8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

1/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

2/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

3/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

4/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

5/175

3G The Court of Appeals "as in error in rulin& that an employee "orkin& under the R pakyawsystem is considered under the la" to be an independent contractor.

)G The Court of Appeals "as in error in not &ivin& due consideration to the fundamental tenet thatdoubts in the interpretation and implementation of labor and social "elfare la"s should beresolved in favor of labor.

$G The Court of Appeals "as in error in disre&ardin& the settled rule that the factual ndin&s of administrative bodies on matters "ithin their competence shall not be disturbed by the courts.

(G The Court of Appeals "as in error in rulin& that even &rantin& ar&uendo that I&nacio Tana "asemployed by Conchita Ayalde, such employment did not entitle him to compulsory covera&esince he "as not paid any re&ular daily "a&e or basic pay and he did not "ork for anuninterrupted period of at least si5 months in a year in accordance "ith !ection 2F

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

6/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

7/175

A. Payroll is the list "here the "hole laborers are listed and receive their salaries.

S. And ho" did that di=er from the pad paper "hich you said you si&ned

A. There is a di=erence.

S. >hat is the di=erence

A. In the payroll, at the end there is a column for si&nature but in the pad paper, "e only si&n directly.

S. +id it contain the amount that you receive

A. ;es, sir.

S. And the date correspondin& to the payroll pad

A. I am not sure but it only enumerates our names and then "e "ere &iven our salaries.

S. 1o", did you have a copy of that

ATT;. 7A 9A1K

0bhen you are receivin& daily "a&e of P(. ho" much "as your quincenal to&ether "ith yourhusband

A. The hi&hest salary I received for my o"n "as P$ . in one quincena.

S. >hat about the salary of your husband, ho" much

A. The same.

S. >as this P$ . per quincena later on increased

A. There "as an increase because formerly it "as P(. no" it is P2. .

S. In 3HDH ho" much "as your husband s salary per quincena

Pa&e $ of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

8/175

A. In one quincena my husband receives P% . "hile I only receive P$ . . 3DN

A7AT01 I-A>A!K

S. +urin& your employment, do you si&n payrolls everytime you dra" your salary

A. >e si&n on intermediate pad.

S. ;ou mean, the practice of the hacienda is to have the names of the laborers receivin& that salarieslisted on that intermediate pad

A. ;es, sir . 32N

A /4 I0 TA1AK

S. -y the "ay, ho" many times did you receive your salaries in a month

A. >e receive our "a&es t"ice a month that is, every 3* days.

S. +id you si&n payrolls everytime you received your salaries

A. In the pad paper as substitute payroll.

S. +o you kno" if all the "orkers of the hacienda "ere listed in that payrolls

A. ;es, sir.

S. >ho "as in char&e in &ivin& your salaries

A. Antero Ma&hari . 3HN

These "itnesses did not "aver in their assertion that "hile Tana "as hired by Ayalde as an R ara or on

R pakyaw basis, he "as also paid a daily "a&e "hich Ayalde s overseer disbursed every fteen F3*G days. Itis also undisputed that they "ere made to ackno"led&e receipt of their "a&es by si&nin& on sheets of ruledpaper, "hich are di=erent from those presented by Ayalde as documentary evidence. In ne, "e nd that thetestimonies of Mar&arita Tana, A&aton iba"as and Aurelio Tana prevail over the incomplete and inconsistentdocumentary evidence of Ayalde.

In the parallel case of !pulencia "ce #lant an $tora%e &. NLR' , the petitioners ar&ued that since ManuelP. 4sita s name does not appear in the payrolls of the company it necessarily means that he "as not anemployee. This Court heldK

RPetitioners further ar&ue that Qcomplainant miserably failed to present any documentary evidence to provehis employment. There "as no timesheet, pay slip andJor payrollJcash voucher to speak of. Absence of thesematerial documents are necessarily fatal to complainant s cause.

>e do not a&ree. 1o particular form of evidence is required to prove the e5istence of an employer#employee

relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. or, if onlydocumentary evidence "ould be required to sho" that relationship, no schemin& employer "ould ever bebrou&ht before the bar of

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

9/175

"ould be the salaries of the "orkers. And yet, the documents presented have been selective, fe" andincomplete in substance and content. Consequently, Ayalde has failed to convince us that, indeed, Tana "asnot her employee.

The ar&ument is raised that Tana is an independenent contractor because he "as hired and paid "a&eson R pakyaw basis. >e nd this assertion to be specious for several reasons.

irst, "hile Tana "as sometimes hired as an R ara or or plo"er for intermittent periods, he "as hired todo other tasks in Ayalde s plantations. Ayalde herself admitted as much, althou&h she minimi:ed the e5tentof Tana s labors. 0n the other hand, the claimant and her "itnesses "ere direct and rm in their testimonies,to "itK

MA/7A/ITA TA1AK

S. >as your late husband s "ork continuous or not

A. 6is "ork "as continuous e5cept on !undays.

S. Mrs. >itness, in 8anuary 3H%3, ho" many days in a "eek did your late husband "ork

A. ( "eeks in 8anuary 3H%3.

S. And ho" many months for that year did he "ork

A. 3) months.

S. Is this "orkin& pattern of your husband, considerin& that you testi ed that he "orked continuously,the same all throu&hout his employment from 3H%3 to 3HD2

A. ;es, he "orked continuously from 3H%3 to 3HD2 for % days a "eek, ( "eeks a month and 3) monthseach year.

S. Mrs. >itness, ho" many months did your husband "ork in 3HDH considerin& that he died in 3HDH

A. $ months.

S. >hat "as the nature of the "ork of your late husband from 3H%3 until his death in 3HDH

A. Cuttin& canes, haulin& canes "ith the use of canecarts, plo"in&, haulin& fertili:ers, "eedin& andstubble cleanin&.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

S. 1o", the other co#"orkers of yours, you said they "ere A&aton iba"as, 1arciso +ueUas, 8uan+ueUas, and Aurelio Tana, "hat "ere their

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

10/175

"orkers

A. They "ere re&ular "orkers.

S. In your case, Mr. >itness, considerin& that accordin& to you, you are only a relief "orker, pleaseinform the Commission ho" many months each year from 3H%3 to 3H2( did you "ork in 6da. -#Dand 6da. -#3*M "ith Conchita Ayalde

A. +urin& millin& season, I "orked ) months, durin& cultivation if they are short of plo"ers then they"ould call me to "ork for at least $ months as a plo"er.

S. !o, all in all, each year, from 3H%3 to 3H2( your avera&e "orkin& months in 6da. -#D and -#3*M are* months each year

A. ;es, sir.

S. Mr. >itness, to prove that you have "orked there, "ill you please inform at least * laborers of 6da. -#D and -#3*M of Conchita Ayalde

A. 8uan +ueUas, 1arciso +ueUas, Aurelio Tana, I&nacio and Mar&arita Tana.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

S. >ill you please inform the Commission if the deceased I&nacio Tana "hich is accordin& to you, "as are&ular "orker of the ) haciendas, if ho" many months did he "ork durin& lifetime from 3H%3 until hedied in 3HDH

A. 6is "ork "as continuous.

S. And by continuous you mean he "orked strai&ht 3) months each year e5cept in 3HDH

A. 6e "orked only for 3 months because the ) months are already preparation for cultivation.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

S. And accordin& to you, in a year s time, you "orked only for at least * months in 6da. -#D and -#3*M,is that correct

A. ;es.

S. And durin& this time that you are "orkin& in your riceland you "ill a&ree "ith me that you do notkno" "hether the laborers of this 6da. -#D and 6ad -#3*M are really "orkin& because you aredevotin& your time in your riceland, is that correct

A. I kne" because the place of their "ork is

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

11/175

A. ;es, I am sure . ))N

A /4 I0 TA1AK

S. +o you kno" "hat is the "ork of the petitioner durin& the time "hen you "ere to&ether "orkin& inthe eld

A. >e "ere "orkin& to&ether, like cuttin& and loadin& canes, hoein&, "eedin&, applyin& fertili:ers,di&&in& canals and plo"in&.

S. +urin& your employment in the said hacienda "here "ere you residin&

A. There inside the hacienda.

S. >hat about the petitioner

A. The same.

S. 6o" far is your house from the house of the petitioner

A. About ) arms#len&th.

S. 6o" far is 6da. -#D from 6da. -#3*.

A. It is very near it is divided by the road.

S. >hat road are you referrin& to

A. 6i&h"ay road from -aran&ay -uenavista to a 7ranhy is it that you are in a position to inform the Commission about the period of employment ofI&nacio Tana

A. -ecause "e "ere to&ether "orkin&. )$N

It is indubitable, therefore, that Tana "orked continuously for Ayalde, not only as R ara or on R pakyawbasis, but as a re&ular farmhand, doin& backbreakin&

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

12/175

!econdly, Ayalde made much ado of her claim that Tana could not be her employee because shee5ercised no control over his "ork hours and method of performin& his task as R ara or . It is also an admittedfact that Tana, 8r. used his o"n carabao and tools. Thus, she contends that, applyin& the Rcontrol test, Tana"as not an employee but an independent contractor.

A closer scrutiny of the records, ho"ever, reveals that "hile Ayalde herself may not have directlyimposed on Tana the manner and methods to follo" in performin& his tasks, she did e5ercise control throu&hher overseer.

-e that as it may, the po"er of control refers merely to the e5istence of the po"er. It is not essential forthe employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employeeL it is su?cient that the formerhas a ri&ht to "ield the po"er. )(N Certainly, Ayalde, on her o"n or throu&h her overseer, "ielded the po"erto hire or dismiss, to check on the "ork, be it in pro&ress or quality, of the laborers. As the o"nerJlessee of the plantations, she possessed the po"er to control everyone "orkin& therein and everythin& takin& placetherein.

8urisprudence provides other equally important considerations "hich support the conclusion that Tana"as not an independent contractor. irst, Tana cannot be said to be en&a&ed in a distinct occupation orbusiness. 6is carabao and plo" may be useful in his livelihood, but he is not independently en&a&ed in thebusiness of farmin& or plo"in&. !econd, he had been "orkin& e5clusively for Ayalde for ei&hteen F32G yearsprior to his demise. Third, there is no dispute that Ayalde "as in the business of &ro"in& su&arcane in thet"o plantations for commercial purposes. There is also no question that plo"in& or preparin& the soil for

plantin& is a mae nd the above#quoted rulin& to be applicable in the case of Tana. There is preponderance of evidence to support the conclusion that he "as an employee rather than an independent contractor.

