Lambo v. NLRC

10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 317
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lambo vs. National Labor Relations Commission
*
G.R. No. 111042. October 26, 1999.
AVELINO LAMBO and VICENTE BELOCURA,

petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and J.C. TAILOR SHOP and/or JOHNNY
CO, respondents.
Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; There are two

categories of employees paid by results—(1) those whose time and
performance are supervised by the employer, and, (2) those whose
time and performance are unsupervised.—There is no dispute that
petitioners were employees of private respondents although they
were paid not on the basis of time spent on the job but according
to the quantity and the quality of work produced by them. There
are two categories of employees paid by results: (1) those whose
time and performance are supervised by the employer. (Here,
there is an element of control and supervision over the manner as
to how the
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
421
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 421
work is to be performed. A piece-rate worker belongs to this

category especially if he performs his work in the company
premises.); and (2) those whose time and performance are
unsupervised. (Here, the employer’s control is over the result of
the work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this
group.) Both classes of workers are paid per unit accomplished.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcaee2a1e365eb295003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
Piece-rate payment is generally practiced in garment factories

where work is done in the company premises, while payment on
pakyao and takay basis is commonly observed in the agricultural
industry, such as in sugar plantations where the work is
performed in bulk or in volumes difficult to quantify. Petitioners
belong to the first category, i.e., supervised employees.
Same; Same; Elements; Control Test.—In determining the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following
elements must be considered: (1) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. Of
these elements, the most important criterion is whether the
employer controls or has reserved the right to control the
employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the
means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished.
Same; Same; Same; Wages; Words and Phrases; The term
“wage” is broadly defined in Article 97 of the Labor Code as
remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of
money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or
commission basis; Payment by the piece is just a method of
compensation and does not define the essence of the relationship.—
In this case, private respondents exercised control over the work
of petitioners. As tailors, petitioners worked in the company’s
premises from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, including Sundays and
holidays. The mere fact that they were paid on a piece-rate basis
does not negate their status as regular employees of private
respondents. The term “wage” is broadly defined in Art. 97 of the
Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of being
expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a
time, task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is just
a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the
relations. Nor does the fact that petitioners are not covered by the
SSS affect the employer-employee relationship.
422
Same; Illegal Dismissal; Abandonment; To justify a finding of

abandonment of work, there must be proof of a deliberate and
unjustified refusal on the part of an employee to resume his
employment.—To justify a finding of abandonment of work, there
must be proof of a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of
an employee to resume his employment. The burden of proof is on
the employer to show an unequivocal intent on the part of the
employee to discontinue employment. Mere absence is not

sufficient. It must be accompanied by manifest acts unerringly
pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to
work anymore.
Same; Same; Same; Abandonment is a matter of intention—it
cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.—Private
respondents failed to discharge this burden. Other than the self-
serving declarations in the affidavits of their two employees,
private respondents did not adduce proof of overt acts of
petitioners showing their intention to abandon their work. On the
contrary, the evidence shows that petitioners lost no time in filing
the case for illegal dismissal against private respondent. This fact
negates any intention on their part to sever their employment
relationship. Abandonment is a matter of intention; it cannot be
inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.
Same; Quitclaims and Releases; Not all quitclaims are per se
invalid or against public policy, but those (1) where there is clear
proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or
gullible person or (2) where the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on their face are invalid.—To be sure, not all
quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy. But those (1)
where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an
unsuspecting or gullible person or (2) where the terms of
settlement are unconscionable on their face are invalid. In these
cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.
However, considering that the Labor Arbiter had given petitioner
Lambo a total award of P94,719.20, the amount of P10,000.00 to
cover any and all monetary claims is clearly unconscionable.
Same; Same; An employee who is merely constrained to accept
the wages paid to him is not precluded from recovering the
difference between the amount he actually received and that
amount which he should have received.—As we have held in
another case, the subordinate position of the individual employee
vis-a-vis management
423
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 423
renders him specially vulnerable to its blandishments,

