DIGEST

G2 CASES: REST DAY, COMPULSARY WORK ON REST DAY, REGULAR HOLIDAY V. SPECIAL HOLIDAY SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603 CAROLINE C. DEL ROSARIO, Respondent Respondent was hired by the petitioner as an account specialist, allegedly as a p robationary employee, but was dismissed because of a reconstruction reconstruction scheme and over employment in the company. Labor arbiter (her employment exceeded exceeded six months and holding that she was illegally dismissed as there was no authorized cause to terminate her employment. The Arbiter   further ruled that petitioner's failure to rebut respondent's claim that it hired additional  employees after she was dismissed belie the company's alleged redundancy ), ), NLRC (respondent  is a regular employee whose termination from employment was valid but ineffectual for   petitioner's failure to comply with the 30-day notice to the employee and the Department Department of  Labor and Employment (DOLE), ) and CA ruled that she is a regular employee and was illegally dismissed thus entitled to payment for damages and back wages. Issue: (1) whether or not respondent is a regular employee of petitioner; and (2) whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed; and (3) if so, whether or not respondent is entitled to any monetary benefit. RULING: - In termination cases, like the present controversy, controversy, the burden of proving the circumstances that would justify the employee's dismissal rests with the employer.[18] The best proof that petitioner should have presented to prove the probationary status of respondent is her employment contract. - Having ruled that respondent is a regular employee, her termination from employment employment must be for a just or authorized cause, otherwise, her dismissal would be illegal. the Court finds that petitioner was not able to discharge the burden of proving that the dismissal of respondent was valid. ARTICLE 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges

and to his

full

backwages, inc lusive of  allowances, and to his other bene f its or

their monetary eq uivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis, supplied) Considering that respondent was illegally dismissed, she is entitled not only to reinstatement but also to payment of full backwages, computed from the time her compensation was actually withheld from her on March 13, 2001, up to her actual reinstatement. Respondent is not, however, entitled to holiday pay because the records reveal that she is a monthly paid regular employee. Under Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of  the number of working days therein, shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or not. Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly deleted said award.[33]

ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS, The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11, 1993 wherein it clarified, inter alia, that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which[,] apart from being Good Friday [and, there f ore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is a lso a legal holiday]. Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of  their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested ART. 94. Right to ho liday pay. - (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require an employee to work on a ny holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and

(c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Years Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a general election, which was amended by Executive Order No. 203 issued on June 30, 1987 the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them, clearly recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday, on whatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the effectivity of the CBA and that "[t]here is no condition, qualification or exception for any 5

variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated." SC:

Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the 7

State shall afford protection to labor. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay." It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance. As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of  9

10

ten paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory,

regardless of whether an employee is

11

paid on a monthly or daily basis.

12

Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled t o receive. . In Wellington, the issue was whether monthly-paid employees are entitled to an additional days pay if a holiday falls on a Sunday. This Court, in answering the issue in the negative, observed that in fixing the monthly salary of its employees, Wellington took into account "every working day of the year including the holidays specified by law and excluding only Sunday." In the instant case, the issue is whether daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two 15 regular holidays which fall on the same day.

, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of  its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of  labor

JOSE

RIZAL COLLEGE, petitioner,

vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE WORKERS, respondents Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It has three groups of employees categorized as follows: (a) personnel on monthly basis, who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year, irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays; (b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they receive unworked holiday pay and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. Before the start of the semester they sign contracts with the college undertaking to meet their classes as per schedule. Unable to receive their corresponding holiday pay, as claimed, from 1975 to 1977 ISSUE: The sole issue in this case is whether or not the school faculty who according to their contracts are paid per lecture hour are entitled to unworked holiday pay. SC Petitioner maintains the position among others, that it is not covered by Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations considering that it is a non- profit institution and that its hourly paid faculty members are paid on a "contract" basis because they are required to hold classes for a particular number of hours. if a regular week day is declared a holiday, the school calendar is extended to compensate for that day. Thus petitioner argues that the advent of any of the legal holidays within the semester will not affect the faculty's salary because this day is not included in their schedule while the calendar is extended to compensate for special holidays. ). Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days;" certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts.

On the other hand, both the law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday pay are silent as to payment on Special Public Holidays. declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the monthly income of the employees on account of work interruptions is defeated when a regular class day is cancelled on account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working day to make up for time lost in the school calendar. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby set aside, and a new one is hereby RENDERED: (a) exempting petitioner from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular holidays, whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during semestral, Christmas, or Holy Week vacations; (b) but ordering petitioner to pay said faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declared as special holidays or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught, whether extensions of class days be ordered or not; in case of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they teach during said extensions. WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

CRESENCIANO B. TRA JANO, The basic issue raised by petitioner in this c ase is, as its counsel puts it, "whether or not a monthly-paid employee, receiving a fixed monthly c ompensation, is entitled to an additional pay aside from his usual holiday pay, whenever a regular holiday falls on a Sunday." The case arose from a routine inspection conducted by a Labor Enforcement Officer on August 6, 1991 of the Wellington Flour Mills, an establishment owned and operated by petitioner Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation (hereafter, simply Wellington). The officer thereafter drew up a report, a c opy of which was "explained to and received by" Wellington's personnel manager, in which he set forth his finding of "(n)on1 payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday for monthly-paid employees." Wellington sought reconsideration of the Labor Inspector's report, by letter dated August 10, 1991. It argued that "the monthly salary of the company's monthly-salaried employees already includes holiday pay for all r egular holidays . . . (and hence) there is no legal basis for the finding of alleged non-payment of regular holidays falling on 2 a Sunday." It expounded on this thesis in a position paper subsequently submitted to the Regional Director, asserting that it pays its monthly-paid employees a fixed monthly compensation "using the 314 factor which undeniably covers and already includes payment for all the working days in a month as well as all the 10 unworked  3 regular holidays within a year ."