G.R. Nos.

64821-23 January 29, 1993

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN, respondents.

Facts:

1. Petitioner: University of Pangasinan Faculty Union

2. Union composed of faculty members of the University of Pangasinan filed a complaint, through
its President, Miss Abad, against the University for: (a) payment of Emergency Cost of Living
Allowances (ECOLA) for the semestral break November 7 to December 5, 1981 (b) salary
increases from the 60% of incremental proceeds of increased tuition fees and (c) payment of
salaries for extra loads.

 During the sembreak, they were paid their monthly salaries but not the ECOLA.
- University claims that the union is not entitled of the ECOLA on the grounds that the
break is not an integral part of the school year and there were no actual services
rendered during the break)
 During AY 1981-1982, University was authorized by the Ministry of Education and Culture to
collect 15% increase of tuition fee. Union members demanded a salary increase to be taken
from 60% of the incremental proceeds.
- University refused, though it did grant a 5.86 salary increase during the pendency of the
proceedings.
- Some union members were also given extra loads to handle in the said school year.
Those with teaching loads claimed they were no paid salaries while University claims
otherwise.

3. Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission and University of Pangasinan

ISSUE #1: Whether or not Union members are entitled to ECOLA during the semestral break.

RULING #1: Yes, Union members are entitled to the ECOLA.

Presidential Decrees providing for ECOLA (PD Not. 1614, 1634, 1678 and 1713) states that employees
shall be paid monthly allowance if they incur no absences such that absence without pay shall result in
deductions in the allowance while leave with pay will not. In the case provided, the sembreak, being in
the nature of a work interruption beyond the employees control, can’t be considered as absences within
the meaning of the law. The “no work no pay” principle doesn’t apply here as this contemplates a
situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves. Faculty does not voluntarily absent
themselves but were constrained to take mandatory leave from work.

Furthermore, applying the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the
time during which the employee is inactive by reason of work interruption is
considered time worked if the internal is too brief to be utilized effectively
and gainfully for the employee’s own interest.

Therefore, the Union members are entitled to the ECOLA.

ISSUE #2: Whether or not 60% of the proceeds are to be devoted to salary increase.

RULING #2: Yes, 60% of the proceeds are to be devoted to salary increase.

As found by respondent NLRC, the faculty members have been paid for the extra loads. This is a
question of fact within the competence of the NLRC to pass upon. Assuming that these have not
been paid, faculty members are not entitled thereto applying the “no work, no pay” principle. These
are not regular loads for which faculty members are paid regular monthly salaries regardless of
working days or hours. These are extra loads which should only be paid when work is actually
performed. Since there was no work on 21 September 1981, faculty members should not be granted
extra wages for that day.

(Petition is GRANTED. UNIVERSITY ordered to pay ECOLA and undistributed

balance 60% incremental proceeds as salary increases. NLRC decision SUSTAINED in
denying payment of salary for 21 September. )