G.R. No. 242110. November 28, 2018


Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the January 31, 2018 Decision and September 13, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145485, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner argues that respondent was not underpaid of his salary, maintaining its position that respondent's out-of-town allowance formed part of his basic salary.

We find petitioner's contention untenable. As correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the CA, respondent's out-of-town allowance of £2.5 per hour did not form part of his regular basic salary. Basic wage is defined by the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 6727[1] as all remunerations or earnings paid by an employer to a worker for services rendered on normal working days and hours but does not include cost of living allowances, 13th-month pay or other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the workers. Thus, from the definition, respondent's out-of-town allowance is apart or separate from his basic wage or salary. Moreover, no proof was presented by petitioner showing that the allowance was part of respondent's salaries. Petitioner also failed to provide evidence that respondent was indeed informed of the alleged breakdown of his salary or that his yearly remuneration will be composed of a basic pay and an out-of-town allowance.

Petitioner cannot rely on the case of Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission,[2] wherein the Court held that any benefit or allowance shall form part of an employee's wage if such is customarily furnished by the employer. Here, except for petitioner's bare allegation, no proof was shown that the grant of the out-of-town allowance was customary and regular. Hence, we agree with the CA's ruling that such allowance is excluded and cannot be considered as an integral component of respondent's regular remuneration.

We, thus, concur with the finding of the CA that respondent is entitled to his unpaid salary differentials.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed January 31, 2018 Decision and September 13, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145485.

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Tijam, J., on Official Leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.

[1] Wage Rationalization Act.
[2] 365 Phil. 42, 51-52 (1999).