He have no law prohibiting any employer from giving an employment contract to anyone less than 6 months. So kaya during the forum doon noong May 28 na binabanggit ko sa inyo sa IBP, tamang-tamat naroon yung isang congressman party, si atorne din ito, si atorne Carlos Arate na representative ng bayan muna. Habi ko, napakadali lang po yan. Para matapos yung endo, amend Article 296 and prohibit employers from giving a contract of employment less than six months. Alisin na yung fixed-term employment.
Bakit? Eh kasi nga, pag umabot ng four months, ditanggal na yung pobring sales lady, ano? Wala na siyang pupuntahan. Kasi pag pumunta siya sa labor arbiter, nasabi ng labor arbiter, hindi ka naman illegally dismissed kasi contractual ka.
Ito yung contractual na nag-end. Kasi yung contractual na pinag-uusapan natin under the labor code, ang employer niya yung contractor, hindi yung principal. But here, wala siyang contractor.
In-house yung hiring sa kanya. The only problem is binigyan siya ng 4 months contract so after 4 months, he is at the mercy of the employer kung i-extend yung 4 months niya o hindi. And more often than not, Yung kanyang kontrata ay tinatapos on the fourth month. So end of contract. Ngayon kung pinagbawalan natin ang employer na magbigay ng kontrata less than six months, pagdating ng six months, i-evaluate si employee.
Kung maganda ang performance niya, pwede siyang magpatuloy because he becomes a regular employee. Pero dito wala siyang kalaban-laban. Sabi naman ng Korte Suprema, fixed term yan. Hindi naman siya niloko.
Wala namang violation ng due process. Kasi sinabi naman sa kanya na apat na buwan lang talaga ang trabaho. Well, on one hand, tama.
But ang problema natin dito, wala namang choice yung employee. Ang choice niya lang, may trabaho ka na fixed term for four months o wala kang trabaho for four months. He or she doesn't have much choice.
Diba? So kaya, yan lang o. Napaka-simple lang. Hindi natin kailangan ng isang rocket scientist.
Sabi nila, Para malaman kung paano tatapusin ang endo. Tingnan natin. Kung sino yung matapang na congressman, hindi takot sa mga negosyante.
Natural, maglalabi dyan ang mga negosyante. Kasi maapektuhan yung negosyo nila. Bakit? Eh kasi pag naging regular employee siya, napakarami ng benefits na may enjoy niya. May mga leave na yan.
Whereas kung puro contractual lang yan, hindi walang mga benefits. Kunti lang kung meron man. Eh bakit?
Eh kasi nga... Diyan nausin yung mga 5-5-5. Bakit 5-5-5? Hindi ito sardinas na ipinamimigay na parang gamot sa COVID. Hindi naka-COVID yung mga kumain na sardinas during quarantine.
Anyway, at ang sabi ng presidente, umigay na 4,000, binigay 4,000. Ngayon, itong mga employer na ito, pagbawalan natin na magbigay, by the way, bakit siya 5-5-5? Kasi 5 months lang yung contract na ibinigay, after 1 month, tigil. After one month, kinuha na naman siya. Matapos ang five months, tigil na naman isang buwan.
After one month, kinuha na naman. Five months na naman. So, five, five, five.
That is circumventing the law. So, the idea is, you end endo by amending 296 of the labor code or amend the labor code altogether. Ang tagal-tagal ng due for amendment ang labor code na ito, sana yan na ang project end nila. Para hindi na kayo masyado mahirapan.
So amend 296, make it illegal for an employer to give an employment contract less than 6 months. Kasi at least pag umabot ng 6 months, may fighting chance. Yung employee na ma-evaluate at pag maganda ang evaluation, then pwede siyang ma-regular. Di ba?
So magkakaroon ka ng security of tenure which is guaranteed by the Constitution and guaranteed by our laws. Okay? Under Article 106. Meron tayong dalawang uri ng mga contractors. Una, yung job contractor.
Legal yan. Yung pangalawa, yung labor-only contractor. Illegal yun. Kaya lang ang problema natin, wala naman tayong penalty para dun sa mga labor-only contractors. Joel Villanueva, Senator Villanueva, sponsored a bill na kung tama yung pagkakabasa ko, penalize those who are engaged in labor-only contracting.
