Wellington Investment v. Trajano

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,