importunings, and even intimidations, and results in his
improvidently waiving benefits to which he is clearly entitled.
Thus, quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with
disfavor for being contrary to public policy and are ineffective to
bar claims for the full measure of the workers’ legal rights. An
employee who is merely constrained to accept the wages paid to
him is not precluded from recovering the difference between the
amount he actually received and that amount which he should
have received.
Same; Illegal Dismissals; Backwages; Where the employees
were dismissed from the service prior to March 21, 1989, the
Mercury Drug rule applies, according to which the recovery of
backwages should be limited to three years without qualifications
or deductions.—As petitioners were illegally dismissed, they are
entitled to reinstatement with backwages. Considering that
petitioners were dismissed from the service on January 17, 1989,
i.e., prior to March 21, 1989, the Labor Arbiter correctly applied
the rule in the Mercury Drug case, according to which the
recovery of backwages should be limited to three years without
qualifications or deductions. Any award in excess of three years is
null and void as to the excess.
Same; Same; Separation Pay; Where considerable time has
lapsed since the employees’ dismissal, so that reinstatement would
now be impractical and hardly in the best interest of the parties,
separation pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.—The
Labor Arbiter correctly ordered private respondents to give
separation pay. Considerable time has lapsed since petitioners’
dismissal, so that reinstatement would now be impractical and
hardly in the best interest of the parties. In lieu of reinstatement,
separation pay should be awarded to petitioners at the rate of one
month salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least
six (6) months of service being considered as one (1) year.
Same; Same; Attorney’s Fees; Public Attorney’s Office; The
award of attorney’s fees should be disallowed where the employees
were represented by the Public Attorney’s Office.—Except for the
award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P19,110.24, the above
computation is affirmed. The award of attorney’s fees should be
disallowed, it appearing that petitioners were represented by the
Public Attorney’s Office. With regard to petitioner Avelino Lambo,
424
the amount of P10,000.00 paid to him under the compromise

agreement should be deducted from the total award of P94,719.20.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Public Attorney’s Office for petitioners.
Creer, Villordon, Salazar, Salva, Gomos Law Office
for private respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
1
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
reversed the awards made by the Labor Arbiter in favor of
petitioners, except one for P4,992.00 to each, representing
13th month pay.
The facts are as follows.
Petitioners Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura were
employed as tailors by private respondents J.C. Tailor Shop
and/or Johnny Co on September 10, 1985 and March 3,
1985, respectively. They worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
daily, including Sundays and holidays. As in the case of the
other 100 employees of private respondents, petitioners
were paid on a piece-work basis, according to the style of
suits they made. Regardless of the number of pieces they
finished in a day, they were each given a daily pay of at
least P64.00.
On January 17, 1989, petitioners filed a complaint
against private respondents for illegal dismissal and
sought recovery of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay
on holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay,
separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
After hearing, Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez found
private respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and
accordingly
_______________
1 Per Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan (Acting Presiding

Commissioner) and concurred in by Commissioner Irenea E. Ceniza.
425
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 425

ordered them to pay petitioners’ claims. The dispositive

portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered declaring the complainants to have been illegally
dismissed and ordering the respondents to pay the complainants
the following monetary awards:
AVELINO VICENTE
LAMBO BELOCURA
I. BACKWAGES P64,896.00 P64,896.00
II. OVERTIME 13,447.90 13,447.90
PAY
III. HOLIDAY PAY 1,399.30 1,399.30
IV. 13TH MONTH 4,992.00 4,992.00
PAY
V. SEPARATION 9,984.00 11,648.00
PAY
TOTAL P94,719.20 P96,383.20= P191,102.40
Add: 10% 19,110.24
Attorney’s Fees
GRAND TOTAL P210,212.64
or a total aggregate amount of TWO HUNDRED TEN

THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED TWELVE AND 64/100 (P210,212.64).
All other claims2 are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal by private respondents, the NLRC reversed the

decision of the Labor Arbiter. It found that petitioners had
not been dismissed from employment but merely
threatened with a closure of the business if they insisted on
their demand for a “straight payment of their minimum
wage,” after petitioners, on January 17, 1989, walked out of
a meeting with private respondents and other employees.
According to the NLRC, during that meeting, the
employees voted to maintain the company policy of paying
them according to the volume of work finished at the rate
of P18.00 per dozen of tailored clothing materials. Only
petitioners allegedly insisted that they be paid the
minimum wage and other benefits. The NLRC held
petitioners guilty of abandonment of work and accordingly
dismissed their claims except that for 13th month pay. The
dispositive portion of its decision reads:
_______________
2 Decision dated August 28, 1992; Rollo, pp. 29-30.
426

