SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984

INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMRI!A M"LO#S$ UNION %IBAAU&, petitioner,
vs.
'ON. AMADO G. IN!IONG, De()t* M+,+-ter, M+,+-tr* o. L/bor /,0 INSULAR BANK OF ASIA
AND AMRI!A,respondents.
Sisenando R. Villaluz, Jr. for petitioner.
Abdulmaid Kiram Muin colloborating counsel for petitioner.
The Solicitor General aparas, Tabios, !lagan Alcantara " Gatma#tan $a% &ffice and S#cip,
Salazar, 'eliciano " (ernandez $a% &ffice for respondents.

MAKASIAR, J.:+.wph!1
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order dated November 10, 199, of respondent Dep!t"
#inister of $abor, %mado &. Incion', in N$(C case No. ()*IV*1+,1*, entit-ed )!nsular *an+ of Asia
and America ,mplo#ees- .nion /complainant0appellee1, 2s. !nsular *an+ of Asia and America)
/respondent0appellant1, the dispositive portion of .hich reads as fo--o.s/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
%$$ T1E 2O(E&OIN& CONSIDE(ED, -et the appea-ed (eso-!tion en banc of the
Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission dated 30 4!ne 195 be, as it is hereb", set
aside and a ne. 6!d'ment. prom!-'ated dismissin' the instant case for -ac7 of merit
8p. 109 rec.9.
The antecedent facts c!--ed from the records are as fo--o.s/
On 4!ne 30, 19+, petitioner fi-ed a comp-aint a'ainst the respondent ban7 for the pa"ment of
ho-ida" pa" before the then Department of $abor, Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission, (e'iona-
Office No. IV in #ani-a. Conci-iation havin' fai-ed, and !pon the re:!est of both parties, the case .as
certified for arbitration on 4!-" , 19+ 8p. 15, N$(C rec.
On %!'!st 3+, 19+, $abor %rbiter (icarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in the above*entit-ed case,
'rantin' petitioner;s comp-aint for pa"ment of ho-ida" pa". <ertinent portions of the decision read/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
The records disc-osed that emp-o"ees of respondent ban7 .ere not paid their .a'es
on !n.or7ed re'!-ar ho-ida"s as mandated b" the Code, partic!-ar-" %rtic-e 305, to
.it/ t34.56h7%85
%rt. 305. (i'ht to ho-ida" pa".
8a9 Ever" .or7er sha-- be paid his re'!-ar dai-" .a'e d!rin' re'!-ar
ho-ida"s, e0cept in retai- and service estab-ishments re'!-ar-"
emp-o"in' -ess than 10 .or7ers.
8b9 The term =ho-ida"= as !sed in this chapter, sha-- inc-!de/ Ne.
>ear;s Da", #a!nd" Th!rsda", &ood 2rida", the ninth of %pri- the first
of #a", the t.e-fth of 4!ne, the fo!rth of 4!-", the thirtieth of
November, the t.ent"*fifth and the thirtieth of December and the da"
desi'nated b" -a. for ho-din' a 'enera- e-ection.
000 000 000
This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the dail# rate of pa# of the ban+
emplo#ees %as computed in the past %ith the un%or+ed regular holida#s as
e9cluded for purposes of determining the deductible amount for absences
incurred Th!s, if the emp-o"er !ses the factor ?0? da"s as a divisor in determinin'
the dai-" rate of month-" paid emp-o"ee, this 'ives rise to a pres!mption that the
month-" rate does not inc-!de pa"ments for !n.or7ed re'!-ar ho-ida"s. The !se of
the factor ?0? indicates the n!mber of ordinar" .or7in' da"s in a "ear 8.hich
norma--" has ?,+ ca-endar da"s9, e0c-!din' the +3 S!nda"s and the 10 re'!-ar
ho-ida"s. The !se of 3+1 as a factor 8?,+ ca-endar da"s -ess +3 Sat!rda"s, +3
S!nda"s, and 10 re'!-ar ho-ida"s9 'ives rise -i7e.ise to the same pres!mption that
the !n.or7ed Sat!rda"s, S!nda"s and re'!-ar ho-ida"s are !npaid. This bein' the
case, it is not amiss to state .ith certaint" that the instant c-aim for .a'es on re'!-ar
!n.or7ed ho-ida"s is fo!nd to be tenab-e and meritorio!s.
@1E(E2O(E, 6!d'ment is hereb" rendered/
8a9 000 0000 000
8b9 Orderin' respondent to pa" .a'es to a-- its emp-o"ees for a-- re'!-ar h8o-ida"s
since November 1, 19A 8pp. 9*99, rec., !nderscorin' s!pp-ied9.
(espondent ban7 did not appea- from the said decision. Instead, it comp-ied .ith the order of %rbiter
(icarte T. Soriano b" pa"in' their ho-ida" pa" !p to and inc-!din' 4an!ar", 19,.
