578 Phil. 762
VELASCO JR., J.:
Section 1. COVERAGE. The rates prescribed under this Wage Order shall apply to minimum wage earners in the private sector regardless of their position designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid.The provision of the wage order's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)[5] pertinent to the instant issue reads, as follows:
Not covered by the provisions of this Order are household or domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another, including family drivers. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is abundantly clear from the above quoted provisions of WO RXIII-02 and its IRR that only minimum wage earners are entitled to the prescribed wage increase. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[6] The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. The beneficent, operative provision of WO RXIII-02 is specific enough to cover only minimum wage earners. Necessarily excluded are those receiving rates above the prescribed minimum wage. The only situation when employees receiving a wage rate higher than that prescribed by the WO RXIII-02 may still benefit from the order is, as indicated in Sec. 1 (c) of the IRRs, through the correction of wage distortions.RULE II
NEW MINIMUM WAGE RATES
Section 1. COVERAGE
- The minimum wage rates prescribed under the Order shall apply to the minimum wage earners in the private sector regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid.
- Not covered by the provision of the Order are household or domestic helpers or persons employed in the personal service of another including family drivers.
- Workers and employees who, prior to the effectivity of the Order were receiving a basic wage rate per day or its monthly equivalent of more than those prescribed under the Order, may receive wage increases through the correction of wage distortions in accordance with Section 1, Rule IV of this Rules. (Emphasis supplied.)
R.A. No. 6727 declared it a policy of the State to rationalize the fixing of minimum wages and to promote productivity improvement and gain-sharing measures to ensure a decent standard of living for the workers and their families; to guarantee the rights of labor to its just share in the fruits of production; to enhance employment generation in the countryside through industrial dispersal; and to allow business and industry reasonable returns on investment, expansion and growth.In the same case, the Court held that a RTWPB commits ultra vires and unreasonable act when, instead of setting a minimum wage rate, it prescribes a wage increase cutting across all levels of employment and wage brackets:
In line with its declared policy, R.A. No. 6727 created the NWPC, vested with the power to prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels; and authorized the RTWPB to determine and fix the minimum wage rates applicable in their respective regions, provinces, or industries therein and issue the corresponding wage orders, subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. Pursuant to its wage fixing authority, the RTWPB may issue wage orders which set the daily minimum wage rates, based on the standards or criteria set by Article 124 of the Labor Code.[7]
In the present case, the RTWPB did not determine or fix the minimum wage rate by the "floor-wage method" or the "salary-ceiling method" in issuing the Wage Order. The RTWPB did not set a wage level nor a range to which a wage adjustment or increase shall be added. Instead, it granted an across-the-board wage increase of P15.00 to all employees and workers of Region 2. In doing so, the RTWPB exceeded its authority by extending the coverage of the Wage Orders to wage earners receiving more than the prevailing minimum wage rate, without a denominated salary ceiling. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the Wage Order granted additional benefits not contemplated by R.A. No. 6727.[8]Clearly then, only employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase set forth under WO RXIII-02, without prejudice, of course, to the grant of increase to correct wage distortions consequent to the implementation of such wage order. Considering that NIASSI's employees are undisputedly already receiving a wage rate higher than that prescribed by the wage order, NIASSI is not legally obliged to grant them wage increase.[9]
Article XIX, Section 2.Petitioner's reliance on the above quoted CBA provision and on the flawed arbitrator's case disposition is really misplaced. Consider that in his decision, Chavez, after admitting that NIASSI's employees were receiving a wage rate higher than the prescribed minimum wage, proceeded to fault NIASSI for not presenting evidence to show that the overage or excess resulted from general wage increases granted by the company itself within one year from the effectivity of the CBA in 1997. By simplistically utilizing the adage "doubt is resolved in labor," instead of relying on the case records and the evidence adduced, the voluntary arbitrator extended the coverage of WO RXIII-02 to include those who, by the terms of the order, are not supposed to receive the benefit. If only the voluntary arbitrator was circumspect enough to consider the facts on hand, he would have seen that the CBA provision on non-creditability finds no application in the present case, because creditability is not the real issue in this case. And neither is the interpretation of the CBA provision. The real issue in this case, as discussed above, is the coverage and application of WO RXIII-02.
All general wage increases granted by the company after one (1) year from the signing of this CBA shall not be creditable to any future wage increases mandated by any wage legislation and/or issuance of the Regional Wage Board.
Chavez's decision, on the other hand, pertinently states:
It is likewise undisputed that complainant members are receiving more than the minimum wage. Although, as mentioned earlier, the Notice of Inspection Report was not attached to respondent's Position Paper, complainant did not rebut respondent's contention that the complainant members receive more than the minimum wage. However, there is no evidence that the overage results from wage increases granted by the company within one (1) year from the signing of the CBA. Doubt is resolved in favor of labor. Therefore, the overage could not be credited to the P12.00 COLA mandated by Wage Order No. 2 pursuant to the aforequoted CBA provision.
x x x x
Moreover, Wage Order No. 2 does not expressly prohibit the granting of P12.00 COLA to those receiving more than the minimum wage. It only says under Section 2 thereof that all "minimum wage earners in the private sector in Caraga Region shall receive a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) in the amount of TWELVE PESOS (P12.00) per day upon the effectivity of this Wage Order." On the other hand, Section 1 of the same Wage Order positively enumerates those not covered: "household or domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another, including family drivers. If Wage Order No. 2, therefore, meant to exclude those receiving more than the minimum wage, then it would have specifically provided so.[10]