Good evening judge.

First I will report For my previous assigned topic in Article 82 under Book III Title I (conditions of
Employment)

General Rule:

Title I(CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT), Book III of the Labor Code dealing with hours of work, weekly
rest periods, holidays, service incentive leave, covers all employees in All establishments, whether
for profit or not.

Exceptions:

1. Government Employees
2. Managerial employees including members of managerial staff
3. Domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another
4. Workers paid by Result
5. Field personnel
6. Members of the Family of the employer who are dependent on him for support

The terms and conditions of their employment are governed by the Civil Service Law,
rules and regulations.

Note: Managerial employees are not covered by this Title because they are employed by reason of
their special training, experience or knowledge. Therefore, the value of their work cannot be
measured in terms of hours.
Note: An employee whose job is to supervise the laborers in the construction project falls squarely
under the category of officers or members of a managerial staff and is exempted from payment pf
overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days and SIL pay.

Test of Supervisory or Managerial Status: It depends on whether a person possesses authority that is
not merely routinary or clerical in nature but one that requires use of independent judgement.

DOMESTIC HELPERS/ PERSONS RENDERING PERSONAL SERVICE

- Not covered by this title because the terms and conditions of employment are governed by
the provisions of RA no. 10361. (domestic workers act)

Such work is measured either: by piece or by task.

Note: workers paid by results whose time and performance are supervised by the employer are
entitled to benefits in Title I, Book III.

MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE EMPLOYER

-they are not covered by this title beacause the amounts given by the employer by way of support
may far exceed the benefits to which the employee is entitled under the provisions of law.

In the case of San Miguel Brewery vs Democratic Labor Union

The 8 hour labor law has no application to the outside service force or field sales personnel and they
are not entitled to overtime compensation since their employer has no way of knowing the number
of hours the employee works per day.
ART. 98. APPLICATION OF TITLE. This Title shall not apply to farm tenancy or leasehold, domestic
service and persons working in their respective homes in needle work or in any cottage industry duly
registered in accordance with law.

This Article enumerated those employees who are exempt from the Minimum Wage Rule.
To proceed..

The Following are exempted from the coverage of the Rule on Minimum Wages.

Or in other words..

these employees may be paid below minimum wage:

1. household or domestic helpers, including family drivers and persons in the personal service
of another
- Art 141 of the labor code prescribes the Minimum Wage for Househelpers, however,
Art.141 has been superseded by the Kasambahay Law or RA 10361.
-In addition RA 6727 or the Wage Rationalization Act, also exempts these type of workers.
As expressly stated in Sec 4 para C of the said law.

2. homeworkers engaged in needle-work; (the employer is required to get an approval

from DOLE.)

3. workers employed in any establishment duly registered with the National Cottage Industry and
development authority in accordance with RA 3470, provided that such workers perform the work in
their respective homes. (the employer is required to get an approval from DOLE.)

4. Workers in any duly registered cooperatives, when so recommended by the Bureau of

Cooperative Development and upon approval of the DOLE Secretary, provided such
recommendation is given only for the purpose of making the cooperative viable and
upon finding and certification of said Bureau, supported by adequate proof, that the
cooperative cannot resort to other remedial measures without serious loss or prejudice
to its operation except though its exemption from the requirements of this Rule;

While the law on cooperatives (RA 9520) and its Implementing rules contain no provision
superseding or contradicting the said exception. Therefore, the Labor Codes
implementing rules on this matter still stands.

See also Opinion dated 18 January 1990 by the Secretary of Justcice. The exemption
shall be subject to such terms and conditions and for such period of time as the
Secretary of Labor may prescribe.

5. Employees of Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBE)

Related to this subject is the BMBE law. Seeking to spur the growth of small business, RA. No. 9178,
approved on November 13, 2002, exempts from the minimum wage law a barangay micro business
enterprise.