On December 1,, 19+, <residentia- Decree No. 5+0 .as prom!-'ated amendin', amon' others,
the provisions of the $abor Code on the ri'ht to ho-ida" pa" to read as fo--o.s/ t34.56h7%85
%rt. 9A. (i'ht to ho-ida" pa". B 8a9 Ever" .or7er sha-- be paid his re'!-ar dai-"
.a'es d!rin' re'!-ar ho-ida"s, e0cept in retai- and service estab-ishments re'!-ar-"
emp-o"in' -ess than ten 8109 .or7ersC
8b9 The emp-o"er ma" re:!ire an emp-o"ee to .or7 on an" ho-ida" b!t s!ch
emp-o"ee sha-- be paid a compensation e:!iva-ent to t.ice his re'!-ar rate and
8c9 %s !sed in this %rtic-e, =ho-ida"= inc-!des Ne. >ear;s Da", #a!nd" Th!rsda",
&ood 2rida", the ninth of %pri-, the first of #a", the t.e-fth of 4!ne, the fo!rth of 4!-",
the thirtieth of November, the t.ent"*fifth and the thirtieth of December, and the da"
desi'nated b" -a. for ho-din' a 'enera- e-ection.
%ccordin'-", on 2ebr!ar" 1,, 19,, b" a!thorit" of %rtic-e + of the same Code, the Department of
$abor 8no. #inistr" of $abor9 prom!-'ated the r!-es and re'!-ations for the imp-ementation of
ho-ida"s .ith pa". The controversia- section thereof reads/ t34.56h7%85
Sec. 3. Status of emplo#ees paid b# the month. : Emp-o"ees .ho are !niform-"
paid b" the month, irrespective of the n!mber of .or7in' da"s therein, .ith a sa-ar"
of not -ess than the stat!tor" or estab-ished minim!m .a'e shall be presumed to be
paid for a-- da"s in the month .hether .or7ed or not.
2or this p!rpose, the month-" minim!m .a'e sha-- not be -ess than the stat!tor"
minim!m .a'e m!-tip-ied b" ?,+ da"s divided b" t.e-ve= 8ita-ics s!pp-ied9.
On %pri- 3?, 19,, <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9 .as iss!ed b" the then Secretar" of $abor 8no. #inister9
interpretin' the above*:!oted r!-e, pertinent portions of .hich read/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
The ten 8109 paid -e'a- ho-ida"s -a., to start .ith, is intended to benefit principa--"
dai-" emp-o"ees. In the case of month-", on-" those .hose month-" sa-ar" did not "et
inc-!de pa"ment for the ten 8109 paid -e'a- ho-ida"s are entit-ed to the benefit.
Dnder the r!-es imp-ementin' <.D. 5+0, this po-ic" has been f!--" c-arified to e-iminate
controversies on the entit-ement of month-" paid emp-o"ees, The ne% determining
rule is this; If the month-" paid emp-o"ee is receivin' not -ess than <3A0, the
ma0im!m month-" minim!m .a'e, and his month-" pa" is !niform from 4an!ar" to
December, he is pres!med to be a-read" paid the ten 8109 paid -e'a- ho-ida"s.
1o.ever, if ded!ctions are made from his month-" sa-ar" on acco!nt of ho-ida"s in
months .here the" occ!r, then he is sti-- entit-ed to the ten 8109 paid -e'a-
ho-ida"s. ...= 8emphasis s!pp-ied9.
(espondent ban7, b" reason of the r!-in' -aid do.n b" the aforecited r!-e imp-ementin' %rtic-e 9A of
the $abor Code and b" <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9, stopped the pa"ment of ho-ida" pa" to an its
emp-o"ees.
On %!'!st ?0, 19,, petitioner fi-ed a motion for a .rit of e0ec!tion to enforce the arbiter;s decision
of %!'!st 3+, 19+, .hereb" the respondent ban7 .as ordered to pa" its emp-o"ees their dai-" .a'e
for the !n.or7ed re'!-ar ho-ida"s.
On September 10, 19+, respondent ban7 fi-ed an opposition to the motion for a .rit of e0ec!tion
a--e'in', amon' others, that/ 8a9 its ref!sa- to pa" the correspondin' !n.or7ed ho-ida" pa" in
accordance .ith the a.ard of $abor %rbiter (icarte T. Soriano dated %!'!st 3+, 19+, is based on
and 6!stified b" <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9 .hich interpreted the r!-es imp-ementin' <. D. 5+0C and 8b9
that the said a.ard is a-read" repea-ed b" <.D. 5+0 .hich too7 effect on December 1,, 19+, and b"
said <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9 of the Department of $abor, considerin' that its month-" paid emp-o"ees
are not receivin' -ess than <3A0.00 and their month-" pa" is !niform from 4an!ar" to December, and
that no ded!ctions are made from the month-" sa-aries of its emp-o"ees on acco!nt of ho-ida"s in
months .here the" occ!r 8pp. ,A*,+, N$(C rec.9.