The Court of Appeals also erred "hen it ruled, on the alternative, that if ever Tana "as an employee, he"as still ineli&ible for compulsory covera&e because he "as not paid any re&ular daily "a&e and he did not"ork for an uninterrupted period of at least si5 months in a year in accordance "ith !ection 2F

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

13/175

A. I do not kno" ho" much because our daily "a&e "as only P(. . )DN

A&aton iba"as, also testi edK

S. Mr. >itness, in your 3*#day "a&es do you notice any deductions from it

A. There "ere deductions and "e "ere informed that it "as for !!!.

S. Mr. >itness, since "hen "ere there deductions from your salaries

A. !ince 3H%3.

S. p to "hen

A. p to 3HDH.

S. Mr. >itness, are you a member of the !!!

A. 1o.

S. 6o" about petitioner, if you kno"

A. 1o, also.

S. >hat happened to the deductions did you not ask your employer

A. >e asked but "e "ere ans"ered that "e "ere bein& remitted for our !!!.

S. +id you not verify

A. 1o, because I

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

14/175

+evelopment Corporation Fhereafter referred to as CitylandG and that petitioner "as not entitled to separationpay, premium pay and overtime pay.

The facts of the case are as follo"sK

Petitioner /omeo a&atic "as employed in May 3H2% by Cityland, rst as a probationary sales a&ent, andlater on as a marketin& specialist. 6e "as tasked "ith solicitin& sales for the company, "ith thecorrespondin& duties of acceptin& call#ins, referrals, and makin& client calls and cold calls. Cold calls refer tothe practice of prospectin& for clients throu&h the telephone directory. Cityland, believin& that the same is ane=ective and cost#e?cient method of ndin& clients, requires all its marketin& specialists to make cold calls.

The number of cold calls depends on the sales &enerated by eachK more sales mean less cold calls. ike"ise,in order to assess cold calls made by the sales sta=, as "ell as to determine the results thereof, Citylandrequires the submission of daily pro&ress reports on the same.

0n 0ctober )), 3HH3, Cityland issued a "ritten reprimand to petitioner for his failure to submit cold callreports for !eptember 3 , 0ctober 3 and 3 , 3HH3. This not"ithstandin&, petitioner a&ain failed to submitcold call reports for !eptember ), *, 2, 3 , 33, 3), 3*, 3D, 32, 3H, ) , )), and )2, as "ell as for 0ctober %, 2,H, 3 , 3), 3$ and 3(, 3HH). Petitioner "as required to e5plain his inaction, "ith a "arnin& that further non#compliance "ould result in his termination from the company. In a reply dated 0ctober 32, 3HH), petitionerclaimed that the same "as an honest omission brou&ht about by his concentration on other aspects of his

IT6 C0 + CA !W >60 CA/4! B and e5hibited the same to his co#employees. To "orsenmatters, he left the same lyin& on his desk "here everyone could see it.

0n ebruary )$, 3HH$, petitioner received a memorandum requirin& him to e5plain "hy Cityland should notmake &ood its previous "arnin& for his failure to submit cold call reports, as "ell as for issuin& the "rittenstatement aforementioned. 0n ebruary )(, 3HH$, he sent a letter#reply alle&in& that his failure to submitcold call reports should trot be deemed as &ross insubordination. 6e denied any kno"led&e of the dama&in&statement, BT0 64 >IT6 C0 + CA !WB

indin& petitioner &uilty of &ross insubordination, Cityland served a notice of dismissal upon him on ebruary)%, 3HH$. A&&rieved by such dismissal, petitioner led a complaint a&ainst Cityland for ille&al dismissal,ille&al deduction, underpayment, overtime and rest day pay, dama&es and attorney's fees. The labor arbiterdismissed the petition for lack of merit. 0n appeal, the same "as a?rmed by the 1 /CL hence the presentrecourse.

Petitioner raises the follo"in& iss"es! :HETHER OR NOT LA0ATIC IS ILLE0ALLY DISMISSED FROM:OR= &Y CITY LAND> No.

3. >64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C 7/A94 ; A- !4+ IT! +I!C/4TI0131 10T I1+I17 T6AT P4TITI014/ >A! I 47A ; +I!MI!!4+L

). >64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C 7/A94; A- !4+ IT! +I!C/4TI01 I1/ I17 T6AT P4TITI014/ I! 10T 41TIT 4+ T0 !A A/; +I 4/41TIA !,-ACX>A74!, !4PA/ATI01 PA;, 094/TIM4 PA;, /4!T +A; PA;, 1PAI+C0MMI!!I01!, M0/A A1+ 4Y4MP A/; +AMA74! A1+ ATT0/14;'! 44!.

The petition lacks merit.

To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, t"o requisites must be met, namelyK F3G the employee mustbe a=orded due process, and F)G the dismissal must be for a valid cause. # In the case at bar, petitionercontends that his termination "as ille&al on both substantive and procedural aspects. It is his submission that

the failure to submit a fe" cold calls does not qualify as "illful disobedience, as, in his e5perience, cold callsare one of the least e=ective means of solicitin& sales. 6e thus asserts that a couple of cold call reports neednot be accorded such tremendous si&ni cance as to "arrant his dismissal for failure to submit them on time.

These ar&uments are specious. Petitioner loses si&ht of the fact that BFeG5cept as provided for, or limited by,special la"s, an employer is free to re&ulate, accordin& to his discretion and

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

15/175

be e5pected to retain the employment of a person "hose . . . lack of re&ard for his employer's rules . . . hasso plainly and completely been bared.B % Petitioner's continued infraction of company policy requirin& coldcall reports, as evidenced by the )2 instances of non#submission of aforesaid reports, ell settled is the ictu/ thatthe t"in requirements of notice and hearin& constitute the elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. Thus, the employer must furnish the employee "ith t"o "ritten notices before the termination of employment can be e=ected. The rst apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for "hich hisdismissal is sou&htL the second informs him of the employer's decision to dismiss him. (In the case at bar, petitioner "as noti ed of the char&es a&ainst him in a memorandum dated ebruary 3H,3HH$, "hich he received on ebruary )$, 3HH$. 6e submitted a letter#reply thereto on ebruary )(, 3HH$,"herein he asked that his failure to submit cold call reports be not interpreted as &ross insubordination. 6e"as &iven notice of his termination on ebruary )%, 3HH$. This chronolo&y of events clearly sho" thatpetitioner "as served "ith the required "ritten notices.

1onetheless, petitioner contends that he has not been &iven the bene t of an e=ective hearin&. 6e alle&es

that he "as not adequately informed of the results of the investi&ation conducted by the company, nor "ashe able to confront the a?ants "ho attested to his "ritin& the statement, BT0 64 >IT6 C0 + CA !WB>hile "e have held that in dismissin& employees, the employee must be a=orded ample opportunity to beheard, Bample opportunityB connotin& every kind of assistance that mana&ement must a=ord the employeeto enable him to prepare adequately for his defense, #+ it is also true that the requirement of a hearin& iscomplied "ith as lon& as there "as an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearin& beconducted. ## Petitioner had an opportunity to be heard as he submitted a letter#reply to the char&e. 6e,ho"ever, adduced no other evidence on his behalf. In fact, he admitted his failure to submit cold call reports,prayin& that the same be not considered as &ross insubordination. As held by this Court in +ernar o & .1 /C, #5 there is no necessity for a formal hearin& "here an employee admits responsibility for an alle&edmisconduct. As to the "ritten statement, BT0 64 >IT6 C0 + CA !W,B petitioner merely denied kno"led&eof the same. 6e failed to submit controvertin& evidence thereon althou&h the memorandum of ebruary 3H,3HH$, clearly char&ed that he had sho"n said statement to several sales personnel. +enials are "eak formsof defenses, particularly "hen they are not substantiated by clear and convincin& evidence. 7iven thefore&oin&, "e hold that petitioner's constitutional ri&ht to due process has not been violated.

As re&ards the second issue, petitioner contends that he is entitled to amounts ille&ally deducted from hiscommissions, to unpaid overtime, rest day and holiday premiums, to moral and e5emplary dama&es, as "ellas attorney's fees and costs.

Petitioner anchors his claim for ille&al deductions of commissions on Cityland's formula for determinin&commissions, &i0 K

C0MMI!!I01! Z Credits 4arned FC4G less C M ATI94 147ATI94FC1G less AM0 1T! /4C4I94+ FA/G

Z FC4 # C1G # A/ "here C4 Z Monthly !ales 9olume 5Commission /ate FC/G

Pa&e #% of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

16/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

17/175

In addition to the above, the labor arbiter and the 1 /C sanctioned respondent's practice of o=settin& restday or holiday "ork "ith equivalent time on re&ular "orkdays on the &round that the same is authori:ed by+epartment 0rder )3, !eries of 3HH . As correctly pointed out by petitioner, said +.0. "as misapplied in thiscase. The +.0. involves the shortenin& of the "ork"eek from si5 days to ve days but "ith prolon&ed hourson those ve days. nder this scheme, non#payment of overtime premiums "as allo"ed in e5chan&e forlon&er "eekends for employees. In the instant case, petitioner's "ork"eek "as never compressed. Instead,he claims payment for "ork over and above his normal * 3J) days of "ork in a "eek. Applyin& by analo&y theprinciple that overtime cannot be o=set by undertime, to allo" o=#settin& "ould pre64/4 0/4, premises considered, the assailed /esolution is A I/M4+ and this petition is hereby +I!MI!!4+for lack of merit. Costs a&ainst petitioner.

!0 0/+4/4+.

0.R. No. #1+ 1% Ma? ##, 5+++ALLAN 7ILLAR, DANILO INDITA, ARTURO MANIMTIM, 0ERSON DATALIO, 0ERRY 7ILLARAL&O,ALFONSO PIPINO, NOEL AN0AY and E;E@UIEL MANIMTIM, petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION and HI*TECH MANUFACTURIN0CORPORATION, respondents.