Ano ang penalty? Hindi nga imprisonment eh. Fine of 1 million pesos.
5 million, I'm sorry. Fine of 5 million pesos. And nung makarating sa Malacanang, binito.
Akala ko ba ayaw nyo ng endo? Bakit binito nyo yun? So they do not walk the talk. Okay. So paano natin malalaman ang kaibahan ng job contractor sa labor-only contractor?
Sabi ng Article 106 at ng Implementing Rules ng Book 3, The contractor must carry on an independent business, meaning that is not related to the nature of the business of the principal. Ang layakong example sa mga estudyante ko sa Arellano, Arellano School of Law, ano ang kanyang nature of business? Educational services. E kailangan niya ng security guard. Arellano School of Law does not need to hire in-house security guard.
Ang gagawin niya, kukuha siya ng kontraktor sa atin, ang tawag niya security agency. At yung security agency will provide the security services required by Arellano's Kuluklo. Magkaiba ba ang kanilang negosyo?
Magkaiba ang kanilang business? Magkaiba. So pasok.
And free from control in direction of the employer. So ang principal itong si Arellano ay after the result, not after the performance. Yan ang sabi ng... implementing rules.
Pangalawang requirement, sabi ng implementing rules, the contractor must have substantial capital. Hindi naman puro pera lang yan. Investment, equipment, tools, machineries, work premises, or office, di ba? O.
Now, for the longest time, I say longest time, from 1974 up to 2011, there was no definition. How much is substantial capitalization? It was only in 2011 When the Department of Labor issued Department Order 18-A, fixing the substantial capitalization amount to 3 million.
But in 2017, in the so-called effort to stop and prevent this endo from happening, endo, end of contract, ano, mahili kasi mag-shortcut eh. Ang sabi ng Department Order 174, Hoy, ang capitalization ay 5 million na. Pagka-corporation partnership, not less than 5 million paid up capital.
Not subscribed, but paid up capital. Okay? Now, pagka sole proprietorship, yan naman ay not less than 5 million net worth or net asset.
Okay? Less than that, ay hindi ka job contractor. Okay?
So, Yun yung dalawang requirements under the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules. According to the Supreme Court in that case of Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, the agreement between the principal and the contractor, meaning yung kontrata ng Arellano at saka ng security agency in our example, must have a provision that these employees are entitled to occupational safety. and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and other social welfare benefits. In other words, kapag kayong gwardiya na na-assign sa Arellano School of Law, natapos na yung kontrata ng security agency at ng Arellano, yung gwardiya na na-assign sa Arellano ay hindi nawawala ng trabaho. Kasi ang employer niya, hindi si Arillanos Culoplo, kundi yung security agency.
Kaya meron siyang security of tenure doon. So yun ang legal na job contractor. Alwanag.
Now, ano ang labor-only contractor? Ang labor-only contractor is only supplying manpower, workers. But it has no compliance with the requirements of the law.
Wala siyang sariling capital, wala siyang sariling negosyo. Ang trabaho nila, nagsusupply ng mga tao. Prohibited dyan. But as I told you earlier, nagpasa ng isang bill, itong si Joel Villanueva, pagdating sa Malacanang, dahil ipipenalize yung mga labor-only contractor, 5 million fine. 5 million pesos fine.
Binito ng presidente. So ibinalik sa kongreso, I do not know what happened now. So kaya wala pa rin parusa ang mga labor-only contractors. What is the consequence of engaging in labor-only contracting?
The only consequence. is that the employees supplied by the labor-only contractor shall become employees of the principal. So halimbawa, in our earlier example, Arillano School of Law, nagkaroon ng kontrata with a security agency, yung agency yun yung contractor. Pagkatapos, yung contractor na na-engage ng Arillano to provide security services, ay wala palang compliance.
sa mga requirements ng matas. So yung gwardiya na isinupply sa Arellano School of Law shall all become employees of Arellano dahil siya ang principal. Yun lang ang only consequence. E ano nangyari dun sa labor-only contractor? Wala lang.
So yun sana ang gustong parusahan with a 5 million pesos fine. But the problem is the bill was vetoed by the president. Okay?