On October 15, 19,, $abor %rbiter (icarte T. Soriano, instead of iss!in' a .rit of e0ec!tion, iss!ed
an order en6oinin' the respondent ban7 to contin!e pa"in' its emp-o"ees their re'!-ar ho-ida" pa" on
the fo--o.in' 'ro!nds/ 8a9 that the 6!d'ment is a-read" fina- and the findin's .hich is fo!nd in the
bod" of the decision as .e-- as the dispositive portion thereof is res <udicata or is the -a. of the case
bet.een the partiesC and 8b9 that since the decision had been partia--" imp-emented b" the
respondent ban7, appea- from the said decision is no -on'er avai-ab-e 8pp. 100*10?, rec.9.
On November 1, 19,, respondent ban7 appea-ed from the above*cited order of $abor %rbiter
Soriano to the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission, reiteratin' therein its contentions averred in its
opposition to the motion for .rit of e0ec!tion. (espondent ban7 f!rther a--e'ed for the first time that
the :!estioned order is not s!pported b" evidence insofar as it finds that respondent ban7
discontin!ed pa"ment of ho-ida" pa" be'innin' 4an!ar", 19, 8p. 5A, N$(C rec.9.
On 4!ne 30, 195, the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission prom!-'ated its reso-!tion en
banc dismissin' respondent ban7;s appea-, the dispositive portion of .hich reads as fo--o.s/ t34.56h7%85
In vie. of the fore'oin', .e hereb" reso-ve to dismiss, as .e hereb" dismiss,
respondent;s appea-C to set aside $abor %rbiter (icarte T. Soriano;s order of 15
October 19, and, as pra"ed for b" comp-ainant, to order the iss!ance of the proper
.rit of e0ec!tion 8p. 3AA, N$(C rec.9.
Copies of the above reso-!tion .ere served on the petitioner on-" on 2ebr!ar" 9, 199 or a-most
ei'ht. 859 months after it .as prom!-'ated, .hi-e copies .ere served on the respondent ban7 on
2ebr!ar" 1?, 199.
On 2ebr!ar" 31, 199, respondent ban7 fi-ed .ith the Office of the #inister of $abor a motion for
reconsiderationEappea- .ith !r'ent pra"er to sta" e0ec!tion, a--e'in' therein the fo--o.in'/ 8a9 that
there is prima facie evidence of 'rave ab!se of discretion, amo!ntin' to -ac7 of 6!risdiction on the
part of the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission, in dismissin' the respondent;s appea- on p!re
technica-ities .itho!t passin' !pon the merits of the appea- and 8b9 that the reso-!tion appea-ed from
is contrar" to the -a. and 6!rispr!dence 8pp. 3,0*3A, N$(C rec.9.
On #arch 19, 199, petitioner fi-ed its opposition to the respondent ban7;s appea- and a--e'ed the
fo--o.in' 'ro!nds/ 8a9 that the office of the #inister of $abor has no 6!risdiction to entertain the
instant appea- p!rs!ant to the provisions of <. D. 1?91C 8b9 that the -abor arbiter;s decision bein'
fina-, e0ec!tor" and !nappea-ab-e, e0ec!tion is a matter of ri'ht for the petitionerC and 8c9 that the
decision of the -abor arbiter dated %!'!st 3+, 19+ is s!pported b" the -a. and the evidence in the
case 8p. ?,A, N$(C rec.9.
On 4!-" ?0, 199, petitioner fi-ed a second motion for e0ec!tion pendin' appea-, pra"in' that a .rit
of e0ec!tion be iss!ed b" the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission pendin' appea- of the case .ith
the Office of the #inister of $abor. (espondent ban7 fi-ed its opposition thereto on %!'!st 5, 199.
On %!'!st 1?, 199, the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission iss!ed an order .hich states/ t34.56h7%85
The Chief, (esearch and Information Division of this Commission is hereb" directed
to desi'nate a Socio*Economic %na-"st to comp!te the ho-ida" pa" of the emp-o"ees
of the Ins!-ar )an7 of %sia and %merica from %pri- 19, to the present, in accordance
.ith the Decision of the $abor %rbiter dated %!'!st 3+, 19+= 8p. 50, rec.9.
On November 10, 199, the Office of the #inister of $abor, thro!'h Dep!t" #inister %mado &.
Incion', iss!ed an order, the dispositive portion of .hich states/ t34.56h7%85
%$$ T1E 2O(E&OIN& CONSIDE(ED, -et the appea-ed (eso-!tion en banc of the
Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission dated 30 4!ne 195 be, as it is hereb", set
aside and a ne. 6!d'ment prom!-'ated dismissin' the instant case for -ac7 of merit
8p. A?,, N$(C rec.9.
1ence, this petition for certiorari char'in' p!b-ic respondent %mado &. Incion' .ith ab!se of
discretion amo!ntin' to -ac7 or e0cess of 6!risdiction.
The iss!e in this case is/ .hether or not the decision of a $abor %rbiter a.ardin' pa"ment of re'!-ar
ho-ida" pa" can sti-- be set aside on appea- b" the Dep!t" #inister of $abor even tho!'h it has
a-read" become fina- and had been partia--" e0ec!ted, the fina-it" of .hich .as affirmed b" the
Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission sittin' en banc, on the basis of an Imp-ementin' (!-e and
<o-ic" Instr!ction prom!-'ated b" the #inistr" of $abor -on' after the said decision had become fina-
and e0ec!tor".
