C. Planas Commercial Vs NLRC Labor

C. Planas Commercial and Marcial Cohu, Petitioners workers and employees in the private sector.
Section 4 of
Vs the Act provides for exemption from the coverage, thus:
NLRC (2nd Division), Alfredo Ofialda, Dioleto Morente Section 4 (c) Exempted from the provisions of this Act are
and Rugy Allauigan, Resondents household or domestic helpers, and persons employed in
the personal service of another, including family drivers.
(RE: Application of the Labor Code on wages, exceptions) Also, retail/service establishments regularly employing
not more than 10 workers may be exempted from the
Facts: application of this act upon application with and as
In September 1993, Morente, Allauigan and determined by the appropriate Regional Board in
Ofialda and others filed a complaint for underpayment of accordance with the applicable rules and regulations
wages, on non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, issued by the Commission. Whenever an application for
service incentive leave pay, and premium pay for rest day exemption has been duly files with the appropriate
and holiday and night shift differential against petitioners Regional Board, action on any complaint for alleged non-
in the Arbitration Branch of NLRC. It alleged that Cohu is compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending
engaged in the business of wholesale of plastic products resolution of the application for exemption by the
and fruits of different kinds with more than 24 employees. appropriate Regional Board.
Respondents were hired on January 1990, May 1990 and
July 1991 as laborers and were paid below the minimum In the event that applications for exemptions are
wage for the past 3 years. They were required to work for not granted, employees shall receive the appropriate
more than 8 hours a day and never enjoyed the minimum compensation due them as provided for by this Act plus
benefits. The petitioners filed their comment stating that interest of 1% per month retroactive to the effectivity of
the respondents were their helpers. this Act.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision dismissing Clearly, for a retail/service establishment to be
the money claims. Respondents filed an appeal with the exempted from the coverage of the minimum wage law, it
NLRC where it granted the money claims of Ofilda, must be shown that the establishment is regularly
Morente and Allaguian. Petitioners appealed with the CA employing not more than 10 workers and had applied for
but it was denied. It sad that the company having claimed exemptions with an as determined by the appropriate
of exemption of the coverage of the minimum wage shall Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules
have the burden of proof to the claim. and regulations issued by the Commission.
In the present petition, the petitioner insists that More importantly, NLRC correctly upheld the
C. Planas Commercial is a retail establishment principally Labor Arbiter's finding that PLANAS employed around
engaged in the sale of plastic products and fruits to the thirty (30) workers. We have every reason to believe that
customers for personal use, thus exempted from the petitioners need at least thirty (30) persons to conduct
application of the minimum wage law; that it merely their business considering that Manager Cohu did not
leases and occupies a stall in the Divisoria Market and the submit any employment record to prove otherwise. As
level of its business activity requires and sustains only employer, Manager Cohu ought to be the keeper of the
less than 10 employees at a time. Petitioners contend that employment records of all his workers. Thus, it was well
private respondents were paid over and above the within his means to refute any monetary claim alleged to
minimum wage required for a retail establishment, thus be unpaid. His inability to produce the payrolls from their
the labor arbiter is correct in ruling that private files without any satisfactory explanation can be
respondents’ claim for underpayment has no factual and interpreted no less as suppression of vital evidence
legal basis. Petitioners claim that since private adverse to PLANAS.
respondents alleged that petitioners employed 24
workers, it was incumbent upon them to prove such
allegation which private respondents failed to do.
Issue: WON petitioner is exempted from the Application

of Minimum Wage
Ruling:
No. The contention of the petitioners that they are
exempted by the law must be proven. The petitioners have
not successfully shown that they had applied for the
exemption.
RA. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization Act

provides for the statutory minimum wage rate of all

C. Planas Commercial Vs NLRC Labor

Uploaded by

C. Planas Commercial Vs NLRC Labor

Uploaded by

C. Planas Commercial and Marcial Cohu, Petitioners workers and employees in the private sector.

Issue: WON petitioner is exempted from the Application

RA. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization Act

You might also like