Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995
WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AN MANU!ACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
CRESENCIANO ". TRAJANO, U#$%&'S%(&%)*&y o+ L*,o& *#$ E-.loy-%#), ELMER
A"AILLA, *#$ 34 o)/%&0, respondents.

NARVASA, C.J.:
he basic issue raised b! petitioner in this case is, as its counsel puts it, "#hether or not
a $onthl!%paid e$plo!ee, receivin& a fi'ed $onthl! co$pensation, is entitled to an
additional pa! aside fro$ his usual holida! pa!, #henever a re&ular holida! falls on a
Sunda!."
he case arose fro$ a routine inspection conducted b! a (abor Enforce$ent Officer on
)u&ust *, +,,+ of the -ellin&ton .lour Mills, an establish$ent o#ned and operated b!
petitioner -ellin&ton Invest$ent and Manufacturin& Corporation /hereafter, si$pl!
-ellin&ton0. he officer thereafter dre# up a report, a cop! of #hich #as "e'plained to
and received b!" -ellin&ton1s personnel $ana&er, in #hich he set forth his findin& of
"/n0on%pa!$ent of re&ular holida!s fallin& on a Sunda! for $onthl!%paid e$plo!ees."
1
-ellin&ton sou&ht reconsideration of the (abor Inspector1s report, b! letter dated )u&ust
+2, +,,+. It ar&ued that "the $onthl! salar! of the co$pan!1s $onthl!%salaried
e$plo!ees alread! includes holida! pa! for all re&ular holida!s . . . /and hence0 there is
no le&al basis for the findin& of alle&ed non%pa!$ent of re&ular holida!s fallin& on a
Sunda!."
1
It e'pounded on this thesis in a position paper subse3uentl! sub$itted to the
Re&ional Director, assertin& that it pa!s its $onthl!%paid e$plo!ees a fi'ed $onthl!
co$pensation "using the 314 factor which undeniably covers and already includes
payment for all the working days in a month as well as all the 10 unworked regular
holidays within a year."
3
-ellin&ton1s ar&u$ents failed to persuade the Re&ional Director #ho, in an Order
issued on 4ul! 56, +,,5, ruled that "#hen a re&ular holida! falls on a Sunda!, an e'tra
or additional #or7in& da! is created and the e$plo!er has the obli&ation to pa! the
e$plo!ees for the e'tra da! e'cept the last Sunda! of )u&ust since the pa!$ent for the
said holida! is alread! included in the 8+9 factor," and accordin&l! directed -ellin&ton
to pa! its e$plo!ees co$pensation correspondin& to four /90 e'tra #or7in& da!s.
4
-ellin&ton ti$el! filed a $otion for reconsideration of this Order of )u&ust +2, +,,5,
pointin& out that it #as in effect bein& co$pelled to "shell out an additional pa! for an
alle&ed e'tra #or7in& da!" despite its co$plete pa!$ent of all co$pensation la#full!
due its #or7ers, usin& the 8+9 factor.
5
Its $otion #as treated as an appeal and #as
acted on b! respondent :ndersecretar!. ;! Order dated Septe$ber 55, the latter
affir$ed the challen&ed order of the Re&ional Director, holdin& that "the divisor bein&
used b! the respondent /-ellin&ton0 does not reliabl! reflect the actual #or7in& da!s in
a !ear, " and conse3uentl! co$$anded -ellin&ton to pa! its e$plo!ees the "si'
additional #or7in& da!s resultin& fro$ re&ular holida!s fallin& on Sunda!s in +,66, +,6,
and +,,2."
6
)&ain, -ellin&ton $oved for reconsideration,
2
and a&ain #as rebuffed.
8
-ellin&ton then instituted the special civil action of certiorari at bar in an atte$pt to
nullif! the orders above $entioned. ;! Resolution dated 4ul! 9, +,,9, this Court
authori<ed the issuance of a te$porar! restrainin& order en=oinin& the respondents fro$
enforcin& the 3uestioned orders.
9
Ever! #or7er should, accordin& to the (abor Code,
13
"be paid his re&ular dail! #a&e
during regular holidays, e'cept in retail and service establish$ents re&ularl! e$plo!in&
less than ten /+20 #or7ers>" this, of course, even if the #or7er does no #or7 on these
holida!s. he re&ular holida!s include? "Ne# @ear1s Da!, Maund! hursda!, Aood
.rida!, the ninth of )pril, the first of Ma!, the t#elfth of 4une, the fourth of 4ul!, the
thirtieth of Nove$ber, the t#ent!%fifth of Dece$ber, and the da! desi&nated b! la# for
holdin& a &eneral election /or national referendu$ or plebiscite0.
11
Particularl! as re&ards e$plo!ees "#ho are unifor$l! paid b! the $onth, "the $onthl!
