABLE COURT [OF APPEALS] COMMITTED A
SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS DECISION WHEREIN IT
CONSTRUED UNFAVORABLY ARTICLE 223 OF THE LABOR
CODE AS AGAINST [AMPELOQUIO], HEREIN PETITIONER-
LABORER WHICH THEREBY RESULTED TO THE VIOLATION OF
THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER
WHICH DIRECTED [JAKA] TO REINSTATE [AMPELOQUIO] TO
HIS FORMER POSITION AS MERCHANDISER WITHOUT LOSS OF
SENIORITY RIGHTS AND OTHER BENEFITS.

3
FINALLY, THE HONORABLE COURT [OF APPEALS] COMMITTED
A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS DECISION WHEREIN IT
DID NOT AWARD TO [AMPELOQUIO] MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.12

The issue for our resolution is the scope viz-a-viz wages of

reinstatement “without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.”

Seniority rights refer to the creditable years of service in the

employment record of the illegally dismissed employee as if he or she never
ceased working for the employer. In other words, the employee’s years of

11
Id. at 88-89.
12
Id. at 28-29.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 196936

service is deemed continuous and never interrupted. Such is likewise the

rationale for reinstatement’s twin relief of full backwages.13

Ampeloquio is correct in asserting that he is a senior employee

compared to the other merchandisers whom he himself designates as casual
or contractual merchandisers. He is likewise senior to other regular
employees subsequently hired by JAKA, specifically two regular messenger
employees which Ampeloquio claims receive wages higher than what he is
receiving from JAKA.

Attached to the recognition of seniority rights of a reinstated

employee who had been illegally dismissed is the entitlement to wages
appurtenant thereto.

The case of Ampeloquio is outside the ordinary. His reinstatement

was ordered when merchandisers like him were no longer employed by
JAKA.

He is not entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment as

that which was offered to the other regular employees (not merchandisers)
subsequently hired by JAKA.

JAKA’s decision to grant or withhold certain benefits to other

employees is part of its management prerogative as a function of an
employer’s constitutionally protected right to reasonable return on
investments.14

Ampeloquio cannot likewise compare his wages to that received by

“casual or contractual merchandisers” or merchandisers who are admittedly
outsourced from manpower agencies or those who are considered seasonal
employees hired only during peak season when JAKA is in need of extra
merchandisers.

13 Labor Code, Article 279.

14 Constitution, Art. 13, Sec. 3:

xxxx

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the
right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 196936

To say the least, these merchandisers are not, strictly speaking,

employees of JAKA, but of a service provider company which has a service
contract with JAKA. The merchandisers in this case simply perform the
work at JAKA’s outlets, wearing uniforms approved by JAKA but provided
by the service company who is actually their employer. There is no
employer-employee relationship between JAKA and these merchandisers.

Receipt by these merchandisers of a benefit such as transportation or

meal allowance is part of the monies they receive from their employer and
embedded in the contract price of the service agreement the employer has
with JAKA.

The existence of an independent and permissible contractor

relationship is generally established by considering the following
determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business;
the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of
the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of
work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's
power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's
workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools,
appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of
payment.15

On the other hand, existence of an employer-employee relationship is

established by the presence of the following determinants: (1) the selection
and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of
wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker's
conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.16

Section 8 of DOLE Department Order No. 10, series of 1997,

illuminate:

Sec. 8. Job contracting. - There is job contracting permissible under the

Code if the following conditions are met:
(1) The contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the
contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according
to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his

15 Escasinas v. Shangri-la’s Mactan Island Resort, G.R. No. 178827, 4 March 2009, 580 SCRA
604, 614.
16 Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153192, 30 January 2009,
577 SCRA 280, 293.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 196936

employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the

work except as to the results thereof; and

(2) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of

tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which
are necessary in the conduct of his business.

In the same vein, seasonal employees hired only for the peak season
do not have the same status as regular employees and do not receive
amounts considered as part of a compensation and benefits scheme for
regular employees. These seasonal employees only receive payment for
work rendered during the period for which they were hired, i.e., peak season.
The wages and other monies seasonal employees may receive for the
duration of their limited employment period constitute bulk or wholesale
payment for services rendered.

