You are on page 1of 6

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

MANTRADE!MM" D#$#S#%N EM&L%'EES AND (%R)ERS *N#%N +repre,e-te. b/
&0#L#&&#NE S%"#AL SE"*R#T' LA1%R *N#%N 2 &SSL* !e.. 2 T*"&3, Petitioner,
1. Petitoner Mantrade Union files a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the
respondent Voluntary Arbitrator Bancungan and Mantrade Deelopment.
!. "he oluntary arbitrator ruled that #Mantrade Deelopment $orporation is not under
legal obligation to pay holiday pay %as proided for in Article &' of the (abor $ode in
the third official Department of (abor edition) to its monthly paid employees *ho are
uniformly paid by the month+ irrespectie of the number of *or,ing days therein+
*ith a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum *age.-
.. "he respondent raised its ob/ection that the petitioner is barred from pursuing the
present action in ie* of Article !0. of the (abor $ode+ *hich proides in part that
1oluntary arbitration a*ards or decisions shall be final+ inappealable+ and
e2ecutory+1 as *ell as the rules implementing the same3 the pertinent proision of
the $ollectie Bargaining Agreement bet*een petitioner and respondent corporation3
and Article !4'' of the $iil $ode *hich proides that 1any stipulation that the
arbitrators5 a*ard or decision shall be final+ is alid+ *ithout pre/udice to Articles
!4.6+ !4.&+ and !4'4. .1 %7espondent corporation further contends that the special
ciil action of certiorari does not lie because respondent arbitrator is not an 1officer
e2ercising /udicial functions1 *ithin the contemplation of 7ule 08+ 9ection 1+ of the
7ules of $ourt3 that the instant petition raises an error of /udgment on the part of
respondent arbitrator and not an error of /urisdiction3 that it prays for the annulment
of certain rules and regulations issued by the Department of (abor+ not for the
annulment of the oluntary arbitration proceedings3 and that appeal
by certiorari under 9ection !& of the Arbitration (a*+ 7epublic Act :o. 6;0+ is not
applicable to the case at bar because arbitration in labor disputes is e2pressly
e2cluded by 9ection . of said la*.)
<ssue: 1. =>: the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator is Final.
!. =>: A $?7"<>7A7< is applicable to the instant case.
@eld: 1. :>. 1=e agree *ith the petitioner that the decisions of oluntary arbitrators
must be gien the highest respect and as a general rule must be accorded a certain
measure of finality.
<t is not correct+ ho*eer+ that this respect precludes the e2ercise of /udicial reie*
oer their decisions. Article !0! of the (abor $ode ma,ing oluntary arbitration a*ards
final+ inappealable and e2ecutory+ e2cept *here the money claims e2ceed P144+444.44
or '4A of the paidBup capital of the employer or *here there is abuse of discretion or
gross incompetence refers to appeals to the :ational (abor 7elations $ommission and
not to /udicial reie*.
<n spite of statutory proisions ma,ing Cfinal5 the decisions of certain
administratie agencies+ *e hae ta,en cogniDance of petitions Euestioning these
decisions *here *ant of /urisdiction+ grae abuse of discretion+ iolation of due process+
denial of substantial /ustice+ or erroneous interpretation of the (a* *ere brought to our
attention. . . .
!. F?9. A oluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a EuasiB
/udicial capacity. "here is no reason *hy her decisions inoling interpretation of la*
should be beyond this $ourt5s reie*. Administratie officials are presumed to act in
accordance *ith la* and yet *e do not hesitate to pass upon their *or, *here a
Euestion of la* is inoled or *here a sho*ing of abuse of discretion in their official acts
is properly raised in petitions for certiorari.1
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
The Department of Labor and Emploment conducted a routine inspection in !an "iguel Corporation# $ligan Cit
and it %as discovered that there %as underpament b !"C of regular "uslim holida pa to its emploees. D&LE
sent a cop of inspection result to !"C %hich the latter contested the findings. !"C failed to submit proof and
hence the Director of D&LE of $ligan District &ffice issued a compliance order to pa both its "uslim and non'
"uslim emploees the "uslim (olidas. !"C appealed to D&LE main office but dismissed for having been filed
late but later on reconsidered because it is %ithin reglementar period but still dismissed for lac) of merit. (ence#
this present petition for certiorari.
*hether or not non'"uslim emploees %or)ing in "uslim areas is entitled to "uslim (olida +a.
The !upreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to pa its non'"uslim emploees. The basis for
this decision %ere ,rticles -./ and -01 of +.D. 2o. -134 5Code of "uslim +ersonal La%s6 %hich listed all official
"uslim holidas and provincies and cities %here officiall observed. $n this case# !"C is located in $ligan %hich is
covered in the those provisions. ,lso ,rticle -./ and -01 of +D 2o. -134 should be read in con7unction %ith ,rticle
/8 of Labor Code %hich provides for the right of ever %or)er to be paid of holida pa.
