G.R. No.

144664 March 15, 2004

ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.,respondents.

Petitioner seeks via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the nullification of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
denying its petition to annul 1) Explanatory Bulletin”2 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) entitled
“Workers’ Entitlement to Holiday Pay on April 9, 1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday”, which bulletin the
DOLE reproduced on January 23, 1998, 2) Decision3 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruling that the said
explanatory bulletin applied as well to April 9, 1998, and 3) Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitration
denying its Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTS:

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].

“On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9, 1993 which apart from being Good Friday is also
Araw ng Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on the same day, this Department is of the view that the
covered employees are entitled to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage even if said holiday is
unworked. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as Good Friday and the second
100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date as Araw ng Kagitingan.

Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng
Kagitingan x x x x

Despite the explanatory bulletin, 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.

In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing
between petitioner and BATLU, the controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. x x x x On July 31, 1998,
the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered employees “200%
and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9, 1998 which covers two regular holidays,
namely, Araw ng Kagitignan and Maundy Thursday.”

Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor Code which reads:

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, such that the regular holidays are now:

New Year’s Day January 1

Maundy Thursday Movable Date

Good Friday Movable Date

Araw ng Kagitingan April 9 (Bataan and Corregidor Day)

Labor Day May 1

Independence Day June 12

National Heroes Day Last Sunday of August

Bonifacio Day November 30

Christmas Day December 25

In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), the Voluntary Arbitrator held that
Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday, the computation of which is
determined by a legal formula which is not changed by the fact that there are two holidays falling on one day, like
on April 9, 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy Thursday; and that that the
law, as amended, enumerates ten regular holidays for every year should not be interpreted as authorizing a
reduction to nine the number of paid regular holidays “just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain years,
like 1993 and 1998, is also Holy Friday or Maundy Thursday.”

In the assailed decision, 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

The Court of Appeals further held that “in the absence of an explicit provision in law which provides for [a]
reduction of holiday pay if two holidays happen to fall on the same day, any doubt in the interpretation and
implementation of the Labor Code provisions on holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor.”

ISSUE:

Whether daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two regular holidays which fall on the same day.

HELD:

This Court finds no ground to disturb the assailed decision.

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.”8 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.

Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9), National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio
Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a
recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national identity, and deepen
the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the
working class to the development of the nation, while the religious holidays designated in Executive Order No. 203
allow the worker to celebrate his faith with his family.

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.

From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by the parties, petitioner had obligated itself to pay for the
legal holidays as required by law.

Only an employee who works on the day immediately preceding or after a regular holiday shall be entitled to the
holiday pay.

A paid legal holiday occurring during the scheduled vacation leave will result in holiday payment in addition to
normal vacation pay but will not entitle the employee to another vacation leave.

Under similar circumstances, the COMPANY will give a day’s wage for November 1st and December 31st whenever
declared a holiday. When required to work on said days, the employee will be paid according to Art. VI, Sec. 3B
hereof.18

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.