MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE Paguio Transport Corp.
did not submit any proof to
Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz
 Employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards
Yrasuegui vs. PAL
 the weight standards of PAL constitute a continuing
qualification of an employee in order to keep the job.
 “Meiorin Test”
(1) the employer must show that it adopted the
standard for a purpose rationally connected to the
performance of the job;
(2) the employer must establish that the standard is
reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that
workrelated purpose; and
(3) the employer must establish that the standard is
reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the
legitimate work-related purpose
Duncan Association vs. GLAXO
 Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from having a
relationship with an employee of a competitor company
is a VALID EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
– right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing
formulas, and other confidential programs.
 Glaxo DOES NOT IMPOSE an ABSOLUTE prohibition
against relationships between its employees and those
of competitor companies.
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement
Selection and Engagement:
The records fail to show that San Miguel entered into
mere oral agreements of employment with the workers.
But the fact that workers have average of 7 years of
staying and working in the company concludes there
engagement of the workers are necessary in the usual
business of the company.
Payment of the worker’s wages
The amount paid by San Miguel Corporations to the
alleged independent contractor considers no business
expenses or capital outlay to the alleged independent
contractor considers no business expenses or capital
outlay of the latter. Nor is the profit or gain of the
alleged contractor in the conduct of its business
provided for as an amount over and above the workers’
wages.
Power of dismissal
San Miguel Corporation dismissed the petitioners from
their company and refused them to entry such
premises
Control Test
There is evidence that SMC’s right to impose
disciplinary measures for violation or infractions of its
rules and regulations proves that the company has
control over the petitioners.
Continental Marble Corp. vs. NLRC
 NO employer-employee relationship. Element of control
is lacking.
• He is also not included in the payroll nor in the list of
employees submitted by the Continental to SSS
•Nasayao works at his own pleasures, which is not
subject to hours or conditions of work and paid
according to the results of his own work.
•Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship
and there is no basis for an award of unpaid salaries or
wages to Rodito Nasayao.
Paguio Transport Corp. vs. NLRC
 Wilfredo Melchor was illegally dismissed by Paguio.
•He “was not afforded the twin requirements of due
process. (twin req= notice and hearing)
•NLRC rejected it claim of 3 vehicular accident because
there is no proof that was presented for the claim.
Therefore, a mere allegation of his reckless driving
cannot constitute for his dismissal
support these allegations. Well-settled is the rule that
the employer has the burden of proving that the
dismissal of an employee is for a just cause.
•“boundary system” do not receive fixed wages – but it
is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship
Insular Life Assurance Co. vs. NLRC
NO emrel. Basiao has freedom with his own time and
selling methods, time, place, and means of soliciting
the insurance. There are also no quotas and he is just
compensated based on the result of his work. SC
stated that Basiao was just an independent contract
and not an employee. NOT EVERY FORM OF CONTROL
MAY CONSTITUTES AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP.
Manila Golf and Country Club vs. IAC
 NO. Persons rendering caddying services are NOT
employees of said clubs.
Regarding the IAC’s contention: The Manila Golf &
Country Club’s regulations do not constrict the actions
of the caddies, it does not leave them no freedom of
choice. Regarding the “group rotation system” it is a
mere assurance that the work will be equally and fairly
distributed
Dy Keh Beng vs. Int’l Labor
 Control Test: Considering that the work of the
complainants are engage in the manufacturing of
baskets it is to expect that Dy would have to observe,
impose requirements of size and quality of the kaing,
and also subjected to Dy’s specifications.
Domasig vs. NLRC (Cata Garments)
 EmRel: IDs are presented as a bona fide employee of
the company and not just a mere security purpose.
Cash vouchers are also an indication of petitioner’s
salary. Employee since he is more than a year.
Villamaria vs. CA
 The “kasunduan-hulog scheme” will not extinguish the
employer-employee relationship of Villamaria Motors
and Bustamante. The owner still manages and regulate
the drivers whether they follow routes and the rules
regarding the business operations. Therefore, the
control is still in the hands of the owner or operator.
The driver also shows that he performs activities that
are necessary to the usual business
Makati Haberdashery vs. NLRC
 EmRel. Element of control is present. The manner and
quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.
There was no illegal dismissal to the two workers
accused of the copied Barong Tagalog design, because
when they were asked to explain to their employer, the
workers did not but instead went AWOL. Imposing
disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and
valid cause is within the rights of the employer.
Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union
 EmRel. Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union members
(petitioners) performed work which is directly related,
necessary and vital to the operations of Corfarm.
Moreover, Corfarm did not even allege, much less
prove, that petitioner's members have "substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, [and] work premises, among others.
Payment of wages: respondent did not contradict
petitioner's allegation that it paid wages directly to
these workers without the intervention of any third-
party independent contractor
Power to Dismiss: wielded the power of dismissal over
petitioners; in fact, its exercise of this power was the
progenitor of the illegal dismissal case
Orlando Farm Growers Inc.
 Several circulars and memos were produced during the
association's existence regarding, among other things,
absences without official permission, loitering in the
work area, and disciplinary procedures that every
 worker is required to follow. The staff were also given  EmRel. As cameramen, editors and reporters, it
identity cards. appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and
Maraguinot vs. VIVA Films supervision of Respondents which provided them with
 There exist an employee- employer relationship the equipment essential for the discharge of their
between the petitioners and the private respondents functions. right to control not only the end result but
because of the ff. reasons that nowhere in the also the manner and means utilized to achieve the
appointment slip does it appear that it was the same.
producer who hired the crew members. Moreover, it
was VIVA’s corporate name appearing on heading of Francisco vs. NLRC
the slip. It can likewise be said that it was VIVA who
 EmRel. She was selected and engaged by the company
paid for the petitioners’ salaries. Respondents also
for compensation and is economically dependent upon
admit that the petitioners were part of a work pool
respondent for her continued employment in that line
wherein they attained the status of regular employees
of business. Her main job function involved accounting
because of the ff. requisites: (a) There is a continuous
and tax services rendered to respondent corporation on
rehiring of project employees even after cessation of a
a regular basis over an indefinite period of
project; (b) The tasks performed by the alleged
engagement. Kasei Corporation has the power to
“project employees” are vital, necessary and
control petitioner with the means and methods by
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
which the work is to be accomplished
employer; and (c) However, the length of time which
Two-tiered test:
the employees are continually re-hired is not
(1) The putative employer’s power to control the
controlling but merely serves as a badge of regular
employee with respect to the means and methods
employment.
by which the work is to be accomplished (control
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN
test)
 NO EmRel. (a) Selection and engagement of employee
(2) The underlying economic realities of the activity or
ABS-CBN engaged Sonza's services to co-host its
relationship (test of economic realisties of the
television and radio programs because of his peculiar
activity or relationship)
skills, talent and celebrity status. These are indicative,
but not conclusive, of an independent contractual
relationship (b) Payment of wages: The Court held that
whatever benefits Sonza enjoyed (SSS, Medicare, 13th
month pay) arose from contract and not because of an
employer-employee relationship. (c) Power of
Dismissal: For violation of any provision of the
Agreement, either party may terminate their
relationship. Sonza failed to show that ABS-CBN could
terminate his services on grounds other than breach of
contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as
provided under labor laws. (d) Power of Control: The
control test is the most important test our courts apply
in distinguishing an employee from an independent
contractor. This test is based on the extent of control
the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the
supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more
likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse
holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises,
the more likely the worker is considered an
independent contractor.
Orozco vs. CA
 NO. The “control” being asserted by the Orozco is not
the type of control contemplated under the four-fold
test in labor law. The main determinant therefore is
whether the rules set by the employer are meant to
control not just the results of the work but also the
means and methods to be used by the hired party in
order to achieve such results.
Economic Dependence Test:
(1) the extent to which the services performed are an
integral part of the employer’s business;
(2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment
and facilities;
(3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the
employer;
(4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss;
(5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or
foresight required for the success of the claimed
independent enterprise;
(6) the permanency and duration of the relationship
between the worker and the employer; and
(7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the
employer for his continued employment in that line of
business.
Begino vs. ABS-CBN

LEAVES ART. 97-100
Songco vs. NLRC
 In the computation of backwages and separation pay,
account must be taken not only of the basic salary of
the employee, but also of the transportation and
emergency living allowances.
The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason
for such type of remuneration for services rendered
demonstrate that commissions are part of Songco, et
al's wage or salary.
Since the commissions in the present case were earned
by actual transactions attributable to Song, et al.,
these should be included in their separation pay. In
the computation thereof, what should be taken into
account is the average commission earned during their
last year of employment.
Millares vs. NLRC
 The allowances are not part of the wages of the
employees. The court agrees with the observation of
the Office of the Solicitor General that the subject
allowances were temporarily, not regularly, received by
petitioners.
