Practice question
A private employer renames monthly compensation for employment services as executive salary. It argues that the new name alone means the payment is neither a wage under Article 97(f) nor relevant to any labor-law entitlement. The parties stipulate an employment relationship, but coverage of specific benefits remains disputed. Which is the sound approach?
- Treat the new payroll name as conclusive of all rights
- Apply Article 97(f)’s broad remuneration definition, then separately examine the coverage and computation rules for each disputed benefit
- Assume every benefit necessarily applies because the payment is monthly
- Treat all compensation as a dividend after the name change
- Apply only Civil Code Article 1708 to decide every benefit
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html — Labor Code, Article 97(f), definition of wage.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_164772_2006.html — Equitable Banking Corporation v. Sadac, GR 164772, June 8, 2006, main decision; contextual wage/salary distinction.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.