SC RULED IN FA7OR OF PETITIONERS.&ELLOSILLO, J .!

A A1 9I A/, +A1I 0 I1+ITA, A/T /0 MA1IMTIM, 74/!01 +ATA I0, 74//; 9I A/A -0, A 01!0 PIPI10,104 A17A; and 4Y4S I4 MA1IMTIM, in this petition for certiorari , assail for havin& been rendered "ith&rave abuse of discretion the $ May 3HHD +ecision of the 1ational abor /elations Commission F1 /CGvacatin& and settin& aside the +ecision of the abor Arbiter, as "ell as its $3 8uly 3HHD /esolution denyin&reconsideration. 3

6I#T4C6 MA1 ACT /I17 C0/P0/ATI01 F6I#T4C6G, a corporation duly or&ani:ed and e5istin& underPhilippine la"s, is en&a&ed in the business of manufacturin& cartons for commercial purposes. 0n di=erentdates, 6I#T4C6 hired petitioners to perform various orkers nion, led before

the +epartment of abor a petition for certi cation election amon& the rank#and# le employees of 6I#T4C6. The petition "as &ranted and a certi cation election "as conducted inside the company premises on $3 8uly3HH(. 6o"ever, petitioners lost in the election as the 6I#T4C6 employees voted for B1o nion.B

0n 3 Au&ust 3HH( and the succeedin& days thereafter, petitioners failed to report for "ork. They alle&ed thatthey "ere barred from enterin& the premises of 6I#T4C6L hence, they immediately led before the aborArbiter separate complaints for ille&al dismissal and labor standards claims a&ainst 6I#T4C6, 6erman T. 7o,o"ner, and Carmen -elano, &eneral mana&er.

Petitioners claimed that they "ere summarily dismissed from employment by the mana&ement of 6I#T4C6 inretaliation for or&ani:in& a labor union in the "ork premises as "ell as in lin& the petition for certi cationelection before the +epartment of abor. They further averred that they "ere paid daily "a&es ran&in& fromP23. to P3(*. "hich "ere belo" the minimum 5ed by la" and that they "ere required to "ork si5 F%G

Pa&e #$ of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt1

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

18/175

days a "eek from 2 o'clock in the mornin& to D o'clock in the evenin& "ithout bein& paid for the overtime.1either "ere they paid their service incentive leave pay and 3$th month pay.

Petitioners ori&inally numbered t"enty#three F)$G but fteen F3*G of them desisted in the course of theproceedin&s thus leavin& only the ei&ht F2G petitioners "ho pursued their cause to the end. )

0n the other hand, 6I#T4C6 denied havin& dismissed petitioners. It contended that petitioners "ere probablystun& by their defeat in the certi cation election such that they refused to "ork thereafterL that the 6I#T4C6mana&ement called their attention concernin& their unauthori:ed absences "ithout leave but petitionerscontinued "ith their leave en /a e "ith the sole intention of cripplin& the company operationsL and, thatpetitioners could return to their

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

19/175

4. MA1IMTIM 3)), H3.%* *,H$2. (H(.H 3,2**.

0n appeal by 6I#T4C6, the 1 /C in its +ecision of $ May 3HHD vacated and set aside the abor Arbiter's+ecision and ordered petitioners to report back to "ork, or if no lon&er feasible, directed 6I#T4C6 to paypetitioners their separation bene ts. The 1 /C ruled E

>e have pored FoverG the records and "e nd no proof to support the labor arbiter'sNcontention that soon after the union to "hich complainants belon& lost in the certi cationelection, said complainants "ere summarily dismissed "ithout even the bene t of dueprocess. There "as no record that the complainants "ere terminated from their employment.>hat is very revealin& is that the day after they lost in the certi cation election, they refusedto report to "ork for no e nd su?cient cause to deviate from the ndin&s of the 1 /C. It is clear from the records thatsometime in Au&ust 3HH(, immediately after petitioners supposedly Brefused to "orkB havin& lost earlier inthe certi cation election, several complaints for ille&al dismissal a&ainst 6I#T4C6 "ere led by petitioners.

These are su?cient proofs that they "ere never &uilty of leavin& their

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

20/175

horri ed by the thou&ht that they could not even provide su?ciently for their youn& ones. It is precisely thissituation that must have compelled them to surrender to 6I#T4C6 and seek nancial assistance.

1either do "e subscribe to 6I#T4C6's ar&ument that petitioners "ere hi&hly skilled "orkers, and that toabruptly terminate their services "ould have a debilitatin& e=ect on the company. In this country, laborsupply far e5ceeds the demand. !ooner or later, equally skilled "orkers "ould be linin& up to ll the e disa&ree. ir t , petitioners e5ecuted a J!"N "( 7" 3 specifyin& their daily "a&es, positions andperiods of employment, "hich "as made the basis of the abor Arbiter's computation of the monetary

a"ards. $econ , all that the 1 /C needed to do "as to refer to the prevailin& minimum "a&e to ascertain thecorrectness of petitioners' claims. *ir , and most importantly, the burden of provin& payment of monetaryclaims rests on the employer. 33 In Ji/ene0 & . National La or Relation 'o//i ion 3) "e held E

As a &eneral rule, one "ho pleads payment has the burden of provin& it. 4ven "here theplainti= must alle&e non#payment, the &eneral rule is that the burden rests on the defendantto prove payment, rather than on the plainti= to prove non#payment. The debtor has theburden of sho"in& "ith le&al certainty that the obli&ation has been dischar&ed "ith payment.

The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel les, payrolls, records, remittances and other similardocuments E "hich "ill sho" that overtime, di=erentials, service incentive leave and other claims of "orkershave been paid E are not in the possession of the "orker but in the custody and absolute control of theemployer. Thus, in choosin& not to present evidence to prove that it had paid all the monetary claims of petitioners, 6I#T4C6 failed once a&ain to dischar&e the onu pro an i . Consequently, "e have no choice butto a"ard those claims to petitioners.

inally, "e note that the hand"ritten letters and a?davits e5ecuted by Arturo Manimtim and 45equielManimtim partake of the nature of quitclaims. 1evertheless, a deed of release or quitclaim cannot baremployees from demandin& bene ts to "hich they are le&ally entitled, or stop them from contestin& thele&ality of their dismissal. The acceptance of these bene ts does not amount to an estoppel. 3 6o"ever, it isbut

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

21/175

Actuando sobre una peticion de la entidad obrera llamada B1ational abor nion,B la Corte de /elacionesIndustriales ha dictado una decision en la que, entre otras cosas, se obli&a a la rma petrolera BThe !hellCompany of Philippine Islands, imitedB a pa&ar a sus obreros que traba

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

22/175

decision any matter or determination "hich my be deemed necessary or e5pedient for the purpose of settin& the dispute or of preventin& further industrial or a&ricultural disputes.

/esulta evidente de las disposiciones transcritas lo si&uienteK FaG que cuando sur&e una disputa entre elprincipal y el empleado u obrero, v&r. sobre cuestion de salarios, la Corte de /elaciones Industriales tiene

ork may be performed beyond ei&ht hours a day in case of actual or impendin& emer&enciescaused by serious accidents, re, Oood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamityin order to prevent loss to life and property or imminent dan&er to public safetyL or in case ur&ent"ork to be performed on the machines, equipment, or installations in order to avoid a serious loss"hich the employer "ould other"ise su=er, or some other

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

23/175

In case of national emer&ency the &overnment is empo"ered to establish rules and re&ulations forthe operation of the plants and factories and to determine the "a&es to be paid the laborers.

!4C. (. 1o person, rm, or corporation, business establishment or place or center of labor shallcompel an employee or laborer to "ork durin& !undays and le&al holidays, unless he is paid anadditional sum of at least t"enty# ve per centu/ of his re&ular remunerationK #ro&i e *owe&er , Thatthis prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performin& some public service such as supplyin&&as, electricity, po"er, "ater, or providin& means of transportation or communication.

Como quiera E ar&umentanlos abo&ados de la recurrente E que en estos articulos se especi can los casosen que se autori:a el pa&o de compensacion e5tra o adicional y son solo, a saberK FaG en caso de BovertimeB otraba

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

24/175

/elaciones Industriales. !i este tribunal tiene, en casos de disputa, el poder de

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

25/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

26/175

e?ciency and time on the part of both se5es in ni&ht"ork.

The case a&ainst ni&ht"ork, then, may be said to rest upon several &rounds. In the rst place, thereare the remotely in No. &? virt"e oB Se tion 4, Co22on ea t9 A t No. 444FERIA, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari under /ule (( of the /ules of Court interposed by the petitioner Manila 4lectricCompany a&ainst the decision of 8uly 3*, 3H(% of the Court of Industrial /elations, "hich reads as follo"sK

Althou&h the practice of the company, accordin& to the manifestations of counsel for said company,has been to &rant one day vacation"ith pay to every "orkin&man "ho had "orked for sevenconsecutivedays includin& !undays, the Court considers

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

27/175

de nite meanin&, there is no need of resortin& to the rules of statutory interpretation orconstruction in orderto determine the intention of the e&islature.!aid section 3 consists of t"o partsK the rst, "hich is theenactmentclause, prohibits a person, rm or corporation, business establishment,or place or center of laborfrom compellin& an employee or laborer to"ork durin& !undays and le&al holidays, unless the former paysthelatter an additional sum of at least t"enty ve per centum of his re&ular remunerationL and the secondpart, "hich is an e5ception,e5empts public utilities performin& some public service, such assupplyin& &as,electricity, po"er, "ater or providin& means oftransportation or communication, from the prohibitionestablishedin the enactment clause. As the appellant is a public utility that supplies the electricity andprovides means of transportation to the public, it is evident that the appellant is e5empt from thequali edprohibition established in the enactment clause, and may compel its employees or laborers to "orkdurin& !undays and le&al holidays "ithout payin& them said e5tra compensation.

