[NO WORK NO PAY] o AKELCO claims complainants engaged in a “mass leave” from

AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS NLRC 323 SCRA 258 (2000) June 1992 to March 1993, to protest the appointment of Mationg as
Jan 25, 2000 | GONZAGA-REYES, J. General Manager.
o For engaging in such an illegal protest, and not rendering any
Petitioner/s: AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) service for the period of June 1992 to March 1993, AKELCO cannot
Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division), be liable to complainants for wages for the above period under the
RODOLFO M. RETISO and 165 OTHERS principle of “no work, no pay.”
 On February 25, 1994, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints.
Doctrine: The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or  On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the LA, holding that
management and employee of a "fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor" remains as the
complainants are entitled to unpaid wages from June 16, 1992 to March 18,
basic factor in determining employee’s 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 1993.
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed, or otherwise o It found that complainants had rendered services during the period -
illegally prevented from working, a situation which we find is not present in the instant June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993, which AKELCO failed to
case. It would neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover controvert.
something they have not earned and could not have earned because they did not o It found a letter1 from Atty Mationg addressed to the Office Manager
render services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.
an admission that complainants are entitled to payment for services
Facts: rendered from June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993, specially so that
 On January 22, 1992, the Board of Directors of AKELCO, through resolution, the recommendation and request comes from the office manager
allowed the temporary transfer holding of office at Amon Theater, Kalibo, himself who has direct knowledge regarding the services and
Aklan per information by their Project Supervisor, Atty. Mationg, that their performance of employees under him.
head office is closed for being dangerous and unsafe. o “We could see no rhyme nor reason in AKELCO’s refusal to pay
o Majority of the employees including herein complainants continued complainants salaries during this period when complainants had
to report for work at Lezo, Aklan and were paid of their salaries
worked and actually rendered service to AKELCO.”
 On February 11, 1992, an unnumbered resolution was passed by the BoD of
o “While the respondents maintain that complainants were not paid
AKELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at Kalibo, Aklan,
and that the daily operations must be held again at the main office of Lezo, during this interim period under the principle of "no work, no pay",
Aklan. however, no proof was submitted by the respondents to
 Complainants reporting at the Lezo office from January 1992 up to May 1992 substantiate this allegation. The labor arbiter, therefore, erred in
were duly paid of their salaries. dismissing the claims of the complainants, when he adopted the
 Some of the employees through the instigation of respondent Mationg "no work, no pay" principle advanced by the respondents.”
continued to remain and work at Kalibo, Aklan;
 Hence this petition for Certiorari.
 From June 1992 up to March 18, 1993, complainants who reported for work
Issues/Ruling:
at Lezo, Aklan in compliance with the unnumbered resolution were not paid
their salaries. W/N NLRC erred in reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter that private
respondents refused to work under the lawful orders of the petitioner AKELCO
 From March 19, 1993 up to the present, complainants were again allowed to
management; hence they are covered by the "no work, no pay" principle and
draw their salaries; with the exception of a few complainants who were not
are thus not entitled to the claim for unpaid wages from June 16, 1992 to March
paid their salaries for the months of April and May 1993.
18, 1993.– YES , the evidence relied upon by the NLRC did not establish the fact that
 Complainants instituted complaints for non-payment of salaries and wages,
complainants rendered services in the Kalibo office during the stated period..
13th month pay, ECOLA and other fringe benefits as rice, medical and  Complainants’ evidence does not constitute substantial evidence to support
clothing allowances, against AKELCO, Atty. Mationg in his capacity as the conclusion that private respondents are entitled to the payment of wages
General Manager; Calizo, in his capacity as Acting Board President. from June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993.
 AKELCO alleges that these complainants voluntarily abandoned their o The letter of Leyson to Atty. Mationg was considered by NLRC as
work/job assignments without justifiable reason nor notice to the evidence that services were rendered by complainants during the
management, resulting in damages and systems loss, and that they defied
the lawful orders of the BoD of AKELCO to report to the Kalibo office. 1
"Rest assured that We shall recommend your aforesaid request to our Board of Directors for
o AKELCO denies liability under the principle of "no work no pay." their consideration and appropriate action. This payment, however, shall be subject, among
others, to the availability of funds."
 stated period, as the recommendation and request came from the or otherwise illegally prevented from working, a situation which we
office manager who has direct knowledge regarding the services find is not present in the instant case. It would neither be fair nor
and performance of employees under him. We are not convinced. just to allow private respondents to recover something they have
Leyson is one of the herein complainants who are claiming for not earned and could not have earned because they did not render
unpaid wages and we find his actuation of requesting in behalf of services at the Kalibo office during the stated period.
the other private respondents for the payment of their backwages to
be biased and self-serving, thus not credible. Dispositive
 AKELCO was able to show that complainants did not render services during WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for CERTIORARI is GRANTED.
Consequently, the decision of public respondent NLRC dated April 20, 1995 and the
the stated period.
Resolution dated July 28, 1995 in NLRC Case No. V-0143-94 are hereby REVERSED
o AKELCO’s BoD passed a resolution temporarily transferring the and SET ASIDE for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting
Office from Lezo to Kalibo. Such transfer was done in the exercise to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Private respondents’ complaint for payment of unpaid
of a management prerogative and in the absence of contrary wages before the Labor Arbiter is DISMISSED.
evidence is not unjustified.
o With the transfer of AKELCO’s business office from its former SO ORDERED.
office, to Kalibo its equipments, records and facilities were also
removed from Lezo and brought to the Kalibo where AKELCO’s
official business was being conducted; thus complainants’
allegations that they continued to report for work at Lezo to support
their claim for wages has no basis.
o Complainants further admitted in their position paper that they did
not report to work at the Kalibo office but remained in Lezo, Aklan,
claiming such transfer to be illegal. There is no allegation nor proof
that the transfer was made in bad faith or with malice.
o Complainants claim that an unnumbered resolution returned the
office to Lezo, which AKELCO claimed was not a valid act of its
BoD. The Court found for AKELCO, that such was not a valid act of
its BoD, considering its actions of: dismissing those who staged an
illegal strike and refused to report to work to Kalibo; accepting back
complainants out of compassion, reconciliation, Christian values
and humanitarian reason subject to the condition of "no work, no
pay;” and rejecting the demands for backwages for the period of
June 1992 to March 1993.
 No work, no pay
o The NLRC erred in finding that AKELCO is not justified in refusal to
pay complainants for the period of June 1992 to March 1993,
despite being paid the period prior and following the said dates,
since no services were rendered by complainants, who were then
on illegal strike or refused to report to work in Kalibo, Aklan.
o 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 employee’s
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,