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is

hereby vacated and a new one entered ordering respondents to
pay each of the complainants their 13th month pay in the amount
of P4,992.00.
3
All other monetary awards are hereby deleted. SO
ORDERED.
Petitioners allege that they were dismissed by private

respondents as they were about to file a petition with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for the
payment of benefits, such as Social Security System (SSS)
coverage, sick leave and vacation leave. They deny that
they abandoned their work.
The petition is meritorious.
First. There is no dispute that petitioners were
employees of private respondents although they were paid
not on the basis of time spent on the job but according to
the quantity and the quality of work produced by them.
There are two categories of employees paid by results: (1)
those whose time and performance are supervised by the
employer. (Here, there is an element of control and
supervision over the manner as to how the work is to be
performed. A piece-rate worker belongs to this category
especially if he performs his work in the company
premises.); and (2) those whose time and performance are
unsupervised. (Here, the employer’s control is over the
result of the work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis
belong to this group.) Both classes of workers are paid per
unit accomplished. Piece-rate payment is generally
practiced in garment factories where work is done in the
company premises, while payment on pakyao and takay
basis is commonly observed in the agricultural industry,
such as in sugar plantations where the work 4is performed
in bulk or in volumes difficult to quantify. Petitioners
belong to the first category, i.e., supervised employees.
_______________
3 NLRC Decision dated June 14, 1993; Rollo, p. 38.

4 1 C.A. Azucena, The Labor Code with Comments and Cases 331
(1996).
427
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 427

In determining the existence of an employer-employee

relationship, the following elements must be considered: (1)
the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;5 and (4) the
power to control the employee’s conduct. Of these
elements, the most important criterion is whether the
employer controls or has reserved the right to control the
employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to
the means and 6
methods by which the result is to be
accomplished.
In this case, private respondents exercised control over
the work of petitioners. As tailors, petitioners worked in
the company’s premises from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily,
including Sundays and holidays. The mere fact that they
were paid on a piece-rate basis does not negate their status
as regular employees of private respondents. The term
“wage” is broadly defined in Art. 97 of the Labor Code as
remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in
terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time,
task, piece or commission basis. Payment by the piece is
just a method of compensation
7
and does not define the
essence of the relations. Nor does the fact that petitioners
are not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee
relationship.
Indeed, the following factors show that petitioners,
although piece-rate workers, were regular employees of
private respondents: (1) within the contemplation of Art.
280 of the Labor Code, their work as tailors was necessary
or desirable in the usual business of private respondents,
which is engaged in the tailoring business; (2) petitioners
worked for private respondents throughout the year, their
employment not being dependent on a specific project or
season; and, (3)
_______________
5 Santos v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 113 (1998).

6 Makati Haberdashery, Inc. v. NLRC, 179 SCRA 448 (1989); Rosario
Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72 (1984); Dy Keh Beng v. International
Labor and Marine Union of the Phils., 90 SCRA 161 (1979).
7 Villuga v. NLRC, 225 SCRA 537 (1993).
428

petitioners
8
worked for private respondents for more than
one year.
Second. Private respondents contend, however, that
petitioners refused to report for work after learning that
the J.C. Tailoring and Dress Shop Employees Union had
demanded their (petitioners’) dismissal for conduct
unbecoming of employees. In support of9 their claim, private
respondents presented the affidavits of Emmanuel Y.
Caballero, president of the union, and Amado Cabañero,
member, that petitioners had not been dismissed by private
respondents but that practically all employees of the
company, including the members of the union, had asked
management to terminate the services of petitioners. The
employees allegedly said they were against petitioners’
request for change of the mode of payment of their wages,
and that when a meeting was called to discuss this issue, a
petition for the dismissal of petitioners was presented,
prompting the latter to walk out of their jobs and instead
file a complaint for illegal dismissal against private
respondents on January 17, 1989, even before all
employees could sign the petition and management could
act upon the same.
To justify a finding of abandonment of work, there must
be proof of a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part
of an employee to resume his employment. The burden of
proof is on the employer to show an unequivocal intent
10
on
the part of the employee to discontinue employment. Mere
absence is not sufficient. It must be accompanied by
manifest acts unerringly pointing to the fact11 that the
employee simply does not want to work anymore.
_______________
8 Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC, 290 SCRA 509 (1998).