$ini$u$ #a&e shall not be less than the statutor! $ini$u$ #a&e $ultiplied b! 8*B
da!s divided b! t#elve."
11
his $onthl! salar! shall serve as co$pensation "for all da!s
in the $onth #hether #or7ed or not," and "irrespective of the nu$ber of #or7in& da!s
therein."
13
In other #ords, #hether the $onth is of thirt! /820 or thirt!%one /8+0 da!s1
duration, or t#ent!%ei&ht /560 or t#ent!%nine /5,0 /as in .ebruar!0, the e$plo!ee is
entitled to receive the entire $onthl! salar!. So, too, in the event of the declaration of
an! special holida!, or an! fortuitous cause precludin& #or7 on an! particular da! or
da!s /such as transportation stri7es, riots, or t!phoons or other natural cala$ities0, the
e$plo!ee is entitled to the salar! for the entire $onth and the e$plo!er has no ri&ht to
deduct the proportionate a$ount correspondin& to the da!s #hen no #or7 #as done.
he $onthl! co$pensation is evidentl! intended precisel! to avoid co$putations and
1
ad=ust$ents resultin& fro$ the contin&encies =ust $entioned #hich are routinel! $ade
in the case of #or7ers paid on dail! basis.
In -ellin&ton1s case, there see$s to be no 3uestion that at the ti$e of the inspection
conducted b! the (abor Enforce$ent Officer on )u&ust *, +,,+, it #as and had been
pa!in& its e$plo!ees "a salar! of not less than the statutor! or established $ini$u$
#a&e," and that the $onthl! salar! thus paid #as "not . . . less than the statutor!
$ini$u$ #a&e $ultiplied b! 8*B da!s divided b! t#elve," supra. here is, in other
#ords, no issue that to this e'tent, -ellin&ton co$plied #ith the $ini$u$ nor$ laid
do#n b! la#.
)pparentl! the $onthl! salar! #as fi'ed b! -ellin&ton to provide for co$pensation for
ever! #or7in& da! of the !ear includin& the holida!s specified b! la# C and e'cludin&
onl! Sunda!s. In fi'in& the salar!, -ellin&ton used #hat it calls the "314 factor>" that is
to sa!, it si$pl! deducted B+ Sunda!s fro$ the 8*B da!s nor$all! co$prisin& a !ear
and used the difference, 8+9, as basis for deter$inin& the $onthl! salar!. he $onthl!
salar! thus fi'ed actuall! covers pa!$ent for 8+9 da!s of the !ear, including regular and
special holidays, as well as days when no work is done by reason of fortuitous cause,
as above specified, or causes not attributable to the employees.
he (abor Officer #ho conducted the routine inspection of -ellin&ton discovered that in
certain !ears, t#o or three re&ular holida!s had fallen on Sunda!s. De reasoned that
this had precluded the en=o!$ent b! the e$plo!ees of a non%#or7in& da!, and the
e$plo!ees had conse3uentl! had to #or7 an additional da! for that $onth. his
ratiocination received the approval of his Re&ional Director #ho opined
14
that "#hen a
re&ular holida! falls on a Sunda!, an e'tra or additional #or7in& da! is created and the
e$plo!er has the obli&ation to pa! its e$plo!ees for the e'tra da! e'cept the last
Sunda! of )u&ust since the pa!$ent for the said holida! is alread! included in the 8+9
factor."
15
his in&enuous theor! #as adopted and further e'plained b! respondent (abor
:ndersecretar!, to #ho$ the $atter #as appealed, as follo#s?
16
. . . ;! usin& said /8+90 factor, the respondent /-ellin&ton0 assu$es
that all the re&ular holida!s fell on ordinar! da!s and never on a
Sunda!. hus, the respondent failed to consider the circu$stance that
#henever a re&ular holida! coincides #ith a Sunda!, an additional
#or7in& da! is created and left unpaid. In other #ords, #hile the said
divisor $a! be utili<ed as proof evidencin& pa!$ent of 825 #or7in&
da!s, 5 special da!s and the ten re&ular holida!s in a calendar !ear,
the sa$e does not cover or include pa!$ent of additional #or7in&
da!s created as a result of so$e re&ular holida!s fallin& on Sunda!s.
De pointed out that in +,66 there #as "an increase of three /80 #or7in& da!s resultin&
fro$ re&ular holida!s fallin& on Sunda!s>" hence -ellin&ton "should pa! for 8+E da!s,
instead of 8+9 da!s." ;! the sa$e process of ratiocination, respondent :ndersecretar!
theori<ed that there should be additional pa!$ent b! -ellin&ton to its $onthl!%paid
e$plo!ees for "an incre$ent of three /80 #or7in& da!s" for +,6, and a&ain, for +,,2.
