1. ATOK BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC., VS.

ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION

(By: Ralp !a"#$% Al$&'()a&*
Fa+,%:
Appeal by certiorari against a decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations
Demand was submitted to petitioner by respondent union
through its officers for various concession, among which
were:
a) An increase of P!" in wages
b) Commutation of sic# and vacation leave if not en$oyed
during the year
c) %arious privileges, such as free medical care, medicine,
and hospitali&ation!
d) Right to a closed shop, chec# off, etc!
e) 'o dismissal without prior $ust cause and with a prior
investigation!
(ome of the demands, were granted by the petitioner, and the
other were re$ected
After the hearing the respondent court rendered a decision!
)he most important provisions of which were:
*! +i,ing the minimum wage for the laborers at P-!.!
.! Declaring that additional compensation representing
efficiency bonus should not be included as part of the
wage!
Petitioner that as the respondent court found that the laborer
and his family at least need the amount of P.!"/ for food, this
should be the basis for the determination of his wage
'ot what he actually spends0 that it is not $ustifiable to fi, a
wage higher than that provided by Republic Act 'o! 1. and
that respondent union made the demand in accordance with a
pernicious practice of claiming more after an original demand
is granted
I%%-.:
*! 23' is the fi,ed minimum wage of P-!. fare4 5 6es
.! 23' is the efficiency bonus paid to the laborer part of
the minimum wage4 5 'o
Ra,$(:
)he respondent court found that P.!"/ is the minimum
amount actually needed by the laborer and his family!
)hat does not mean that it is his actual e,pense! A
person7s needs increase as his means increase!
)his is true not only as to food but as to everything else
8 education, clothing, entertainment, etc!
)he law guarantees the laborer a fair and $ust wage!
)he minimum must be fair and $ust! )he 9minimum wage9
can by no means imply only the actual minimum!
(ome margin or leeway must be provided, over and
above the minimum, to ta#e care of contingencies such
as increase of prices of commodities and desirable
improvement in his mode of living!
Certainly, the amount of P!.. a day :difference between
P.!/ fi,ed and P.!"/ actual) is not e,cessive for this
purpose!
)hat the P- minimum wage fi,ed by law is still far below
what is considered as fair and $ust minimum is shown by
the fact that this amount is only for the year after the law
ta#es effect, as thereafter the law fi,es it at P;!
)he court found no reason or ground for disturbing the
finding contained in the decision fi,ing the amount of
P-!. as the minimum wage!
Petitioners contended that the efficiency bonus paid to
the laborers should have been included in his :minimum)
wage, in the same manner as the value of living <uarters!
2hether or not bonus forms part of wages depends upon
the circumstances or conditions for its payment!
If it is an additional compensation which the employer
promised and agreed to give without any conditions
imposed for its payment, such as success of business or
greater production or output, then it is part of the wage!
=ut if it is paid only if profits are reali&ed or a certain
amount of productivity achieved, it cannot be considered
part of the wages!
In the case at bar, it is not payable to all but to laborers
only! It is also paid on the basis of actual production or
actual wor# accomplished! If the desired goal of
production is not obtained or the amount of actual wor#
accomplished, the bonus does not accrue!
+rom the facts of the case it is paid only when the labor
becomes more efficient or more productive!
It is only an inducement for efficiency, a pri&e therefore,
not part of wage!
)he last <uestion raised in the appeal is the grant of the
increase from (eptember ;, *>", the date of the
presentation of the original demand, instead of from April
", *>"*, the date of the amended demand!
=oth parties agreed that any award should be retroactive
to the date of the presentation of the demand, which is
(eptember ;, *>"!
)he terms of the stipulation are clearly against petitioners
contention having no <uestion as to the agreement
made, thus the same must be given force and effect!
)he petition was hereby dismissed, with costs!