So kala ko ba ayaw nyo ng M do? Ano? Last The last bar exam Last bar exam 2019 ano So ito yung tanong W Gas Corporation Engaged in Manufacture and Distribution of General Public Of various Petroleum products January 1 2010 W Gas Corporation Entered into Service agreement With Cuban Power Company Whereby the latter Undertook to provide Utility workers So yan normally Pinapa-outsource Legal naman yan Business process Outsourcing Ang sabi nila Ipina-farm out yung mga trabaho. Now, utility workers and up were the maintenance of the former's manufacturing plant.
Although the workers were hired by human power, they used the equipment owned by WGAS Corporation in performing their task. And were likewise subject to constant checking based on WGAS Corporation's procedures. On February 1, 2010, Mr. R. One of the utility workers was dismissed from employment in line with the termination of the service agreement of WGAS Corporation and Human Power.
So natapos na yung kontrata. Natural, kung tapos na yung kontrata, ang employer mo, ang presumption, employer mo yung kontraktor. So aalis ka na sa WGAS.
Pero si Mr. R. nag-file siya ng complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that Human Power is a labor-only contractor. Yan ako napalo sa isang kaso. Kasi ganyan-ganyan. Ginagamit yung mga materials nung principal.
Alagang tao lang ang sinupply. At saka nagpaiba-iba ng contractor engaging the same employees. O eh sino ang employer? Employer niya. Natural yung principal.
So, is human power a labor only contractor? Well, based on the facts of the case, yes. Kasi hindi sinabi na may capital siya.
In fact, yung equipment niya galing kay Gas Corporation, W Gas Corporation, di ba? You read that case of Aguito versus Coca-Cola, Battlers Philippines Incorporated. Ganyan-ganyan ang facts niyan. Na itong Coca-Cola, pina-outsource yung delivery ng mga coke.
Buti ng coke, ako rito niyong inumin. Tapos, ang problema, yung contractor, ang isinoplay lang driver dahil wala siyang sariling mga delivery truck. Ang ginagamit na delivery truck, delivery truck ng Coca-Cola na nire-rentahan ng kontraktor. Eh di labor only contracting yan, sabi ng Korte Suprema.
So yung employee, empleyado ng Coca-Cola. Kaya sabi kay Mr. Aguito, empleyado ka ng Coca-Cola. So in this case, si Mr. Arba ay employee ng WGAS?
Yes. Kasi labor only contractor yung human power. kasi walang compliance doon sa mga requirements ng batas eh.
In the case of Sonsa versus ABS-CBN, ito, Gay Sonsa, kilala nyo naman ito, no? Yan ay dating broadcaster ng ABS-CBN na pinasarado. At maraming mga misis ang natuwa na magsara ang ABS-CBN. Kasi yan daw pala ang vision ng kanilang mga mister, Alak-Babae-Sugal-Cabaret-Bar-Nightclub. At natuwa naman yung mga...
Naiwan at konti na lang kami ng mga GMA, gentlemen all the time. So ang mga newscaster daw, mga television or radio host, hindi daw sila regular employees. Ang tawag sa kanila ay mga independent contractors.
In fact, that was a bar exam question in 2015. If you would like to look at the 2015 bar exam question, ganyan. Kaya lang siyempre iba yung mga facts. The essence was like that, na ito bang radio, television, show host ay regular employee.
At sagot ng Korte, they are independent contractors. Because if radio and television program host can render their services only as employees, The station managers and owners can dictate to them what they say in their show. And that is not conducive to press freedom.
Okay? That's the reasoning of the court. Kaya hindi illegally dismissed itong si Jay Sonsa.
Now, in the same manner na yung mga newspaper columnists, wala daw kasing control sa kanila yung mga employers, yung may-ari ng newspaper. So that's why they are considered independent contractors. And not as regular employees.
Kasi nga naman, they are free kung ano yung isusulat nila sa mga columns nila. So ang kontrolado lang ng newspaper, kailan ipapublish o ilalabas yung kanilang column, but as to the content, the coverage, the topic that will be discussed in their column, that's solely at the discretion of the columnist. Pero pag nademanda ng label, di ba, kasama pati yung mga editors. Okay. Well, may depensa naman yung doctor.
doctrine of fair comment, Borjal versus Cordopopil, isa no? Okay. So under Article 107, Article 107 happens if there is a valid job contracting. So meron kang job contractor, ang indirect employer ay iyong principal. So let us go back to our example earlier, Aureliano School of Law, nag-engage ng mga gwardiya.