@E find for the petitioner.
I
@E a'ree .ith the petitioner;s contention that Section 3, (!-e IV, )oo7 III of the imp-ementin' r!-es
and <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9 iss!ed b" the then Secretar" of $abor are n!-- and void since in the
'!ise of c-arif"in' the $abor Code;s provisions on ho-ida" pa", the" in effect amended them b"
en-ar'in' the scope of their e0c-!sion 8p. 1 1, rec.9.
%rtic-e 9A of the $abor Code, as amended b" <.D. 5+0, provides/ t34.56h7%85
%rt. 9A. (i'ht to ho-ida" pa". B 8a9 Ever" .or7er sha-- be paid his re'!-ar dai-" .a'e
d!rin' re'!-ar ho-ida"s, e0cept in retai- and service estab-ishments re'!-ar-"
emp-o"in' -ess than ten 8109 .or7ers. ...
The covera'e and scope of e0c-!sion of the $abor Code;s ho-ida" pa" provisions is spe--ed o!t
!nder %rtic-e 53 thereof .hich reads/ t34.56h7%85
%rt. 53. Covera'e. B The provision of this Tit-e sha-- app-" to emp-o"ees in a--
estab-ishments and !nderta7in's, .hether for profit or not, but not to go2ernment
emplo#ees, managerial emplo#ees, field personnel members of the famil# of the
emplo#er %ho are dependent on him for support domestic helpers, persons in the
personal ser2ice of another, and %or+ers %ho are paid b# results as determined b#
the Secretar# of $abor in appropriate regulations.
... 8emphasis s!pp-ied9.
2rom the above*cited provisions, it is c-ear that month-" paid emp-o"ees are not e0c-!ded from the
benefits of ho-ida" pa". 1o.ever, the imp-ementin' r!-es on ho-ida" pa" prom!-'ated b" the then
Secretar" of $abor e0c-!des month-" paid emp-o"ees from the said benefits b" insertin', !nder (!-e
IV, )oo7 I-- of the imp-ementin' r!-es, Section 3, .hich provides that/ =emp-o"ees .ho are !niform-"
paid b" the month, irrespective of the n!mber of .or7in' da"s therein, .ith a sa-ar" of not -ess than
the stat!tor" or estab-ished minim!m .a'e sha-- be pres!med to be paid for a-- da"s in the month
.hether .or7ed or not. =
<!b-ic respondent maintains that =8T9he r!-es imp-ementin' <. D. 5+0 and <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9
.ere iss!ed to c-arif" the po-ic" in the imp-ementation of the ten 8109 paid -e'a- ho-ida"s. %s
interpreted, ;!n.or7ed; -e'a- ho-ida"s are deemed paid insofar as month-" paid emp-o"ees are
concerned if 8a9 the" are receivin' not -ess than the stat!tor" minim!m .a'e, 8b9 their month-" pa" is
!niform from 4an!ar" to December, and 8c9 no ded!ction is made from their month-" sa-ar" on
acco!nt of ho-ida"s in months .here the" occ!r. %s e0p-ained in <o-ic" Instr!ction No, 9, ;The ten
8109 paid -e'a- ho-ida"s -a., to start .ith, is intended to benefit principa--" dai-" paid emp-o"ees. In
case of month-", on-" those .hose month-" sa-ar" did not "et inc-!de pa"ment for the ten 8109 paid
-e'a- ho-ida"s are entit-ed to the benefit; = 8pp. ?A0*?A1, rec.9. This contention is !ntenab-e.
It is e-ementar" in the r!-es of stat!tor" constr!ction that .hen the -an'!a'e of the -a. is c-ear and
!ne:!ivoca- the -a. m!st be ta7en to mean e0act-" .hat it sa"s. In the case at bar, the provisions of
the $abor Code on the entit-ement to the benefits of ho-ida" pa" are c-ear and e0p-icit * it provides for
both the covera'e of and e0c-!sion from the benefits. In <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9, the then Secretar"
of $abor .ent as far as to cate'orica--" state that the benefit is principa--" intended for dai-" paid
emp-o"ees, .hen the -a. c-ear-" states that ever" .or7er sha-- be paid their re'!-ar ho-ida" pa". This
is a f-a'rant vio-ation of the mandator" directive of %rtic-e A of the $abor Code, .hich states that =%--
do!bts in the imp-ementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, sha-- be reso-ved in favor of -abor.= #oreover, it sha-- a-.a"s be
pres!med that the -e'is-at!re intended to enact a va-id and permanent stat!te .hich .o!-d have the
most beneficia- effect that its -an'!a'e permits 8Or-os7" vs. 1as7e--, 1++ %. 113.9
Obvio!s-", the Secretar" 8#inister9 of $abor had e0ceeded his stat!tor" a!thorit" 'ranted b" %rtic-e +
of the $abor Code a!thoriFin' him to prom!-'ate the necessar" imp-ementin' r!-es and re'!-ations.
