8/24/2016

G.R. No. L-65482

TodayisWednesday,August24,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L65482December1,1987
JOSERIZALCOLLEGE,petitioner,
vs.
NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSIONANDNATIONALALLIANCEOFTEACHERS/OFFICE
WORKERS,respondents.

PARAS,J.:
Thisisapetitionforcertiorariwithprayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction,seekingtheannulment
of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission * in NLRC Case No. RBIV 2303778 (Case No. R41108171) entitled

"NationalAllianceofTeachersandOfficeWorkersandJuanE.Estacio,JaimeMedina,etal.vs.JoseRizalCollege"modifyingthedecisionoftheLaborArbiteras
follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED, in
thesensethatteachingpersonnelpaidbythehourareherebydeclaredtobeentitledtoholidaypay.
SOORDERED.
Thefactualbackgroundofthiscasewhichisundisputedisasfollows:
Petitioner is a nonstock, nonprofit educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines.Ithasthreegroupsofemployeescategorizedasfollows:(a)personnelonmonthlybasis,whoreceive
their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year, irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month
withoutdeductionforholidays(b)personnelondailybasiswhoarepaidonactualdaysworkedandtheyreceive
unworkedholidaypayand(c)collegiatefacultywhoarepaidonthebasisofstudentcontracthour.Beforethestart
ofthesemestertheysigncontractswiththecollegeundertakingtomeettheirclassesasperschedule.
Unable to receive their corresponding holiday pay, as claimed, from 1975 to 1977, private respondent National
AllianceofTeachersandOfficeWorkers(NATOW)inbehalfofthefacultyandpersonnelofJoseRizalCollegefiled
withtheMinistryofLaboracomplaintagainstthecollegeforsaidallegednonpaymentofholidaypay,docketedas
Case No. R04108172. Due to the failure of the parties to settle their differences on conciliation, the case was
certifiedforcompulsoryarbitrationwhereitwasdocketedasRBIV2303778(Rollo,pp.155156).
Afterthepartieshadsubmittedtheirrespectivepositionpapers,theLaborArbiter**renderedadecisiononFebruary5,1979,the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
1. The faculty and personnel of the respondent Jose Rizal College who are paid their salary by the
month uniformly in a school year, irrespective of the number of working days in a month, without
deductionforholidays,arepresumedtobealreadypaidthe10paidlegalholidaysandarenolonger
entitledtoseparatepaymentforthesaidregularholidays
2.ThepersonneloftherespondentJoseRizalCollegewhoarepaidtheirwagesdailyareentitledtobe
paid the 10 unworked regular holidays according to the pertinent provisions of the Rules and
RegulationsImplementingtheLaborCode
3.CollegiatefacultyoftherespondentJoseRizalCollegewhobycontractarepaidcompensationper
student contract hour are not entitled to unworked regular holiday pay considering that these regular
holidayshavebeenexcludedintheprogrammingofthestudentcontacthours.(Rollo.pp.2627)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/dec1987/gr_l_65482_1987.html

1/3

8/24/2016

G.R. No. L-65482

Onappeal,respondentNationalLaborRelationsCommissioninadecisionpromulgatedonJune2,1982,modified
the decision appealed from, in the sense that teaching personnel paid by the hour are declared to be entitled to
holidaypay(Rollo.p.33).
Hence,thispetition.
Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhetherornottheschoolfacultywhoaccordingtotheircontractsarepaidperlecture
hourareentitledtounworkedholidaypay.
LaborArbiterJulioAndres,Jr.foundthatfacultyandpersonnelemployedbypetitionerwhoarepaidtheirsalaries
monthly, are uniformly paid throughout the school year regardless of working days, hence their holiday pay are
includedthereinwhilethedailypaidemployeesarerenumeratedforworkperformedduringholidaysperaffidavitof
petitioner'streasurer(Rollo,pp.7273).
Thereappearstobenoproblemthereforeastothefirsttwoclassesorcategoriesofpetitioner'sworkers.
Theproblem,however,lieswithitsfacultymembers,whoarepaidonanhourlybasis,forwhiletheLaborArbiter
sustainstheviewthatsaidinstructorsandprofessorsarenotentitledtoholidaypay,hisdecisionwasmodifiedby
the National Labor Relations Commission holding the contrary. Otherwise stated, on appeal the NLRC ruled that
teachingpersonnelpaidbythehouraredeclaredtobeentitledtoholidaypay.
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"basisbecausetheyarerequiredtoholdclassesforaparticularnumberofhours.Intheprogrammingof
thesestudentcontracthours,legalholidaysareexcludedandlabelledinthescheduleas"noclassday."Onthe
otherhand,ifaregularweekdayisdeclaredaholiday,theschoolcalendarisextendedtocompensateforthatday.
Thus petitioner argues that the advent of any of the legal holidays within the semester will not affect the faculty's
salarybecausethisdayisnotincludedintheirschedulewhilethecalendarisextendedtocompensateforspecial
holidays.Thustheprogrammednumberoflecturehoursisnotdiminished(Rollo,pp.157158).
TheSolicitorGeneralontheotherhand,arguesthatunderArticle94oftheLaborCode(P.D.No.442asamended),
holiday pay applies to all employees except those in retail and service establishments. To deprive therefore
employeespaidatanhourlyrateofunworkedholidaypayiscontrarytothepolicyconsiderationsunderlyingsuch
presidentialenactment,anditsprecursor,theBlueSundayLaw(RepublicActNo.946)apartfromtheconstitutional
mandatetograntgreaterrightstolabor(Constitution,ArticleII,Section9).(Reno,pp.7677).
In addition, respondent National Labor Relations Commission in its decision promulgated on June 2, 1982, ruled
thatthepurposeofaholidaypayisobviousthatistopreventdiminutionofthemonthlyincomeoftheworkerson
accountofworkinterruptions.Inotherwords,althoughtheworkerisforcedtotakearest,heearnswhatheshould
earn.Thatishisholidaypay.Itisnoexcusethereforethattheschoolcalendarisextendedwheneverholidaysoccur,
becausesuchhappensonlyincasesofspecialholidays(Rollo,p.32).
SubjectholidaypayisprovidedforintheLaborCode(PresidentialDecreeNo.442,asamended),whichreads:
Art. 94. Right to holiday pay (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular
holidays,exceptinretailandserviceestablishmentsregularlyemployinglessthanten(10)workers
(b)Theemployermayrequireanemployeetoworkonanyholidaybutsuchemployeeshallbepaida
compensationequivalenttotwicehisregularrate..."
andintheImplementingRulesandRegulations,RuleIV,BookIII,whichreads:
SEC.8.Holidaypayofcertainemployees.(a)Privateschoolteachers,includingfacultymembersof
colleges and universities, may not be paid for the regular holidays during semestral vacations. They
shall,however,bepaidfortheregularholidaysduringChristmasvacations....
Undertheforegoingprovisions,apparently,thepetitioner,althoughanonprofitinstitutionisunderobligationtogive
payevenonunworkedregularholidaystohourlypaidfacultymemberssubjecttothetermsandconditionsprovided
fortherein.
Webelievethattheaforementionedimplementingruleisnotjustifiedbytheprovisionsofthelawwhichafterallis
silentwithrespecttofacultymemberspaidbythehourwhobecauseoftheirteachingcontractsareobligedtowork
andconsenttobepaidonlyforworkactuallydone(exceptwhenanemergencyorafortuitouseventoranational
need calls for the declaration of special holidays). Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both
schoolandfacultymembersasnoclassdays"certainlythelatterdonotexpectpaymentforsaidunworkeddays,
andthiswasclearlyintheirmindswhentheyenteredintotheteachingcontracts.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/dec1987/gr_l_65482_1987.html