Seasonal employment involves work or service that is seasonal in

nature or lasting for the duration of the season. Seasonal employees differ
from those classified as regular employees, in that: (1) the employee must be
performing work or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been
employed for the duration of the season.17

The phrase without loss of seniority rights applies with practical and
real effect to Ampeloquio upon his retirement because he will reach earlier
than other regular employees of JAKA the required number of years of
service to qualify for retirement.

In all, the labor tribunals were right in using as guidepost the existing
statutory minimum wages and COLA during the three (3) year prescriptive
period within which Ampeloquio can make his money claims.

We are not unaware that reinstatement is the rule and such covers
reinstatement to the same or substantially equivalent position without loss of
seniority rights and privileges.

In this case, JAKA did not claim exceptions to the rule of

reinstatement, i.e., (1) strained relations, or (2) abolition of the position;18

17 Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, 15 January 2014.
18 Apo Chemical Manufacturing Corporation v. Bides, G.R. No. 186002, 19 September 2012, 681
SCRA 405, 412; Employees Association of the Philippine American Life Insurance Company v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 82976, 26 July 1991, 199 SCRA 628, 634.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 196936

JAKA immediately complied with the Labor Arbiter’s order of

reinstatement.

We note that, specifically, JAKA could have claimed that the position
of merchandiser no longer exists and has been abolished with the contracting
of this job function. However, it merely opted to reinstate Ampeloquio to
the same position. There is no quarrel that with his reinstatement,
Ampeloquio is now the lone regular merchandiser of JAKA.

The option of reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position does

not apply herein as reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position
entails the same or similar job functions and not just same wages or salary.
As applied to this case, Ampeloquio cannot be reinstated to a messengerial
position although such is a regular employment enjoying the same
employment benefits and privileges. His employment cannot likewise be
converted into a contractual employment as such is actually a downgrade
from his regular employment enjoying security of tenure with JAKA.

As the sole regular merchandiser of JAKA, Ampeloquio’s

reinstatement entitles him, at the minimum, to the standard minimum wage
at the time of his employment and to the wages he would have received from
JAKA had he not been illegally dismissed, as if there was no cessation of
employment. Ampeloquio is likewise entitled to any increase which JAKA
may have given across the board to all its regular employees. To repeat,
Ampeloquio is not entitled to all benefits or privileges received by other
employees subsequently hired by JAKA just by the fact of his seniority in
the service with JAKA.

The Court of Appeals was correct in its disquisition that:

x x x [W]ithout loss of seniority rights and benefits, this does not

necessarily mean equal or more rights than those employees hired by
JAKA prior or subsequent to his reinstatement. The rule on how much pay
a reinstated employee shall receive is governed by paragraph 3 of Article
223 of the Labor Code which provides as follows:

x x x In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating

a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement
aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even
pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to
work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer,
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 196936

merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the

employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided
therein.

xxxx

When [Ampeloquio] was reinstated on August 6, 2004, he is

entitled to receive a salary under the same terms and conditions prevailing
prior to his dismissal, provided this complies with the minimum wage law
prevailing at the time of reinstatement, in consonance to Article 99, 100 of
P.D. No. 442, as amended. Thus, this Court finds and agrees with the
computation by the NLRC of [Ampeloquio's] wage rate. While he
[Ampeloquio] may have been ordered reinstated to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and benefits, this Court cannot agree [with]
the strained interpretation given by [Ampeloquio] that since he is the most
senior among his co-employees, he should be entitled to the same amount
of wages and benefits as that being received by them. x x x Thus, when he
was reinstated on August 6, 2004, the salary scale that governs shall be the
minimum wage rate then prevailing or his actual daily wage rate, which
ever1.s hI' gher.
19

The reduction of the salary differential award to Ampeloquio by the

NLRC, and affirmed by the appellate court, was correct given the exemption
to Wage Order Nos. 10 & 11 granted to JAKA.

Given our holding herein, we likewise uphold the deletion by the

NLRC and the appellate court of the award of moral and exemplary
damages absent a showing of bad faith on the part of JAKA in its corrected
payment of wages to Ampeloquio.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court

of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104445 and the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC LAC No. 08-002252-07 are AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

19
Rollo. pp. 87-88.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 196936

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPI )
Associate Justice
Chairperson

V'
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

110.. lt.J.A/
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 15 G.R. No. 196936

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice