Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-65482 December 1, 1987
OSE R!"#L COLLEGE, petitioner,
vs.
N#T!ON#L L#$OR REL#T!ONS COMM!SS!ON #ND N#T!ON#L #LL!#NCE O%
TE#C&ERS'O%%!CE (OR)ERS, respondents.

P#R#S, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari ith pra!er for the issuance of a rit of preli"inar!
in#unction, see$in% the annul"ent of the decision of the National &abor Relations
'o""ission * in N&R' 'ase No. R()IV *+,+-)-. /'ase No. R0)1)1,.1)-12 entitled
3National 4lliance of Teachers and Office 5or$ers and 6uan 7. 7stacio, 6ai"e Medina,
et al. vs. 6ose Ri8al 'olle%e3 "odif!in% the decision of the &abor 4rbiter as follos9
5:7R7FOR7, in vie of the fore%oin% considerations, the decision
appealed fro" is MODIFI7D, in the sense that teachin% personnel
paid b! the hour are hereb! declared to be entitled to holida! pa!.
SO ORD7R7D.
The factual bac$%round of this case hich is undisputed is as follos9
Petitioner is a non)stoc$, non)profit educational institution dul! or%ani8ed and e;istin%
under the las of the Philippines. It has three %roups of e"plo!ees cate%ori8ed as
follos9 /a2 personnel on "onthl! basis, ho receive their "onthl! salar! unifor"l!
throu%hout the !ear, irrespective of the actual nu"ber of or$in% da!s in a "onth
ithout deduction for holida!s< /b2 personnel on dail! basis ho are paid on actual da!s
or$ed and the! receive unor$ed holida! pa! and /c2 colle%iate facult! ho are paid
on the basis of student contract hour. (efore the start of the se"ester the! si%n
contracts ith the colle%e underta$in% to "eet their classes as per schedule.
=nable to receive their correspondin% holida! pa!, as clai"ed, fro" 1>-? to 1>--,
private respondent National 4lliance of Teachers and Office 5or$ers /N4TO52 in behalf
of the facult! and personnel of 6ose Ri8al 'olle%e filed ith the Ministr! of &abor a
co"plaint a%ainst the colle%e for said alle%ed non)pa!"ent of holida! pa!, doc$eted as
'ase No. R,0)1,).1)-*. Due to the failure of the parties to settle their differences on
conciliation, the case as certified for co"pulsor! arbitration here it as doc$eted as
R()IV)*+,+-)-. /Rollo, pp. 1??)1?@2.
4fter the parties had sub"itted their respective position papers, the &abor 4rbiter **
rendered a decision on Februar! ?, 1>->, the dispositive portion of hich reads9
5:7R7FOR7, #ud%"ent is hereb! rendered as follos9
1. The facult! and personnel of the respondent 6ose Ri8al 'olle%e
ho are paid their salar! b! the "onth unifor"l! in a school !ear,
irrespective of the nu"ber of or$in% da!s in a "onth, ithout
deduction for holida!s, are presu"ed to be alread! paid the 1, paid
le%al holida!s and are no lon%er entitled to separate pa!"ent for the
said re%ular holida!s<
*. The personnel of the respondent 6ose Ri8al 'olle%e ho are paid
their a%es dail! are entitled to be paid the 1, unor$ed re%ular
holida!s accordin% to the pertinent provisions of the Rules and
Re%ulations I"ple"entin% the &abor 'ode<
+. 'olle%iate facult! of the respondent 6ose Ri8al 'olle%e ho b!
contract are paid co"pensation per student contract hour are not
entitled to unor$ed re%ular holida! pa! considerin% that these
re%ular holida!s have been e;cluded in the pro%ra""in% of the
student contact hours. /Rollo. pp. *@)*-2
On appeal, respondent National &abor Relations 'o""ission in a decision pro"ul%ated
on 6une *, 1>.*, "odified the decision appealed fro", in the sense that teachin%
personnel paid b! the hour are declared to be entitled to holida! pa! /Rollo. p. ++2.
:ence, this petition.
The sole issue in this case is hether or not the school facult! ho accordin% to their
contracts are paid per lecture hour are entitled to unor$ed holida! pa!.
