On July 2, 1992, the POEA dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of merit.i[1] Petitioners
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (First Division). They submitted the
following principal issues for resolution: (1) whether or not the lumpsum mode of payment of
monthly salary is legal; (2) whether or not there were underpayments of their salary; (3) whether
the days-off pay should be considered as part of their salaries or should be regarded as vacation
leave pay or bonus separate therefrom; and (4) whether or not respondents substantially
complied with the insurance requirement under POEA rules.
Upon the other hand, private respondents informed the NLRC that the POEA had already
dismissed the claims for underpayment of labor benefits and lack of insurance coverage in the
consolidated cases docketed as POEA Case No. 91-12-1348 and POEA Case No. 92-01-0011
filed by fourteen of the nineteen petitioners, and that the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by its
Second Division. The decision has become final.
On November 27, 1995, the respondent NLRC promulgated the Decisionii[2] assailed herein,
dismissing petitioners' appeal. It reiterated the decision in POEA Case No. 91-12-1348 and
POEA Case No. 92-01-0011, viz.:
"Perusing the unrefuted copy of the POEA decision attached as Annex "1" to respondents' Reply
dated August 14, 1995, it appears that in justifying his decision, the Administrator held:
From the foregoing factual backdrop, the issues for resolution in the instant case are:
1.
2.
Whether or not complainants had been underpaid of their compensation;
and
Whether or not complainants are amply covered by insurance.
Anent the first issue, we find in the negative. After comparison of the Summary of Claims of the
Complainants and Table 2 of the Respondents (Average Monthly Salary of Complainants vs.
Statutorily Mandated Basic Salary and Benefits), we arrived at the conclusion that the alleged
underpayments represent the difference between the amounts under Column E (Actual Pay on
Board) and the amounts under Column D (total of basic salary + overtime pay & premium pay +
13th month pay & vacation pay). To illustrate, we take the case of complainant Agga who has a
basic salary of US$900, overtime/premium pay of US$973.71 and 13th month/vacation pay of
US$150 totalling US$2,023.71. The latter amount represents the statutorily mandated basic
salary and benefits of complainant Agga. He received his actual pay on board in the sum of
US$1,500. Thus, US$2,023.71 minus US$1,500 equals US$523.71. The latter amount is what
now complainant Agga claims as underpayment and for a period of two months, his total claim is
US$1,047.42.
We note that in arriving at the alleged underpayment, complainant Agga totally disregarded his
day-off pay or pay while on leave under Column F in the amount of US$750. Thus, with his pay
on board of US$1,500 plus his day-off pay of US$750, complainant Agga received an average
monthly salary of US$2,250 which is a bit higher than his statutorily mandated salary and benefit