People vs Dela Cruz Case digest criminal law 1 article 11Full description
Crim Pro Digest
Case Digest for Law SchoolFull description
Constitutional Law/Administrative Law Case Digest Ex-officio; Executive Department; Cabinet
case digest election lawFull description
case digestFull description
pale digestFull description
case digest
Comelec vs Cruz, Political Law, Constitutional law, digest
Malayan Insurance vs Cruz-Arnaldo insurance caseFull description
Case DigestFull description
Public Offcr & AdminFull description
Case Digest in Legal EthicsFull description
Jurisdiction - Regulus Development, Inc. vs. Dela CruzFull description
legal ethics; case digestFull description
Full description
conga rhythmsFull description
Full description
Descripción completa
Sps. Quirino v. Dela Cruz and Gloria Dela Cruz vs. Planters Products, Inc.Full description
MORALES, MARIVIC A. Labor Law I – I – Block Block A
Case No. 56 [C1, Book III, Part II ]
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC G.R. No. 102636, September 10, 1993
FACTS:
Metrobank entered into a CBA with the petitioner union, granting a monthly wage increases: Php900.00 in the first year, Php600.00 in the second, and Php200.00 in the third year. Only the regular employees were given the Php900.00 increase, excluding the probationary employees. RA 6727 then was enacted, mandating an increase of Php25.00 per day in the statutory minimum wage rates of all workers in the private sector. The law also provided that a stipulation in the CBA entered three months prior to the law’s enactment enactment which provides for an increase in the daily basic wage shall be credited as compliance with the prescribed wage increases. With this, the other groups of employees were given the mandated increase, excluding those regular employees and others who were already receiving the Php900.00 monthly increase. The NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the Bank, stating that no wage distortion was present in the case. ISSUE:
Was a distortion created when a law mandating an increase in pay of Php25.00 for certain employees was implemented, thus requiring the employer an adjustment in the wages of other various groups of employees in the company? RULING:
YES. With the adjustments in the salaries of the employees, the the Court concluded that there was a severe contraction contraction of intentional quantitative differences in the rates of the employees’ wages. The intentional quantitative differences in the wages has been set by the CBA to about Php900.00 a month; it was intentional because it has been arrived through the CBA entered by the employer and the union. The law did not require that there be an elimination or total abrogation of quantitative wage or salary differences; a severe contraction is enough. The Court applied the formula suggested by the dissenting Commissioner in computing for the distortion, which is
MinimumWage ActualSalary
= % x Prescrib Prescribed ed Increase Increase = Distortion Distortion Adjustme Adjustment nt
In the case, it was aptly observed o bserved that the contraction between personnel groupings came close to 83%, which cannot be considered as less than severe.