&abor 4rbiter 6ulio 4ndres, 6r. found that facult! and personnel e"plo!ed b! petitioner
ho are paid their salaries "onthl!, are unifor"l! paid throu%hout the school !ear
1
re%ardless of or$in% da!s, hence their holida! pa! are included therein hile the dail!
paid e"plo!ees are renu"erated for or$ perfor"ed durin% holida!s per affidavit of
petitionerAs treasurer /Rollo, pp. -*)-+2.
There appears to be no proble" therefore as to the first to classes or cate%ories of
petitionerAs or$ers.
The proble", hoever, lies ith its facult! "e"bers, ho are paid on an hourl! basis,
for hile the &abor 4rbiter sustains the vie that said instructors and professors are not
entitled to holida! pa!, his decision as "odified b! the National &abor Relations
'o""ission holdin% the contrar!. Otherise stated, on appeal the N&R' ruled that
teachin% personnel paid b! the hour are declared to be entitled to holida! pa!.
Petitioner "aintains the position a"on% others, that it is not covered b! (oo$ V of the
&abor 'ode on &abor Relations considerin% that it is a non) profit institution and that its
hourl! paid facult! "e"bers are paid on a 3contract3 basis because the! are reBuired to
hold classes for a particular nu"ber of hours. In the pro%ra""in% of these student
contract hours, le%al holida!s are e;cluded and labelled in the schedule as 3no class
da!. 3 On the other hand, if a re%ular ee$ da! is declared a holida!, the school
calendar is e;tended to co"pensate for that da!. Thus petitioner ar%ues that the advent
of an! of the le%al holida!s ithin the se"ester ill not affect the facult!As salar!
because this da! is not included in their schedule hile the calendar is e;tended to
co"pensate for special holida!s. Thus the pro%ra""ed nu"ber of lecture hours is not
di"inished /Rollo, pp. 1?-) 1?.2.
The Solicitor Ceneral on the other hand, ar%ues that under 4rticle >0 of the &abor 'ode
/P.D. No. 00* as a"ended2, holida! pa! applies to all e"plo!ees e;cept those in retail
and service establish"ents. To deprive therefore e"plo!ees paid at an hourl! rate of
unor$ed holida! pa! is contrar! to the polic! considerations underl!in% such
presidential enact"ent, and its precursor, the (lue Sunda! &a /Republic 4ct No. >0@2
apart fro" the constitutional "andate to %rant %reater ri%hts to labor /'onstitution,
4rticle II, Section >2. /Reno, pp. -@)--2.
In addition, respondent National &abor Relations 'o""ission in its decision
pro"ul%ated on 6une *, 1>.*, ruled that the purpose of a holida! pa! is obvious< that is
to prevent di"inution of the "onthl! inco"e of the or$ers on account of or$
interruptions. In other ords, althou%h the or$er is forced to ta$e a rest, he earns hat
he should earn. That is his holida! pa!. It is no e;cuse therefore that the school
calendar is e;tended henever holida!s occur, because such happens onl! in cases of
special holida!s /Rollo, p. +*2.
Sub#ect holida! pa! is provided for in the &abor 'ode /Presidential Decree No. 00*, as
a"ended2, hich reads9
4rt. >0. Ri%ht to holida! pa! D /a2 7ver! or$er shall be paid his
re%ular dail! a%e durin% re%ular holida!s, e;cept in retail and service
establish"ents re%ularl! e"plo!in% less than ten /1,2 or$ers<
/b2 The e"plo!er "a! reBuire an e"plo!ee to or$ on an! holida!
but such e"plo!ee shall be paid a co"pensation eBuivalent to tice
his re%ular rate< ... 3
and in the I"ple"entin% Rules and Re%ulations, Rule IV, (oo$ III, hich reads9
S7'. .. Holiday pay of certain employees. D /a2 Private school
teachers, includin% facult! "e"bers of colle%es and universities, "a!
not be paid for the re%ular holida!s durin% se"estral vacations. The!
shall, hoever, be paid for the re%ular holida!s durin% 'hrist"as
vacations. ...
=nder the fore%oin% provisions, apparentl!, the petitioner, althou%h a non)profit
institution is under obli%ation to %ive pa! even on unworked re%ular holida!s to hourl!
paid facult! "e"bers sub#ect to the ter"s and conditions provided for therein.