<!b-ic respondent vehement-" ar'!es that the intent and spirit of the ho-ida" pa" -a., as e0pressed
b" the Secretar" of $abor in the case of Chartered )an7 Emp-o"ees %ssociation v. The Chartered
)an7 8N$(C Case No. ()*159*+, #arch 3A, 19,9, is to correct the disadvanta'es inherent in the
dai-" compensation s"stem of emp-o"ment B ho-ida" pa" is primari-" intended to benefit the dai-"
paid .or7ers .hose emp-o"ment and income are circ!mscribed b" the princip-e of =no .or7, no pa".=
This ar'!ment ma" so!nd meritorio!sC b!t, !nti- the provisions of the $abor Code on ho-ida" pa" is
amended b" another -a., month-" paid emp-o"ees are definite-" inc-!ded in the benefits of re'!-ar
ho-ida" pa". %s ear-ier stated, the pres!mption is a-.a"s in favor of -a., ne'ative-" p!t, the $abor
Code is a-.a"s strict-" constr!ed a'ainst mana'ement.
@hi-e it is tr!e that the contemporaneo!s constr!ction p-aced !pon a stat!te b" e0ec!tive officers
.hose d!t" is to enforce it sho!-d be 'iven 'reat .ei'ht b" the co!rts, sti-- if s!ch constr!ction is so
erroneo!s, as in the instant case, the same m!st be dec-ared as n!-- and void. It is the ro-e of the
4!diciar" to refine and, .hen necessar", correct constit!tiona- 8andEor stat!tor"9 interpretation, in the
conte0t of the interactions of the three branches of the 'overnment, a-most a-.a"s in sit!ations
.here some a'enc" of the State has en'a'ed in action that stems !-timate-" from some -e'itimate
area of 'overnmenta- po.er 8The S!preme Co!rt in #odern (o-e, C. ). S.isher 19+5, p. ?,9.
Th!s. in the case of =hilippine Apparel >or+ers .nion 2s. ?ational $abor Relations
ommission 810, SC(% AAA, 4!-" ?1, 19519 .here the Secretar" of $abor en-ar'ed the scope of
e0emption from the covera'e of a <residentia- Decree 'rantin' increase in emer'enc" a--o.ance,
this Co!rt r!-ed that/ t34.56h7%85
... the Secretar" of $abor has e0ceeded his a!thorit" .hen he inc-!ded para'raph 879
in Section 1 of the (!-es imp-ementin' <. D. 1 1 3?.
000 000 000
C-ear-", the inc-!sion of para'raph 7 contravenes the stat!tor" a!thorit" 'ranted to
the Secretar" of $abor, and the same is therefore void, as r!-ed b" this Co!rt in a
-on' -ine of cases . . . .. t34.56h7%85
The reco'nition of the po.er of administrative officia-s to prom!-'ate
r!-es in the administration of the stat!te, necessari-" -imited to .hat is
provided for in the -e'is-ative enactment, ma" be fo!nd in the ear-"
case of Dnited States vs. )arrios decided in 1905. Then came in a
191A decision, Dnited States vs. T!pasi #o-ina 839 <hi-. 1199
de-ineation of the scope of s!ch competence. Th!s/ =Of co!rse the
re'!-ations adopted !nder -e'is-ative a!thorit" b" a partic!-ar
department m!st be in harmon" .ith the provisions of the -a., and for
the so-e p!rpose of carr"in' into effect its 'enera- provisions. )" s!ch
re'!-ations, of co!rse, the -a. itse-f cannot be e0tended. So -on',
ho.ever, as the re'!-ations re-ate so-e-" to carr"in' into effect the
provisions of the -a., the" are va-id.= In 19?,, in =eople 2s.
Santos, this Co!rt e0pressed its disapprova- of an administrative
order that .o!-d amo!nt to an e0cess of the re'!-ator" po.er vested
in an administrative officia- @e reaffirmed s!ch a doctrine in a 19+1
decision, .here .e a'ain made c-ear that .here an administrative
order betra"s inconsistenc" or rep!'nanc" to the provisions of the
%ct, ;the mandate of the %ct m!st prevai- and m!st be fo--o.ed.
4!stice )arrera, spea7in' for the ourt in Victorias Milling inc. 2s.
Social Securit# ommission, citin' <ar7er as .e-- as Davis did terse-"
s!m !p the matter th!s/ =% r!-e is bindin' on the Co!rts so -on' as
the proced!re fi0ed for its prom!-'ation is fo--o.ed and its scope is
.ithin the stat!tor" a!thorit" 'ranted b" the -e'is-at!re, even if the
co!rts are not in a'reement .ith the po-ic" stated therein or its innate
.isdom. ... &n the other hand, administrati2e interpretation of the la%
is at best merel# ad2isor#, for it is the courts that finall# determine
chat the la% means.)
=It cannot be other.ise as the Constit!tion -imits the a!thorit" of the
<resident, in .hom a-- e0ec!tive po.er resides, to ta7e care that the
-a.s be faithf!--" e0ec!ted. No -esser administrative e0ec!tive office
or a'enc" then can, contrar" to the e0press -an'!a'e of the
Constit!tion assert for itse-f a more e0tensive prero'ative.
