PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and/or
ERNANI TUMIMBANG, petitioners,
vs. HENRY ESTRANERO, respondent
G.R. No. 192518 | October 15, 2014
FACTS:
On July 1, 1995, PLDT employed the
respondent as an Auto-mechanic/Electrician Helper until his separation from the
service in 2003.
In the year 1195, PLDT adopted a
company-wide Manpower Reduction Program, aimed at reducing its work force. By
virtue of the MRP, a number of positions were declared redundant. Among those
gravely affected by the MRP was the Fleet Management Division where respondent
was assigned.
Attracted by the separation pay offered by
the company, the respondent expressed his conformity to his inclusion in the
MRP.
The respondent was entitled to 200% of his
basic monthly salary for ever year of service by way of redundancy pay or
equivalent to P240,000.00. In addition, he was also entitled to other benefits
he has earned for the years prior to, and during the year of his actual
separation. Thus, his aggregate redundancy pay plus other earned benefits
amounted to P267,028.37.
However, the respondent had outstanding
liabilities arising from various loans he obtained from different entities,
namely: the Home Development Mutual Fund, PLDT Employee Credit Cooperative,
Inc., PLDT Service Cooperative, Inc., Social Security System and the Manggagawa
ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas, which summed to P267,028.37. Thus, PLDT deducted
the said amount from the payment that the respondent was supposed to receive as
his redundancy pay.
As a
result, repondent’s take home pay showed in the amount of “zero pesos”. This
prompted the respondent to retract his availment of the separation pay package
offered to him. However, despite said retraction, respondent was no longer
allowed to report for work.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners can validly
deduct the respondent’s outstanding loan obligation from his redundancy pay
RULING:
It is clear in Article 113 of the Labor
Code that no employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make
any deduction from the wages of his employees, except in cases where the
employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. Meanwhile, the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides that deductions from the wages of the employees may be made by the
employer when such deductions are authorized by law, or when the deductions are
with the written authorization of the employees for payment to a third person.
Thus, any withholding of an employee’s wages by an employer may only be allowed
in the form of wage deductions under the circumstances provided in Article 113
of the Labor Code, as well as the Omnibus Rules implementing it. Further,
Article 116 of the Labor Code clearly provides that it is unlawful for any
person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a
worker without the worker’s consent.
In this case, the deductions made to the
respondent’s redundancy pay do not fall under any of the circumstances provided
under Article 113, nor was it established with certainty that respondent has
consented to the said deductions or that the petitioners had authority to make
such deductions.
Comments
Post a Comment