5e believe that the afore"entioned i"ple"entin% rule is not #ustified b! the provisions
of the la hich after all is silent ith respect to facult! "e"bers paid b! the hour ho
because of their teachin% contracts are obli%ed to or$ and consent to be paid onl! for
or$ actuall! done /e;cept hen an e"er%enc! or a fortuitous event or a national need
calls for the declaration of special holida!s2. Regular holida!s specified as such b! la
are $non to both school and facult! "e"bers as no class da!s<3 certainl! the latter do
not e;pect pa!"ent for said unor$ed da!s, and this as clearl! in their "inds hen
the! entered into the teachin% contracts.
On the other hand, both the la and the I"ple"entin% Rules %overnin% holida! pa! are
silent as to pa!"ent on Special Public :olida!s.
It is readil! apparent that the declared purpose of the holida! pa! hich is the
prevention of di"inution of the "onthl! inco"e of the e"plo!ees on account of or$
interruptions is defeated hen a re%ular class da! is cancelled on account of a special
public holida! and class hours are held on another or$in% da! to "a$e up for ti"e lost
in the school calendar. Otherise stated, the facult! "e"ber, althou%h forced to ta$e a
rest, does not earn hat he should earn on that da!. (e it noted that hen a special
public holida! is declared, the facult! "e"ber paid b! the hour is deprived of e;pected
inco"e, and it does not "atter that the school calendar is e;tended in vie of the da!s
or hours lost, for their inco"e that could be earned fro" other sources is lost durin% the
e;tended da!s. Si"ilarl!, hen classes are called off or shortened on account of
2
t!phoons, floods, rallies, and the li$e, these facult! "e"bers "ust li$eise be paid,
hether or not e;tensions are ordered.
Petitioner alle%es that it as deprived of due process as it as not notified of the appeal
"ade to the N&R' a%ainst the decision of the labor arbiter.
The 'ourt has alread! set forth hat is no $non as the 3cardinal pri"ar!3
reBuire"ents of due process in ad"inistrative proceedin%s, to it9 3/12 the ri%ht to a
hearin% hich includes the ri%ht to present oneAs case and sub"it evidence in support
thereof< /*2 the tribunal "ust consider the evidence presented< /+2 the decision "ust
have so"ethin% to support itself< /02 the evidence "ust be substantial, and substantial
evidence "eans such evidence as a reasonable "ind "i%ht accept as adeBuate to
support a conclusion< /?2 the decision "ust be based on the evidence presented at the
hearin%, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected< /@2 the
tribunal or bod! of an! of its #ud%es "ust act on its or his on independent
consideration of the la and facts of the controvers!, and not si"pl! accept the vies of
a subordinate< /-2 the board or bod! should in all controversial Buestions, render its
decisions in such "anner that the parties to the proceedin% can $no the various issues
involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. 3 /Doruelo vs. 'o""ission on
7lections, 1++ S'R4 +.* E1>.0F2.
The records sho petitioner 6R' as a"pl! heard and represented in the instant
proceedin%s. It sub"itted its position paper before the &abor 4rbiter and the N&R' and
even filed a "otion for reconsideration of the decision of the latter, as ell as an 3=r%ent
Motion for :earin% 7n (anc3 /Rollo, p. 1-?2. Thus, petitionerAs clai" of lac$ of due
process is unfounded.
PR7MIS7S 'ONSID7R7D, the decision of respondent National &abor Relations
'o""ission is hereb! set aside, and a ne one is hereb! R7ND7R7D9
/a2 exempting petitioner fro" pa!in% hourl! paid facult! "e"bers their pa! for re%ular
holida!s, hether the sa"e be durin% the regular se"esters of the school !ear or durin%
se"estral, 'hrist"as, or :ol! 5ee$ vacations<
/b2 but orderin% petitioner to pa! said facult! "e"bers their re%ular hourl! rate on da!s
declared as special holida!s or for so"e reason classes are called off or shortened for
the hours the! are supposed to have tau%ht, hether e;tensions of class da!s be
ordered or not< in case of e;tensions said facult! "e"bers shall li$eise be paid their
hourl! rates should the! teach durin% said e;tensions.
SO ORD7R7D.
3