GAWAT, RON D.

1. No, Mr. Kim is not correct. As a general rule, it shall be the duty of
every employer, whether operating for profit or not, to provide each
of his employees a rest period of not less than twenty-four (24)
consecutive hours after every six (6) consecutive normal work days.
One of the exceptions to this rule is when there is an abnormal
pressure of work due to special circumstances, where the employer
cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures. In this
case, Mr. Kim is the Head of Marketing Department of BDS Corp with
the rank of First Senior Vice President, and his position is indeed an
essential part in the completion of all marketing projects of the
company. Therefore, there is no violation Article 91 of the Labor Code
for not giving him a day of rest.

2. I will reject Jennie’s complaint. The law provides that the employer
shall respect the preference of employees as to their weekly rest day
when such preference is based on religious grounds. In this case,
Jennie’s reason for such request is not based on religious grounds,
but merely a personal preference for wanting to have a date with her
boyfriend after service. Hence, the disapproval of her request.

3. According to the Labor Code, the instances when the employer may
require his employees to work on any day:
a. In case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious
accident, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic or other
disaster or calamity to prevent loss of life and property, or
imminent danger to public safety;
b. In cases of urgent work to be performed on the machinery,
equipment, or installation, to avoid serious loss which the
employer would otherwise suffer;
c. In the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special
circumstances, where the employer cannot ordinarily be expected
to resort to other measures;
d. To prevent loss or damage to perishable goods;
e. Where the nature of the work requires continuous operations and
the stoppage of work may result in irreparable injury or loss to the
employer; and
f. Under other circumstances analogous or similar to the foregoing
as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
4. The law provides that premium pay is an additional pay provided to a
covered employee who renders work during non-workdays, such as a
rest day or a special non-working day. An employee is entitled to one
(1) rest day per week. If there is work performed on a regular holiday
which is also a rest day or a special non-working day, a covered
employee is entitled to a premium pay of 30% of the regular holiday
rate of 200% based on his/her daily basic wage or a total of 260%.
Not all employees are entitled to premium pay. Only covered
employees are entitled to premium pay. On the other hand, there are
employees who are excluded from the coverage of the benefit. For
instance, Government employees, kasambahay or domestic workers,
managerial employees are not entitled to premium pay.
5.

When work performed Premium Pay

On scheduled rest day 30%

On Sunday ONLY if this is the 30%

established rest day

On Sunday and holidays, when 50%

no regular work and rest days

On any special holiday/special 50%

day

On any special holiday/special 160%

day falling on scheduled rest
day

On a regular holiday falling on a 30%

rest day
6. No. the law provides that where the collective bargaining agreement
or other applicable employment contract stipulates the payment of a
higher premium pay than that prescribed under this Article, the
employer shall pay such higher rate. In this case, the 50% rate must
be followed because it was the rate provided by the CBA.

7. The law provides that hotels, restaurants and similar establishments

may collect service charges. Furthermore, the service charges shall be
distributed at the rate of eighty-five percent (85%) for all covered
employees and fifteen percent (15%) for management. The share of
the employees shall be equally distributed among them. In case the
service charge is abolished, the share of the covered employees shall
be considered integrated in their wages.

8. The law provides that all service charges collected by hotels,

restaurants and similar establishments shall be distributed at the rate
of eighty-five percent (85%) for all covered employees and fifteen
percent (15%) for management. The share of the employees shall be
equally distributed among them. In case the service charge is
abolished, the share of the covered employees shall be considered
integrated in their wages.

9. The Court is mindful of the fact that labor embraces individuals with
a weaker and unlettered position as against capital, it is equally
mindful of the protection that the law accords to capital. While the
Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the
protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every
labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.
Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to
respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. In sum,
the Court holds that the retroactive salary increases should be taken
into account in the determination of which hotel employees were
entitled to ECOLA under WO No. 9. After applying the salary
increases retroactive to 1 January 2001, 82 hotel employees still had
daily salary rates between ₱250.00 and ₱290.00, thus, entitling them
to receive the first tranch of ECOLA, equivalent to ₱15.00 per day,
beginning 5 November 2001, the date of effectivity of WO No. 9, until
31 December 2001. Following the second round of salary increases
retroactive to 1 January 2002, all the hotel employees were already
 receiving daily salary rates above ₱290.00, hence, leaving no one
qualified to receive ECOLA. Receipt by the 82 hotel employees of
their shares from the service charges collected by Dusit Hotel shall
not be deemed payment of their ECOLA from 5 November 2001 to 31
December 2001.

10.The rules provide that in the event that the minimum wage is
increased by law or wage order, the service charges paid to the
employees shall not be considered in determining the establishment's
compliance with the increased minimum wage.