American Wire Union vs. American Wire
 • ART. 100. PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION
OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. The granting of a bonus
is a management prerogative, something given in
addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due
the recipient. Thus, a bonus is not a demandable and
enforceable obligation, except when it is made part of
the wage, salary, or compensation of the employee.
Lepanto Ceramics Inc.
 A bonus is granted and paid to an employee for his
Aliviado vs. Proctor and Gamble
industry and loyalty which contributed to the success of
 WON Promm-Gem and SAPS are labor-only contractors
the employer's business and made possible the
realization of profits. For a bonus to be enforceable, it
must have been promised by the employer and
expressly agreed upon by the parties.
Eastern Telecom Phils
 machineries, work premises, among others, and the
DO 174-17 (ARTICLE 106-107)
Spic N’ Spam Services
 Job contracting. In permissible job contracting, the
principal agrees to put out or farm out with a
contractor or subcontractor the performance or
completion of a specific job, work or service within a
definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether
such job, work or service is to be performed or
completed within or outside the premises of the
principal. The test is whether the independent
contractor has contracted to do the work according to
his own methods and without being subject to the
principal’s control except only as to the results, he has
substantial capital, and he has assured the contractual
employees entitlement to all labor and occupational
safety and health standards, free exercise of the right
to self-organization, security of tenure, and social and
welfare benefits
GSIS vs. NLRC
 WON GSIS is jointly and severally liable for the
payment of money claims
HELD: Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code provide:
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. - Whenever an
employer enters into contract with another person for
the performance of the former's work, the employees
of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if
any,
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails
to pay the wage of his employees in accordance with
this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally
liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such
employees to the extent of the work performed under
the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is
liable to employees directly employed by him.
xxx
ART. 107 Indirect employer. - The provisions of the
immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to
any
person, partnership, association or corporation which,
not being an employer, contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any work, task, job
or project.
In this case, the GSIS cannot evade liability by claiming
that it had fully paid complainants' salaries.
In Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, the Court explained the
rationale for the
joint and several liability of the employer, thus:
The joint and several liability of the employer or
principal was enacted to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the Code, principally those on statutory
minimum wage. The contractor or subcontractor is
made liable by virtue of his or her status as a direct
employer, and the principal as the indirect employer of
the contractor's employees. This liability facilitates, if
not guarantees, payment of the workers'
compensation, thus, giving the workers ample
protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This
is not unduly burdensome to the employer. Should the
indirect employer be constrained to pay the workers, it
can recover whatever amount it had paid in accordance
with the terms of the service contract between itself
and the contractor.
or legitimate job contractors?
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. – XXX There is
"labor-only" contracting where the person supplying
workers to an employer does not have substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
workers recruited and placed by such person are
performing activities which are directly related to the
principal business of such employer. In such cases, the
person or intermediary shall be considered merely as
an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to
the workers in the same manner and extent as if the
latter were directly employed by him.
In the case of Promm-Gem, its financial statements
show that it has authorized capital stock of P1 million
and a capital available for operations. Promm-Gem
supplied its complainant- workers with the relevant
materials for them to perform their work and also
issued uniforms to them. It is also relevant to mention
that Promm-Gem already considered the complainants
working under it as its regular, not merely contractual
or project employees. The court finds that Promm-
Gem has substantial investment which relates to the
work to be performed. Under the circumstances, it
cannot be sustained as a labor-only contractor but a
legitimate independent contractor.
On the other hand, SAPS is considered merely an agent
of the principal employer and the latter is responsible
 to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such
employees had been directly employed by the principal
employer. Consequently, the following petitioners,
having been recruited and supplied by SAPS -- which
engaged in labor-only contracting -- are considered as
the employees of P&G: Parenthetically, unlike Promm-
Gem which dismissed its employees for grave
misconduct and breach of trust due to disloyalty, SAPS
dismissed its employees upon the initiation of P&G. It is
evident that SAPS does not carry on its own business
because the termination of its contract with P&G
automatically meant for it also the termination of its
employees’ services.
It is obvious from its act that SAPS had no other clients
and had no intention of seeking other clients in order to
further its merchandising business. From all indications
SAPS existed to cater solely to the need of P&G for the
supply of employees in the latter’s merchandising
concerns only.
Under the circumstances prevailing in the instant case,
the court does not consider SAPS as an independent
contractor.
