Published — June 1, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Read more aside from this concept: Can an Employer Require His Employee to Work on His Rest Day?
The principle or concept of “No Work, No Pay” is the basic factor in determining the employees’ wage.
This principle was explained in the case of Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorporated (AKELCO) v. NLRC, Retiso, G.R. No. 121439, January 25, 2000.
The complainants in this case were employees of AKELCO which has a main office located at Lezo, Aklan.
On January 22, 1992, AKELCO issued an order for the temporary transfer holding of office at Amon Theater, Kalibo, Aklan on the ground that the office at Lezo was dangerous and unsafe. However, the complainants, who refused to work at Kalibo Office effective January 31, 1992 went on an illegal strike. By reason of this, AKELCO issued a Board Resolution dismissing the complainants from employment.
The dismissed complainant as stated in the preceding paragraph were accepted back by AKELCO as an act of compassion and out of humanitarian reasons, subject to the condition of “no work, no pay” effective March 1993. After ten (10) months, said complainants requested for the payment of their backwages for the period of June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993. The complainants reasoned out that AKELCO paid their salaries from January to May 1992 and again from March 19, 1993. AKELCO rebutted that the complainants illegally collected fees and charges due AKELCO and appropriated the collections among themselves to satisfy their salaries from January to May 1992. This is the reason why the complainants were merely claiming salaries only for the period from June 16, 1992 to March 1993. Are the complainants correct?
The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the complainants are NOT correct. The Supreme Court stated that:
“The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in determining employees’ wages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working, a situation which we find is not present in the instant case. It would neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover something they have not earned and could not have earned because they did not render services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]
Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything. However think of if you added some great graphics or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and video clips, this website could undeniably be one of the best in its field. Very good blog!