-hat he is sa!in& is that in those !ears, -ellin&ton should have used the "8+E factor,"
not the "8+9 factor."
he theor! loses si&ht of the fact that the $onthl! salar! in -ellin&ton C #hich is based
on the so%called "8+9 factor" C accounts for all 8*B da!s of a !ear> i.e., -ellin&ton1s
"8+9 factor" leaves no da! unaccounted for> it is pa!in& for all the da!s of a !ear #ith
the e'ception onl! of B+ Sunda!s.
he respondents1 theor! #ould $a7e each of the !ears in 3uestion /+,66, +,6,, +,,20,
a !ear of 8*6 da!s. Pursuant to this theor!, no e$plo!er optin& to pa! his e$plo!ees b!
the $onth #ould have an! definite basis to deter$ine the nu$ber of da!s in a !ear for
#hich co$pensation should be &iven to his #or7 force. De #ould have to ascertain the
nu$ber of ti$es le&al holida!s #ould fall on Sunda!s in all the !ears of the e'pected or
e'trapolated lifeti$e of his business. )lternativel!, he #ould be co$pelled to $a7e
ad=ust$ents in his e$plo!ees1 $onthl! salaries ever! !ear, dependin& on the nu$ber of
ti$es that a le&al holida! fell on a Sunda!.
here is no provision of la# re3uirin& an! e$plo!er to $a7e such ad=ust$ents in the
$onthl! salar! rate set b! hi$ to ta7e account of le&al holida!s fallin& on Sunda!s in a
&iven !ear, or, contrar! to the le&al provisions bearin& on the point, other#ise to rec7on
a !ear at $ore than 8*B da!s. )s earlier $entioned, #hat the la# re3uires of e$plo!ers
optin& to pa! b! the $onth is to assure that "the $onthl! $ini$u$ #a&e shall not be
less than the statutor! $ini$u$ #a&e $ultiplied b! 8*B da!s divided b! t#elve,"
12
and
to pa! that salar! "for all da!s in the $onth #hether #or7ed or not," and "irrespective of
the nu$ber of #or7in& da!s therein."
18
hat salar! is due and pa!able re&ardless of the
declaration of an! special holida! in the entire countr! or a particular place therein, or
an! fortuitous cause precludin& #or7 on an! particular da! or da!s /such as
transportation stri7es, riots, or t!phoons or other natural cala$ities0, or cause not
i$putable to the #or7er. )nd as also earlier pointed out, the le&al provisions &overnin&
$onthl! co$pensation are evidentl! intended precisel! to avoid re%co$putations and
alterations in salar! on account of the contin&encies =ust $entioned, #hich, b! the #a!,
are routinel! $ade bet#een e$plo!er and e$plo!ees #hen the #a&es are paid on dail!
basis.
he public respondents ar&ue that their challen&ed conclusions and dispositions $a!
be =ustified b! Section 5, Rule F, ;oo7 III of the I$ple$entin& Rules, &ivin& the
Re&ional Director po#er C
19
2
. . . to order and ad$inister /in cases #here e$plo!er%e$plo!ee
relations still e'ist0, after due notice and hearin&, co$pliance #ith the
labor standards provisions of the Code and the other labor
le&islations based on the findin&s of their Re&ulations Officers or
Industrial Safet! En&ineers /(abor Standard and -elfare Officers0
and $ade in the course of inspection, and to issue #rits of e'ecution
to the appropriate authorit! for the enforce$ent of his order, in line
#ith the provisions of )rticle +56 in relation to )rticles 56, and 5,2 of
the (abor Code, as a$ended. . . .
he respondents be& the 3uestion. heir ar&u$ent assu$es that there are so$e "labor
standards provisions of the Code and the other labor le&islations" i$posin& on
e$plo!ers the obli&ation to &ive additional co$pensation to their $onthl!%paid
e$plo!ees in the event that a le&al holida! should fall on a Sunda! in a particular $onth
C #ith #hich co$pliance $a! be co$$anded b! the Re&ional Director C #hen the
e'istence of said provisions is precisel! the $atter to be established.
In pro$ul&atin& the orders co$plained of the public respondents have atte$pted to
le&islate, or interpret le&al provisions in such a $anner as to create obli&ations #here
none are intended. he! have acted #ithout authorit!, or at the ver! least, #ith &rave
abuse of their discretion. heir acts $ust be nullified and set aside.
-DERE.ORE, the orders co$plained of, na$el!? that of the respondent
:ndersecretar! dated Septe$ber 55, +,,8, and that of the Re&ional Director dated 4ul!
82, +,,5, are N:((I.IED )ND SE )SIDE, and the proceedin& a&ainst petitioner
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
3