The intention of this article is to exclude from coverage those small businesses that probably cannot
afford to pay the wage rates set by law. A minimum wage law is essentially a labor-protection
measure. But, ironically it can also harm the interest of labor. This is the reason behind the passage
of BMBE Law.
Sec 8. Of the said law provides that the BMBE shall be exempt from the Coverage of the Minimum
Wage law: Provided, that all employees covered under this Act shall be entitled to the same benefits
given to any regular employee such as social security and health care benefits.

A barangay micro business enterprise is any business entity or enterprise engaged in

the production, processing, or manufacturing of products or commodities, including agro-
processing, trading and services, whose total assets including those arising from loans
but exclusive of the land on which the particular business entitys office, plant and
equipment are situation, shall not be more than Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00)

6. Employees of retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than 10

workers may be exempted upon application with and as determined by the appropriate
Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations by the NLRC

Basis is R.A. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act), This Act provides the statutory minimum
wage rate of all workers and employees in the private sector but SEC 4 exempts retail
and service establishments.

(to qualify for exemption, the retail or service enterprise must prove that it is engaged in
selling goods and services or both)

Regularly employing as interpreted in the Act has the reference to the more or less
uniform or usual number of employees employed by a retail or service enterprise during
its normal operations.

7. Employees of distressed establishments, new enterprises, and establishments

affected by calamities;

Legal Basis is the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) Guidelines on
Exemption ,No. 02, Series of 2007,

8. Apprentices under apprenticeship agreements/programs duly approved by DOLE

Legal basis LABOR CODE. Article 61.

9. Learners

Legal basis is LABOR CODE. Article 75 c

10. Handicapped workers.

Legal basis is LABOR CODE. Article 80 b

ART. 99. REGIONAL MINIMUM WAGES. The minimum wage rates for agricultural and non
agricultural employees and workers in each and every region of the country shall be those
prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards
The minimum wage is the lowest salary rate prescribed by the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Board (RTWB) for each and every region.[1] The minimum
wage will vary from region to region, particularly with the National Capital Region (NCR)
as it has the highest rate due to high cost of living allowance.

Minimum wage means the lowest wage rate fixed by law that an employer can pay his
employees. Paying less than the minimum wage is considered as underpayment that
violates the law. The complaint may be brought before the DOLE regional office (Art.
129) or a Labor Arbiter (Art 217). The employer cannot exempt himself from liability to
pay minimum wages because of poor financial condition of the company; the payment of
minimum wages is not dependent on the employers ability to pay (De Racho, January 2,
1968). Wage orders, however, usually allow petitions for exemption from prescribed
wage rates.

If the employer fails or refuses to pay minimum wage, he is liable to pay an amount
equivalent to double the unpaid benefits owing to the employee.[4] He may also face
criminal prosecution despite payment of the indemnity.[5]

--The responsible officer of an employer corporation can be held personally, not to say
even criminally, liable for the non-payment of back wages. That is the policy of the law.
In the Minimum Wage Law,

EMPLOYEES not Estopped to sue for difference in amount of wages.

A labourer who accepts a lower wage than what the law sets as minimum wage for
laborers shall be entitled to receive the deficiency. Such legal right cannot be waived or
given away even if he does not complain at the time he receives a wage below the legal
minimum.

Agricultural wage rates are generally lower than the industrial. It is the nature of the work which
classifies a worker as agricultural or industrial.

CASE

Petitioner Carolina Castillo was an employee of private respondent Philippine Commercial &
International Bank (PCIB) Ermita branch since April 1981 as Foreign Remittance Clerk.

(So by position alone its deemed shes one of the staff)

January 12, 1988, Faisal Al Shahab, a Jordanian national, went to PCIB Ermita branch to claim a
foreign remittance in the amount of US$2,000.00. He paid P450.00 as commission charges as
computed by Castillo. Upon re-computation, the correct amount of the charges amounted to
onlyP248.75.
January 13, 1988 petitioner Castillo received a Memorandum from the branch manager reassigning
her temporarily as Remittance Clerk-Inquiry.