So meron siyang contractor, yung security agency. Now, the security agency is the direct employer. Since there is valid job contracting, Arillano School of Law is indirect employer.
Bakit siya indirect employer? Meron siyang indirect control. Sino bang ma-assign dun sa back gate?
Dun ba sa ano yun? Menlo gate ba yun? At saka dito sa up gate.
Hindi naman yung security agency mag-assign yan. So, Arillano School of Law, kaya meron limited control. So, indirect employer siya. Now, The contractor can be or should be required to post a ban. How much is the ban?
According to the law, it is equal to the cost of labor under the contract. Kasi minsan may mga contractors na binayaran na siya ng principal eh. Pero yung gwardiya hindi niya pinasweldo. Eh remember, under Article 109, there is solidary liability. Between the contractor and the principal.
So the employee whose benefits were not paid, were not compensated, can run after both of them. E binayaran na ni Ariliano itong agency. O magbabayad ba siya uli? E di i-charge natin dun sa contractor's bond. Okay.
So that's why when you read articles 106, 107, 108, 109. Then, hindi pwedeng paghiwahiwalayin because they are related to each other. So 106 to 109, related dyan. So basahin nyo in connection with one another.
So at least ngayon nakaliwanagan na natin kung ano ba talaga yung endo. Sino ba yung job contractor, sino yung labor only contractor, which is allowed by law and which is not allowed by law. Okay, so ito yung magmula dito sa Article 110 hanggang doon sa Article 119. These are rarely asked in the bar.
But just the same, let us traverse these provisions. Malay niyo, itanong, dahil nga tatlong examiners ninyo, di ba? So there is preference for the claims of workers in case of bankruptcy.
So pagkarote na itong negosyante, nagsarado na, o magsasarado na, ay kailangan ibigyan niya ng priority yung mga workers'claim. However, according to the court, in that case, in... 2005, Barayuga v. Asset Privatization Trust, yung preference na ito under Article 110 is subject to other preference of credit, particularly Article 2244 of the Civil Code.
Ano ba yan? Ito yung mga preferred creditors, yung mortgage creditors. So ang preference natin dyan, Normally, pagka magkakaroon ng liquidation yung korporasyon, diba, mauna mo nang bayaran yung mga tax liability unless meron siyang tax holiday.
Pero bihira naman yan. And then yung mga preferred creditors, yung may security, mga mortgage creditors following Article 2244 of the Civil Code. Saka palang papasok yung preference for labor.
In fact, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema in that case of Rubber World Philippines versus NLRC, kahit na meron ng... Writ of execution. Writ of execution. So i-enforce mo na lang.
And the employer applied for rehabilitation or receivership. That writ of execution is deemed suspended. You cannot enforce the writ. Kasi aantayin mo na ma-revive yung korporasyon o ma-rehabilitate. Pag na-rehabilitate, that's the time you enforce the writ.
E paano kung namatay yung korporasyon? Ali Marcival and SANS Incorporated, ang mangyayari niya na matay yung korporasyon during the winding up of operation. May winding of operation naman yan.
Three years yan. doon mo lang i-enforce yung writ. But during rehabilitation process or receivership, as the case may be, you cannot enforce the writ of execution that you are holding. Okay? Now, as a case of Barayu Ali Marcibal.
Now, under Article 111, it talks about attorney's peace. Now, in your Code of Professional Responsibility sa legal ethics, There are two concepts of attorney's fees. One is the ordinary concept, the basis of which is employment.
You engage my services as your lawyer, then I charge you. Attorney's fees yan. Ang tawag dyan ay ordinary concept.
Kasi employer-employee, may employment. Although, in the labor code, hindi naman employer-employee relationship ang relasyon ng kliyente sa kanyang abugado. Fiduciary relationship. Okay.
So, However, yung konsepto dito sa Article 111, ito yung extraordinary concept, yung in the form of damages. Nag-demanda ka, nag-hire ka ng abugado, pag nanalo ka, eh baka bigyan ka ng attorney's fees, the award of attorney's fees. Yun yung award dito ng attorney's fees under Article 111. So what is the limitation?