9 Exhs. 4 and 6, NLRC Records, pp. 21-22.
10 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119724, May 31,
1999, 307 SCRA 747, citing De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 129824, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 448.
11 Kingsize Manufacturing Corporation v. NLRC, 238 SCRA 349 (1994).
429
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 429

Private respondents failed to discharge this burden. Other

than the self-serving declarations in the affidavits of their
two employees, private respondents did not adduce proof of
overt acts of petitioners showing their intention to abandon

their work. On the contrary, the evidence shows that
petitioners lost no time in filing the case for illegal
dismissal against private respondent. This fact negates any
intention on12 their part to sever their employment
relationship. Abandonment is a matter of intention; 13
it
cannot be inferred or presumed from equivocal acts.
Third. Private
14
respondents invoke the compromise
agreement, dated March 2, 1993, between them and
petitioner Avelino Lambo, whereby in consideration of the
sum of P10,000.00, petitioner absolved private respondents
from liability for money claims or any other obligations.
To be sure, not all quitclaims are per se invalid or
against public policy. But those (1) where there is clear
proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or
gullible person or (2) where the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on their face are invalid. In these cases, the
15
law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.
However, considering that the Labor Arbiter had given
petitioner Lambo a total award of P94,719.20, the amount
of P10,000.00 to cover any and all monetary claims is 16
clearly unconscionable. As we have held in another case,
the subordinate position of the individual employee vis-a-
vis management renders him especially vulnerable to its
blandishments, importunings, and even intimidations, and
results in his improvidently waiving benefits to which he is
clearly entitled. Thus, quitclaims, waivers
_______________
12 Hua Bee Shirt Factory v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 586 (1990).

13 Pure Blue Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 337 Phil. 711; 271 SCRA 259
(1997).
14 Annex B, Comment; Rollo, p. 47.
15 Bogo-Medellin Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. v. NLRC, 296
SCRA 108 (1998).
16 Martinez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118743, October 12, 1998, 297 SCRA
643.
430

or releases are looked upon with disfavor for being contrary

to public policy and are ineffective to 17bar claims for the full
measure of the workers’ legal rights. An employee who is
merely constrained to accept the wages paid to him is not
precluded from recovering the difference between the

amount he actually received and that amount which he
should have received.
Fourth. The Labor Arbiter awarded backwages, overtime
pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, separation pay and
attorney’s fees, corresponding to 10% of the total monetary
awards, in favor of petitioners.
As petitioners were illegally dismissed, they are entitled
to reinstatement with backwages. Considering that
petitioners were dismissed from the service
18
on January 17,
1989, i.e., prior to March 21, 1989, the Labor Arbiter 19
correctly applied the rule in the Mercury Drug case,
according to which the recovery of backwages should be
limited to three years without qualifications or deductions.
Any award20 in excess of three years is null and void as to
the excess.
The Labor Arbiter correctly ordered private respondents
to give separation pay. Considerable time has lapsed since
petitioners’ dismissal, so that reinstatement would now be
impractical and hardly in the best interest of the parties. In
lieu of reinstatement, separation pay should be awarded to
petitioners at the rate of one month salary for every year of
service, with a fraction of at least
21
six (6) months of service
being considered as one (1) year.
_______________
17 Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 507 (1998).

18 Effectivity of R.A. No. 6715, amending Article 279 of the Labor Code.
19 Mercury Drug Co., Inc. v. CIR, 155 Phil. 637 (1974).
20 Bustamante v. NLRC, 332 Phil. 833; 255 SCRA 145 (1996), cited in
Highway Copra Traders v. NLRC-Cagayan de Oro, 293 SCRA 350 (1998).
21 Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC, supra.
431
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 431

