Image by
Petitioners contend that withholding respondent’s salary from November 16 to November 30, 2005, was justified because respondent was absent and did not show up for work during that period. He also failed to account for his whereabouts and work accomplishments during said period. When there is an issue as to whether an employee has, in fact, worked and is entitled to his salary, it is within management prerogative to temporarily withhold an employee’s salary/wages pending determination of whether or not such employee did indeed work.
SPONSORED
We disagree with petitioners.
Management prerogative refers "to the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees, supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of work." Although management prerogative refers to "the right to regulate all aspects of employment," it cannot be understood to include the right to temporarily withhold salary/wages without the consent of the employee. To sanction such an interpretation would be contrary to Article 116 of the Labor Code, which provides:
ART. 116. Withholding of wages and kickbacks prohibited. – It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a worker or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent.
Any withholding of an employee’s wages by an employer may only be allowed in the form of wage deductions under the circumstances provided in Article 113 of the Labor Code, as set forth below:
ART. 113. Wage Deduction. – No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees, except:
(a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;
(b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
As correctly pointed out by the LA, "absent a showing that the withholding of complainant’s wages falls under the exceptions provided in Article 113, the withholding thereof is thus unlawful."
Petitioners argue that Article 116 of the Labor Code only applies if it is established that an employee is entitled to his salary/wages and, hence, does not apply in cases where there is an issue or uncertainty as to whether an employee has worked and is entitled to his salary/wages, in consonance with the principle of "a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work."
The Court finds petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove that respondent did not work from November 16 to November 30, 2005.
Although it cannot be determined with certainty whether respondent worked for the entire period from November 16 to November 30, 2005, the consistent rule is that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and that by the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter in line with the policy mandated by Articles 2 and 3 of the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. For petitioners’ failure to satisfy their burden of proof, respondent is presumed to have worked during the period in question and is, accordingly, entitled to his salary. Therefore, the withholding of respondent’s salary by petitioners is contrary to Article 116 of the Labor Code and, thus, unlawful.
What made it impossible, unreasonable or unlikely for respondent to continue working for SHS was the unlawful withholding of his salary. For said reason, he was forced to resign. It is of no moment that he served his resignation letter on November 30, 2005, the last day of the payroll period and a non-working holiday, since his salary was already due him on November 29, 2005, being the last working day of said period. In fact, he was then informed that the wages of all the other SHS employees were already released, and only his was being withheld. What is significant is that the respondent prepared and served his resignation letter right after he was informed that his salary was being withheld. It would be absurd to require respondent to tolerate the unlawful withholding of his salary for a longer period before his employment can be considered as so impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as to constitute constructive dismissal.
Even granting that the withholding of respondent’s salary on November 30, 2005, would not constitute an unlawful act, the continued refusal to release his salary after the payroll period was clearly unlawful. The petitioners’ claim that they prepared the check ready for pick-up cannot undo the unlawful withholding.
It is worthy to note that in his resignation letter, respondent cited petitioners’ "illegal and unfair labor practice" as his cause for resignation. As correctly noted by the CA, respondent lost no time in submitting his resignation letter and eventually filing a complaint for illegal dismissal just a few days after his salary was withheld. These circumstances are inconsistent with voluntary resignation and bolster the finding of constructive dismissal.
In this case, the withholding of respondent’s salary does not fall under any of the circumstances provided under Article 113. Neither was it established with certainty that respondent did not work from November 16 to November 30, 2005. Hence, the Court agrees with the LA and the CA that the unlawful withholding of respondent’s salary amounts to constructive dismissal.
As to liabilities of the corporate officers |
Petitioners withheld respondent’s salary in the sincere belief that respondent did not work for the period in question and was, therefore, not entitled to it. There was no dishonest purpose or ill will involved as they believed there was a justifiable reason to withhold his salary. Thus, although they unlawfully withheld respondent’s salary, it cannot be concluded that such was made in bad faith. Accordingly, corporate officers, Hartmannshenn and Schumacher, cannot be held personally liable for the corporate obligations of SHS.
Comments