Necessari-", it is bo!nd to observe the constit!tiona- mandate. There
m!st be strict comp-iance .ith the -e'is-ative enactment. Its terms
m!st be fo--o.ed the stat!te re:!ires adherence to, not depart!re
from its provisions. No deviation is a--o.ab-e. In the terse -an'!a'e of
the present Chief 4!stice, an administrative a'enc" =cannot amend
an act of Con'ress.= (espondents can be s!stained, therefore, on-" if
it co!-d be sho.n that the r!-es and re'!-ations prom!-'ated b" them
.ere in accordance .ith .hat the Veterans )i-- of (i'hts provides=
8<hi-. %ppare- @or7ers Dnion vs. Nationa- $abor (e-ations
Commission, supra, A,?, A,A, citin' TeoFon vs. #embers of the
)oard of %dministrators, <V% ?? SC(% +5+C see a-so Santos vs. 1on.
EstenFo, et a-, 109 <hi-. A19C 1i-ado vs. Co--ector of Interna-
(even!e, 100 <hi-. 39+C S" #an vs. 4acinto G 2abros, 9? <hi-. 109?C
O-sen G Co., Inc. vs. %-danese and Trinidad, A? <hi-. 3+99.
This r!-in' of the Co!rt .as recent-" reiterated in the case of American >ire " able >or+ers .nion
/T.=AS1 2s. The ?ational $abor Relations ommission and American >ire " able o., !nc., &.(.
No. +???, prom!-'ated on 4!ne 39, 195A.
In vie. of the fore'oin', Section 3, (!-e IV, )oo7 III of the (!-es to imp-ement the $abor Code and
<o-ic" instr!ction No. 9 iss!ed b" the then Secretar" of $abor m!st be dec-ared n!-- and void.
%ccordin'-", p!b-ic respondent Dep!t" #inister of $abor %mado &. Incion' had no basis at a-- to
den" the members of petitioner !nion their re'!-ar ho-ida" pa" as directed b" the $abor Code.
II
It is not disp!ted that the decision of $abor %rbiter (icarte T. Soriano dated %!'!st 3+, 19+, had
a-read" become fina-, and .as, in fact, partia--" e0ec!ted b" the respondent ban7.
1o.ever, p!b-ic respondent maintains that on the a!thorit" of De $!na vs. Ha"anan, ,1 SC(% A9,
November 1?, 19A, he can ann!- the fina- decision of $abor %rbiter Soriano since the ens!in'
prom!-'ation of the inte'rated imp-ementin' r!-es of the $abor Code p!rs!ant to <.D. 5+0 on
2ebr!ar" 1,, 19,, and the iss!ance of <o-ic" Instr!ction No. 9 on %pri- 3?, 19, b" the then
Secretar" of $abor are facts and circ!mstances that transpired s!bse:!ent to the prom!-'ation of
the decision of the -abor arbiter, .hich renders the e0ec!tion of the said decision impossib-e and
!n6!st on the part of herein respondent ban7 8pp. ?A3*?A?, rec.9.
This contention is !ntenab-e.
To start .ith, !n-i7e the instant case, the case of De $!na re-ied !pon b" the p!b-ic respondent is not
a -abor case .herein the e0press mandate of the Constit!tion on the protection to -abor is app-ied.
Th!s %rtic-e A of the $abor Code provides that, =%-- do!bts in the imp-ementation and interpretation
of the provisions of this Code, inc-!din' its imp-ementin' r!-es and re'!-ations, sha-- be reso-ved in
favor of -abor and %rtic-e 103 of the Civi- Code provides that, = In case of do!bt, a-- -abor -e'is-ation
and a-- -abor contracts sha-- be constr!ed in favor of the safet" and decent -ivin' for the -aborer.
Conse:!ent-", contrar" to p!b-ic respondent;s a--e'ations, it is patent-" !n6!st to deprive the
members of petitioner !nion of their vested ri'ht ac:!ired b" virt!e of a fina- 6!d'ment on the basis
of a -abor stat!te prom!-'ated fo--o.in' the ac:!isition of the =ri'ht=.
On the :!estion of .hether or not a -a. or stat!te can ann!- or modif" a 6!dicia- order iss!ed prior to
its prom!-'ation, this Co!rt, thro!'h %ssociate 4!stice C-aro #. (ecto, said/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
@e are decided-" of the opinion that the" did not. Said order, bein' !nappea-ab-e,
became fina- on the date of its iss!ance and the parties .ho ac:!ired ri'hts
there!nder cannot be deprived thereof b" a constit!tiona- provision enacted or
prom!-'ated s!bse:!ent thereto. ?either the onstitution nor the statutes, e9cept
penal la%s fa2orable to the accused, ha2e retroacti2e effect in the sense of annulling
or modif#ing 2ested rights, or altering contractual obligations) 8China Ins. G S!ret"
Co. vs. 4!d'e of 2irst Instance of #ani-a, ,? <hi-. ?3A, emphasis s!pp-ied9.
