Professional Documents
Culture Documents
320,DECEMBER13,1999 547
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
*
G.R.No.118289.December13,1999.
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
GilbertP.Lorenzoforpetitioners.
Guingona&Sedigoforprivaterespondents.
KAPUNAN,J.:
ThispetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtseeks
to reverse and set aside the Resolutions, dated 23 November 1993
and 13 September 1994 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which dismissed petitioners appeal from
the adverse decision of the labor arbiter and denied petitioners
motionforreconsideration,respectively.
_____________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
548
548 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
Theantecedentsofthiscaseareasfollows:
On 7 July 1988, TransAsia Philippines Employees Association
(TAPEA), the dulyrecognized collective bargaining agent of the
monthlypaid rankandfile employees of TransAsia (Phils.),
enteredintoaCollectiveBargainingAgreement(CBA)withtheir
employer.TheCBA,whichwastobeeffectivefrom1April1988up
to 31 March 1991, provided for, among others, the payment of
holiday pay with a stipulation that if an employee is permitted to
work on a legal holiday, the said employee will receive a salary
equivalentto200%oftheregulardailywageplusa60%premium
pay.
Despite the conclusion of the CBA, however, an issue was still
leftunresolvedwithregardtotheclaimofTAPEA for payment of
holiday pay covering the period from January of 1985 up to
December of 1987. Thus, the parties underwent preventive
mediation meetings with a representative from the National
Mediation and Conciliation Board in order to settle their
disagreementonthisparticularissue.Sincethepartieswerenotable
toarriveatanamicablesettlementdespitetheconciliationmeetings,
TAPEA, led by its President, petitioner Arnie Galvez, filed a
complaint before the labor arbiter, on 18 August 1988, for the
payment of their holiday pay in arrears. On 18 September 1988,
petitioners amended their complaint to include the payment of
holiday pay for the duration of the recently concluded CBA (from
1988to1991),unfairlaborpractice,damagesandattorneysfees.
IntheirPositionPaper,petitionerscontendedthattheirclaimfor
theholidaypayinarrearsisbasedonthenoninclusionofthesame
in their monthly pay. In this regard, petitioners cited certain
circumstanceswhich,accordingtothem,wouldsupporttheirclaim
for past due holiday pay. First, petitioners presented TransAsias
Employees Manual which requires, as a precondition for the
payment of holiday pay, that the employee should have worked or
wasonauthorizedleavewithpayonthedayimmediatelypreceding
thelegalholiday.Petitionersarguedthatiftheintention[ofTrans
Asia] was not to pay holiday pay in addition to the employees
monthlypay,thentherewouldbenoneedtoim
549
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 549
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
1
pose or specify the precondition for the payment. Second,
petitionersprofferedasevidencetheirappointmentpaperswhichdo
not contain any stipulation on the inclusion of holiday pay in their
monthly salary. According to petitioners, the absence of such
stipulation is an indication that the mandated holiday pay is not
incorporated in the monthly salary. Third, petitioners noted the
inclusionofaprovisionintheCBAforthepaymentofanamount
equivalentto200%oftheregulardailywageplus60%premiumpay
to employees who are permitted to work on a regular holiday.
Petitionersclaimedthatthisverygenerousprovisionwastheremedy
availed of by TransAsia to allow its employees to recoup the
holidaypayinarrearsand,assuch,isatacitadmissionofthenon
paymentofthesameduringtheperiodpriortothecurrentCBA.
Finally, petitioners cited the current CBA provision which
obligates TransAsia to give holiday pay. Petitioners asserted that
thisprovisionisanacknowledgmentbyTransAsiaofitsfailureto
paythesameinthepastsince,ifitwasalreadygivingholidaypay
prior to the CBA, there was no need to stipulate on the said
obligationinthecurrentCBA.
Withregardtotheclaimforthepaymentofholidaypayforthe
durationoftheCBA,theaccusationofunfairlaborpracticeandthe
claim for damages and attorneys fees, petitioners asserted that
TransAsia is guilty of bad faith in negotiating and executing the
currentCBAsince,afteritrecognizedtherightoftheemployeesto
receiveholidaypay,TransAsiaallegedlyrefusedtohonortheCBA
provisiononthesame.
In response to petitioners contentions, TransAsia refuted the
sameinseriatim. With regard to the precondition for the payment
ofholidaypaystatedintheEmployeesManualandtheabsenceofa
stipulation on holiday pay in the employees appointment papers,
TransAsiaassertedthattheabovecircumstancesarenotindicative
of its nonpayment of holiday pay since it has always honored the
laborlawprovisionsonholidaypaybyincorporatingthesameinthe
paymentofthemonthlysalariesofitsemployees.Insupportofthis
claim,
________________
1PositionPaperofComplainants,Records,p.22.
550
550 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
TransAsiapointedoutthatithaslongbeenthestandingpracticeof
the company to use the divisor of 286 days in computing for its
employees overtime pay and daily rate deductions for absences.