To hold that the e5ception or second part of section (, Common"ealthAct 1o. (((, only e5empts publicutilities mentioned therein from the prohibition to compel employees or laborers to "ork durin& !undaysandle&al holidays, but not from the obli&ation to pay them an e5traor additional compensation for compellin&them to "ork durin& thosedays, is to make the e5ception meanin&less or a superOuity, thatis, an e5ception toa &eneral rule that does not e5ist, because theprohibition in the enactment clause is not an absoluteprohibitionto compel a laborer or employee to "ork durin& !undays and le&al holidays. The prohibition tocompel a laborer or employee to "orkdurin& those days is quali ed by the clause Bunless he is paidanadditional sum of at least t"enty ve per centum of his re&ular remuneration,B "hich is inseparable fromthe prohibition "hichthey qualify and of "hich they are a part and parcel. The secondportion of section 3 is inreality an e5ception and not a pro&i o althou&h it is introduced by the "ord BprovidedBL and it is elementalthatan e5ception takes out of an enactment somethin& "hich "ouldother"ise be part of the sub

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

28/175

introduces special conditions or restrictions, the subsequent statute "ill usually be considered asrepealin& byimplication the former re&ardin& the matter covered by the subsequent actL and more specially so "hen thelatter act is e5pressed in ne&ative terms , as "here for e5ample it prohibits a certain thin& for bein& done, or"here it declares that a &iven act shall be performed in a certain manner and not other"ise. F $ee -lack onInterpretation of a"s, )d ed., p. $*(, and !utherland, !tatutory Construction, $d ed., 9ol. 3, section 3H)),and cases therein cited.G

In accordance "ith this rule, the provision of Common"ealth Act 1o. 3 $ "hich confers upon the Court of Industrial /elations po"er to settle dispute bet"een employers and employees in &eneral, includin& those

relatin& to compulsion of laborers to "ork on !undays and le&alholidays and additional compensation forthose "orkin& on those days,should be considered as impliedly repealed by section ( of Act 1o. (((,"hichlimits or restricts the minimum of the additional compensationand speci es the persons, rms or corporation"ho may be requered to pay said compensation. That is, that the Court of Industrial /elations may, under theprovision of said section (, order a person, rm orcorporation or business establishment or place or center of labor "hocompel an employee or laborer to "ork on !undays and le&al holidays,to pay him an additionalcompensation of at least )* per centum of his re&ular remunerationL but said court can not require publicutilities performin& public service mentioned therein to pay saide5tra compensation to laborers andemployees required by them to"ork on !undays and le&al holidays, because the necessity of publicservice sorequires.la"phil.net

It is evident that the principal purpose of the e&islature in enactin&said section (, is not only to restrict the&eneral po"er of the Court of Industrial /elations &ranted by Act 1o. 3 $, to 5 the minimumadditionalcompensation "hich an employer may be required to pay a laborer compelled to "ork on those days, butprincipally to e5emptpublic utilities a=ected "ith public interest, from the payment ofsuch additional

compensation. If it "ere the intention of the la"makersin enactin& section ( of the Act 1o. ((( to 5 the limitof the minimum of additional compensation of laborers "orkin& on those days, "ithoute5emptin& the publicutilities, that is, leavin& intact the &eneral po"er of the court to require the public utilities to pay saidadditional compensation, the la" "ould have only provided, in substance, that allemployers are prohibitedfrom compellin& their laborers to "ork on!undays and le&al holidays "ithout payin& them an additionalcompensationof not less than * per cent of their re&ular remuneration.

That the intention of the e&islature is to e5empt the public utilitiesunder consideration from the prohibitionset forth in the enactmentclause of section (, Act 1o. (((, is supported by the provision ofsection 3H of Act1o. 3 $. As amended this section provides Bthat wit* e:ception o e/ployer en%a%e in t*e operation o

pu lic er&ice orin t*e u ine couple wit* a pu lic intere t, employers "ill notbe allo"ed to en&a&e theservices of the strike breakers "ithin fteendays after the declaration of the strikeL "hich sho"s a contrarioen u that public utilities performin& public services are permitted to en&a&e the services of strike breakers"ithin fteen days, that is,immediately upon the declaration of the strike. The same public interest, thereason of the e5ception in the above quoted provision, underlies the e5ception provided in section (, of Act

1o. (((. Therefore, the rulin& of the Court of Industrial /elations quoted in the rst part of this decision appealed from,bein& contrary to la", is set aside. !o ordered.

#ara , #a lo,

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

29/175

3HH2( /esolution of the Panel of 9oluntary Arbitration denyin& its Motion for /econsideration.

The follo"in& facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are undisputedK

The +epartment of abor and 4mployment F+0 4G, throu&h ndersecretary Cresenciano -. Tra

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

30/175

bet"een them, clearly reco&ni:es their intent to consider raw n% )a%itin%an and Maundy Thursday, on"hatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid le&al holidays durin& the e=ectivity of the C-A andthat B tNhere is no condition, quali cation or e5ception for any variance from the clear intent that all holidaysshall be compensated.B*

The Court of Appeals further held that Bin the absence of an e5plicit provision in la" "hich provides for aNreduction of holiday pay if t"o holidays happen to fall on the same day, any doubt in the interpretation andimplementation of the abor Code provisions on holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor.B

-y the present petition, petitioners raise the follo"in& issuesK

I

>64T64/ 0/ 10T T64 /4!P01+41T C0 /T 0 APP4A ! C0MMITT4+ 7/A94 A- !4 0+I!C/4TI01 I1 4//0140 !; I1T4/P/4TI17 T64 T4/M! 0 T64 C0 4CTI94 -A/7AI1I17A7/44M41T -4T>441 T64 PA/TI4! A1+ ! -!TIT TI17 IT! 0>1 8 +7M41T I1 P AC4 0 T64A7/44M41T! MA+4 -; T64 PA/TI4! T64M!4 94!

II

>64T64/ 0/ 10T T64 /4!P01+41T C0 /T 0 APP4A ! C0MMITT4+ 7/A94 A- !4 0+I!C/4TI01 I1 60 +I17 T6AT A1; +0 -T! A-0 T T64 9A I+IT; 0 T64 P0 ICI4! 41 1CIAT4+I1 T64 4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1 >A! AI+ T0 /4!T -; T64 /4I!! A1C4 0 T64 !AI+

4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1

III

>64T64/ 0/ 10T T64 /4!P01+41T C0 /T 0 APP4A ! C0MMITT4+ 7/A94 A- !4 0+I!C/4TI01 I1 P60 +I17 T64 9A I+IT; 0 T64 4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1 4941 >6I 4A+MITTI17 T6AT T64 !AI+ - 4IT1 >A! 10T A1 4YAMP 4 0 A 8 +ICIA , S A!I#8 +ICIA , 0/014 0 T64 / 4! A1+ /47 ATI01! T6AT +epartment of abor and 4mploymentN +0 4 MA;P/0M 7AT4

I9

>64T64/ 0/ 10T T64 !4C/4TA/; 0 T64 +4PA/TM41T 0 A-0/ A1+ 4MP 0;M41T F+0 4G-; I!! I17 4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1 +AT4+ MA/C6 33, 3HH$, I1 T64 7 I!4 0 P/09I+I177 I+4 I14! 01 A/T. H( 0 T64 A-0/ C0+4, C0MMITT4+ 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01, A! IT47I! AT4+ A1+ I1T4/P/4T4+ 47A P/09I!I01! I1 ! C6 A MA114/ A! T0 C/4AT4

0- I7ATI01! >64/4 1014 A/4 I1T41+4+ -; T64 A>

9

>64T64/ 0/ 10T T64 /4!P01+41T C0 /T 0 APP4A ! C0MMITT4+ 7/A94 A- !4 0+I!C/4TI01 I1 ! !TAI1I17 T64 !4C/4TA/; 0 T64 +4PA/TM41T 0 A-0/ I1 /4IT4/ATI17 IT!4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1 +AT4+ MA/C6 33, 3HH$ A1+ I1 0/+4/I17 T6AT T64 !AM4 P0 IC;0-TAI14+ 0/ AP/I H, 3HH2 +4!PIT4 T64 / I17! 0 T64 ! P/4M4 C0 /T T0 T64 C01T/A/;

9I

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T! ACT! >I +4P/I94 P4TITI014/ 0 P/0P4/T; >IT60 T + 4P/0C4!! -; T64 B4YP A1AT0/; - 4TI1B A! >4 A! 4S A P/0T4CTI01 0 A>!

The petition is devoid of merit.

At the outset, it bears notin& that instead of assailin& the Court of Appeals +ecision by petition for revie"on certiorari under /ule (* of the 3HHD /ules of Civil Procedure, petitioner lod&ed the present petition forcertiorari under /ule %*.

!Nince the Court of Appeals had

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

31/175

the decision accordin&ly becomes nal and e5ecutory, he cannot avail himself of the "rit of certiorari, hispredicament bein& the e=ect of his deliberate inaction.

The appeal from a nal disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for revie" under /ule (* and not aspecial civil action under /ule %* of the /ules of Court, no" /ule (* and /ule %*, respectively, of the 3HHD/ules of Civil Procedure. /ule (* is clear that the decisions, nal orders or resolutions of the Court of Appealsin any case, i.e ., re&ardless of the nature of the action or proceedin& involved, may be appealed to this Courtby lin& a petition for revie", "hich "ould be but a continuation of the appellate process over the ori&inalcase. nder /ule (* the re&lementary period to appeal is fteen F3*G days from notice of

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

32/175

the le&al holidays as required by la". Thus, the 3HHD#3HH2 C-A incorporates the follo"in& provisionK

ARTICLE ;I7PAID LE0AL HOLIDAYS

The follo"in& le&al holidays shall be paid by the C0MPA1; as required by la"K

3. 1e" ;ear s +ay F8anuary 3stG

). 6oly Thursday FmoveableG

$. 7ood riday FmoveableG(. Ara" n& Xa&itin&an FApril HthG

*. abor +ay FMay 3stG

%. Independence +ay F8une 3)thG

D. -onifacio +ay 1ovember $ N

2. Christmas +ay F+ecember )*thG

H. /i:al +ay F+ecember $ thG

3 . 7eneral 4lection desi&nated by la", if declared public non#"orkin& holiday

33. 1ational 6eroes +ay F ast !unday of Au&ustG

0nly an employee "ho "orks on the day immediately precedin& or after a re&ular holiday shall be entitled tothe holiday pay.

