G.R. No. 172161 - SLL International Cables Specialist vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Between 1996 and January 1997, respondents Roldan Lopez, Danilo CaAete, and Edgardo ZuAiga were employed by petitioner Sonny L. Lagon as apprentices or trainee cable/linemen. They were paid at least the minimum wage but worked irregularly, serving as substitutes or for extra tasks.
After training, the respondents were engaged as project employees for petitioner’s Islacom project in Bohol, from March to December 1997. Their employment ended after project completion, and they received the regional minimum wage, which was increased during their employment periods in various regions (Region VII, Rizal, Manila).
The respondents were repeatedly re-hired for specific projects: the PLDT Antipolo project in 1998; the Racitelcom project in Bulacan (late 1998 to March 1999); and the Camarin, Caloocan project from May 1999 to February 2000, with Furukawa Corporation as general contractor.
During these projects, wages paid to the respondents were below the prevailing minimum wages in the corresponding regions. For instance, in the Camarin project, they received P145 daily while the minimum wage was P198, and later P165 versus the required P213.
Due to delays related to imported materials and economic difficulties, overtime work was cut down. When the respondents requested overtime work on February 28, 2000, they were denied and told that insisting would mean their own expense to go home and loss of accommodation. This led the respondents to leave their employment and return to Cebu.

On March 3, 2000, respondents filed a labor complaint against the petitioners for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay for 1997 and 1998, service incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners admitted employment but contended respondents were project employees under contracts for specific projects, thus not regular employees. They also claimed wages included allowances for food, lodging, transportation, electricity, water, and snacks, arguing these rendered the effective wage above the minimum.
Petitioners alleged that the complaint should have been filed in Manila as respondents’ workplace was there.

Labor Arbiter (LA) Reynoso Belarmino ruled that venue was proper in Cebu, as it was the place employees were supposed to report back after assignments. The LA declared respondents regular employees due to their repeated engagements and performance of usual business activities.
The LA found underpayment of wages, ruled that the monetary value of free board and lodging and other allowances could not be counted as part of wages without written consent, but declared no illegal dismissal, considering respondents’ leaving as abandonment following refusal for overtime.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s findings and pointed out the failure of the petitioners to file project completion reports with the Public Employment Office as required by Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993.
The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The CA affirmed respondents’ status as regular employees, citing their usual and necessary performance of business tasks and failure to comply with statutory reporting for project employees. The CA confirmed underpayment and exclusion of allowances as wage components without written consent.
The CA ruled respondents entitled to 13th month pay, agreed no illegal dismissal occurred, interpreting refusal of overtime and respondents’ departure as abandonment.
The CA modified the wage differential awards, excluding Roldan Lopez from coverage of the Antipolo project and correcting minimum wage computation for January-February 2000 based on P213 rate instead of P223.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the wage differential award on grounds that the NLRC and CA relied on “mere technicalities,” specifically absence of written employee consent for inclusion of allowances and lack of DOLE notice of termination.
Petitioners invoked rulings in Agabon v. NLRC and Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Empleyado Ng Wellcome-DFA, arguing by analogy that the value of facilities enjoyed should be included in wage computation notwithstanding absence of written consent.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued by the SC, enjoining enforcement of lower court decisions pending resolution.

Whether respondents are project employees or regular employees given their repeated engagement and work nature.
Whether petitioners properly paid the prescribed minimum wages and other monetary benefits including wage differentials, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave.
Whether the value of free board, lodging, electricity, water, and food allowances can be lawfully included as part of the respondents’ wages without their written consent.
Whether the failure to file a report of project completion with DOLE affects respondents’ employment classification and entitlement to benefits.
Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed or effectively abandoned their employment.