+etitioner asserts ,rt.494: of +D 2o. -134 provides that it shall be applicable onl to "uslims. (o%ever# the Court
said that said article declares that nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the pre7udice of a non'"uslim.
There should be no distinction bet%een "uslims and non'"uslims as regards pament of benefits for "uslim
$t %as said also that the The Court of ,ppeals did not err in sustaining ;ndersecretar Espa<ol %ho stated=
5,ssuming arguendo that the respondent>s position is correct# then b the same to)en# "uslims throughout the
+hilippines are also not entitled to holida pas on Christian holidas declared b la% as regular holidas. *e must
remind the respondent'appellant that %ages and other emoluments granted b la% to the %or)ing man are
determined on the basis of the criteria laid do%n b la%s and certainl not on the basis of the %or)er>s faith or
156 SCRA 27 Labor Law Labor Standards or!"n# Cond"t"ons and R$st %$r"ods &o'"day
The 2ational ,lliance of Teachers sued 'ose Ri,al College for alleged nonpament of un%or)ed
holidas from -/0? to -/00. The members of the ,lliance concerned are facult members %ho
are paid on the basis of student contract hour.
ISSUE+ *hether or not the school facult are entitled to un%or)ed holida pa.
EL$+ ,s far as un%or)ed regular holidas are concerned# the teachers are not entitled to
holida pa. R$#u'ar holidas specified as such b la% are )no%n to both school and facult
members as no class das@6 certainl the latter do not expect pament for said un%or)ed das#
and this %as clearl in their minds %hen the entered into the teaching contracts.
&n the other hand# the teachers are entitled to be paid for un%or)ed special holidas. &ther%ise
stated# the facult member# although forced to ta)e a rest# does not earn %hat he should earn on
that da. Ae it noted that %hen a special public holida is declared# the facult member paid b
the hour is deprived of expected income# and it does not matter that the school calendar is
extended in vie% of the das or hours lost# for their income that could be earned from other
sources is lost during the extended das. !imilarl# %hen classes are called off or shortened on
account of tphoons# floods# rallies# and the li)e# these facult members must li)e%ise be paid#
%hether or not extensions are ordered.
Union of "ilipino E-plo.ees v. %ivar
C($st$r Caba')a r$*o++$nds ("s ,"s"tors to -'$as$ r$ad t($ or"#"na' . /u'' t$0t o/ t($ *as$ *"t$d. 1"$ 0"$2
Union of "ilipino E-plo.ees vs %ivar
G..R. No. /0122
'anuar. 13, 4001
30*'ud$d 3+-'oy$$s4 5"$'d %$rsonn$'
This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the holida pa a%ard and the change
of the divisor in the computation of benefits from B?- to B.- das.
&n 2ovember 3# -/3?# respondent Cilipro# $nc. 9no% 2estle +hilippines# $nc.: filed %ith the 2ational
Labor Delations Commission 92LDC: a petition for declarator relief see)ing a ruling on its rights and
obligations respecting claims of its monthl paid emploees for holida pa in the light of the CourtEs
decision in Chartered Aan) Emploees ,ssociation v. &ple 9-43 !CD, B04 F-/3?G:.
Aoth Cilipro and the ;nion of Cilipino Emploees 9;CE: agreed to submit the case for voluntar
arbitration and appointed respondent Aenigno Hivar# Ir. as voluntar arbitrator.
Cilipro filed a motion for clarification see)ing 9-: the limitation of the a%ard to three ears# 9B: the
exclusion of salesmen# sales representatives# truc) drivers# merchandisers and medical representatives
9hereinafter referred to as sales personnel: from the a%ard of the holida pa# and 94: deduction from the
holida pa a%ard of overpament for overtime# night differential# vacation and sic) leave benefits due to
the use of B?- divisor. 9Dollo# pp. -43'-8?:
+etitioner ;CE ans%ered that the a%ard should be made effective from the date of effectivit of the Labor
Code# that their sales personnel are not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holida pa# and that
the use of B?- as divisor is an established emploee benefit %hich cannot be diminished.
*J2 the respondentEs sales personnel are not field personnel under ,rticle 3B of the Labor CodeK
The criteria for granting incentive bonus are= 9-: attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales
target@ 9B: good collection performance@ 94: proper compliance %ith good mar)et hgiene@ 98: good
merchandising %or)@ 9?: minimal mar)et returns@ and 9.: proper truc) maintenance. 9Dollo# p. -/1:.
The Court thereb resolves that the grant of holida pa be effective# not from the date of promulgation of
the Chartered Aan) case nor from the date of effectivit of the Labor Code# but from &ctober B4# -/38#
the date of promulgation of the $A,, case.
*(EDEC&DE# the order of the voluntar arbitrator in hereb "&D$C$ED. The divisor to be used in
computing holida pa shall be B?- das. The holida pa as above directed shall be computed from
&ctober B4# -/38. $n all other respects# the order of the respondent arbitrator is hereb ,CC$D"ED.