IBAAEU vs.

INCIONG
G.R. No. L-52415, October 23, 1984

ISSUE:

May a decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay can still be
set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already become final
and had been partially executed on the basis of an Implementing Rule and Policy Instruction
promulgated by the Ministry of Labor long after the said decision had become final and
executory?

RULING:

No. It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the
law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at
bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear
and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy
Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the
benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every
worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory
directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the implementation
and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the
legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most
beneficial effect that its language permits.

Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority
granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations.

In view of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to implement the
Labor Code and Policy instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared
null and void. Accordingly, public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong
had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed
by the Labor Code.
ALU vs. Montejo
G.R. No. 111988, October 14, 1994

ISSUE:

Is the Sangguniang Kabataan Election a holiday, and whether as per CBA entered into by the
Associated Labor Union (ALU) with AMS Farming Corporation, hence will entitle the latters
employees to payment of holiday pay .

RULING:

Yes. It is in fact a regular election as even defined by the Revised Administrative Code
of 1987. It was even announced through the media that such day is a nonworking holiday.
Consequently, whether in the context of the CBA or the Labor Code, December 4, 1992 was a
holiday for which holiday pay should be paid by AMS Farming Corporation.
First. The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is part of the local government structure. The
Local Government Code (Rep. Act. No. 7160) creates in every barangay a Sangguniang
Kabataan composed of a chairman, seven (7) members, a secretary and a treasurer.
The election for members of the SK may properly be considered a local election
within the meaning of Art. VII, sec 3 of the CBA and the day on which it is held to be a holiday,
thereby entitling petitioners members at the AMS Farming Corp. to the payment of holiday on
such day.
In Proclamation No. 118 dated December 2, 1992 President Ramos declared the day as
a special day through the country on the occasion of the Sangguniang Kabataan Elections
and enjoined all local government units through their respective Chief Local Executives [to]
extend all possible assistance and support to ensure the smooth conduct of the general
elections.
A special day is a special day, as provided by the Administrative Code of 1987. 8
On the other hand, the term general elections means, in the context of SK elections, the
regular elections for members of the SK, as distinguished from the special elections for such
officers.
San Miguel Corp. vs. CA
G.R. No. 146775, January 30, 2002

ISSUE:

Are all employees regardless of faith or religion entitled to a holiday pay by virtue of a
Muslim holiday?

RULING:

Yes. Although Article 3 of Presidential Decree 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws)
provides that the provisions of the code shall be applicable only to Muslims, on which the
petitioner based its defense, the same article provides further that nothing in the code shall be
construed to the prejudice of non-Muslims. The Supreme Court stated that there should be no
distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regards the payment of benefits for Muslim
Holidays. The Court, quoting the Court of Appeals, assuming that the SMC is correct, then
Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays
declared by law. We must remind (SMC) that wages and other emoluments granted by law are
determined not on the basis of the workers faith or religion, finds against the petitioner, and
dismissed the petition.
Imbuido vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 114734, March 31, 2000

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner was a "regular employee," NOT a "project employee" as

found by public respondent NLRC.

RULING:

Yes. In the instant case, petitioner was engaged to perform activities which were usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, as admittedly, petitioner
worked as a data encoder for private respondent, a corporation engaged in the business of data
encoding and keypunching, and her employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking
the completion or termination of which had been determined at the time of her engagement, as
may be observed from the series of employment contracts between petitioner and private
respondent, all of which contained a designation of the specific job contract and a specific
period of employment.

However, even as we concur with the NLRCs findings that petitioner is a project employee,
we have reached a different conclusion. In the recent case of Maraguinot, Jr. vs. NLRC, we
held that "[a] project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a regular
employee when the following concur:

1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after [the] cessation of a project;
and
2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary and indispensable
to the usual business or trade of the employer."

The evidence on record reveals that petitioner was employed by private respondent as a data
encoder, performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of her employer, continuously for a period of more than three (3) years, from August 26,
1988 to October 18, 1991 and contracted for a total of thirteen (13) successive projects. We
have previously ruled that "[h]owever, the length of time during which the employee was
continuously re-hired is not controlling, but merely serves as a badge of regular employment."
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that petitioner has attained the status of a regular
employee of private respondent.
Fernandez vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 105892, January 28, 1998

ISSUE:

Is the claim for service incentive leaves may only be limited to a certain number of
years?

HELD:
No.Section 2, Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides
that every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly
service incentive leave of five days with pay.

To limit the award to three years is to unduly restrict such right. The law does not
prohibit its commutation.

SGs recommendation is contrary to the ruling of the Court in Bustamante et al. vs.
NLRC et al. lifting the three-year restriction on the amount of backwages and other allowances
that may be awarded an illegally dismissed employee, thus: Therefore, in accordance with
R.A. No. 6715, petitioners are entitled to their full backwages, inclusive of allowances and
other benefits or their monetary equivalent, from the time their actual compensation was
withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.

Notes:
*** Implementing Rules clearly state that entitlement to benefit provided under this Rule shall
start December 16, 1975, the date the amendatory provision of the [Labor] Code took
effect.Hence, petitioners, except Lim and Canonigo, should be entitled to service incentive
leave pay from December 16, 1975 up to their actual reinstatement.

***Full backwages, including the accrued thirteenth month pay, are also awarded to the nine
petitioners from the date of their illegal dismissal to the time of their actual reinstatement.