The awards for overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month
pay are in accordance with our finding that petitioners are
22
regular employees, although paid on a piece-rate basis.
These awards are based on the following computation of
the Labor Arbiter:
AVELINO LAMBO
I. BACKWAGES: Jan. 17/89 - Jan. 17/92 = 36 mos.
P 64.00/day x 26
days =
1,664.00/mo. x 36 P 59,904.00
mos. =
13th Mo. Pay:
P 1,664.00/yr. x 3 4,992.00 P
yrs. = 64,896.00
II. OVERTIME PAY: Jan. 17/86 -
Jan. 17/89
Jan. 17/86 - April 15 mos. & 12
30/87 = days =
(15 mos. x 26 days + 12 days) =402
days
*2 hours = 25%
402 days x 2 hrs./day =804 hrs.
P 32.00/day ÷ 8 hrs. =
4.00/hr. x 25% =
1.00/hr. + P4.00/hr. =
5.00/hr. x 804 hrs. P 4,020.00
=
May 1/87-Sept. 4 mos. & 26 days =
30/87 =
(4 mos. x 26 days + 26 130 days
days) =
130 days x 2 hrs./day = 260 hrs.
P 41.00/day ÷ 8
hrs. =
5.12/hr. x 25% =
1.28/hr. +
P5.12/hr. =
6.40/hr. x 260 hrs. P 1,664.00
=
Oct. 1/87-Dec. 2 mos. & 11 days =
13/87 =
(2 mos. x 26 days + 11 63 days
days) =
P 49.00/day ÷ 8 hrs. =
6.12/hr. x 25% =
1.53/hr. + P6.12/hr. =
7.65/hr. x 126 hrs. = P963.90
_______________
22 Supra.
432

Dec. 14/87 - Jan. 13 mos. & 2 days =

17/89 =
(13 mos. x 26 days + 2 days) =
340 days
P 64.00/day ÷ 8 hrs.
=
8.00/hr. x 25% =
2.00/hr. + P8.00/hr.
=
10.00/hr. x 680 hrs. P6,800.00 P13,447.90
=
III. HOLIDAY PAY: Jan. 17/86 - Jan. 17/89
Jan. 17/86 - April = 12 RHs; 8 SHs
30/87
P 32.00/day x 200%
=
64.00/day x 12 days P768.00
=
32.00/day x 12 days (384.00) 384.00
=
32.00/day x 30% =
9.60/day x 8 days = 76.80 469.80
May 1/87 - Sept. 30/87 = 3 RHs; 3 SHs
P 41.00/day x 200%
=
82.00/day x 3 days = P246.00
41.00/day x 3 days = (123.00) P123.00
41.00/day x 30% =
12.30/day x 3 days = 36.90 159.90
Oct. 1/87 - Dec. 13/87 = 1 RH

P 49.00/day x 200%
=
98.00/day x 1 day = P98.00
49.00/day x 1 day = (49.00) 49.00
Dec. 14/87 - Jan. 17/89 = 9 RHs; 8 SHs
P 64.00/day x 200%
=
128.00/day x 9 days P1,152.00
=
64.00/day x 9 days = (576.00) P576.00
64.00/day x 30% =
19.20/day x 8 days = P153.60 729.60 1,399.30
IV. 13TH MO. PAY: Jan. 17/86 - Jan. 17/89 = 3 yrs.
P 64.00/day x 26
days =
1,664.00/yr. x 3 yrs. 4,992.00
=
V. SEPARATION PAY: Sept. 10/85 - Jan. 17/92 = 6 yrs.
1,664.00/mo. x 6 yrs. 9,984.00
433
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 433

TOTAL AWARD OF AVELINO LAMBO P94,719.20

VICENTE BELOCURA
I. BACKWAGES: Jan. 17/89 - Jan. 17/92 = 36 mos.
Same computation as A. Lambo P64,896.00
II. OVERTIME PAY: Jan. 17/86 - Jan. 17/89
Same computation as A. Lambo 13,447.90
III. HOLIDAY PAY: Jan. 17/86 - Jan. 17/89
IV. 13TH MO. PAY: Jan. 17/86 - Jan. 17/89
V. SEPARATION PAY: March 3/85 - Jan. 17/92 = 7 yrs.
P1,664.00/mo. x 7 yrs. = 11,648.00
TOTAL AWARD OF VICENTE P96,383.20