A paid le&al holiday occurrin& durin& the scheduled vacation leave "ill result in holiday payment in additionto normal vacation pay but "ill not entitle the employee to another vacation leave.

nder similar circumstances, the C0MPA1; "ill &ive a day s "a&e for 1ovember 3st and +ecember $3st"henever declared a holiday. >hen required to "ork on said days, the employee "ill be paid accordin& to Art.9I, !ec. $- hereof.32

:HEREFORE , the petition is hereby +I!MI!!4+.!0 0/+4/4+

7./. 1o. #%*(2) +ecember 3, 3H2D

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

33/175

nable to receive their correspondin& holiday pay, as claimed, from 3HD* to 3HDD, private respondent1ational Alliance of Teachers and 0?ce >orkers F1AT0>G in behalf of the faculty and personnel of 8ose /i:alColle&e led "ith the Ministry of abor a complaint a&ainst the colle&e for said alle&ed non#payment of holiday pay, docketed as Case 1o. / (#3 #23#D). +ue to the failure of the parties to settle their di=erences onconciliation, the case "as certi ed for compulsory arbitration "here it "as docketed as /-#I9#)$ $D#D2 F/ollo,pp. 3**#3*%G.

After the parties had submitted their respective position papers, the abor Arbiter rendered a decision onebruary *, 3HDH, the dispositive portion of "hich readsK

>64/4 0/4,

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

34/175

!ub

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

35/175

holidays or for some reason classes are called o= or shortened for the hours they are supposed to havetau&ht, "hether e5tensions of class days be ordered or notL in case of e5tensions said faculty members shalllike"ise be paid their hourly rates should they teach durin& said e5tensions.

!0 0/+4/4+.

7./. 1o. DH)** 8anuary ) , 3HH)

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES 'UFE-, petitioner,vs.&ENI0NO 7I7AR, !n% iako or pri&ate re pon ent.

0UTIERRE ,

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

36/175

days and "hether or not the previous use of )*3 as divisor resulted in overpayment for overtime, ni&htdi=erential, vacation and sick leave pay.

The petitioner insists that respondent's sales personnel are not eld personnel under Article 2) of the aborCode. The respondent company controverts this assertion.

nder Article 2), eld personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. !aid article de nes eld personnel as Bnon#a&ritultural employees "ho re&ularly perform their duties a"ay from the principal place of business or brancho?ce of the employer and "hose actual hours of "ork in the eld cannot be determined "ith reasonablecertainty.B

The controversy centers on the interpretation of the clause B"hose actual hours of "ork in the eld cannot bedetermined "ith reasonable certainty.B

It is undisputed that these sales personnel start their eld "ork at 2K a.m. after havin& reported to theo?ce and come back to the o?ce at (K p.m. or (K$ p.m. if they are Makati#based.

The petitioner maintains that the period bet"een 2K a.m. to (K or (K$ p.m. comprises the salespersonnel's "orkin& hours "hich can be determined "i th reasonable certainty.

The Court does not a&ree. The la" requires that the actual hours of "ork in the eld be reasonablyascertained. The company has no "ay of determinin& "hether or not these sales personnel, even if theyreport to the o?ce before 2K a.m. prior to eld "ork and come back at (K$ p.m, really spend the hours inbet"een in actual eld "ork.

>e concur "ith the follo"in& disquisition by the respondent arbitratorK

RULIN0! The requirement for the salesmen and other similarly situated employees to reportfor "ork at the o?ce at 2K a.m. and return at (K or (K$ p.m. is not "ithin the realm of "ork in the eld as de ned in the Code but an e5ercise of purely mana&ement prero&ative of providin& administrative control over such personnel. This does not in any manner provide areasonable level of determination on the actual eld "ork of the employees "hich can bereasonably ascertained. The theoretical analysis that salesmen and other similarly#situated"orkers re&ularly report for "ork at 2K a.m. and return to their home station at (K or (K$p.m., creatin& the assumption that their eld "ork is supervised, is surface prohile contendin& that such rule added another element not found in the la" F Rollo , p. 3$G, the petitionernevertheless attempted to sho" that its a=ected members are not covered by the abovementioned rule. The

petitioner asserts that the company's sales personnel are strictly supervised as sho"n by the !0+F!upervisor of the +ayG schedule and the company circular dated March 3*, 3H2( FAnne5es ) and $, Rollo , pp.*$#**G.

Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the Court nds that the aforementioned rule did not add anotherelement to the abor Code de nition of eld personnel. The clause B"hose time and performance isunsupervised by the employerB did not amplify but merely interpreted and e5pounded the clause B"hoseactual hours of "ork in the eld cannot be determined "ith reasonable certainty.B The former clause is still"ithin the scope and purvie" of Article 2) "hich de nes eld personnel. 6ence, in decidin& "hether or not anemployee's actual "orkin& hours in the eld can be determined "ith reasonable certainty, query must bemade as to "hether or not such employee's time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer.

The !0+ schedule adverted to by the petitioner does not in the least si&nify that these sales personnel's time

Pa&e 1) of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

37/175

and performance are supervised. The purpose of this schedule is merely to ensure that the sales personnelare out of the o?ce not later than 2K a.m. and are back in the o?ce not earlier than (K p.m.

ike"ise, the Court fails to see ho" the company can monitor the number of actual hours spent in eld "orkby an employee throu&h the imposition of sanctions on absenteeism contained in the company circular of March 3*, 3H2(.

The petitioner claims that the fact that these sales personnel are &iven incentive bonus every quarter basedon their performance is proof that their actual hours of "ork in the eld can be determined "ith reasonablecertainty.

The Court thinks other"ise.

The criteria for &rantin& incentive bonus areK F3G attainin& or e5ceedin& sales volume based on sales tar&etLF)G &ood collection performanceL F$G proper compliance "ith &ood market hy&ieneL F(G &ood merchandisin&"orkL F*G minimal market returnsL and F%G proper truck maintenance. F Rollo , p. 3H G.

The above criteria indicate that these sales personnel are &iven incentive bonuses precisely because of thedi?culty in measurin& their actual hours of eld "ork. These employees are evaluated by the result of their"ork and not by the actual hours of eld "ork "hich are hardly susceptible to determination.

In $an ;i%uel +rewery, "nc . & . (e/ocratic La or !r%ani0ation F2 !C/A %3$ 3H%$NG, the Court had occasion todiscuss the nature of the

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

38/175

monthly rate 5 3) months

EEEEEEEEEEE

)*3 days

ollo"in& the criterion laid do"n in the '*artere +ank case, the use of )*3 days' divisor by respondentilipro indicates that holiday pay is not yet included in the employee's salary, other"ise the divisor shouldhave been )%3.

It must be stressed that the daily rate, assumin& there are no intervenin& salary increases, is a constant&ure for the purpose of computin& overtime and ni&ht di=erential pay and commutation of sick and vacationleave credits. 1ecessarily, the daily rate should also be the same basis for computin& the 3 unpaid holidays.

The respondent arbitrator's order to chan&e the divisor from )*3 to )%3 days "ould result in a lo"er dailyrate "hich is violative of the prohibition on non#diminution of bene ts found in Article 3 of the abor Code.

To maintain the same daily rate if the divisor is ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

39/175

obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have chan&ed theirpositions. >hat could be more ttin& than that in a subsequent liti&ation re&ard be had to"hat has been done "hile such le&islative or e5ecutive act "as in operation and presumed tobe valid in all respects. It is no" accepted as a doctrine that prior to its bein& nulli ed, itse5istence as a fact must be reckoned "ith. This is merely to reOect a"areness that preciselybecause the iththis consideration, it "ould be unfair to impose additional burdens on 1estle "hen the non#payment of theholiday bene ts up to 3H2( "as not in any "ay attributed to 1estle's fault.

The Court thereby resolves that the &rant of holiday pay be e=ective, not from the date of promul&ation of the Chartered -ank case nor from the date of e=ectivity of the abor Code, but from 0ctober )$, 3H2(, thedate of promul&ation of theI-AA case.

>64/4 0/4, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby M0+I I4+. The divisor to be used in computin&holiday pay shall be )*3 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be computed from 0ctober )$, 3H2(.In all other respects, the order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby A I/M4+.

!0 0/+4/4+.

7./. 1o. 332)2H +ecember 3$, 3HHH

TRANS*ASIA PHILS. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 'TAPEA- and ARNEL 0AL7E , petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS*ASIA 'PHILS.- and ERNESTO S. DECASTRO,respondents. SC RULED IN FA7OR OF RESPONDENTS :ITH MODIFICATIONS ON NLRC DECISION=APUNAN, J.:

This petition for certiorari under /ule %* of the /ules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the /esolutions,dated )$ 1ovember 3HH$ and 3$ !eptember 3HH( of the 1ational abor /elations Commission FB1 /CBG"hich dismissed petitioners' appeal from the adverse decision of the labor arbiter and denied petitioners'motion for reconsideration, respectively.

The antecedents of this case are as follo"sK

0n D 8uly 3H22, Trans#Asia Philippines 4mployees Association FTAP4AG, the duly#reco&ni:ed collectivebar&ainin& a&ent of the monthly#paid rank#and# le employees of Trans#Asia FPhils.G, entered into a Collective-ar&ainin& A&reement FBC-ABG "ith their employer. The C-A, "hich "as to be e=ective from 3 April 3H22 upto $3 March 3HH3, provided for, amon& others, the payment of holiday pay "ith a stipulation that if anemployee is permitted to "ork on a le&al holiday, the said employee "ill receive a salary equivalent to ) [

Pa&e 1 of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

40/175

of the re&ular daily "a&e plus a % [ premium pay.

+espite the conclusion of the C-A, ho"ever, an issue "as still left unresolved "ith re&ard to the claim of TAP4A for payment of holiday pay coverin& the period from 8anuary of 3H2* up to +ecember of 3H2D. Thus,the parties under"ent preventive mediation meetin&s "ith a representative from the 1ational Mediation andConciliation -oard in order to settle their disa&reement on this particular issue. !ince the parties "ere notable to arrive at an amicable settlement despite the conciliation meetin&s, TAP4A, led by its President,petitioner Arnie 7alve:, led a complaint before the labor arbiter, on 32 Au&ust 3H22, for the payment of theirholiday pay in arrears. 0n 32 !eptember 3H22, petitioners amended their complaint to include the payment

of holiday pay for the duration of the recently concluded C-A Ffrom 3H22 to 3HH3G, unfair labor practice,dama&es and attorney's fees.

