INSULAR BANK EMPLOYEES UNION v.

INCIONG and INSULAR BANK Nature Petition for certiorari to set aside the order of Deputy Minister for Labor Amado Inciong setting aside the en banc resolution of the NLRC. Facts Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for the payment of holiday pay before the NLRC Manila Regional Office. Conciliation having failed, the case was certified for arbitration upon the request of both parties. Labor Arbiter Soriano rendered decision in favor of petitioner. Instead of appealing, respondent complied with the order by paying petitioners holiday pay. In the interim: 1) PD 850 amended the provisions of the Labor Code requiring every worker be paid his regular daily wages during regular holiday. 2) Implementing said amendatory PD, the Department of Labor Rule issued in Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code purported that employees who are uniformly paid by month irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. 3) Policy Instruction No. 9 clarified said rule that if the monthly paid employee was receiving not less than the minimum wage and his monthly pay was uniform from January to December, he was presumed to be already paid the 10 paid legal holidays. Respondent Bank stopped the payment of holiday pay to its employees. So that petitioner filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the Arbiters decision, to which, the respondent opposed alleging 1) PD 850 and Policy Instruction 9, and 2) that the Arbiters decision was repealed by such PD and Policy Instruction. The Labor Arbiter enjoined the respondent to continue the payment since the decision 1) became final and executory, and 2) had been partially implemented by the respondent. Respondent then resorted to the NLRC

which the latter dismissed its appeal in an en banc resolution. The Office of the Labor Minister, however, set aside the NLRCs en banc resolution. Issue Can the Office of the Minister of Labor still set aside said decision as affirmed by the NLRC? Held No. Petition granted. Ratio 1) Decision of the Labor Arbiter undisputedly became final. It was patently unjust to deprive petitioner of their vested right acquired by virtue of a final judgment on the basis of a labor statute promulgated following the acquisitions of the right. Said order, being unappealable, became final on the date of its issuance and the parties who acquired rights thereunder cannot be deprived thereof by statute promulgated subsequent thereto. When a the court promulgates order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment or repeal of said law may not affect the final order already promulgated; thus it cannot be given retroactive effect as to modify final judgments. 2) Partial execution of the respondent manifested voluntariness. By such act of not appealing constituted a waiver, the respondent was deemed to have accepted the judgment, adverse or not, as correct especially if such party readily acquiesced in the judgment by starting to execute said judgment even before a writ of execution was issued as in the case. To permit the respondent to appeal from said partially executed judgment would make a mockery of the doctrine of finality of judgments of this jurisdiction. 3) Policy Instruction 9 and Section 2 of Rule IV were void for enlarging the scope of the provisions of the Labor Code. It went as far as to categorically state that the benefit was principally intended for daily paid employees when the law stated that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. Monthly paid workers were not excluded from the benefits of the holiday pay. This was a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive that all doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor. Thus, although, the Instruction and Rules could be given great weight by the courts, but being erroneous constructions of the law, should be declared null and void.

WELLINGTON INVESTMENT v. TRAJANO and ABADILLA, et.al. Nature Special civil action of certiorari to nullify the order of public respondent Undersecretary Trajano Facts In a routine inspection on Wellington Flour Mills, the Labor Enforcement Officer reported non-payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday for monthly-paid employees. Seeking reconsideration of the report, Wellington argued that the monthly salary of the monthly-salaried employees already included holiday pay for all regular holidays for it was paying fixed monthly compensation using the 314-day factor covering all working days and 10 unworked regular holidays, so there was no legal basis for said Officers findings. Not persuaded by Wellingtons position, the Regional Director ordered the former to pay its employees compensation corresponding to 4 extra working days. Upon MR which was treated as an appeal before respondent Undersecretary Trajano, Wellington pointed that it was being compelled to shell out additional pay for an alleged extra working day despite its complete payment of all compensation lawfully due its workers. Respondent affirmed the Directors order holding that the 314-day as divisor did not reliably reflect the actual working days in a year. Issue Are monthly-paid employees, receiving fixed monthly compensation, entitled to an additional pay aside from the usual holiday pay, whenever regular holiday falls on a Sunday? Held No. Petition granted. Ratio 1) 314-day factor basis for determining monthly salary. Apparently the monthly salary was fixed by Wellington to provide compensation for every

working day of the year including the holidays specified by law and excluding only Sundays. In fixing the salary, Wellington used what is calls the 314-factor by simply deducting 51 Sundays from the 365 days normally comprising a year and used the difference, 314, as basis for determining the monthly salary. The monthly salary thus fixed actually covers payment for 314 days of the year, including regular and special holidays, as well as days when no work is done by reason of fortuitous cause, or causes not attributable to the employees. 2) No provision of law to make adjustments to fix monthly salary rate on account of holidays. What the law requires of employers opting to pay by the month is to assure that the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by 12, and to pay that salary for all days in the month whether worked or not, and irrespective of the number of working days therein. There is no provision of law requiring any employer to make such adjustments in the monthly salary rate set by him to take account of legal holidays falling on Sundays in a given year, or contrary to the legal provisions bearing on the point, otherwise to reckon a year at more than 365 days.

ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORP v. CA and BISIG NG ASIAN TRANS. LABOR UNION, et.al. Nature Petition to seek nullification of the respective decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators via certiorari Facts Undersecretary Trajano issued a March 11, 1993 Explanatory Bulletin clarifying that employees were entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993 whether unworked, which, apart from being Good Friday, was also Araw ng Kagitingan; both are legal holidays. Said bulletin was reproduced for April 9, 1998 for being Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan. Despite such bulletin, Asian Transmission opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Private respondent protested; pursuant to their CBA, the controversy between Asian Transmission and private respondent was submitted for voluntary arbitration. The Office of the Voluntary Arbitration rendered a decision in favor of private respondent and ordered Asian Transmission to pay 200% of the daily wages for the unworked April 9, 1998. The Office held that Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday, the computation of which would be determined by a legal formula which was not changed by the fact that there were 2 holidays. The Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Office, as the CBA was the law governing the relations between them, clearly the CBA recognized the intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan ang Maundy Thursday as paid legal holidays on whatever date they may fall. Issue Are the daily-paid workers entitled to be paid for 2 regular holidays which fall on the same day? Held Yes. Petition was dismissed. Ratio

1) Holiday pay, a benefit enacted as part of Constitutional protection to labor. Holiday pay 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. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. 2) Mandatory provisions of the law which provided nothing to reduce the benefits when holidays fall on the same day. Article 94 of the Labor Code is a mandatory provision which affords a worker the enjoyment of the 10-paid regular holidays, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of 10-paid regular holidays, the fact that 2 holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to 9 the 10 holiday pay benefits a worker is to receive. 3) CBA obligated petitioner to pay for said legal holidays. From the pertinent provisions of the CBA between the parties, Asian Transmission had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law. In any event, nothing in the law shall justify the employers withdrawal of benefits for unworked regular holidays as provided in the existing collective agreement.

ODANGO, et.al. v. NLRC and ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Nature Petition for review assailing the NLRCs decision reversing the Labor Arbiters findings Facts Petitioners were monthly-paid workers of Antique Electric whose workdays were from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. The DOLE Regional Branch found, after a routine inspection, Antique Electric liable for underpayment of the monthly salaries of its employees, ordering Antique Electric to pay its employees wage differentials amounting to Php1,427,412.75; Antique failed to pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners that Antique Electrics use of 304 as divisor was an admission that Antique Electric was paying its employees for only 304 days a year instead of 365 days, owing to the petitioners the wages for 61 days. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling since the computation showed that the daily wage rates of the employees were above minimum daily wage. The Court of Appeals held that the petition was insufficient in form and substance since it did not allege the essential requirements of the extraordinary special action of certiorari. Issue Can the petitioners claim using Section 2 Rule IV Implementing the Labor Code and the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople? Held No. Petition dismissed, affirming the ruling of the appellate court. Ratio 1) Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code long ago declared void. In Insular Bank of Asia v. Inciong, said

Rule was nullified since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Codes provisions on holiday pay, it in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion. Thus, Section 2 cannot serve as basis of any right or claim. Absent any other legal basis, petitioners claim for wage differentials must fail. 2) No work, no pay rule. Even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is valid, petitioners claim will still fail. The basic rule in this jurisdiction is "no work, no pay." The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year. Petitioners claim was based on a mistaken notion that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III gave rise to a right to be paid for un-worked days beyond the ten legal holidays. In effect, petitioners demanded that Antique Electric should pay them on Sundays, the unworked half of Saturdays and other days that they do not work at all. Petitioners line of reasoning was not only a violation of the "no work, no pay" principle, it also gave rise to an invidious classification, a violation of the equal protection clause. Sustaining petitioners argument will make monthly-paid employees a privileged class who are paid even if they do not work. 3) Minimum divisor allowable is 287 so that Antique Electric was justified in using 304. The use of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make Antique Electric automatically liable for underpayment. The facts showed that petitioners were required to work only from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. Thus, the minimum allowable divisor was 287, which was the result of 365 days, less 52 Sundays and less 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). Any divisor below 287 days meant that Antique Electrics workers were deprived of their holiday pay for some or all of the ten legal holidays. The 304 days divisor used by Antique Electric was clearly above the minimum of 287 days.