There is labour - only contracting when:
(1) The contractor or subcontractor does not have
substantial capital
(2) The contractor or subcontractor does not have
investments in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, supervision, work premises, among others
(3) The contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees
recruited and placed are performing activities which are
directly related to the main business operation of the
principal
(4) The contractor or subcontractor does not exercise
the right to control over the performance of the work of
the employees
MIGRANT WORKERS ACT
PP vs. Melissa Chua
 It is clear that any recruitment activities to be
undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts,
or as in the present case, an agency with an expired
license, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under
Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
•And illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
Elements of large-scale illegal prosecution:
(1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under
Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice under Article
34 of the Labor Code;
(2) the accused did not have the license or the
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and
(3) the accused committed such illegal activity against
three or more persons individually or as a group.
PP vs. Domingo Panis
 The number of persons dealt with is not an essential
ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of
workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in
Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement
even if only one prospective worker is involved.
Thenamaris Ship’s Management
 The Court declared in Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime that
the clause “or for three months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” is provided in the
5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is
unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of
Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to equal protection
of the laws.
PP vs. Gallo
 To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three
elements must be established:
*the offender undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;
*he has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; and
* the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another.
•When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate
or in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three
(3) or more persons individually or as a group, it is
considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
It also reveals that MPM Agency was never licensed by
the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Accused claimed he is not an officer nor employee, but
an active involvement of each in the recruitment scam
was directed at one single purpose – to divest
complainants with their money on the pretext of
guaranteed employment abroad.
Republic vs. Principalia
Principalia has a clear and convincing right to
operate as a recruitment agency. POEA would have no
authority to exercise its regulatory functions over
Principalia because the matter had already been
brought to the jurisdiction of the DOLE.
•Principalia has been granted the license to recruit and
process documents for Filipinos interested to work
abroad.
•Thus, POEA’s action of suspending Principalia’s license
before final adjudication by the DOLE would be
premature and would amount to a violation of the
latter’s right to recruit and deploy workers.
Stolt-Nielsen and Chung Gai
 first employment contract between them and
Medequillo is different from and independent of the
second contract subsequently executed upon his
repatriation to Manila; Court held that novation took
place in this case.
Requisites of Novation:
(1) previous valid obligation;
(2) agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract;
(3) extinguishment of the old contract
(4) validity of the new contract.
the Court held that even without actual deployment,
the perfected contract gives rise to obligations on the
part of Stolt-Nielsen and Chung Gai Ship
perfection of the contract, which in this case coincided
with the date of execution thereof, occurred when
petitioner and respondent agreed on the object and the
cause, as well as the rest of the terms and conditions
therein.
Dulay vs. Aboitiz
 clearly involves the interpretation or implementation of
the said CBA. only in the absence of a CBA that parties
may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to
voluntary arbitration. Court finds no error in the ruling
of the CA that the voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction
over the instant case.
Sameer Overseas Placement vs. Cabilles
 For Cabiles' termination, Sameer was unable to provide
any valid reasons. Employers are free to set reasonable
rules and requirements, but this prerogative must not
be abused and must be tempered with the employee’s
right to security of tenure. employees may not be
terminated without a valid or just cause (substantive
due process) and without observing proper procedure
(procedural due process).
the Court emphasized that employees have the right to
security of tenure even if they relocate to work in a
different jurisdiction. Contract of employment of
Cabiles was perfected in the Philippines, then
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure all apply.
 To demonstrate that a dismissal for inefficiency at work
is justified, the following conditions must be true:
1. The employee shall be evaluated in accordance
with the standards of behavior and craftsmanship
established by the employer;
2. The employee has to be informed of the expected
standards of behavior and performance;
3. A appropriate amount of time before the
employee's performance review, the message was
made. In this instance, Sameer was unable to provide
proof that Cabiles's work was insufficient to meet
Wacoal's standards.
There was no evidence to support Cabiles's lack of
knowledge on the performance and efficiency criteria of
Wacoal.

Sunace International Management

 The act of the foreigner-principal in renewing the
contract of Divina is not attributable to Sunace. It is
incorrect to assume that because Sunace was in
constant contact with the foreign "principal" (sic), it
knew of and approved of the contract's prolongation.
The communication doesn't offer any proof that Sunace
was aware of the new contract that was signed.
•The agency is revoked if the principal directly
manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing
directly with third persons.