In the case of In re/ C!nanan, et a-., 19 <hi-. +5+, #arch 15, 19+A, this Co!rt said/ =... .hen a co!rt
renders a decision or prom!-'ates a reso-!tion or order on the basis of and in accordance .ith a
certain -a. or r!-e then in force, the s!bse:!ent amendment or even repea- of said -a. or r!-e ma"
not affect the fina- decision, order, or reso-!tion a-read" prom!-'ated, in the sense of revo7in' or
renderin' it void and of no effect.= Th!s, the amendator" r!-e 8(!-e IV, )oo7 III of the (!-es to
Imp-ement the $abor Code9 cannot be 'iven retroactive effect as to modif" fina- 6!d'ments. Not even
a -a. can va-id-" ann!- fina- decisions 8In re/ C!nanan, et a-., Ibid9.
2!rthermore, the facts of the case re-ied !pon b" the p!b-ic respondent are not ana-o'o!s to that of
the case at bar. The case of De $!na spea7s of fina- and e0ec!tor" 6!d'ment, .hi-e iii the instant
case, the fina- 6!d'ment is partia--" e0ec!ted. 6!st as the co!rt is o!sted of its 6!risdiction to ann!- or
modif" a 6!d'ment the moment it becomes fina-, the co!rt a-so -oses its 6!risdiction to ann!- or
modif" a .rit of e0ec!tion !pon its service or e0ec!tionC for, other.ise, .e .i-- have a sit!ation
.herein a fina- and e0ec!ted 6!d'ment can sti-- be ann!--ed or modified b" the co!rt !pon mere
motion of a pant" This .o!-d certain-" res!-t in end-ess -iti'ations thereb" renderin' in!ti-e the r!-e of
-a..
(espondent ban7 co!nters .ith the ar'!ment that its partia- comp-iance .as invo-!ntar" beca!se it
did so !nder pain of -ev" and e0ec!tion of its assets 8p. 1?5, rec.9. @E find no merit in this ar'!ment.
(espondent ban7 c-ear-" manifested its vo-!ntariness in comp-"in' .ith the decision of the -abor
arbiter b" not appea-in' to the Nationa- $abor (e-ations Commission as provided for !nder the $abor
Code !nder %rtic-e 33?. % part" .ho .aives his ri'ht to appea- is deemed to have accepted the
6!d'ment, adverse or not, as correct, especia--" if s!ch part" readi-" ac:!iesced in the 6!d'ment b"
startin' to e0ec!te said 6!d'ment even before a .rit of e0ec!tion .as iss!ed, as in this case. Dnder
these circ!mstances, to permit a part" to appea- from the said partia--" e0ec!ted fina- 6!d'ment
.o!-d ma7e a moc7er" of the doctrine of fina-it" of 6!d'ments -on' enshrined in this 6!risdiction.
Section I of (!-e ?9 of the (evised (!-es of Co!rt provides that =... e0ec!tion sha-- iss!e as a matter
of ri'ht !pon the e0piration of the period to appea- ... or if no appea- has been d!-" perfected.= This
r!-e app-ies to decisions or orders of -abor arbiters .ho are e0ercisin' :!asi*6!dicia- f!nctions since
=... the r!-e of e0ec!tion of 6!d'ments !nder the r!-es sho!-d 'overn a-- 7inds of e0ec!tion of
6!d'ment, !n-ess it is other.ise provided in other -a.s= Sa'!cio vs. )!-os + SC(% 50?9 and %rtic-e
33? of the $abor Code provides that =... decisions, a.ards, or orders of the $abor %rbiter or
comp!-sor" arbitrators are fina- and e0ec!tor" !n-ess appea-ed to the Commission b" an" or both of
the parties .ithin ten 8109 da"s from receipt of s!ch a.ards, orders, or decisions. ...=
Th!s, !nder the aforecited r!-e, the -apse of the appea- period deprives the co!rts of 6!risdiction to
a-ter the fina- 6!d'ment and the 6!d'ment becomes fina- ipso <ure 8Ve'a vs. @CC, 59 SC(% 1A?,
citin' Cr!F vs. @CC, 3 <1I$%4D( A?,, AA0, 4an!ar" ?1, 195C see a-so So-iven vs. @CC, SC(%
,31C Carrero vs. @CC and (e'a-a vs. @CC, decided 6oint-", SC(% 39C Vit!' vs. (ep!b-ic, +
SC(% A?,C (amos vs. (ep!b-ic, ,9 SC(% +,9.
In &a-veF vs. <hi-ippine $on' Distance Te-ephone Co., ? SC(% A33, A3?, October ?1, 19,1, .here
the -o.er co!rt modified a fina- order, this Co!rt r!-ed th!s/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
The -o.er co!rt .as th!s a.are of the fact that it .as thereb" a-terin' or modif"in'
its order of 4an!ar" 5, 19+9. (e'ard-ess of the e0ce--ence of the motive for actin' as
it did, .e are constrained to ho-d ho.ever, that the -o.er co!rt had no a!thorities to
ma7e said a-teration or modification. ...
