Cacho, Julian Paul S.

2013-0623

Labor Standards Atty. Porfi Panaganiban

1. Government offices and GOCCs A. 10 Government offices under Civil Service Law

1. National Parks Development Committee 2. Social Security System 3. Technical Education and Development Skills Authority 4. Tariff Commission 5. Philippine Economic Zone Authority 6. Philippine National Police 7. Securities and Exchange Commission 8. National Bureau of Investigation 9. Department of Agrarian Reform 10. Department of Health

B. 10 Government offices with original charter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Philippine National Police Metro Manila Development Authority Philippine Institute of Volcanology Cultural Center of the Philippines PAGASA Philippine Health Insurance Corporation Land Management Bureau Food and Nutrition Institute Career Executive Service Board Energy Regulatory Commission

C. 10 Government owned and controlled corporations under Civil Service Law 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Employees Compensation Commission Integrated Bar of the Philippines Local Water Utilities Administration Metro Manila Transit Corporation National Development Company Philippine International Trading Corporation Philippine Ports Authority Philippine Tourism Authority

9. Center for International Trade Expositions and Missions 10. National Food Authority

D. 10 Government owned and controlled corporations not under Civil Service Law 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Food Terminal, Inc. Philippine National Oil Corporation Energy Development Corporation National Housing Authority National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Security and Exchange Commission Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation Technology and Livelihood Resource Center Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation Development Academy of the Philippines National Research Council of the Philippines

2. Supplements distinguished from Facilities The Court, at this point, makes a distinction between facilities and supplements. It is of the view that the food and lodging, or the electricity and water allegedly consumed by private respondents in this case were not facilities but supplements. In SLL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 172161, March 2, 2011, citing Atok-Big Wedge Assn. v. Atok-Big Wedge Co., facilities and supplements were distinguished from one another in this wise: Supplements, therefore, constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. Facilities, on the other hand, are items of expense necessary for the laborers and his familys existence and subsistence so that by express provision of law (Sec. 2[g]), they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom, since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same. In short, the benefit or privilege given to the employee which constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic or ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is part of the laborers basic wages, it is a facility. The distinction lies not so much in the kind of benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given, but in the purpose for which it is given, but its purpose.

3. Current minimum wage for all regions and NCR SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGIONAL DAILY MINIMUM WAGE RATES Non-Agriculture, Agriculture As of October 2013 (In pesos)

REGION NCR a/ CAR b/ I c/ II d/ III e/ IV-A f/ IV-B g/ V h/ VI i/ VII j/ VIII k/ IX l/ X m/ XI n/ XII o/ XIII p/ ARMM q/

WO No. DATE OF EFFECTIVITY WO 04/October 2013 WO 15/June 18, 2012 WO 15/July 25, 2012 WO 15/May 16, 2012 WO 17/October 11, 2012 WO 15/May 15, 2012 WO 06/February 1, 2013 WO 15/ April 7, 2012 WO 20/ May 31, 2012 WO17/December 7, 2012 WO 17/October 16, 2012 WO 18/ Jun. 10, 2013 WO 17/June 20, 2013 WO 17/Jan. 1, 2012 WO 17/April 18, 2012 WO 12/May 21, 2013 WO 14/ September 21, 2012

NONAGRICULTURE P 429.00 - 466.00 263.00 - 280.00 233.00 - 253.00 247.00 - 255.00 285.00 - 336.00 255.00 - 349.50 205.00 - 275.00 228.00 - 252.00 235.00 - 277.00 282.00 - 327.00 260.00 280.00 291.00 - 306.00 301.00 270.00 268.00 232.00

AGRICULTURE Plantation P 429.00 246.00 - 262.00 233.00 235.00 - 243.00 270.00 - 306.00 251.00 - 324.50 215.00 - 225.00 228.00 245.00 262.00 - 309.00 235.00-241.00 255.00 279.00 - 294.00 291.00 252.00 258.00 232.00 Non-Plantation P 429.00 246.00 - 262.00 205.00 235.00 - 243.00 258.00 - 290.00 231.00 - 304.50 215.00 - 225.00 228.00 235.00 262.00 - 309.00 220.50 235.00 279.00 - 294.00 291.00 249.00 238.00 232.00

Updated: 05 November 2013

4. The concept of 13th month pay The 13th Month pay by definition according to the labor code means one twelfth (1/12) of the basic salary of an employee within a calendar year. Basic salary include all remunerations or earnings paid by an employer to an employee for services rendered but may not include allowances or monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary. Examples of these are cash equivalent of unused leave credits, overtime, premium, night differential and holiday pay. The Implementing Rules also provides that at least one month service during the calendar year is needed for an employee to be entitled to 13th month pay.

Who

are

entitled?