Princess Talent Center vs. Masagca
 Unlawfully fired. absence of a written contract attesting
to the six-month extension of respondent's
employment, the same is essentially acknowledged by
petitioners, with the exception of the defense that
there is no proof of their knowledge of or participation
in said extension and as a result they cannot be held
accountable for the actions that took place between
respondent and Same Entertainment Company
(SAENCO) during the extension period.
Even after the respondent's work visa had already
expired, SAENCO extended the Employment Contract
for an additional six months. Even if it is true that the
respondent was unable to continue working legally in
South Korea without a work visa, the petitioners cannot
use this justification to excuse the early end of the
respondent's prolonged employment.
SAENCO, as the principal/employer, and petitioner
PTCPI, as the recruitment/placement agency, are
jointly and severally liable for the monetary judgments
in favor of the respondent, an employee who was
wrongfully terminated.

Night Differential
Ordinary day Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 10% × hours between 10pm-6am)
= Ordinary Day Night Differential
Rest day Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 130% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Rest Day Night Differential
Special Holiday Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 130% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Special Holiday Night Differential
Special Holiday and at the same time Rest day
Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 150% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Special Holiday Rest day Night
Differential
Regular Holiday Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 200% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Regular Holiday Night Differential
Regular Holiday and at the same time Rest day
Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 260% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Regular Holiday Rest day Night
Differential
Double Holiday Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 330% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Double Holiday Night Differential
Double Holiday and at the same time Rest day,
Night Shift
• (Hourly rate × 390% × 10% × hours between
10pm-6am) = Double Holiday Rest day Night
Differential
NSD WITH OVERTIME
• [(10% x OT wage per hour) x no. of hours of work
performed between 10pm-6am]
Step 1: Get regular wage per hour
Hourly wage / 8 = wage per hour
Step 2: Compute the OT Pay between (5:00pm -
12:00pm)
[(25% x regular wage per hour) + regular wage per
hour x no. of OT hours] (COMPUTATION NG OT)
Step 3: Compute the NSD
[(10% x OT wage per hour) x no. of hours of work
performed between 10pm-6am]
Step 4: Compute the total wage earned
Daily wage + OT Pay + NSD = total wage earned
OVERTIME PAY
1. REGULAR WORKDAYS
[Regular Basic Wage + 25% of regular wage]
Step 1: Get regular wage per hour
Daily wage ÷ number of hours worked
Step 2: Compute the OT Pay
[ (25% x wage per hour) + (wage per hour) x no. of
OT hours ]
Step 3: Compute the total wage earned
Regular wage + OT Premium = total wage earned
2. LEGAL OR REGULAR HOLIDAYS
[Holiday wage rate (200%) +30% of OT holiday rate]
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
(Daily Basic Wage ÷ Number of hours worked) x
Regular Holiday Wage Rate
(P800 ÷ 8hrs) x 200% = P200
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00AM – 5:00PM
using holiday wage rate
(8 hours x P200 = P1,600)
Step 3: Compute OT Premium Pay between 5:00pm-
10:00pm
[(30% x Wage per Hour) + Wage per hour] x no. of OT
hours
3. REST DAYS OR SPECIAL HOLIDAYS
[Rest day or special holiday wage rate (130%) + 30%
of rest day or special holiday wage rate]
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
(Daily Wage ÷ hours worked) x 130%
(P800 ÷ 8 hours) x 130% = P130
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00am – 5:00pm using
special holiday wage rate
8 hours x P130 = P1,040
Step 3: Compute OT Premium Pay between 5:00pm –
10:00pm
[(30% x holiday wage per hour) + holiday wage per hour] x
no. of OT hours
4. SCHEDULED REST DAY which is also a Special
Holiday
[Rest day & special holiday wage rate (150%) + 30% of
rest day & special holiday wage rate]
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
(Daily Basic Wage ÷ number of hours worked) x rest day &
special holiday wage rate
(P800 ÷ 8 hours) x 150% = P150
