Case Digest : Asis v. Minister of Labor, March 15, 1989

 

The Parties:

1. MAMERTO B. ASIS, petitioner, appointed Legal Counsel of the Central Azucarera de Pilar.

2. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, public respondent.

3. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR, private respondent, employer of Mamerto B. Asis.

4. EMMANUEL JAVELLANA, Finance Manager and Comptroller of the Central Azucarera de Pilar, impleaded by the petitioner as co-respondent for he had signed the memorandum for the relief of Mamerto B. Asis.

Topics Discussed:

1. Diminution of Benefits. The temporary revocation of the petitioner's monthly ration of fuel ... had been occasioned by force of circumstances affecting the Central's business. The monthly ration was not a part of his basic salary, and is not indeed found in any of the management payroll vouchers pertinent to the petitioner. Moreover, the adverse consequences of the suspension of the monthly rations had been largely if not entirely negated by the Central's undertaking to reimburse the petitioner for his actual consumption of fuel during the period of suspension.

In 7 SCRA 294 (1963), it was held that the daily subsistence rations given to the crew of sea-going vessels while on a voyage and during the duration of their contract, could not be withdrawn after the effectivity of the Minimum Wage Law, these being given “not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew personnel during the voyage,” the seamen being expected to serve regardless of the “stress and strain concomitant to bad weather, unmindful of the dangers that luck ahead in the midst of the high seas”.

2. Procedural law should not override substantial justice. It may be that as held in Acda vs. MOLE, 119 SCRA 306 [1982], payment of the appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality but is an essential requirement in the perfection of an appeal. However, where as in this case, the fee had been paid, unlike in the Acda case, although payment was delayed, the broader interest of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits demanded that the appeal be given course as, in fact, it was so given by the NLRC. Besides, it was within the inherent power of the NLRC to have allowed the late payment of the appeal fee.

Facts:

1. The petitioner, Mamerto B. Asis, was appointed Legal Counsel of the Central Azucarera de Pilar. Later, concurrently with his position as Legal Counsel, he was named Head of its Manpower and Services Department.

2. In addition to his basic salaries and other fringe benefits, his employer granted him, and a few other officials of the company, a monthly ration of 200 liters of gasoline and a small tank of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

3. This monthly ration was temporarily revoked some five (5) years later as a cost reduction measure of the Central.

4. The petitioner then commenced an action against the Central with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, seeking restoration of his monthly ration of gasoline and LPG which, as aforesaid, had been temporarily suspended.

5. Shortly afterwards, he filed another action against his employer, this time complaining against the Central's memorandum ordaining his relief (by being placed on leave of absence) as the Central's Legal Counsel and Head of the Manpower Services Department. The petitioner theorized that he had in effect been dismissed, illegally.

6. Ruling of the Regional Director.  The Regional Director held that there was diminution of benefits and that Asis was illegally dismissed hence ordered the petitioner's reinstatement to his former positions without loss of seniority, benefits and other privileges, the payment to him of back wages from date of his relief up to time of reinstatement, and the delivery to him of the monthly benefits from the time of their temporary revocation up to actual restoration or, at his option, the money equivalent thereof.

7. Ruling of the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment.  The Deputy Minister reversed the decision of the Regional Director and dismissed the petitioner's complaint.

The Deputy Minister held that:

RE: suspension of monthly ration of gasoline and LPG

(a) evidence satisfactorily established that the Central's suspension of the petitioner's and others' monthly ration of gasoline and LPG, had been caused by unavoidable financial constraints;

(b) such a suspension, in line with its conservation and cost-saving policy, did not in truth effect any significant diminution of said benefits, since the petitioner was nevertheless entitled to reimbursement of the actual amount of gas consumed

RE: illegal dismissal

(a) petitioner had encouraged his co-employees to file complaints against the Central over the rations issue, and this, as well as his institution of his own actions, had created an atmosphere of enmity in the Central, and caused the loss by the Central of that trust and confidence in him so essential in a lawyer-client relationship as that theretofore existing between them;

(b) and that under the circumstances, petitioner's discharge as the Central's Legal Counsel and Head of the Manpower & Services Department was justified.

Issues & Ruling:

Does the Deputy Minister lack jurisdiction to entertain the Central's appeal from the decision of the Regional Director since Central was tardy in the payment of the appeal fee of P25.00?  No, the fee had been paid, although payment was delayed, the broader interest of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits demanded that the appeal be given course as, in fact, it was so given by the NLRC. 

Whether there is diminution of benefits when Central revoked the provision of the monthly ration of fuel?  No, the temporary revocation of the petitioner's monthly ration of fuel ... had been occasioned by force of circumstances affecting the Central's business. The monthly ration was not a part of his basic salary, and is not indeed found in any of the management payroll vouchers pertinent to the petitioner. Moreover, the adverse consequences of the suspension of the monthly rations had been largely if not entirely negated by the Central's undertaking to reimburse the petitioner for his actual consumption of fuel during the period of suspension.