[G.R. No. L-48437. September 30, 1986.

]
MANTRADE/FMMC DIVISION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (represented by
PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNION PSSLU Fed. TUCP), Petitioner,
v. ARBITRATOR FROILAN M. BACUNGAN and MANTRADE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,Respondents.
Facts:
1. Petitoner Mantrade Union files a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the
respondent Voluntary Arbitrator Bancungan and Mantrade Development.
2. The voluntary arbitrator ruled that Mantrade Development Corporation is not under
legal obligation to pay holiday pay (as provided for in Article 94 of the Labor Code in
the third official Department of Labor edition) to its monthly paid employees who are
uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein,
with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage.
3. The respondent raised its objection that the petitioner is barred from pursuing the
present action in view of Article 263 of the Labor Code, which provides in part that
"voluntary arbitration awards or decisions shall be final, inappealable, and
executory," as well as the rules implementing the same; the pertinent provision of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent corporation;
and Article 2044 of the Civil Code which provides that "any stipulation that the
arbitrators award or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice to Articles
2038, 2039, and 2040. ." (Respondent corporation further contends that the special
civil action of certiorari does not lie because respondent arbitrator is not an "officer
exercising judicial functions" within the contemplation of Rule 65, Section 1, of the
Rules of Court; that the instant petition raises an error of judgment on the part of
respondent arbitrator and not an error of jurisdiction; that it prays for the annulment
of certain rules and regulations issued by the Department of Labor, not for the
annulment of the voluntary arbitration proceedings; and that appeal
by certiorari under Section 29 of the Arbitration Law, Republic Act No. 876, is not
applicable to the case at bar because arbitration in labor disputes is expressly
excluded by Section 3 of said law.)
Issue: 1. WON the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is Final.
2. WON A CERTIORARI is applicable to the instant case.
Held: 1. NO. "We agree with the petitioner that the decisions of voluntary arbitrators
must be given the highest respect and as a general rule must be accorded a certain
measure of finality.
It is not correct, however, that this respect precludes the exercise of judicial review
over their decisions. Article 262 of the Labor Code making voluntary arbitration awards
final, inappealable and executory, except where the money claims exceed P100,000.00
or 40% of the paid-up capital of the employer or where there is abuse of discretion or
gross incompetence refers to appeals to the National Labor Relations Commission and
not to judicial review.
In spite of statutory provisions making final the decisions of certain
administrative agencies, we have taken cognizance of petitions questioning these
decisions where want of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process,

denial of substantial justice, or erroneous interpretation of the Law were brought to our
attention. . . .

2. YES. A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasijudicial capacity. There is no reason why her decisions involving interpretation of law
should be beyond this Courts review. Administrative officials are presumed to act in
accordance with law and yet we do not hesitate to pass upon their work where a
question of law is involved or where a showing of abuse of discretion in their official acts
is properly raised in petitions for certiorari."

San Miguel Corp. v. Court of Appeals

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
G.R. No. 146775. January 30, 2002
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS-FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION, HON.
UNDERSECRETARY JOSE M. ESPAOL, JR., Hon. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, and HON.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALLAN M. MACARAYA, respondents.
Facts:
The Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection in San Miguel Corporation, Iligan City
and it was discovered that there was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees. DOLE
sent a copy of inspection result to SMC which the latter contested the findings. SMC failed to submit proof and
hence the Director of DOLE of Iligan District Office issued a compliance order to pay both its Muslim and nonMuslim employees the Muslim Holidays. SMC appealed to DOLE main office but dismissed for having been filed
late but later on reconsidered because it is within reglementary period but still dismissed for lack of merit. Hence,
this present petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not non-Muslim employees working in Muslim areas is entitled to Muslim Holiday Pay.
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to pay its non-Muslim employees. The basis for
this decision were Articles 169 and 170 of P.D. No. 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Laws which listed all official
Muslim holidays and provincies and cities where officially observed. In this case, SMC is located in Iligan which is
covered in the those provisions. Also Article 169 and 170 of PD No. 1083 should be read in conjunction with Article
94 of Labor Code which provides for the right of every worker to be paid of holiday pay.
Petitioner asserts Art.3(3) of PD No. 1083 provides that it shall be applicable only to Muslims. However, the Court
said that said article declares that nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.
There should be no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim
holidays.
It was said also that the The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining Undersecretary Espaol who stated:
Assuming arguendo that the respondents position is correct, then by the same token, Muslims throughout the
Philippines are also not entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays declared by law as regular holidays. We must
remind the respondent-appellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the working man are
determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and certainly not on the basis of the workers faith or
religion.

156 SCRA 27 Labor Law Labor Standards Working Conditions and Rest Periods Holiday
Pay
The National Alliance of Teachers sued Jose Rizal College for alleged nonpayment of unworked
holidays from 1975 to 1977. The members of the Alliance concerned are faculty members who
are paid on the basis of student contract hour.
ISSUE: Whether or not the school faculty are entitled to unworked holiday pay.
HELD: As far as unworked regular holidays are concerned, the teachers are not entitled to
holiday pay. 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, the teachers are entitled to be paid for unworked special holidays. Otherwise
stated, the faculty member, although forced to take a rest, does not earn what he should earn on
that day. Be it noted that when a special public holiday is declared, the faculty member paid by
the hour is deprived of expected income, and it does not matter that the school calendar is
extended in view of the days or hours lost, for their income that could be earned from other
sources is lost during the extended days. Similarly, when classes are called off or shortened on
account of typhoons, floods, rallies, and the like, these faculty members must likewise be paid,
whether or not extensions are ordered.

Union of Filipino Employees v. Vivar

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
Union of Filipino Employees vs Vivar
G..R. No. 79255
January 20, 1992
Excluded Employees: Field Personnel
Facts:
This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the holiday pay award and the change
of the divisor in the computation of benefits from 251 to 261 days.
On November 8, 1985, respondent Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and
obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay in the light of the Court's
decision in Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (138 SCRA 273 [1985]).
Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for voluntary
arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar, Jr. as voluntary arbitrator.
Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award to three years, (2) the
exclusion of salesmen, sales representatives, truck drivers, merchandisers and medical representatives
(hereinafter referred to as sales personnel) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3) deduction from the
holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave benefits due to
the use of 251 divisor. (Rollo, pp. 138-145)
Petitioner UFE answered that the award should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor
Code, that their sales personnel are not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and that
the use of 251 as divisor is an established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.
Issue:
W/N the respondent's sales personnel are not field personnel under Article 82 of the Labor Code?
Held:
The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales
target; (2) good collection performance; (3) proper compliance with good market hygiene; (4) good
merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns; and (6) proper truck maintenance. (Rollo, p. 190).
The Court thereby resolves that the grant of holiday pay be effective, not from the date of promulgation of
the Chartered Bank case nor from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, but from October 23, 1984,
the date of promulgation of the IBAA case.

WHEREFORE, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby MODIFIED. The divisor to be used in
computing holiday pay shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be computed from
October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby AFFIRMED.