Attorney's fees shall not exceed 10% of the amount of wages. recovered. And that is the reason why pag natalo, nag-file ka ng kasong illegal dismissal, dinismiss na labor arbiter, ay masaklap ito. Illegal dismissal lang nga, dinismiss pa. Di ba?
Hindi ka pagbabayari ng attorney's fees in favor of the employer. Bakit? Number one, wala namang na-recover na wages ang employer. Under Article 111, 10% of the amount of wages recovered. Then second, pag natalo ang employee sa labor case, pagbabayarin siya ng attorney's fees, ay matatakot ang employee na mag-file ng kasong illegal dismissal, for example.
There was a client, nung mabasa niya yung position paper nung kalaban namin na employer niya, kami atorne, pwede ba natin i-attrust na lang ito? Sabi ko, bakit? E pinagbabayad doon tayo ng damages, 500,000.
Attorney's fees, 200,000. Wala tayong pumbahid na gano'n. So, taga-taga mo na, bakit ako kasali dyan? Ikaw nagdemanda, hindi naman ako.
So, ikaw magbabayad yan. Of course, kidding. Dahil, sabi ko, ganito yan.
Naisiguro ko sa'yo, hindi ka magbabayad. So, bakit to? Number one, hindi tayo matatalo. Bakit? Kumuha ka ng magaling abugado eh.
Joke lang yan. Pangalawa, even matalo tayo in the remotest possibility that we would not win the case. Because of Article 111, hindi ka pagbabayarin ng attorneys fees and damages. At saka doon sa kasong Land Bank versus Timado, ano sabi ng Korte Suprema, at saka doon pa sa Air Sup Makabangkit versus National Power Corporation, the award of attorneys fees and damages is an exception, not the rule.
Not every time na mananalo ang isang tao sa kaso ay magkakaroon siya ng attorneys fees and damages. Why? A court does not give premium on litigation.
So tandaan nyo yan. A court does not give premium on litigation. Okay.
So ngayon, puntahan natin yung Article 112. Non-interference in the disposal of wages. The employer shall not interfere in the manner the employee would dispose or would spend his salary or wages. Ba't siya pakialam doon? In fact, under Article 288, of the revised penal code, it is unlawful for the employer to compel his employee to purchase his merchandise.
Nawal yun. Pinaparusahan ng arrest to menor. Of course, arrest to menor lang naman. But just the same, it is a crime.
Diba? Kasi halimbawa, itong employee, ang sweldo niya ay 10,000. Natrabaho siya sa pagawaan ng hotdog.
Sabi ng employer, o sige, 5,000 cash, 5,000 hotdog. hotdog. Papayag ka ba naman yan? Anong sasabihin ng millennial?
Hotdog. Okay. Now, eh, mas malupit kung nagtatrabaho sa paggawaan ng alak. Diba?
Gin. 5,000 cash, 5,000 gin. Abay, dilasing ka niyan every payday.
So, walang pakialamang kung saan mo gagastusin yung pera mo. At ipinagbabawal po yung salary deduction. Okay? Now, una, general rule, bawal ang salary deduction kung wala namang basihan.
So, ano ang mga basihan ng allowable salary deduction? Number one, if required by law. What are those deductions?
Authorized by law. E ito ho yung mga government-mandated contributions like SSS, PhilHealth, at walang kamatayang pag-ibig. Diba?
Or, yung paragraph A, ikinuha ka ng insurance pero with the consent of the employee. In writing. Ngayon, yung union dues.
Kaya nga, under Article paragraph O of your labor code pagka meron kayong check-off. Check-off is the process, di ba, under Article 250, paragraph O, of deducting from the employee salary to answer for union membership use. Kailangan niya ng individual written consent eh.
Kasi as a general rule, hindi ka pwedeng mag-deduct sa salary ng empleyado mo without his consent or authorized by law. Yung mga authorized by law ay nabanggit na natin kanina na yun yung mga deductions na po pwedeng gawin employer. Otherwise, no deductions can be made. That is unlawful. Sumunod, yung Article 114 at 115, pagsamahin na natin, ito yung deposit for loss or damage.
Sabi dito ng Korte Suprema, may mga pagkakataon ko sa iyo. professions or occupations na para matanggap ka bilang empleyado, nagde-deposit ka a certain amount. Ang alam ko dyan, itong mga security guards, ano?