TransAsia explained that this divisor is arrived at through the
followingformula:
52x44=286days
8
Where: 52=numberofweeksinayear
44=numberofworkhoursperweek
8=numberofworkhoursperday
TransAsiafurtherclarifiedthatthe286daysdivisoralreadytakes
into account the ten (10) regular holidays in a year since it only
subtracts from the 365 calendar days the unworked and unpaid 52
Sundaysand26Saturdays(employeesarerequiredtoworkhalfday
during Saturdays). TransAsia claimed that if the ten (10) regular
holidays were not included in the computation of their employees
monthlysalary,thedivisorwhichtheywouldhaveusedwouldonly
be 277 days which is arrived at by subtracting 52 Sundays, 26
Saturdays and the 10 Legal holidays from 365 calendar days.
Furthermore, TransAsia explained 2
that the 286 days divisor is
basedonRepublicAct No. 6640, wherein the divisor of 262 days
(composed of the 252 working days and the 10 legal holidays) is
usedincomputingforthemonthlyrateofworkerswhodonotwork
andarenotconsideredpaidonSaturdaysandSundaysorrestdays.
AccordingtoTransAsia,iftheadditional26workingSaturdaysina
year is factoredin to the divisor provided by Republic Act No.
6640,theresultingdivisorwouldbe286days.
_______________
2AnActprovidingForAnincreaseIntheWageOfPublicOrGovernmentSector
OnADailyWageBasisAndInTheStatutoryMinimumWageAndSalaryRatesof
EmployeesAndWorkersInThePrivateSectorAndForOtherPurposes.
551
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 551
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
OnpetitionerscontentionwithregardtotheCBAprovisiononthe
allegedly generous holiday pay rate of 260%, TransAsia explained
that this holiday pay rate was included in the CBA in order to
comply with Section 4, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules
ImplementingtheLaborCode.Theaforesaidprovisionreads:
Sec.4.Compensationforholidaywork.Anyemployeewhoispermittedor
sufferedtoworkonanyregularholiday,notexceedingeight(8)hours,shall
bepaidatleasttwohundredpercent(200%)ofhisregulardailywage.Ifthe
holidayfallsonthescheduledrestdayoftheemployee,heshallbeentitled
to an additional premium pay of at least 30% of his regular holiday rate of
200%basedonhisregularwagerate.
OnthecontentionthatTransAsiasacquiescencetotheinclusionof
aholidaypayprovisionintheCBAisanadmissionofnonpayment
of the same in the past, TransAsia reiterated that it is simply a
recognition of the mandate of the Labor Code that employees are
entitledtoholidaypay.Itclarifiedthatthecompanysfirmbeliefin
the payment of holiday pay to employees led it to agree to the
inclusionoftheholidaypayprovisionintheCBA.
Withregardtotheaccusationofunfairlaborpracticebecauseof
TransAsias act of allegedly bargaining in bad faith and refusal to
giveholidaypayinaccordancewiththeCBA,TransAsiaexplained
thatwhatpetitionerswouldlikethecompanytodoistogivedouble
holiday pay since, as previously stated, the company has already
included the same in its employees monthly salary and, yet,
petitionerswantittopayasecondsetofholidaypay.
On 13 February 1989, the labor arbiter rendered a decision
dismissingthecomplaint,towit:
552
552 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
PositionPaper,thereappearstobenoclearagreementbetweenthepartiesin
theinstantcase,whetherverbalorinwriting,thatthemonthlysalaryofthe
employees included the mandated holiday pay. In the absence of such
agreement, the Supreme Court in said Chartered Bank Case took into
consideration existing practices in the bank in resolving the issue, such as
employment by the bank of a divisor of 251 days which is the result of
subtracting all Saturdays, Sundays and the ten (10) legal holidays from the
total number of calendar days in a year. Further, the Court took note of the
fact that the bank used conflicting or different divisors in computing
salaryrelated benefits as well as the employees absence from work. In the
caseatbar,notonlydidtheCBAbetweenthecomplainantsandrespondents
herein provides (sic) that the ten (10) legal holidays are recognized by the
Companyasfullholidaywithpay.Whatismore,therecanbenodoubtthat
since 1977 up to the execution of the CBA, the TransAsia, unlike that
obtaining in the Chartered Bank Case, never used conflicting or different
divisorsbutconsistentlyemployedthedivisorof286days,whichasearlier
pointedout,wasarrivedatbysubtractingonlytheunworked52Sundaysand
the 26 halfdayworked Saturdays from the total number of days in a year.
The consistency in the established practice of the TransAsia, which
incidentally is not disputed by complainants, did not give rise to any doubt
whichcouldhavebeenresolvedinfavorofcomplainants.
Besides, the respondents unlike the respondent bank in the Chartered
Bank Employees Association vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople, et al. (supra) citing
alsothecaseofIBAAEUvs.Hon.AmadoInciong(132SCRA663)which
casehave(sic)invalidatedSection2,RuleIV,BookIIIoftheImplementing
RulesoftheLaborCodeandPolicyInstructionNo.9,haveneverreliedon
thesaidinvalidatedruleandPolicyInstruction.
The complainants arguments and juxtapositions in claiming that they
weredeniedpaymentoftheirholidaypaypaledinthefaceoftheprevailing
companypracticesandcircumstancesabovestated.