In their Position Paper, petitioners contended that their claim for holiday pay in arrears is based on the non#inclusion of the same in their monthly pay. In this re&ard, petitioners cited certain circumstances "hich,accordin& to them, "ould support their claim for past due holiday pay. irst, petitioners presented Trans#Asia's4mployees' Manual "hich requires, as a pre#condition for the payment of holiday pay, that the employeeshould have "orked or "as on authori:ed leave "ith pay on the day immediately precedin& the le&al holiday.Petitioners ar&ued that Bif the intention of Trans#AsiaN "as not to pay holiday pay in addition to theemployee's monthly pay, then there "ould be no need to impose or specify the pre#condition for thepayment.B # !econd, petitioners pro=ered as evidence their appointment papers "hich do not contain anystipulation on the inclusion of holiday pay in their monthly salary. Accordin& to petitioners, the absence of such stipulation is an indication that the mandated holiday pay is not incorporated in the monthly salary.

Third, petitioners noted the inclusion of a provision in the C-A for the payment of an amount equivalent to) [ of the re&ular daily "a&e plus % [ premium pay to employees "ho are permitted to "ork on a re&ular

holiday. Petitioners claimed that this very &enerous provision "as the remedy availed of by Trans#Asia to allo"its employees to recoup the holiday pay in arrears and, as such, is a tacit admission of the non#payment of the same durin& the period prior to the current C-A.

inally, petitioners cited the current C-A provision "hich obli&ates Trans#Asia to &ive holiday pay. Petitionersasserted that this provision is an ackno"led&ment by Trans#Asia of its failure to pay the same in the pastsince, if it "as already &ivin& holiday pay prior to the C-A, there "as no need to stipulate on the saidobli&ation in the current C-A.

>ith re&ard to the claim for the payment of holiday pay for the duration of the C-A, the accusation of unfairlabor practice and the claim for dama&es and attorney's fees, petitioners asserted that Trans#Asia is &uilty of bad faith in ne&otiatin& and e5ecutin& the current C-A since, after it reco&ni:ed the ri&ht of the employees toreceive holiday pay, Trans#Asia alle&edly refused to honor the C-A provision on the same.

In response to petitioner's contentions, Trans#Asia refuted the same in eriati/ . >ith re&ard to the pre#condition for the payment of holiday pay stated in the 4mployees' Manual and the absence of a stipulation onholiday pay in the employees' appointment papers, Trans#Asia asserted that the above circumstances are notindicative of its non#payment of holiday pay since it has al"ays honored the labor la" provisions on holidaypay by incorporatin& the same in the payment of the monthly salaries of its employees. In support of thisclaim, Trans#Asia pointed out that it has lon& been the standin& practice of the company to use the divisor of B)2%B days in computin& for its employees' overtime pay and daily rate deductions for absences. Trans#Asiae5plained that this divisor is arrived at throu&h the follo"in& formulaK

*) 5 ((

EEEE Z )2% days

2

>hereK *) Z number of "eeks in a year

(( Z number of "ork hours per "eek

2 Z number of "ork hours per day Trans#Asia further clari ed that the B)2%B days divisor already takes into account the ten F3 G re&ularholidays in a year since it only subtracts from the $%* calendar days the un"orked and unpaid *)!undays and )% !aturdays Femployees are required to "ork half#day durin& !aturdaysG. Trans#Asiaclaimed that if the ten F3 G re&ular holidays "ere not included in the computation of their employees'monthly salary, the divisor "hich they "ould have used "ould only be )DD days "hich is arrived at bysubtractin& *) !undays, )% !aturdays and the 3 le&al holidays from $%* calendar days. urthermore,

Trans#Asia e5plained that the B)2%B days divisor is based on /epublic Act 1o. %%( , 5 "herein thedivisor of )%) days Fcomposed of the )*) "orkin& days and the 3 le&al holidaysG is used incomputin& for the monthly rate of "orkers "ho do not "ork and are not considered paid on !aturdaysand !undays or rest days. Accordin& to Trans#Asia, if the additional )% "orkin& !aturdays in a year is

Pa&e 4+ of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

41/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

42/175

!0 0/+4/4+. 1Petitioners appealed to the 1ational abor /elations Commission. In its /esolution, dated )$ 1ovember 3HH$,the 1 /C dismissed the appeal and a?rmed the decision of the labor arbiter, to "itK

>e nd no co&ent reason to chan&e or disturb the decision appealed from, the same bein&substantially supported by the facts and evidence on record. BIt is a "ell#settled rule thatndin&s of facts of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence are controllin& onthe revie"in& authority.B FPlanters Products, Inc. vs. 1 /C, 7./. 1o. D2*)( @ D2D$H, 8anuary) , 3H2HL 3%H !C/A $)2G.

>e nd no abuse of discretion andJor error in the assailed decision.

>64/4 0/4, the appeal are F ic G hereby +I!MI!!4+ for lack of merit and the decisionappealed from is A I/M4+.

!0 0/+4/4+. 4Petitioners' motion for reconsideration "as, like"ise, denied by the 1 /C in its /esolution, dated 3$!eptember 3HH(.

Petitioners are no" before us faultin& the 1 /C "ith the follo"in& assi&nment of errorsK

I

P - IC /4!P01+41T ACT4+ >IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 I1 P60 +I17 T64 A-0/A/-IT4/'! +4CI!I01 +4!PIT4 T64 ACX 0 ! -!TA1TIA 49I+41C4 T0 ! PP0/T IT

II

I1 P60 +I17 T64 A-0/ A/-IT4/'! +4CI!I01 +4!PIT4 T64 ACX 0 ! -!TA1TIA49I+41C4 T0 ! PP0/T IT, P - IC /4!P01+41T 1 /C 9I0 AT4+ T64 C01!TIT TI01A A1+47A MA1+AT4 T0 /4!0 94 A +0 -T! I1 !0CIA 47I! ATI01 I1 A90/ 0 A-0/. %

Petitioners, in furtherance of their rst assi&nment of error, assert that the 1 /C Bblatantly and unashamedlydisre&ardedB the numerous evidence in support of their claim and relied merely on the sole evidencepresented by Trans#Asia, the B)2%B days divisor, in dismissin& their appeal and, in so doin&, is &uilty of &raveabuse of discretion. )>e do not a&ree.

RULIN0! Trans#Asia's inclusion of holiday pay in petitioners' monthly salary is clearly established by itsconsistent use of the divisor of B)2%B days in the computation of its employees' bene ts and deductions. Theuse by Trans#Asia of the B)2%B days divisor "as never disputed by petitioners. A simple application of mathematics "ould reveal that the ten F3 G le&al holidays in a year are already accounted for "ith the use of the said divisor. As e5plained by Trans#Asia, if one is to deduct the un"orked *) !undays and )% !aturdaysFderived by dividin& *) !aturdays in half since petitioners are required to "ork half#day on !aturdaysG fromthe $%* calendar days in a year, the resultin& divisor "ould be )2% days Fshould actually be )2D daysG. !incethe ten F3 G le&al holidays "ere never included in subtractin& the un"orked and unpaid days in a calendaryear, the only lo&ical conclusion "ould be that the payment for holiday pay is already incorporated into thesaid divisor. Thus, "hen vie"ed a&ainst this very convincin& piece of evidence, the ar&uments put for"ard bypetitioners to support their claim of non#payment of holiday pay, i.e ., the pre#condition stated in the4mployees' Manual for entitlement to holiday pay, the absence of a stipulation in the employees'appointment papers for the inclusion of holiday pay in their monthly salary, the stipulation in the C-Areco&ni:in& the entitlement of the petitioners to holiday pay "ith a concomitant provision for the &rantin& of an Balle&edlyB very &enerous holiday pay rate, "ould appear to be merely inferences and suppositions "hich,in the apropos "ords of the labor arbiter, Bpaled in the face of the prevailin& company practices andcircumstances abovestated.B

6ence, it is on account of the convincin& and le&ally sound ar&uments and evidence of Trans#Asia that thelabor arbiter rendered a decision adverse to petitioners. Ackno"led&in& that the decision of the labor arbiter"as based on substantial evidence, the 1 /C a?rmed the former's disposition. It is also "ith thisackno"led&ment that the Court a?rms the questioned resolutions of the 1 /C. As aptly put by the !olicitor7eneral, citin& $un et 7iew 'on o/iniu/ 'orporation & . NLR' , $ B ndin&s of fact of administrative bodiesshould not be disturbed in the absence of &rave abuse of discretion or unless the ndin&s are not supportedby substantial evidence.B ( In this re&ard, the !olicitor 7eneral observedK BAs said above, public respondentacted on the basis of substantial evidence, hence, &rave abuse of discretion is ruled out.B

6o"ever, petitioners insist that the a&reement of Trans#Asia in the C-A to &ive a &enerous )% [ holiday payrate to employees "ho "ork on a holiday is conclusive proof that the monthly pay of petitioners does notinclude holiday pay. #+ Petitioners cite as basis the case of '*artere +ank /ployee ociation

Pa&e 45 of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

43/175

& . !ple , ## "hich readsKAny remainin& doubts "hich may arise from the conOictin& or di=erent divisors used in thecomputation of overtime pay and employees' absences are resolved by the manner in "hich"ork actually rendered on holidays is paid. Thus, "henever monthly paid employees "ork ona holiday, they are &iven an additional 3 [ base pay on top of a premium pay of * [. If theemployees' monthly pay already includes their salaries for holidays, they should be paid onlypremium pay but not both base pay and premium pay. #5

>e are not convinced. The cited case cannot be relied upon by petitioners since the facts obtainin& in theChartered -ank case are very di=erent from those in the present case. In the Chartered -ank case, the bankused di=erent divisors in computin& for its employees bene ts and deductions. or computin& overtimecompensation, the bank used )*3 days as its divisor. 0n the other hand, for computin& deductions due toabsences, the bank used $%* days as divisor. +ue to this confusin& situation, the Court declared that theree5isted a doubt as to "hether holiday pay is already incorporated in the employees' monthly salary. !incedoubts should be resolved in favor of labor, the Court in the Chartered -ank case ruled in favor of theemployees and further stated that its conclusion is forti ed by the manner in "hich the employees areremunerated for "ork rendered on holidays. In the present case, ho"ever, there is no confusion "ith re&ardto the divisor used by Trans#Asia in computin& for petitioners' bene ts and deductions. Trans#Asia consistentlyused a B)2%B days divisor for all its computations.