2/3

8/24/2016

G.R. No. L-65482

On the other hand, both the law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday pay are silent as to payment on
SpecialPublicHolidays.
It is readily apparent that the declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the
monthlyincomeoftheemployeesonaccountofworkinterruptionsisdefeatedwhenaregularclassdayiscancelled
onaccountofaspecialpublicholidayandclasshoursareheldonanotherworkingdaytomakeupfortimelostin
theschoolcalendar.Otherwisestated,thefacultymember,althoughforcedtotakearest,doesnotearnwhathe
shouldearnonthatday.Beitnotedthatwhenaspecialpublicholidayisdeclared,thefacultymemberpaidbythe
hourisdeprivedofexpectedincome,anditdoesnotmatterthattheschoolcalendarisextendedinviewofthedays
orhourslost,fortheirincomethatcouldbeearnedfromothersourcesislostduringtheextendeddays.Similarly,
whenclassesarecalledofforshortenedonaccountoftyphoons,floods,rallies,andthelike,thesefacultymembers
mustlikewisebepaid,whetherornotextensionsareordered.
PetitionerallegesthatitwasdeprivedofdueprocessasitwasnotnotifiedoftheappealmadetotheNLRCagainst
thedecisionofthelaborarbiter.
The Court has already set forth what is now known as the "cardinal primary" requirements of due process in
administrative proceedings, to wit: "(1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one's case and
submit evidence in support thereof (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented (3) the decision must
have something to support itself (4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such
evidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion(5)thedecisionmustbebased
ontheevidencepresentedatthehearing,oratleastcontainedintherecordanddisclosedtothepartiesaffected
(6)thetribunalorbodyofanyofitsjudgesmustactonitsorhisownindependentconsiderationofthelawandfacts
ofthecontroversy,andnotsimplyaccepttheviewsofasubordinate(7)theboardorbodyshouldinallcontroversial
questions, render its decisions in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved,andthereasonforthedecisionrendered."(Doruelovs.CommissiononElections,133SCRA382[1984]).
The records show petitioner JRC was amply heard and represented in the instant proceedings. It submitted its
positionpaperbeforetheLaborArbiterandtheNLRCandevenfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthedecisionof
thelatter,aswellasan"UrgentMotionforHearingEnBanc"(Rollo,p.175).Thus,petitioner'sclaimoflackofdue
processisunfounded.
PREMISESCONSIDERED,thedecisionofrespondentNationalLaborRelationsCommissionisherebysetaside,
andanewoneisherebyRENDERED:
(a)exemptingpetitionerfrompayinghourlypaidfacultymemberstheirpayforregularholidays,whetherthesame
beduringtheregularsemestersoftheschoolyearorduringsemestral,Christmas,orHolyWeekvacations
(b)butorderingpetitionertopaysaidfacultymemberstheirregularhourlyrateondaysdeclaredasspecialholidays
or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught, whether
extensionsofclassdaysbeorderedornotincaseofextensionssaidfacultymembersshalllikewisebepaidtheir
hourlyratesshouldtheyteachduringsaidextensions.
SOORDERED.
Teehankee,C.J.,Narvasa,CruzandGancayco,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
*RenderedbyPresidingCommissionerGuillermoC.Medina,CommissionerGabrielM.Gatchalian
andCommissionerMiguelB.Varela.
**LaborArbiterJulioF.Andres.Jr.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/dec1987/gr_l_65482_1987.html

3/3