G2 CASES: REST DAY, COMPULSARY WORK ON REST DAY, REGULAR HOLIDAY V.
SPECIAL HOLIDAY
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603
CAROLINE C. DEL ROSARIO,
Respondent was hired by the petitioner as an account specialist, allegedly as a probationary
employee, but was dismissed because of a reconstruction scheme and over employment in the
company. Labor arbiter (her employment exceeded six months and holding that she was
illegally dismissed as there was no authorized cause to terminate her employment. The Arbiter
further ruled that petitioner's failure to rebut respondent's claim that it hired additional
employees after she was dismissed belie the company's alleged redundancy), NLRC (respondent
is a regular employee whose termination from employment was valid but ineffectual for
petitioner's failure to comply with the 30-day notice to the employee and the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), ) and CA ruled that she is a regular employee and was illegally
dismissed thus entitled to payment for damages and back wages.
Issue:
(1) whether or not respondent is a regular employee of petitioner; and (2) whether or not
respondent was illegally dismissed; and (3) if so, whether or not respondent is entitled to any
monetary benefit.
RULING:
- In termination cases, like the present controversy, the burden of proving the circumstances
that would justify the employee's dismissal rests with the employer.[18] The best proof that
petitioner should have presented to prove the probationary status of respondent is her
employment contract.
- Having ruled that respondent is a regular employee, her termination from employment must
be for a just or authorized cause, otherwise, her dismissal would be illegal.
the Court finds that petitioner was not able to discharge the burden of proving that the
dismissal of respondent was valid.
ARTICLE 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall
be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or
their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis,
supplied)
Considering that respondent was illegally dismissed, she is entitled not only to reinstatement
but also to payment of full backwages, computed from the time her compensation was actually
withheld from her on March 13, 2001, up to her actual reinstatement.
Respondent is not, however, entitled to holiday pay because the records reveal that she is a
monthly paid regular employee. Under Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of
the number of working days therein, shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month
whether worked or not. Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly deleted said award.[33]
ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS,
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary Cresenciano B.
Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11, 1993 wherein it clarified, inter alia,
that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked,
which[,] apart from being Good Friday [and, therefore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng
Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday].
Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy
Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan
petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of
their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU)
protested
ART. 94. Right to holiday pay. - (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during
regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
(10) workers;
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee
shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and
(c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Year’s Day, Maundy Thursday, Good
Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the
thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day
designated by law for holding a general election,
which was amended by Executive Order No. 203 issued on June 30, 1987
the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations
between them, clearly recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy
Thursday, on whatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the
effectivity of the CBA and that "[t]here is no condition, qualification or exception for any
variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated." 5
SC:
Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the
State shall afford protection to labor.7 Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the
monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the
worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay."
It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during
the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance.
As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of
ten paid regular holidays.9 The provision is mandatory,10 regardless of whether an employee is
paid on a monthly or daily basis.11
Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, 12 holiday pay is a statutory benefit
demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular
holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine
the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive.
. In Wellington, the issue was whether monthly-paid employees are entitled to an additional
day’s pay if a holiday falls on a Sunday. This Court, in answering the issue in the negative,
observed that in fixing the monthly salary of its employees, Wellington took into account "every
working day of the year including the holidays specified by law and excluding only Sunday." In
the instant case, the issue is whether daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two
regular holidays which fall on the same day.15
, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of
its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
labor
JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE
WORKERS, respondents
Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized and existing under
the laws of the Philippines. It has three groups of employees categorized as follows: (a)
personnel on monthly basis, who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year,
irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays;
(b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they receive unworked
holiday pay and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. Before
the start of the semester they sign contracts with the college undertaking to meet their classes
as per schedule.
Unable to receive their corresponding holiday pay, as claimed, from 1975 to 1977
ISSUE:
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the school faculty who according to their contracts
are paid per lecture hour are entitled to unworked holiday pay.
SC
Petitioner maintains the position among others, that it is not covered by Book V of the Labor
Code on Labor Relations considering that it is a non- profit institution and that its hourly paid
faculty members are paid on a "contract" basis because they are required to hold classes for a
particular number of hours.
if a regular week day is declared a holiday, the school calendar is extended to compensate for
that day. Thus petitioner argues that the advent of any of the legal holidays within the semester
will not affect the faculty's salary because this day is not included in their schedule while the
calendar is extended to compensate for special holidays.
). Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as
no class days;" certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this was
clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts.
On the other hand, both the law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday pay are silent
as to payment on Special Public Holidays.
declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the monthly
income of the employees on account of work interruptions is defeated when a regular class day
is cancelled on account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working
day to make up for time lost in the school calendar.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is
hereby set aside, and a new one is hereby RENDERED:
(a) exempting petitioner from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular
holidays, whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during
semestral, Christmas, or Holy Week vacations;
(b) but ordering petitioner to pay said faculty members their regular hourly rate on days
declared as special holidays or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours
they are supposed to have taught, whether extensions of class days be ordered or not; in case
of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they teach
during said extensions.
WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO,
The basic issue raised by petitioner in this case is, as its counsel puts it, "whether or not a monthly-paid employee,
receiving a fixed monthly compensation, is entitled to an additional pay aside from his usual holiday pay, whenever
a regular holiday falls on a Sunday."
The case arose from a routine inspection conducted by a Labor Enforcement Officer on August 6, 1991 of the
Wellington Flour Mills, an establishment owned and operated by petitioner Wellington Investment and
Manufacturing Corporation (hereafter, simply Wellington). The officer thereafter drew up a report, a copy of which
was "explained to and received by" Wellington's personnel manager, in which he set forth his finding of "(n)on-
payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday for monthly-paid employees." 1
Wellington sought reconsideration of the Labor Inspector's report, by letter dated August 10, 1991. It argued that
"the monthly salary of the company's monthly-salaried employees already includes holiday pay for all regular
holidays . . . (and hence) there is no legal basis for the finding of alleged non-payment of regular holidays falling on
a Sunday." 2 It expounded on this thesis in a position paper subsequently submitted to the Regional Director,
asserting that it pays its monthly-paid employees a fixed monthly compensation "using the 314 factor which
undeniably covers and already includes payment for all the working days in a month as well as all the 10 unworked
regular holidays within a year." 3
