Wage Order Exemption Requires Proof of Application with DOLE or Appropriate RTWPBAtty Elvin
Wage order exemption sought from the should comply with the requirement of filing an application with the RTWPB. This is one of the requisites for exemption.
The following categories of establishments may be exempted upon application with and as determined by the RTWPB, in accordance with applicable criteria on exemption as provided in DOLE Guidelines; Provided further, That such categories are expressly specified in the Wage Order: (See page 112, Solutions and Remedies on Wage Order and Minimum Wage, Atty. Elvin B. Villanueva, citing Section 2, NWPC Guidelines No. 02 Series of 2007, as amended.)
- Distressed establishments
- New business enterprises (NBEs)
- Retail/Service establishments employing not more than ten (10) workers
- Establishments adversely affected by such as Natural and Human Induced Disasters. (Resolution No. 01, Series of 2014, Resolution Amending NWPC Guidelines No. 02 Series of 2007 as Amended, page 113, Ibid.)
The Amended Rules on Exemption from Compliance with the Prescribed Wage Increases or NWPC Guidelines No. 02, Series of 2007 provides that among the steps needed for exemption, the interested party should file an application in three (3) legible copies with the appropriate RTWPB or Board. This may be filed in person or by registered mail.
In the case of Pablico vs. Cerro (G.R. No. 227200, June 10, 2019), the employer argued that complainants against him are not entitled to wage differentials as he is engaged in the service business employing less than ten (10) employees.
The Supreme Court did not agree with him. The SC held that it is a basic principle in procedure that the burden is upon the person who asserts the truth of the matter that he has alleged.
- It must be shown that the establishment is regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers, and
- The establishment had applied for and was granted exemption by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission.
Considering that the employer did not apply for such exemption he cannot claim benefits under the law.
The SC added that since there is a clear violation of R.A. No. 6727, the petitioner is also liable to pay interest on the appropriate compensation due, not only by the express provision of the law but because the failure to pay constitutes a loan or forbearance of money.