1evertheless, petitioners' cause is not entirely lost. The Court notes that there is a need to ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

44/175

/ate F4M/G 3)

>here )%) days Z

)* days E 0rdinary "orkin& days

3 days E /e&ular holidays

) days E !pecial days FIf considered paidL if actually

"orked, this is equivalent to ).% daysG

EEEE

)%) days E Total equivalent number of days

-ased on the above, the proper divisor that should be used for a situation "herein the employees do not "orkand are not considered paid on !aturdays and !undays or rest days is )%) days. In the present case, sincethe employees of Trans#Asia are required to "ork half#day on !aturdays, )% days should be added to thedivisor of )%) days, thus, resultin& to )22 days. 6o"ever, due to the fact that the rest days of petitioners fallon a !unday, the number of un"orked but paid le&al holidays should be reduced to nine FHG, instead of tenF3 G, since one le&al holiday under 4.0. 1o. ) $ al"ays falls on the last !unday of Au&ust, 1ational 6eroes+ay. Thus, the divisor that should be used in the present case should be )2D days.

6o"ever, the Court notes that if the divisor is increased to )2D days, the resultin& daily rate for purposes of overtime pay, holiday pay and conversions of accumulated leaves "ould be diminished. To illustrate, if anemployee receives P2, . as his monthly salary, his daily rate "ould be P$$(.(H, computed as follo"sK

P2, . 5 3) months

EEEEEEEEEE Z P$$(.(HJday

)2D days

>hereas if the divisor used is only )2% days, the employee's daily rate "ould be P$$*.%%, computedas follo"sK

P2, . 5 3) months

EEEEEEEEEE Z P$$*.%%Jday

)2% days

Clearly, this muddled situation "ould be violative of the proscription on the non#diminution of bene tsunder !ection 3 of the abor Code. 0n the other hand, the use of the divisor of )2D days "ould be

to the advanta&e of petitioners if it is used for purposes of computin& for deductions due to theemployee's absences. In vie" of this situation, the Court rules that the ad64/4 0/4, premises considered, the /esolutions of the 1 /C, dated )$ 1ovember 3HH$ and 3$ !eptember3HH(, are hereby A I/M4+ "ith the M0+I ICATI01 that Trans#Asia is hereby ordered to ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

45/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

46/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

47/175

$. Permanent total loss of si&ht of !_D,*

one eye

(. oss of t"o limbs !_3*,

*. oss of one limb !_D,*

%. Permanent total !_3*,

loss of si&ht of

one eye and loss

of one limb

D. Permanent total !_3*,

disablement

Fother than loss of

si&ht of one eye or

both eyes or loss

of limbG

9erily, the bene ts provided therein are far &reater than mandated by la"

"hich is P* , . for death due to accident.In an appeal dated ebruary )%, 3HH$, the complainants questioned the aforesaid decision.

They, ho"ever, limited their appeal to claims for additional vacation pay and insurancecovera&e.

555 555 555

FIGt then follo"s that to the e5tent that the P04A has concluded that there is Bno case of underpayment at bar,B the same has to be bindin&ly observed by us &i -a-&i complainants'submitted issue in their draft decision of BF)G "hether or not there had been underpaymentsas claimed by appellants under the provisions of P+ (().B

Moreover, on 8une 3$, 3HH*, the !econd +ivision of this Commission dismissed complainants'appeal Bfor lack of merit.B At the end of its e5tended resolution, the Commission concludedthat the complainants failed Bto sho" in a satisfactory manner the facts upon "hichB theybased their claims.

555 555 555

This thus disposes the third and fourth issues advanced by complainants for our resolution intheir earlier mentioned draft resolution.

555 555 555

4ven the rst issue submitted to us for our resolution F"hich, in their draft resolution, hasbeen de ned by complainants as B"hether or not the lumpsum mode of payment of appellants' monthly salary is le&alBG "as, for all le&al intents and purposes, already resolved inthat other case for inherently submitted for the resolution of the P04A and the !econd+ivision of this Commission in that other case "as the question of "hether or not the B 5edsalaryB mode of payment stipulated in the parties' contract "as valid. The P04A Administratorcould not have concluded that B"e see no case of underpayment at barB if, in his opinion, theparties' B 5ed salaryB mode of compensation "as ille&al, a"are that such declaration of nullity"as precisely the end#&oal of complainants' complaint.

!imilarly, the 1 /C !econd +ivision "ould not have dismissed complainants' appeal if it "ereof the vie", as ar&ued by complainants, that respondent !0!' lumpsum mode of payment "asille&al.

Indeed, our resolvin& said rst issue ane" "ould amount to a duplicitous e5ercise of appellate

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

48/175

I

>64T60 4/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T +4C A/I17 T6AT T64 MP! M M0+4 0 PA;M41T 0 P4TITI014/!' M01T6;!A A/I4! -; P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T! I! I 47A

II

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T 0/+4/I17 P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T!, 80I1T; A1+ !494/A ;, T0 PA; T64 A+MITT4+1+4/PA;M41T! A! !60>1 -; P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T!' C0MP TATI01 A1+ -A!4+ 01P4TITI014/!' /47 A/ >A74! A1+ 47A 0/M A! 0/ C0MP TI17 094/TIM4 PA;,60 I+A;J/4!T +A; PA;, 3$T6 M01T6 PA; A1+ 1I76T !6I T +I 4/41TIA !

III

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T +4C A/I17 T64 +A;!#0 PA; A! -01 ! A1+ 10T PA/T 0 P4TITI014/!' !A A/I4!>6IC6 C0 + 10T 0 !4T T64 A+MITT4+ 1+4/PA;M41T!

I9

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/

>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T 0/+4/I17 T64 P6I IPPI14 094/!4A! 4MP 0;M41T A+MI1I!T/ATI01 FP04AG T0 C0MP ;>IT6 IT! MA1+AT4+ + T; T0 !4T P !TA1+A/+ 4MP 0;M41T C01T/ACT A1+ 7 I+I17/AT4! 0/ 0I /I7 >0/X4/! IX4 P4TITI014/!

9

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T +4C A/I17 T6AT P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T! AI 4+ T0 C0MP; >IT6 T64 47A/4S I/4M41T 0 MA1+AT0/; P4/!01A I1! /A1C4 P/09I+4+ I1 T64 P04A / 4! A1+/47 ATI01! A1+ I1 A 0>I17 P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T! T0 I1! /4 P4TITI014/! >IT6 A0/4I71 I1! /A1C4 C0MPA1; I 47A ; +0I17 - !I14!! I1 T64 P6I IPPI14!

9I

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T P41A I I17 P/I9AT4 /4!P01+41T ! PP; 0I I4 + !4/9IC4!, I1C. -; >A; 0! !P41!I01 0/ CA1C4 ATI01 0 IT! IC41!4 A! !4/9IC4 C01T/ACT0/ +4!PIT4 IT!A+MI!!I01 T6AT IT 0/+4/! P4TITI014/! A1+ 0T64/ 0I /I7 >0/X4/! T0 A T4/ T/A94+0C M41T! -; !I17 T>0 F)G PA!!P0/T! F0C> A1+ !4AMA1'! -00XG + /I17 T64I/4MP 0;M41T

9II

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT60 T 0/ I1 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 0/>IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01 AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I110T A>A/+I17 +AMA74! A1+ ATT0/14;'! 44! T0 P4TITI014/!

9III

>64T64/ 0/ 10T /4!P01+41T 1 /C ACT4+ >IT6 7/A94 A- !4 0 +I!C/4TI01AM0 1TI17 T0 ACX 0/ 4YC4!! 0 8 /I!+ICTI01 I1 +4C A/I17 64/4I1 T6AT T64 I!! 4 0I 47A IT; 0 T64 MP! M M0+4 0 PA;M41T 0 !A A/I4! 6A+ -441 /4!0 94+ I1 1 /CCA!4 10. (DDH#H$ C01!I+4/I17 T6AT I1 T64 ATT4/ CA!4 T64 I!! 4 I! IMIT4+ T01+4/PA;M41T 0 +A;!#0 PA; A1+ T64 1 /C +I+ 10T /4!0 94 T64 I!! 4! P0!IT4+64/4I1. )

>e a?rm.

RULIN0! Anent the rst issue, petitioners contend that the lumpsum mode of payment of salaries is ille&al,citin& Articles * and % of the 1e" Civil Code, Articles 2%, 2D, H , H$ and H( of P+ (() and -ook 9, /ule II,!ection )FaG of the 3HH3 P04A /ules.

>e do not a&ree. As correctly observed by the respondents, none of the aforemetioned la"s and rules

Pa&e 4( of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

49/175

prohibit the subith !ection 3, /ule 9, -ook 9II of the P04A /ules dated May $3, 3HH3 Fissued pursuant to4.0. )(DG providin& that BF+Gecisions andJor a"ards of the Administration shall be nal ande5ecutory unless appealed to the 1ational abor /elations Commission F1 /CG by any or bothparties,B it then follo"s that to the e5tent that the P04A has concluded that there is Bno caseof underpayment at bar,B the same has to be bindin&ly observed by us &i -a-&i complainants'submitted issue in their draft decision of BF)G "hether or not there had been underpaymentsas claimed by appellants under the provisions of P.+. ((). $

The fourth issue deserves scant consideration. The matter of orderin& the 1 /C to compel the P04A to set upstandard employment contract and &uidin& rates for oilri& "orkers is beyond the ith respect to the fth issue, "e nd petitioners' char&e that private respondents failed to provide them "ithlife and personal accident insurance &roundless. The P04A and the 1 /C have found that private respondentsinsured petitioners "ith -lue Cross FAsia#Paci cG Insurance, td. under t"o policies "hich even provide forcovera&e superior to that mandated by the rules. -efore this Court, ho"ever, petitioners assail theseinsurance policies as they "ere alle&edly issued by a forei&n insurance company not licensed to do businessin the Philippines. The contention is raised for the rst time and cannot be considered. (In re&ard to the si5th issue, the evidence sho"s that petitioners are land#based "orkers and hence, notentitled to bene ts appertainin& to sea#based "orkers. Petitioners have nothin& to do "ith mannin& vesselsor "ith sea navi&ation. Their use of a seaman's book does not detract from the fact that they are truly land#based employees. Petitioners' plea that "e suspend !0!' license for makin& them use t"o F)G passports iso=#line. A&ain, they never prayed for this relief before the P04A and the 1 /C. This Court is the impropervenue for the belated plea.

inally, the claims for attorney's fees and dama&es of the petitioners have no basis as private respondents

did not act in bad faith or "ith malice.I1 9I4> >64/40 , the decision of the 1 /C dated 1ovember )D, 3HH* is A I/M4+. 1o costs.

