G.R. No. 147420 - Odango vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The case originated from a petition for review challenging several decisions rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and subsequently by the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners, represented by Cezar Odango on behalf of 32 monthly-paid employees of Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANTECO), claimed wage differentials arising from alleged underpayment.
The issue traces back to a routine inspection by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which found ANTECO liable for underpayment of employees' monthly salaries.
On 10 September 1989, DOLE directed ANTECO to pay wage differentials amounting to PHP1,427,412.75, which ANTECO failed to settle.

Thirty-three monthly-paid employees filed consolidated complaints with the NLRC Sub-Regional Branch VI in Iloilo City seeking payment of wage differentials, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision on 29 November 1996 in favor of the petitioners, granting them wage differentials amounting to PHP1,017,507.73 plus attorney’s fees of 10%, with one exception relative to Florentino Tongson whose case was dismissed.
On appeal by ANTECO, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 27 November 1997 and subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 30 April 1998.

The petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari challenging the decisions rendered by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.
The initial petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Supreme Court for failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
On a subsequent motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal on 13 January 1999 and referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the petition on 27 September 2000 for failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, a decision which was again reaffirmed on 7 February 2001.

The central factual controversy involves the computation of wages for monthly-paid employees under Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which petitioners argue includes payment for un-worked days such as half Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
The Labor Arbiter had given weight to petitioners’ argument regarding the conversion of leave credits using a divisor of 304 days, which petitioners contended resulted in underpayment for 61 days out of the 365-day year when compared to the statutory computation.
The NLRC, upon appeal, upheld that the computed daily wage rate, derived using the statutory formula (monthly wage multiplied by 12 divided by 365), satisfied the minimum wage standard, noting that the use of 304 as a divisor was in fact beneficial to employees as it yielded a higher rate.

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.

The focus is on whether the petition sufficiently alleged the specific instances where the NLRC abused its discretion, as required by Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
It also involves the question of compliance with the required formalities and the adequacy of the petition’s content.

This issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, particularly whether monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all days within the month.
It further considers whether ANTECO’s computation method (using a 304-day divisor) improperly deprives employees of wages for un-worked days beyond the recognized legal holidays.