BELOCURA
SUMMARY
AVELINO VICENTE BELOCURA
LAMBO
I. BACKWAGES P 64,896.00 P64,896.00
II. OVERTIME 13,447.90 13,447.90
PAY
III. HOLIDAY 1,399.30 1,399.30
PAY
IV. 13TH MO. 4,992.00 4,992.00
PAY
V. SEPARATION 9,984.00 11,648.00
PAY
TOTAL P 94,719.20 P 96,383.20
=
P191,102.40
ADD: 10% Attorney’s Fees 19,110.24
Except for the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of

P19,110.24, the above computation is affirmed. The award
of attorney’s fees should be disallowed, it appearing that
petitioners were represented by the Public Attorney’s
Office. With regard to petitioner Avelino Lambo, the
amount of P10,000.00 paid to him under the compromise
agreement should be de-
434

ducted from the total award of P94,719.20. Consequently,

the award to each petitioner should be as follows:
AVELINO VICENTE
LAMBO BELOCURA
I. BACKWAGES P64,896.00 P64,896.00
II. OVERTIME 13,447.90 13,447.90
PAY
III. HOLIDAY PAY 1,399.30 1,399.30
IV. 13TH MO. PAY 4,992.00 4,992.00

V. SEPARATION 9,984.00 11,648.00
PAY
P94,719.20
Less 10,000.00
TOTAL P84,719.20 P 96,383.20
WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor

Relations Commission is SET ASIDE and another one is
RENDERED ordering private respondents to pay
petitioners the total amount of One Hundred Eighty-One
Thousand One Hundred Two Pesos and 40/100
(P181,102.40), as computed above.
SO ORDERED.
Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo and Quisumbing, JJ., On official leave.
Challenged decision set aside.
Notes.—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. (AG&P United Rank
and File Association [AG&P URFA] vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 265 SCRA 159 [1996])
Once an employee resigns and executes a quitclaim in
favor of the employer, he is thereby estopped from filing
any further money claims against the employer arising
from his employ-
435
VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 435

People vs. Lazaro
ment. (Philippine National Construction Corporation vs.

National Labor Relations Commission, 280 SCRA 109
[1997])
Generally, quitclaims by laborers are frowned upon as
contrary to public policy and are held to be ineffective to
bar recovery for the full measure of the workers’ rights.
(Pure Foods Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 283 SCRA 133 [1997])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lambo v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambo v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambo v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 317

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AVELINO LAMBO and VICENTE BELOCURA,

Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; There are two

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 421

Lambo vs. National Labor Relations Commission

work is to be performed. A piece-rate worker belongs to this

Piece-rate payment is generally practiced in garment factories

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lambo vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Same; Illegal Dismissal; Abandonment; To justify a finding of

employee to discontinue employment. Mere absence is not

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 423

Lambo vs. National Labor Relations Commission

renders him specially vulnerable to its blandishments,

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lambo vs. National Labor Relations Commission

the amount of P10,000.00 paid to him under the compromise

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1 Per Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan (Acting Presiding

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 425

ordered them to pay petitioners’ claims. The dispositive

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

or a total aggregate amount of TWO HUNDRED TEN

On appeal by private respondents, the NLRC reversed the

2 Decision dated August 28, 1992; Rollo, pp. 29-30.

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is

Petitioners allege that they were dismissed by private

3 NLRC Decision dated June 14, 1993; Rollo, p. 38.

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 427

In determining the existence of an employer-employee

5 Santos v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 113 (1998).

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

8 Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC, 290 SCRA 509 (1998).

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 429

Private respondents failed to discharge this burden. Other

overt acts of petitioners showing their intention to abandon

12 Hua Bee Shirt Factory v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 586 (1990).

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

or releases are looked upon with disfavor for being contrary

precluded from recovering the difference between the

17 Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 293 SCRA 507 (1998).

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 431

7.65/hr. x 126 hrs. = P963.90

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dec. 14/87 - Jan. 13 mos. & 2 days =

Oct. 1/87 - Dec. 13/87 = 1 RH

VOL. 317, OCTOBER 26, 1999 433

TOTAL AWARD OF AVELINO LAMBO P94,719.20

TOTAL AWARD OF VICENTE P96,383.20

Except for the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ducted from the total award of P94,719.20. Consequently,

IV. 13TH MO. PAY 4,992.00 4,992.00

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor

Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Challenged decision set aside.