May mga clients tayong security guard before, mga tinulungan tayong gwardiya. Ang sinasabi nila, nagde-deposit sila ng certain amount, kasi pagka naiwala daw nila yung kanilang service firearm, o nasira yung kanilang mga uniform or whatever, doon ibinabawas sa deposit nila, which is allowed, no? Kaya lang, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, the following must be observed.
At ito nakalagay dun sa implementing rules and regulation naman. That the employee concerned must be clearly shown to be responsible for the loss or damage. Kaya walang negligence. Talagang siya ang may kasalanan.
That he was given reasonable opportunity to explain. Pinaliwanag bakit naman, well, ito yung due process, di ba? And number three, the amount of deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not exceed the total or actual amount of the loss or damage. Yung nawala niyang service firearm, yung baril ng mga polis, ayun ang polis ng gwardiya, nawalang service firearm amounting to 10,000 ay ang binabawa sa kanya 15,000, huwag naman ganon. At ang sabi ng implementing rules, dapat hindi lalagpas sa 20%.
of the employees'wages in a week. So dapat, e pa paano kung weekly o kung monthly ang salary? Eh 20% lang I think, that's the maximum. Kasi wala na matitira dun sa tao eh.
Now a taxi company implemented a policy na every time magbabayad yung mga taxi driver ng kanilang boundary, magre-remit ng boundary, magdadagdag sila ng 15 pesos. 15. One-five. Para daw doon sa daily deposit.
Para saan ito? Kasi baka daw kinabukasan, magkulang yung boundary, doon babawasin. Aba hindi ho pumayag ang Korte Suprema dito.
According to the court, that is illegal because it is not a recognized practice in the taxi industry. So yan yung 5G taxi versus NLRC. So illegal yung pag... Pag-deduct na yan. Kasi boundary yan eh.
So ang taxi drivers naman, we know na talagang kinakayod nila yan para abuti nila yung amount para makapagbayad sila ng boundary. So kung may shortage, eh discharge mo sa kanya. But for the taxi driver to be required to post deposit or the alleged shortages in their boundary, according to the court, that's not allowed. Okay?
So what about kickback? Bakit kickback? Kasi masakit daw pag kick front.
Kickback kasi sinisipa mo pabalik. So nabigyan ka ng pabor, eh kumita ka, ibalik mo sa kanya. Parang ganon, di ba?
Normally, sa mga sales yan, sa marketing. Kaya lang ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, yung mga kickback na yan, hindi yan ibinabawas doon sa sweldo ng employee. Dapat may special budget ka for that and should not be deducted from the salary of the employee. Merong isang medical representative, alam ko hindi naman lahat ganito ang trabaho, pumunta doon sa opisina ng doktor. Sabi niya, Dok, subukan mo naman itong ivermectin.
Ivermectin. Maraming nag-i-endorse ng Ivermectin. Sabi naman ang iba, pang-animal daw yan. Anyway, sabi ng doktor, e effective pa ba yan doon sa Sinovac?
Okay. Di ayaw gamitin ni doktor. Medyo clever itong Medrev. Sabi niya, do, luma na pala yung aircon mo.
Sabi niya, oo nga, wala akong pambili dyan, walang budget. Ay, tama-tama do, yung aming pharmaceutical company. nagbibigay ng libring aircon. Pero ipiprescribe mo yung gamot namin.
Pwede iprinescribe yung doktor. Binigay siya ng libring aircon. Yun yung kickback. Hindi yung pwedeng ibawas doon sa sweldo ng med rep na nagpo-promote ng kanyang produkto. Ayan.
Now, bid action to ensure employment. Bira natin marinig ito eh. Ilan lang naman kasi ang gumagawa yan.
Kasi nga, illegal yan. Meron ako na rin ganyan. Isang call center.
somewhere in Metro Manila, na every payday, binabawasan yung sweldo nila, iniipon, pagka natapos yung contract nila, endo. Kung sino doon nakakompleto nung contribution na yun, may priority sa hiring, ayaw, bawal. E bawal po pala, bakit ginagawa?
Ang tanong ko, bakit nagreklamo nila kayo? Hindi naman malalaman ng otoridad yan kung di kayo nagre-reklamo eh. So you have to file a complaint, di ba?
