CBTC Employees Union vs. Hon. Jacobo Clave and Commercial Bank and Trust Co.

of the Philippines G.R. No. L-49582, January 7, 1986 FACTS: Petitioner Commercial Bank and Trust Company Employees Union (Union) lodged a complaint with the Regional Office No. IV, Department of Labor against private respondent bank (Comtrust) for non-payment of the holiday pay benefits provided for under Art. 95 of the Labor Code in relation to Rule X, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. On April 22, 1976, Labor Arbitrator ruled in favor of herein petitioner directing Comtrust to pay the permanent employees their holiday pay. The bank contests this relying on Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules and Regulations implementing particularly Art. 94 of the Labor Code which presumes that monthly paid employees irrespective of the number of working days therein with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage, shall be resumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. The Union on the other hand asserts that the above rule is merely a disputable presumption and is in fact supported by the NLRC in The Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. The Chartered Bank in that the salary of monthly-paid employees may already include rest daysworked or unworkedthat evidence to the contrary may destroy such supposed legal presumption. NLRC affirmed the Arbitrators ruling to award damages to the employees but the same was reversed by the Labor Secretary and affirmed by respondent Presidential Executive Assistant Clave. ISSUE: Are the permanent employees of the bank paid on a monthly basis entitled to holiday pay effective Nov. 1, 1974 pursuant to Art. 95 of the Labor Code as amended? RULING: Yes, it must be pointed out that the reason for denying the employees their holiday pay was based on Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the amended Labor Code which merely provides a disputable presumption for monthly paid employees of being paid holiday pay and can be destroyed by evidence to the contrary. In addition, Policy Instruction No. 9, issued by the Labor Secretary and used as basis to exclude the herein petitioners from their holiday pay, have been declared null and void in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union vs. Inciong for having been promulgated in excess of the Labor Secretarys rule making authority as said policy instruction amended the law by expanding the scope of the exclusions and for categorically stating that Art. 94 of Labor Code is principally for the benefit of daily employees when the law clearly states every worker. In addition, Art. 4 of Labor Code puts all doubts in favor of labor. Decisions of the Presidential Executive Assistant and the Labor Secretary are dismissed and Labor Arbiters ruling reinstated.