Scribd
Upload
28 views1 page

ERNESTO Apodaca v. NLRC

The document describes a case where an employee resigned and filed a complaint against his employer for unpaid wages and expenses. The employer withheld payment claiming the employee owed unpaid stock subscriptions. The labor arbiter ruled for the employee, but the NLRC reversed, finding the unpaid stock obligation could be offset against wages owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only specific deductions allowed under the Labor Code can be made from employee wages.

Uploaded by

CYRUZE EGAN ANGOG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views1 page

ERNESTO Apodaca v. NLRC

The document describes a case where an employee resigned and filed a complaint against his employer for unpaid wages and expenses. The employer withheld payment claiming the employee owed unpaid stock subscriptions. The labor arbiter ruled for the employee, but the NLRC reversed, finding the unpaid stock obligation could be offset against wages owed. The Supreme Court ruled that only specific deductions allowed under the Labor Code can be made from employee wages.

Uploaded by

CYRUZE EGAN ANGOG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ERNESTO M. APODACA, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOSE M. MIRASOL, AND INTRANS
PHILS., INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 80039 | 1989-04-18
GANCAYCO, J.:

Facts:
Petitioner was employed in respondent corporation. On August 28, 1985, respondent Jose
M. Mirasol persuaded petitioner to subscribe to P1,500 shares of respondent corporation it
P100.00 per share or a total of P150,000.00. He made an initial payment of P37,500.00.
On September 1, 1975, petitioner was appointed President and General Manager of the
respondent corporation. However, on January 2, 1986, he resigned.

On December 19, 1986, petitioner instituted with the NLRC a complaint against private
respondents for the payment of his unpaid wages, his cost of living allowance, the balance
of his gasoline and representation expenses and his bonus compensation for 1986.
Petitioner and private respondents submitted their position papers to the labor arbiter.
Private respondents admitted that there is due to petitioner the amount of P17,060.07 but
this was applied to the unpaid balance of his subscript in the amount of P95,439.93.
Petitioner questioned the set-off alleging that there was no call or notice for the payment of
unpaid subscription and that, accordingly, the alleged obligation is not enforceable.

In a decision dated April 28, 1987, the labor arbiter sustained the claim of petitioner for
P17,060.07 on the ground that the employer has no right to withhold payment of wages
already earned under Article 103 of the Labor Code. Upon the appeal of the private
respondents to public respondent NLRC, the decision of the labor arbiter was reversed in a
decision dated September 18, 1987. The NLRC held that a stockholder who fails to pay his
unpaid subscription on call becomes a debtor of the corporation and that the set off of said
obligation against the wages and others due to petitioner is not contrary to law, morals
and public policy.

Issue: Can an obligation arising therefrom be offset against a money claim of an employee
against the employer? 

Ruling: 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 checkoff 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."

You might also like