Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 001 - Kinds of Employees - Milan V NLRC - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kate Garo
    770 views2 pages
    1. Solid Mills allowed employees to live in company housing but ceased operations in 2003. A memorandum required employees to vacate housing in exchange for termination benefits, but petitioners refused. 2. The NLRC has jurisdiction to determine property rights between employer and employees when necessary to resolve employment claims. Solid Mills claimed the properties were occupied by virtue of employment. 3. Clearance procedures ensure employer properties in employee possession are returned before departure. Withholding wages is allowed for debts to the employer. The memorandum agreed benefits would be released less accountabilities, which includes returning employer property.

    Original Description:

    labor law

    Original Title

    001_kinds of Employees_milan v Nlrc_digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Solid Mills allowed employees to live in company housing but ceased operations in 2003. A memorandum required employees to vacate housing in exchange for termination benefits, but petitioners refused. 2. The NLRC has jurisdiction to determine property rights between employer and employees when necessary to resolve employment claims. Solid Mills claimed the properties were occupied by virtue of employment. 3. Clearance procedures ensure employer properties in employee possession are returned before departure. Withholding wages is allowed for debts to the employer. The memorandum agreed benefits would be released less accountabilities, which includes returning employer property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    770 views2 pages

    001 - Kinds of Employees - Milan V NLRC - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kate Garo
    1. Solid Mills allowed employees to live in company housing but ceased operations in 2003. A memorandum required employees to vacate housing in exchange for termination benefits, but petitioners refused. 2. The NLRC has jurisdiction to determine property rights between employer and employees when necessary to resolve employment claims. Solid Mills claimed the properties were occupied by virtue of employment. 3. Clearance procedures ensure employer properties in employee possession are returned before departure. Withholding wages is allowed for debts to the employer. The memorandum agreed benefits would be released less accountabilities, which includes returning employer property.

    Copyright:

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

    Milan v NLRC and Solid Mills Inc.

    G.R. No. 202961, February 04, 2015


    Leonen, J.:

    FACTS:
    Solid Mills allowed the petitioners and their families to occupy SMI Village, a property owned by Solid
    Mills out of liberality and for the convenience of its employees. In 2003, Solid Mills ceased its operations
    due to serious business losses. A memorandum of agreement was executed by NALFU, representing the
    petitioners, and Solid Mills. The memorandum of agreement provided for Solid Mills’ grant of separation
    pay less accountabilities, accrued sick leave benefits, vacation leave benefits, and 13th month pay to the
    employees. Employees who signed the memorandum of agreement were considered to have agreed to
    vacate SMI Village, and to the demolition of the constructed houses inside as condition for the release of
    their termination benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused to sign the documents and demanded
    to be paid their benefits and separation pay. They argued that their possession of Solid Mills property is
    not an accountability that is subject to clearance procedures.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC has jurisdiction to declare that petitioners’ act of withholding
    possession of respondent Solid Mills’ property is illegal.
    2. Whether Solid Mills has the right to withhold the terminal pay of the petitioners pending the latter’s
    turning over of the lots they occupy.

    HELD:
    1. YES. The National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdiction to determine, preliminarily, the
    parties’ rights over a property, when it is necessary to determine an issue related to rights or claims
    arising from an employer-employee relationship. Article 217 (6) provides that the Labor Arbiter, in
    his or her original jurisdiction, and the National Labor Relations Commission, in its appellate
    jurisdiction, may determine issues involving claims arising from employer-employee relations.

    As a general rule, a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor issue raised and must
    arise from an employer-employee relationship for the labor tribunals to have jurisdiction. In this
    case, respondent Solid Mills claims that its properties are in petitioners’ possession by virtue of their
    status as its employees. The return of its properties in petitioners’ possession by virtue of their
    status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits can be
    released immediately.

    2. YES. Clearance procedures are instituted to ensure that the properties, real or personal, belonging
    to the employer but are in the possession of the separated employee, are returned to the employer
    before the employee’s departure. As a general rule, employers are prohibited from withholding
    wages from employees. An exception is provided under Article 1706 of the Civil Code which states
    that Withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the employer. “Debt” in
    this case refers to any obligation due from the employee to the employer. More importantly,
    respondent Solid Mills and NAFLU, the union representing petitioners, agreed that the release of
    petitioners’ benefits shall be “less accountabilities.”

    “Accountability,” in its ordinary sense, means obligation or debt. The ordinary meaning of the term
    “accountability” does not limit the definition of accountability to those incurred in the worksite. As
    long as the debt or obligation was incurred by virtue of the employer-employee relationship,
    generally, it shall be included in the employee’s accountabilities that are subject to clearance
    procedures. The return of the property’s possession became an obligation or liability on the part of
    the employees when the employer-employee relationship ceased.

    You might also like