02 MANTRADE/FMMC DIVISION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION vs.

BACUNGAN
G.R. No. L-48437 September 30, 1986 Happy Birthday, Joana!!!
TOPIC: Mandamus
PONENTE: Feria, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

AUTHOR: Tan
NOTES:
Sorry guys. Pangit yung case. Ewan ko kung bakit in-assign niya to. Wala
namang discussion about mandamus.

FACTS:
Voluntary Arbitrator Bacungan ruled that Mantrade Development Corporation is not under legal obligation to pay holiday pay (as provided for in Article 94 of
the Labor Code in the third official Department of Labor edition) to its monthly paid employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the
number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage.
Petitioner Mantrade Workers Union filed the present petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against arbitrator Bacungan and Mantrade Development
Corporation, questioning the validity of the pertinent section of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended on which respondent
arbitrator based his decision.
Respondents raised procedural and substantive objections. They contend that:
o The decision of the voluntary arbitrator is final, as provided by law
o Mantrade Development Corp. does not have any legal obligation to grant its montly salaried employees holiday pay, unless it is argued that
the pertinent section of the Rules and Regulations implementing Sec. 94 of the Labor Code is not in conformity with the law, and thus,
without force and effect
o mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act which law does not clearly enjoin as a duty
ISSUE(S):
1. WON monthly salaried workers are excluded from holiday pay.
2. Whether mandamus is an appropriate equitable remedy in the case at bar.
HELD:
1. NO
2. YES
RATIO:
1. Respondent corporation is under legal obligation to grant its monthly salaried employees holiday pay. As decided by the court in Insular Bank of Asia and
American Employees Union v Inciong, Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code is null and void for enlarging
the scope of the exclusion provided for in Art. 94. Art. 82 provides for the inclusion while Art. 94 provides for exclusion. Taken together, it is clear that
monthly-paid employees are not excluded from payment of holiday pay. An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor more than
what the statute delimits or withholds is ultra vires.
2. Mandamus is an appropriate equitable remedy. Respondent corporation contends that mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act
which the law does not clearly enjoin as a duty. True it is also that mandamus is not proper to enforce a contractual obligation, the remedy being an
action for specific performance. In the case at bar, however, in view of the above-cited subsequent decisions of this Court clearly defining the legal duty
to grant holiday pay to monthly salaried employees, mandamus is an appropriate equitable remedy. (huhuhu eto lang talaga yung sinabi ng court about
mandamus)
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):