RURAL BANK OF SAN LORENZO RUIZ (SINILOAN), EJM INVESTIGATION SECURITY, AND DR. ROLANDO ENTILA, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND TERESA P. BANCUYO, RESPOND…
LOPEZ, J.:
In her position paper, complainant [Teresa Bancuyo] alleged that
sometime in October 1996, she was hired by respondent Rolando Entila as
a Lady Guard assigned in the Northwestern College which was owned by
said respondent at a monthly rate of Php3,000.00; that in May 1997, she
was transferred by respondent Entila to the Siniloan Western College
Montessori, which was also owned by the latter; however, her monthly
salary was reduced to Php2,500.00; that in the year 2001, she was again
transferred by respondent Entila to the Rural Bank of San Lorenzo Ruiz,
which was also owned by same respondent, with a monthly rate of
Php3,500.00.Complainant added that on 13 January 2012, she was informed by
the bank’s Assistant Manager that her services are no longer needed
since she has already a replacement. Thus, she claimed that she was
illegally dismissed from the service by respondent bank without any
valid cause and due process. She stated that she was underpaid of her
salary and the respondents failed to give her overtime pay, 13th month pay, holiday pay, service incentive leaves and other labor standard benefits.On the other hand, respondent Entila denied any employment
relationship with complainant since the latter was hired by EJM
Investigation Security to work for its various clients. In support
thereof, respondent Entila submitted a copy of the Sinumpaang Salaysay
executed by EJM Manager Amy Malong who attested, among other things,
that complainant was the one who requested that she be posted to Rural
Bank of San Lorenzo Ruiz Inc. located in Siniloan, Laguna since the bank
is near to her residence. Accordingly, complainant was recalled by the
said security agency from the rural bank for reassignment/deployment to
other clients.In response to the foregoing allegation of respondents,
complainant amended her complaint on 10 July 2012, to include EJM
Investigation and Security Agency as additional respondent, Complainant
argued that assuming, for the sake of argument, that she was not hired
by respondent Entila, the latter is still liable solidarily with EJM
Security Agency since they failed to comply the labor standard benefits
which are due her. xxx[1]
On November 28, 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision
dismissing the charge of illegal dismissal but ordering respondents
Rural Bank of San Lorenzo Ruiz Inc., Dr. Rolando Entila and EJM
Investigation and Security Agency to pay complainant Bancuyo’s salary
differentials, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby ordered
jointly and severally to pay Teresa Bancuyo the amount of P154,860.00
representing unpaid wage differentials for the unprescribed period of 3
years reckoned backwards from filing of the complaint on 13 March 2012
computed as follows:SALARY DIFFERENTIALS
Cause of action for illegal dismissal against Rural Bank of San
Lorenzo Ruiz, Inc. and Rolando Entila is dismissed for lack of merit.
While cause of action for illegal dismissal against EJM Investigation
Security Agency and Amy Malong is dismissed without prejudice for
complainant’s failure to prosecute the same.All other claims are denied for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.[2]
The respondents filed an appeal before the NLRC, arguing that the
Labor Arbiter erred in awarding the salary differentials. According to
them, aside from the monthly salary of P3,500.00, complainant received
P1,000.00 monthly allowance. Also, the Rural Bank of San Lorenzo Ruiz
is a service establishment employing not more than ten workers. Hence,
it is exempt from paying the prescribed minimum wage.[3]
In its June 27, 2013 Decision, the NLRC pointed out that the
question of wage differential was not submitted before the Labor Arbiter
and that it cannot rule on issues raised for the first time on appeal.
Moreover, there is no evidence that respondents paid the P1,000.00
monthly allowance or that they were exempt from the minimum wage
requirement. The appeal was thus denied.[4] The respondents moved for reconsideration, to no avail.[5]
Consequently, Rural Bank of San Lorenzo Ruiz Inc., Dr. Rolando
Entila and EJM Investigation and Security Agency filed this petition
for certiorari reiterating that the computation for salary differentials
was erroneous because the P1,000.00 allowance should be included in
private respondent Bancuyo’s wages and that the Rural Bank of San
Lorenzo Ruiz is exempt from the minimum wage requirement.[6]
In her Comment, private respondent argued that the petitioners
failed to present any evidence that they were exempted from the minimum
wage requirement. Although the bank has less than ten workers in its
Siniloan Branch, it employs many others in its main office and other
branches. Also, the P1,000.00 was not part of private respondent’s
salary since it was not included in her payslip.[7]
On April 2, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution referring
the case to the Philippine Mediation Center for possible amicable
settlement.[8] Subsequently,
the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, manifested that they
were able to amicably settle the case and moved for its dismissal.[9]
A compromise is a contract whereby parties, making reciprocal
concerns, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[10]
It is an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or
putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their difficulties by mutual
consent in the manner which they agree on, and which everyone of them
prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing.[11] In Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,[12] the Supreme Court held that:
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public
policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be
disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is
clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that
the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where
it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with
full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the
quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized
as a valid and binding undertaking.
In the case at bar, both parties’ counsels assisted them in
reaching the settlement. Clearly, they did so voluntarily and with full
understanding of what they were doing. We therefore find that the
parties have indeed reached a reasonable conciliation which the Court
finds commendable.
Keeping in mind the precepts in Article 2029 of the Civil Code,[13] which encourages the amicable settlement of disputes between parties,[14] the case is now considered closed and settled.
ACCORDINGLY, the case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson) and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[2] Id., pp. 30-31.
[3] Id., pp. 70-75. Memorandum on Appeal.
[4] Id., pp. 19-24.
[5] Id., p. 16. September 19, 2013 Resolution.
[6] Id., pp. 6-9.
[7] Id., pp. 101-102.
[8] Id., p. 108.
[9] Id., p. 109.
[10] Article 208 of the Civil Code, as cited in Rivero v. CA, G.R. No. 141273, 17 May 2005.
[11] Del Rosario v.
Madayag, G.R. No. 118531, 28 August 1995 citing David v. Court of
Appeals, 214 SCRA 644, 650 (1992) citing Rivero v. Amparo, 91 Phil. 228,
235(1952); Arcenas v. Cinco, 74 SCRA 118, 123 (1976).
[12] G.R. No. 91298, 22 June 1990.
[13] Art. 2029. The court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.
[14] First Intramuros BF Condominium Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103638, 14 April 1994.