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00 am – 5:00pm using
special holiday wage rate
8 hours x P150 = P1,200
Step 3: Compute OT Premium Pay between 5:00pm-
10:00pm
[(30% x Holiday Wage per hour) + holiday wage per hour]
x no. of OT hours
5.SCHEDULED REST DAY which is Also a Legal or
Regular Holiday
[Rest day & legal holiday wage rate + 30% of rest day &
legal holiday wage rate (260%)]
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
(Daily basic wage ÷ number of hours worked) x rest day &
legal holiday wage rate
(P800 ÷ 8 hours) x 260% = P260
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00am-5:00pm using
holiday wage rate
8 hours x P260 = P2,080
Step 3: Compute OT Premium Pay between 5:00pm –
10:00pm
[(30% x Holiday wage per hour) + holiday wage per hour]
x no. of OT hours
6. DOUBLE HOLIDAY
[Double Holiday Wage Rate (300%) + 300% of Double
Holiday Wage Rate]
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
(Daily Basic Wage ÷ Number of Hours worked) x rest day &
legal holiday wage rate
(P800 ÷ 8 hours) x 300% = P300
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00am-5:00pm using
special holiday wage rate
8 hours x P300 = P2,400
Step 3: Compute OT premium Pay between 5:00pm –
10:00pm
[(30% x Double Holiday Wage per hour) + double holiday
wage per hour] x no. of OT hours
COMPENSATION FOR REST DAY, SUNDAY, OR
HOLIDAY WORK
DAY PREMIUM PAY
Work on a Scheduled Rest 30% of regular wage
Day
No regular workdays and 30% of regular wage for
no specific rest days work performed on
Sundays and Holidays
 Work on Sundays when it 30% of regular wage since work performed on said
is his established rest day days is considered work on
Work on Special holiday 30% regular wage ordinary working days
Work on special holiday 50% of regular wage
falling on scheduled rest LIST OF SPECIAL DAYS
day 1. National
Work on regular holiday 260% of regular wage a. All Saint’s Day – November 1
falling on scheduled rest b. Last Day of the Year – December 31
day c. Ninoy Aquino Day – Monday nearest August
LIST OF REGULAR HOLIDAY 21 (RA 9492, July 25, 2007)
(E.O 292 as Amended by R.A. 9492) d. Other days declared by law
1.New Year’s Day – January 1
2.Maundy Thursday – movable date 2. Local
3.Good Friday – movable date Those declared by law or ordinances (e.g. Makati
4.Araw ng Kagitingan / Day of Valor – Monday nearest April Day for Makati City only)
9
5.Labor Day – Monday nearest May 1 DOUBLE HOLIDAY PAY (i.e. Araw ng Kagitingan and Good
6.Independence Day – Monday nearest June 12 Friday falls on the same day)
7.National Heroes Day – Last Monday of August 1. 200% of the basic wage
8.Bonifacio Day – Monday nearest November 30 a. Entitled even if said holiday is unworked
9.Christmas Day – December 25 b. To give employee only 100% would reduce the
10.Rizal Day – December 30 number of holidays
11.Eid’l Fitr – movable date
12.Eid’l Adha – movable date (E.O 292 as amended) 2. 300% if he worked on 2 regular holidays falling on
SPECIAL (NON-WORKING) the same day
1.Chinese New Year – Feb 12
2.EDSA People Power – Feb 25 390% if he reported for work on a double holiday
3.Black Saturday – Apr 3 which is also his rest day, where is now entitled to
4.Ninoy Aquino Day – Nov 1 an additional 30% based on the rate of 300% for
5.All Saints’ Day – Nov 1 that day
6.Feast of the Immaculate Mary – Dec 8
7.Last Day of the Year – Dec 31

HOLIDAYS FORMULA
Regular Holidays a. During employee’s
regular workday
i. If unworked
(Daily Rate + Cost
of Living Allowance)
x 100%
ii. If worked:
1. 1st 8hours – [(Daily rate +
COLA) x 200%] + [30%
(Daily rate x 200%)]

2. Excess of 8hrs. – (Hourly

rate of the basic daily wage x
200% x 130% x 130% x
numbers of hours worked)

Special Days such 1. If unworked – no pay unless

as Special Non- there is a favorable company
Working Day, Special policy, practice or collective
Public Holiday, bargaining agreement (CBA)
Special National granting payment of wages on
Holiday, and special days even if unworked
Nationwide special 2. If worked
days i. 1st 8 hrs – (Daily rate x
130%) + COLA
ii. Excess of 8 hrs.- (Hourly rate
of the basic daily wage x 130%
x 130% x number of hours
worked)
3. Falling on the employee’s
rest day and if worked
i. 1st 8hrs – (Daily rate x 150%)
+ COLA
ii. Excess of 8hrs. – (Hourly rate
of the basic daily wage x 150%
x 130% x number of hours
worked)
Special Working a. For work performed, an
Holidays employee is entitled only to his
basic rate
b. No premium pay is required