000 000 000
The e:!itab-e considerations that -ed the -o.er co!rt to ta7e the action comp-ained of
cannot offset the dem ands of p!b-ic po-ic" and p!b-ic interest B .hich are a-so
responsive to the tenets of e:!it" B re:!irin' that an iss!es passed !pon in
decisions or fina- orders that have become e0ec!tor", be deemed conc-!sive-"
disposed of and definite-" c-osed for, other.ise, there .o!-d be no end to -iti'ations,
th!s settin' at na!'ht the main ro-e of co!rts of 6!stice, .hich is to assist in the
enforcement of the r!-e of -a. and the maintenance of peace and order, b" sett-in'
6!sticiab-e controversies %ith finalit#.
000 000 000
In the recent case of Gaba#a 2s. Mendoza, 11? SC(% A0+, A0,, #arch ?0, 1953, this Co!rt said/ t34.56h7%85
000 000 000
In Marasigan 2s. Ron7uillo 89A <hi-. 3?9, it .as cate'orica--" stated that the r!-e is
abso-!te that after a 6!d'ment becomes fina- b" the e0piration of the period provided
b" the r!-es .ithin .hich it so becomes, no f!rther amendment or correction can be
made b" the co!rt e0cept for c-erica- errors or mista7es. %nd s!ch fina- 6!d'ment is
conc-!sive not on-" as to ever" matter .hich .as offered and received to s!stain or
defeat the c-aim or demand b!t as to an" other admissib-e matter .hich m!st have
been offered for that p!rpose 8$*0AA, 9, <hi-. +3,9. In the ear-ier case of Contreras
and &inco vs. 2e-i0 and China )an7in' Corp., Inc. 8AA O.&. A?0,9, it .as stated
that the rule must be adhered to regardless of an# possible in<ustice in a particular
case for />1e ha2e to subordinate the e7uit# of a particular situation to the o2er0
mastering need of certaint# and immutabilit# of <udicial pronouncements
000 000 000
III
The despotic manner b" .hich p!b-ic respondent %mado &. Incion' divested the members of the
petitioner !nion of their ri'hts ac:!ired b" virt!e of a fina- 6!d'ment is tantamo!nt to a deprivation of
propert" .itho!t d!e process of -a. <!b-ic respondent comp-ete-" i'nored the ri'hts of the petitioner
!nion;s members in dismissin' their comp-aint since he 7ne. for a fact that the 6!d'ment of the -abor
arbiter had -on' become fina- and .as even partia--" e0ec!ted b" the respondent ban7.
% fina- 6!d'ment vests in the prevai-in' part" a ri'ht reco'niFed and protected b" -a. !nder the d!e
process c-a!se of the Constit!tion 8China Ins. G S!ret" Co. vs. 4!d'e of 2irst Instance of #ani-a, ,?
<hi-. ?3A9. % fina- 6!d'ment is =a vested interest .hich it is ri'ht and e:!itab-e that the 'overnment
sho!-d reco'niFe and protect, and of .hich the individ!a- co!-d no. be deprived arbitrari-" .itho!t
in6!stice= 8(oo7-ed'e v. &ar.ood, ,+ N.@. 3d 5+, 919.
-t is b" this '!idin' princip-e that the d!e process c-a!se is interpreted. Th!s, in the pith" -an'!a'e of
then 4!stice, -ater Chief 4!stice, Concepcion =... acts of Con'ress, as .e-- as those of the E0ec!tive,
can den" d!e process on-" !nder pain of n!--it", and 6!dicia- proceedin's s!fferin' from the same
f-a. are s!b6ect to the same sanction, an# statutor# pro2ision to the contrar# not%ithstanding 8Vda.
de C!a"con' vs. Vda. de Sen'ben'co 110 <hi-. 115, emphasis s!pp-ied9, %nd =8I9t has been -i7e.ise
estab-ished that a vio-ation of a constit!tiona- ri'ht divested the co!rt of 6!risdictionC and as a
conse:!ence its 6!d'ment is n!-- and void and confers no ri'hts= 8<hi-. )-oomin' #i--s Emp-o"ees
Or'aniFation vs. <hi-. )-oomin' #i--s Co., Inc., +1 SC(% 311, 4!ne +, 19?9.
Tested b" and pitted a'ainst this broad concept of the constit!tiona- '!arantee of d!e process, the
action of p!b-ic respondent %mado &. Incion' is a c-ear e0amp-e of deprivation of propert" .itho!t
d!e process of -a. and constit!ted 'rave ab!se of discretion, amo!ntin' to -ac7 or e0cess of
6!risdiction in iss!in' the order dated November 10, 199.
@1E(E2O(E, T1E <ETITION IS 1E(E)> &(%NTED, T1E O(DE( O2 <D)$IC (ES<ONDENT
IS SET %SIDE, %ND T1E DECISION O2 $%)O( %()ITE( (IC%(TE T. SO(I%NO D%TED
%D&DST 3+, 19+, IS 1E(E)> (EINST%TED.
COSTS %&%INST <(IV%TE (ES<ONDENT INSD$%( )%NH O2 %SI% %ND %#E(IC%
SO O(DE(ED.@A%phB@.4Ct
Guerrero, ,scolin and ue2as, JJ., concur.
A7uino and Abad Santos, JJ., concur in the result.
oncepcion Jr., J., too+ no part.