WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, Under-Secretar !" La#!r and E$%&!$ent, ELMER ABADILLA, and '(
!t)er*, respondents.
respondents.
' J+&  // Nar0a*a, C.J.

FACTS1 On
FACTS1  On 6 August 1991, a routine inspection was conducted by a Labor Enforcement Office on Wellington lour !ills,
an establis"ment owned # operated by P Wellington $nvestment and !anufacturing %orporation. &is report, wit" a copy
'e(plained to and received by) Wellington*s
Wellington*s personnel manager, set fort" t"e finding of 'non+payment of regular "olidays
falling on a unday for mont"ly+paid employees.) P Wellington soug"t reconsideration, arguing t"at t"eir mont"ly+salaries
already includes "oliday pay for all regular "olidays, "ence t"ere is no legal basis for LEO*s finding. $t pays its employees
a fi(ed mont"ly compensation using t"e '-1) factor, w"ic" undeniably covers and already includes payment for all t"e
wor/ing days in a mont" as well as t"e 10 unwor/ed regular "olidays wit"in a year.

"e 2egional 3irector ruled t"at '2)en

' 2)en a re3+&ar )!&4da "a&&* !n a S+nda, an e5tra !r add4t4!na& 2!r64n3 da 4*
created and t)e e$%&!er )a* t)e !#&43at4!n t! %a t)e e$%&!ee* "!r t)e e5tra da  e(cept t"e last unday of
 August since t"e
t"e payment for t"e said "oliday is already
already included in t"e -1 factor,)
factor,) and accordingly
accordingly directed Wellington
Wellington to
pay its employees compensation corresponding to four 45 e(tra wor/ing days.

P filed an !2, pointing out t"at it was in effect being compelled to 's"ell out an additional pay for an alleged e(tra wor/ing
day) despite its complete payment of all compensation lawfully due its wor/ers, using t"e -1 factor. "is"is was ta/en as an
appeal, and acted on by R ndersecretary ra7ano.
ra7ano. "e latter "eld t"at t"e 'divisor being used by P does not reliably
reflect t"e actual wor/ing days in a year,) and demanded Wellington to pay t"e si( additional wor/ing days resulting from
regular "olidays falling on undays in 1988, 1989 and 1990. P*s reconsideration was denied.

P instituted t"is special civil action of certiorari to nullify t"e above orders. % granted 2O en7oining R from enforcing t"e
above orders.

ISSUE1 W:
ISSUE1  W: a mont"ly+paid employee, receiving a fi(ed mont"ly compensation, is entitled to an additional pay aside from
"is usual "oliday pay, w"enever a regular "oliday falls on a unday

7ELD1 ;e
7ELD1 ;es. s. Every wor/er s"ould, according to t"e Labor %ode, <be paid "is regular daily wage during regular holidays, holidays,
e(cept in retail and service establis"ments regularly employing less t"an ten 4105 wor/ers=< t"is, of course, even if t"e
wor/er does no wor/ on t"ese "olidays. "e regular "olidays include> <:ew ;ear?s 3ay, !aundy "ursday, @ood riday,
t"e nint" of April, t"e first of !ay, t"e twelft" of une, t"e fourt" of uly, t"e t"irtiet" of :ovember, t"e twenty+fift" of
3ecember, and t"e day designated by law for "olding a general election 4or national referendum or plebiscite5.

"ere is no Buestion t"at P complied wit" t"e minimum norm laid down by t"e law C by paying its employees <a salary of
not less t"an t"e statutory or establis"ed minimum wage,< and t"at t"e mont"ly salary t"us paid was <not less t"an t"e
statutory minimum wage multiplied by -6D days divided by twelve.)

"e mont"ly salary was fi(ed by Wellington to provide for compensation for every wor/ing day of t"e year including t"e
"olidays specified by law  and e(cluding only undays. "e '-1 factor) simply deducted D1 undays from t"e -6D daysd ays
normally comprising a year, and used t"e difference as basis for determining t"e mont"ly salary. T)e $!nt)& *a&ar
t)+* "45ed act+a&& c!0er* %a$ent "!r '( da* !" t)e ear, including regular and special holidays, as well as
days when no work is done by reason of fortuitous cause, as above specified, or causes not attributable to the
employees.

Fased on t"e routine inspection, it was discovered t"at in certain years, two or t"ree regular "olidays "ad fallen on
undays. According to R Labor ndersecretary>
By using said (314) factor, the respondent (Wellington) assumes that all the regular holidays fell on ordinary days and never
on a Sunday. Thus, the respondent
the respondent failed to consider the circumstance that whenever a regular holiday coincides with
a Sunday, an additional working day is created and left unpaid . n other !ords, !hile the said divisor may "e utili#ed as
 proof evidencing payment
payment of 3$% !or&ing days, % special days and the ten
ten regular holidays in a calendar year, the same does
not cover or include payment of additional !or&ing days created as a result of some regular holidays falling on Sundays.