(So this is a demoted assignment, having a disguise of temporary". This simply means shes
expected to merely handle inquiries, and hands-off from all the processing papers temporarily, I
wonder what the reason is)

So this pissed Castillo knowing she had been in effect dismissed from his current position and
demoted to a lower non-staff position. And so this prompted her on January 21, 1988, to file with
the NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal asking for her reinstatement as
Foreign Remittance Clerk plus moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

Subsequently, petitioner received allegedly under protest, a Memorandum dated January 25, 1988
which accordingly, thereby instructing her further to desist from performing functions of other staff
positions particularly those of the Remittance Clerk-POP/Collection Items.

(So there you go, the what should have been temporary now seemed to have been final)

On January 25, 1988, Shahab filed a formal complaint with the branch manager of the respondent
bank regarding the over-charging of commission on foreign remittances, specifically mentioning
petitioner as the one who attended to his withdrawals.The branch manager decided to pursue
further investigation on the matter.

On February 2, 1988, the branch manager issued a Memo to petitioner requiring her to explain
within seventy-two (72) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her. Petitioner did
not submit a written explanation.

(Yeah what the heck right? She has a pending case submitted in the office of the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal so fuck it)

And respondent bank deferred further action on the matter.

And so trial ensued in the case for illegal dismissal and on October 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision ruling that petitioner was constructively dismissed from her employment when
she was transferred to the position of Remittance Clerk-Inquiry from her position of Foreign
Remittance Clerk.

The Labor Arbiter opined that while the positions of Foreign Remittance Clerk for Inquiry and
Foreign Remittance Clerk for Payment Order Collection are within Level III of the position
classification of the private respondent bank, the latter position is vested with more power and
responsibilities, thus concluding that petitioner was demoted in her position.

As regards petitioners reassignment, the Labor Arbiter was of the view that although management
has the right to control the nature of hiring, the status of the employee and his work assignment,
such right must be anchored on just and valid grounds.

Pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6715 amending 223 (sic) of the Labor Code, respondent PCIB was
ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her position as Foreign Remittance Clerk, Ermita
Branch, or reinstate her in the payroll as mandated by the same law.

(Here comes the appeal)

On appeal, the NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision. It ruled that there was no demotion
because the position to which she was being reassigned belongs to the same job level as her
former position and both positions have the same rate of compensation.

Public respondent NLRC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment arguing that it
is the prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the
business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of his salary, benefits
and other privileges.

ISSUE:

Was there ILLEGAL DISMISSAL? Or Demotion in Rank?

RULING:

The petition is devoid of merit.

NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter.

Court ruled has ruled that petitioner claims that she was constructively dismissed. We agree with
the respondent Commissions finding rejecting the same. Well-settled is the rule that it is the
prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees for valid reasons and according to
the requirement of its business. An owner of a business enterprise is given considerable leeway in
managing his business.

Our law recognizes certain rights collectively called MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE as inherent in the
management of business enterprises. One of the prerogatives of management is the right to
transfer employees in their work station. This Court has consistently recognized and upheld the
prerogative of management to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business
establishment, provided that there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary, benefits and
other privileges.

The Court, as a rule, will not interfere with an employers prerogative to regulate all aspects of
employment which includes among others, work assignment, working methods, and place and
manner of work. The rule is well-settled that labor laws discourage interference with an
employers judgment in the conduct of his business.

Of course, the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse
of discretion, putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. IT CANNOT BE USED AS A
SUBTERFUGE BY THE EMPLOYER TO RID HIMSELF OF AN UNDESIRABLE WORKER.

In case of a constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and
demotion of an employee are for valid and legitimate grounds, and that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank
or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Where the employer fails to overcome
this BURDEN OF PROOF, the employees demotion shall no doubt be tantamount to unlawful
constructive dismissal.

So Castillo loses this case, her petition was dismissed. And the NLRC Decision reversing the Labor
Arbiters ruling was affirmed.