!0 0/+4/4+.

7./. 1o. 33(%H2 8uly $, 3HH*

:ELLIN0TON IN7ESTMENT AND MANUFACTURIN0 CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.CRESENCIANO &. TRAellin&ton Investment andManufacturin& Corporation Fhereafter, simply >ellin&tonG. The o?cer thereafter dre" up a report, a copy of "hich "as Be5plained to and received byB >ellin&ton's personnel mana&er, in "hich he set forth his ndin& of BFnGon#payment of re&ular holidays fallin& on a !unday for monthly#paid employees.B #>ellin&ton sou&ht reconsideration of the abor Inspector's report, by letter dated Au&ust 3 , 3HH3. It ar&uedthat Bthe monthly salary of the company's monthly#salaried employees already includes holiday pay for allre&ular holidays . . . Fand henceG there is no le&al basis for the ndin& of alle&ed non#payment of re&ular

Pa&e 4 of #$%CASES IN LA&OR STANDARDS 'ARTICLE ()*#+ -

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

50/175

holidays fallin& on a !unday.B 5 It e5pounded on this thesis in a position paper subsequently submitted to the/e&ional +irector, assertin& that it pays its monthly#paid employees a 5ed monthly compensation B u in% t*eC14 actor w*ic* un enia ly co&er an alrea y inclu e pay/ent or all t*e workin% ay in a /ont* a wella all t*e 1D unworke re%ular *oli ay wit*in a year .B 1>ellin&ton's ar&uments failed to persuade the /e&ional +irector "ho, in an 0rder issued on 8uly )2, 3HH),ruled that B"hen a re&ular holiday falls on a !unday, an e5tra or additional "orkin& day is created and theemployer has the obli&ation to pay the employees for the e5tra day e5cept the last !unday of Au&ust sincethe payment for the said holiday is already included in the $3( factor,B and accordin&ly directed >ellin&ton to

pay its employees compensation correspondin& to four F(G e5tra "orkin& days. 4>ellin&ton timely led a motion for reconsideration of this 0rder of Au&ust 3 , 3HH), pointin& out that it "asin e=ect bein& compelled to Bshell out an additional pay for an alle&ed e5tra "orkin& dayB despite itscomplete payment of all compensation la"fully due its "orkers, usin& the $3( factor. % Its motion "as treatedas an appeal and "as acted on by respondent ndersecretary. -y 0rder dated !eptember )), the lattera?rmed the challen&ed order of the /e&ional +irector, holdin& that Bthe divisor bein& used by the respondentF>ellin&tonG does not reliably reOect the actual "orkin& days in a year, B and consequently commanded>ellin&ton to pay its employees the Bsi5 additional "orkin& days resultin& from re&ular holidays fallin& on!undays in 3H22, 3H2H and 3HH .B ) A&ain, >ellin&ton moved for reconsideration, $ and a&ain "asrebu=ed. (

>ellin&ton then instituted the special civil action of certiorari at bar in an attempt to nullify the orders abovementioned. -y /esolution dated 8uly (, 3HH(, this Court authori:ed the issuance of a temporary restrainin&order en

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

51/175

. . . -y usin& said F$3(G factor, the respondent F>ellin&tonG assumes that all the re&ularholidays fell on ordinary days and never on a !unday. Thus, the respondent failed to considerthe circumstance that "henever a re&ular holiday coincides "ith a !unday, an additional"orkin& day is created and left unpaid. In other "ords, "hile the said divisor may be utili:edas proof evidencin& payment of $ ) "orkin& days, ) special days and the ten re&ular holidaysin a calendar year, the same does not cover or include payment of additional "orkin& dayscreated as a result of some re&ular holidays fallin& on !undays.

6e pointed out that in 3H22 there "as Ban increase of three F$G "orkin& days resultin& from re&ular holidays

fallin& on !undaysLB hence >ellin&ton Bshould pay for $3D days, instead of $3( days.B -y the same process of ratiocination, respondent ndersecretary theori:ed that there should be additional payment by >ellin&ton toits monthly#paid employees for Ban increment of three F$G "orkin& daysB for 3H2H and a&ain, for 3HH . >hathe is sayin& is that in those years, >ellin&ton should have used the B$3D factor,B not the B$3( factor.B

The theory loses si&ht of the fact that the monthly salary in >ellin&ton E "hich is based on the so#calledB$3( factorB E accounts for all $%* days of a yearL i.e. , >ellin&ton's B$3( factorB leaves no day unaccountedforL it is payin& for all the days of a year "ith the e5ception only of *3 !undays.

The respondents' theory "ould make each of the years in question F3H22, 3H2H, 3HH G, a year of $%2 days.Pursuant to this theory, no employer optin& to pay his employees by the month "ould have any de nite basisto determine the number of days in a year for "hich compensation should be &iven to his "ork force. 6e"ould have to ascertain the number of times le&al holidays "ould fall on !undays in all the years of thee5pected or e5trapolated lifetime of his business. Alternatively, he "ould be compelled to make ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

52/175

&UILDIN0 CARE CORPORATION, petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LA&OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST DI7ISION, and RO0ELIO RODIL, respondents.

PAN0ANI&AN, J.:In dismissin& this petition, the Court reiterates the "ell#entrenched doctrines that F3G a motion forreconsideration, as a rule, is an indispensable precondition to the lin& of a petition for certiorari , and F)Gndin&s of facts of the 1ational abor /elations Commission F1 /CG, a?rmin& those of the abor Arbiter, arebindin& upon the !upreme Court.

This petition for certiorari under /ule %* of the /ules of Court seeks to annul the +ecision # promul&ated onMay H, 3HH , of the irst +ivision 5 of public respondent in 1 /C Case 1o. 1C/# # (# 3% *#22 "hicha?rmed the decision of abor Arbiter Suintin C. Mendo:a. The dispositive portion of the a?rmed decision of the abor Arbiter readsK 1

>64/4 0/4, decision is hereby rendered for the complainant declarin& his suspension anddismissal ille&al and orderin& the respondent to reinstate him plus back"a&es from time hisFic G dismissal at the ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

53/175

happened

$#)2 @ )H#22 Ms. Mali& Told supervisorsnot around

(# (#22 Ms. Mali& Informed he "ouldno lon&er be &iven>ork.

/espondent contended that complainant "as paid his "a&es and holiday pay in accordance"ith la"L that it "as unable to comply "ith /.A. %%( immediately because of its client's delayin approvin& the ad

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

54/175

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

55/175

any actual or fancied error attributed to it by "ay of a re#e5amination of the le&al and factualaspects of the case. Petitioner's inaction or ne&li&ence under the circumstances is tantamountto a deprivation of the ri&ht and opportunity of the respondent Commission to cleanse itself of an error un"ittin&ly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed. . . .

. . . And for failure to avail of the correct remedy e5pressly provided by la", petitioner haspermitted the sub64/4 0/4, premises considered, the Petition is +I!MI!!4+ and the assailed +ecision is A I/M4+. +ouble

costs a&ainst petitioner.!0 0/+4/4+.

7./. 1os. 2$$2 #23 1ovember 3*, 3H2H

MA=ATI HA&ERDASHERY, INC.,

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

56/175

"orkers and FbG the e5istence of employer#employee relationship and &rantin& respondent "orkers by reasonthereof their various monetary claims.

The undisputed facts are as follo"sK

Individual complainants, private respondents herein, have been "orkin& for petitioner Makati 6aberdashery,Inc. as tailors, seamstress, se"ers, basters FmanlililipG and BplantsadorasB. They are paid on a piece#rate basise5cept Maria An&eles and eonila !era na "ho are paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piece#rate,they are &iven a daily allo"ance of three FP $. G pesos provided they report for "ork before HK$ a.m.everyday.

Private respondents are required to "ork from or before HK$ a.m. up to %K or DK p.m. from Monday to!aturday and durin& peak periods even on !undays and holidays.

0n 8uly ) , 3H2(, the !andi&an n& Man&&a&a"an& Pilipino, a labor or&ani:ation of the respondent "orkers,led a complaint docketed as 1 /C 1C/ Case 1o. D#)% $#2( for FaG underpayment of the basic "a&eL FbGunderpayment of livin& allo"anceL FcG non#payment of overtime "orkL FdG non#payment of holiday payL FeGnon#payment of service incentive payL FfG 3$th month payL and F&G bene ts provided for under >a&e 0rders1os. 3, ), $, ( and *. #+urin& the pendency of 1 /C 1C/ Case 1o. D#)% $#2(, private respondent +ioscoro Pelobello left "ith!alvador /ivera, a salesman of petitioner 6aberdashery, an open packa&e "hich "as discovered to contain aBhen confronted, Pelobello replied that the same "as ordered by respondent Casimiro^apata for his customer. ^apata alle&edly admitted that he copied the desi&n of petitioner 6aberdashery. -utin the afternoon, "hen a&ain questioned about said baron&, Pelobello and ^apata denied o"nership of the

same. Consequently a memorandum "as issued to each of them to e5plain on or before ebruary (, 3H2*"hy no action should be taken a&ainst them for acceptin& a

8/11/2019 Cases 270-311 Labor

57/175

I 47A ; +I!MI!!4+. $ The rst issue "hich is the pivotal issue in this case is resolved in favor of private respondents. >e haverepeatedly held in countless decisions that the test of employer#employee relationship is four#foldK F3G theselection and en&a&ement of the employeeL F)G the payment of "a&