Also,forthereasonsadvertedtoabove,thecomplainantschargeofunfair
laborpracticeclaimingthatrespondentsinbadfaithrefusedtocomplywith
their contractual obligation under the CBA by not paying the complainants
holidaypay,mustfail.Sincerespondentshavenothingmoretopaybyway
oflegalholidaypayasithasalreadybeenincludedintheirmonthlysalaries,
theprovisionintheCBArelativetoholidaypayisjustbutarecognitionof
the complainants right to payment of legal holiday pay as mandated by the
LaborCode.
553
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 553
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
Wefindnocogentreasontochangeordisturbthedecisionappealed
from, the same being substantially supported by the facts and
evidenceonrecord.Itisawellsettledrulethatfindingsoffactsof
administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence are
controllingonthereviewing authority. (PlantersProducts,Inc.vs.
NLRC, G.R. Nos. 78524 & 78739, January 20, 1989, 169 SCRA
328).
Wefindnoabuseofdiscretionand/orerrorintheassaileddecision.
WHEREFORE, the appeal are (sic) hereby DISMISSED for lack of
meritandthedecisionappealedfromisAFFIRMED.
4
SOORDERED.
Petitionersmotionforreconsiderationwas,likewise,deniedbythe
NLRCinitsResolution,dated13September1994.
Petitioners are now before us faulting the NLRC with the
followingassignmentoferrors:
II
_______________
3Decision,Rollo,pp.3537.
4Resolution,Id.,at2930.
554
554 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
______________
5Petition,Id.,at1213.
6Id.,at17.
555
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 555
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
Any remaining doubts which may arise from the conflicting or different
divisors used in the computation of overtime pay and employees absences
are resolved by the manner in which work actually rendered on holidays is
paid. Thus, whenever monthly paid employees work on a holiday, they are
givenanadditional100%basepayontopofapremiumpayof50%.Ifthe
employeesmonthlypay
________________
7228SCRA466(1993).
8CommentofSolicitorGeneral,Rollo,p.79.
9Ibid.
10Supra,note5at15.
11138SCRA273(1985).
556
556 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
_____________
12Id.,at283.
557
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 557
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
SECTION1.Unlessotherwisemodifiedbylaw,orderorproclamation,the
followingregularholidaysandspecialdaysshallbeobservedinthecountry:
A. RegularHolidays
NewYearsDay January1
MaundyThursday MovableDate
GoodFriday MovableDate
ArawngKagitingan April9
(Bataan&CorregidorDay)
LaborDay May1
IndependenceDay June12
NationalHeroesDay LastSundayofAugust
BonifacioDay November30
ChristmasDay December25
RizalDay December30
B. NationwideSpecialDays
AllSaintsDay November1
LastDayoftheYear December31
On the other hand, Section 6 of the Implementing Rules and
RegulationsofRepublicActNo.6727provides:
EquivalentMonthly =AverageDailyWageRatex262days
Rate(EMR) 12
Where262days=
250days Ordinaryworkingdays
10days Regularholidays
2days Specialdays(Ifconsideredpaidifactually
worked,thisisequivalentto2.6days)
262days Totalequivalentnumberofdays
558
558 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
Based on the above, the proper divisor that should be used for a
situationwhereintheemployeesdonotworkandarenotconsidered
paid on Saturdays and Sundays or rest days is 262 days. In the
presentcase,sincetheemployeesofTransAsiaarerequiredtowork
halfdayonSaturdays,26daysshouldbeaddedtothedivisorof262
days,thus,resultingto288days.However,duetothefactthatthe
rest days of petitioners fall on a Sunday, the number of unworked
butpaidlegalholidaysshouldbereducedtonine(9),insteadoften
(10),sinceonelegalholidayunderE.O.No.203alwaysfallsonthe
lastSundayofAugust,NationalHeroesDay.Thus,thedivisorthat
shouldbeusedinthepresentcaseshouldbe287days.
However, the Court notes that if the divisor is increased to 287
days, the resulting daily rate for the purposes of overtime pay,
holiday pay and conversions of accumulated leaves would be
diminished. To illustrate, if an employee receives P8,000.00 as his
monthly salary, his daily rate would be P334.49, computed as
follows:
P8,000.00x12months= P334.49/day
287days
Whereas if the divisor used is only 286 days, the employees daily
ratewouldbeP335.66,computedasfollows:
P8,000.00x12months= P335.66/day
286days
Clearly,thismuddledsituationwouldbeviolativeoftheproscription
on the nondiminution of benefits under Section 100 of the Labor
Code.Ontheotherhand,theuseofthedivisorof287dayswouldbe
totheadvantageofpetitionersifitisusedforpurposesofcomputing
for deductions due to the employees absences. In view of this
situation,theCourtrulesthattheadjusteddivisorof287daysshould
only be used by TransAsia for computations which would be
advantageousto
559
VOL.320,DECEMBER13,1999 559
TransAsiaPhils.EmployeesAssociationvs.NLRC
Resolutionsaffirmedwithmodification.
o0o
560
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.