All rank and file employees who have worked in the company for at least a month is entitled to a prorate 13th month pay. I will show you the computation later. By law paying managerial employees 13th month pay is an employer prerogative. Government workers, house hold workers (although this may change soon as a bill is already filed in congress entitling them to it.), those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case they are entitled.

How do we compute the 13th month pay? The revised guideline says that The basic salary of an employee for the purpose of computing the 13th month pay shall include all remunerations or earning paid by this employer for services rendered but does not include allowances and monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary, such as the cash equivalent of unused vacation and sick leave credits, overtime, premium, night differential and holiday pay, and cost-of-living allowances. However, these salary-related benefits should be included as part of the basic salary in the computation of the 13th month pay if by individual or collective agreement, company practice or policy, the same are treated as part of the basic salary of the employees. Based on the foregoing information, we can arrive with the following formula in computing 13th month pay: 13monthpay = total basic salary within the calendar year / 12

5. Kasambahay Law (RA 10361) opinion I am for the noble purpose and intention of the law, to provide the kasambahays, those who are employed in the service of another or a household, benefits that I think they somehow deserve, and also enough protection of their rights as employees and as human beings from certain abuses from their employer. This is because in these times, as there are no laws specifically protecting them before, these kasambahays are being taken for granted and being abused by their employers with a notion in mind that they are just mere utusan and katulong in a house which the master are the employers that subjects them to abuse in the for of terminating them without just cause, providing harsh working conditions and unjust compensations. We often do forget that they serve us so we can pursue our dreams and careers; enjoy life and take vacations while they man and keep our homes safe. They take care of our children and our elderly as we work to make a living. However, the law is also not as firm as its intentions. It is somewhat a result of a sloppy work that still needs to be studied thoroughly before it was passed because of its vague provisions and tedious requirements that makes its application incompatible with reality. As the law embodies in its purpose and intention to promote and apply the principle of social justice that is well provided for in our constitution, I believe the law is a necessary step in improving our social justice system in answering the plight of the millions of Kasambahays in the whole country and creating reliable measures that affects the state of their employment.

Establishing a minimum wage, benefits, and occupational standards are some of those measures for the househelps that are provided by this law. Like any other work that we can say that is not quite done well and extensively, the Kasambahay law has its flaws and downsides that needs particular attention. First, it makes hiring house helpers too restrictive and stringent, especially for middle-income families. Thus, instead of keeping say, three house helpers, the legislated minimum wage and added costs of shouldering expenses for police, NBI and health clearances before hiring helpers and getting written contracts made, will most likely discourage middle-income employers and decide on hiring just one or two; or giving them up altogether. Considering that the number of those who may wish to find employment as househelp in Metro Manila because of the better wages may increase, their chances of getting hired become inversely proportional. And since there are hardly alternative opportunities in the poorest rural areas of the country, the danger that young women seeking employment might get lured into trades that may make life worse for them such as human trafficking or drugs, increases. On this score, the law seems to suffer from sufficient study and economic foundation. This law clearly discourages middle-class families from hiring househelps. As its requirements are tedious for a common family who does not have time to do all what the law says because they are too busy in putting more time and effort in their own business that directly affects them. As the story of one household employer that also illustrates dismissal without just cause, this employer had a household servant for some seven years. Despite efforts to have her registered with the Social Security System (a requirement since 1993), he found out she never bothered to go to the SSS during her days off. An employee himself in some private business, he had no time for such tedious and time-consuming routine (lining up at a government office to pay for anything required by law). He let her handle the chore, which was for her own benefit anyway. He even increased her monthly wage to cover all the SSS contributions. As it panned out, she just pocketed the money. Her excuse was she had no birth certificate. Her relatives in the province said she had none on file there. With the SSS now so hungry for funds and requiring the payment of all arrears under pain of the penal sanctions under the law, he shuddered at the thought that he was going to be dunned thousands of pesos in monthly contributions for the past seven years, plus surcharges and penalties! That was the deal-breaker! Under the kasambahay law, an employer who dismisses his kasambahay without just cause is only required to pay the salary already earned plus an amount corresponding to 15 days by way of indemnity (Sec. 32, Republic Act No. 10361). The choice was thus a no-brainer. Indeed, what would stop any employer from using loss of trust and confidence as his excuse? Who can argue against that, given the very uniquely fiduciary relationship between the employer and his kasambahay? Can anyone be forced to entrust the sanctity of his home in the care of one he no longer trusts? To be sure, the employer was loath to dismiss his kasambahay, but the economics of keeping her was unthinkable. He decided it was much simpler and cheaper to send his servant home than to deal with the SSS.1

http://opinion.inquirer.net/56757/kasambahay-law-a-bane-not-benefit