Okay. An employee filed a complaint against the employer. Siyempre may complainant, sinumpina si employer. Ang ginawa ni employer, tinanggal yung employee.
Retaliatory measure. Hindi ka dapat ginagantihan kung ikaw ay nagpa-file ng reklamo laban sa employer mo. Kaya lang tao lang yan.
Actual case. Itong employee, nagkasakit. So pag naubos na yung kanyang siklim, Pagpapile siya ng sickness benefit sa SSS under Republic Act 8282, also known as the SSS law.
Daladala niya yung mga dokumento kasi nga mag-a-apply siya ng sickness benefit. May dala siyang payslip. Ang problema pagdating sa SSS, sabi, paano ako mag-a-apply ng sickness benefit wala kang ngang contribution?
Ha? Eh two years na ako nagko-contribute through my employer. Alam niyo yung contribution sa SSS, normally ganito yan.
May salary bracket. Kung magkano yung sweldo mo monthly, yun may corresponding amount of contribution. Ang hatian dyan, kung tama pa yung pagkakaalam ko, one-third salary deduction for the SSS contribution. Two-thirds, itatapat ni employer.
So kung 300 yung contribution based on your salary bracket, 100 deducted from the salary of the employee, 200 contribution ni employer. Kaya maraming employer ang hindi nag-re-remit minsan eh. Diba?
Kasi nga mas malaki yung share nila eh. But remember, under Republic Act 8282, the SSS law, if the employer would do that and would not remit the contribution to the SSS, the violation is penalized in the same manner under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Yan na ba yung Article 315?
That is his top ah. So criminal case yan. I have handled several cases like that. Kaya lang ako yung na-stop pa.
Hindi ako pinayaran ng kliyente. So, nag-file siya ngayon sa SSS. Ibang kliyente naman ito.
Nag-file siya doon sa SSS ng sickness benefit. Eh, wala kang contribution eh. Kami ang gusto, mag-fill up ka ng form, complaint form.
Nag-fill up siya. Sinugpin na yung employer. Ay, numalaman ng employer, kinabukasan, tinanggal siya eh. That's a clear retaliatory measure. So, file kami ng kasong illegal dismissal and we won.
At ito ang bawi ng employer. Kinasuhan siya ng qualified theft. Yung employer talagang ganyan. At eventually, sige, don't worry, tutulungan din kita yan. And it was dismissed.
Na-dismissed naman yung qualified theft na kaso. Kasi wala silang maipresentang ebidensya eh. Basically, pangaras lang.
Yan ang ginamit ko yun. Kasi yung manifestation ng abugado, iurong daw namin yung kaso sa NLRC, iuurong nila yung qualified theft kaysa piskal. Habi ko, hindi namin iuurong. Kasi unang-una, panalo na kami. Diba?
Hindi 200,000 yung award ni labor arbiter. Ba't kami uurong? Diba? Hindi mo na kumakukulong, kliyente naman.
Hindi. Sabi ka, taposin lang natin yung labor, tutulungan kita dyan sa qualified debt na yan. And true enough, matapos naming maipa-execute, Ina-dismiss ko yung qualified type and it was dismissed. So, want to wa yung empleyado.
Talagang ganyan, no? At masaya ka at mag-anong pakiramdam kapag may natutulungan ka. Contingency arrangement yun. Anyway, so under Article 119, it's unlawful na mag-submit ng mga policy report.
May mga gumagawa pa ba nito? Nating-nating ginagawa niya. Nagkaroon, for example, ng wage increase because of a wage order.
So, syempre, lahat ng employer required na mag-comply. Ang nangyari, dahil required siyang mag-comply, ay ayaw niya pong mag-comply. May payroll siya na showing compliance. But in reality, hindi naman pala talaga siya nag-comply. False reporting.
Now, meron bang penal provisions ang labor code? Meron po. Yung lumang provision, Article 288, ngayon yata ay nasa Article... plus 15, 288 plus 15, 200, di 300 na, 303. So Article 303 ng Labor Code, naririhan ang penal provision.
May imprisonment yan, 3 months to 3 years. Okay? Ito.
Kaya lang, bihira naman nagkakaso dyan, di ba? Hindi naman kasi nahuhuli. E Pilipino eh.