Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of
discretion
whether the ten (10) paid legal holidays were already paid to
him or not. The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with,
is intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the case
of monthly, only those whose monthly salary did not yet
include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are
entitled to the benefit.Under the rules implementing PD 850,
this policy has been fully clarified to eliminate controversies
on the entitlement of monthly paid employees. The new
determining rule is this: 'If the monthly paid employee is
receiving not less than P240, the maximum monthly
minimum wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from January
to December, he is presumed to be already paid the ten (10)
paid legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from
his monthly salary on account of holidays in months where
they occur, then he is still entitled to the ten (10) paid legal
holidays. These new interpretations must be uniformly and
consistently upheld.
Issue:
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor erred and acted
contrary to law in promulgating Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of
the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9.
Held:
Yes, The Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his
statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code
authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing
rules and regulations.
While it is true that the Minister has the authority in the
performance of his duty to promulgate rules and regulations
to implement, construe and clarify the Labor Code, such
powers is limited by provisions of the statute sought to be
implemented, construed or clarified.
Ala Mode Garments, Inc. v. NLRC
Case No. 7G. R. No. 122165 (February 17, l997)
FACTS:
Respondents were both employees of Petitioner and holding
position as line leaders, tasked to supervise 36 sewers each.
On May 5 and 6, l993, all the line leaders did not report for
work. On May 6, l993, Private Respondents were not
allowed to enter the premises of the Petitioner, and then
required to submit written explanations as to their
absence. On May 10, l993, Private Respondents tendered
their explanation letters. Despite their explanation, they were
not allowed to resume their work and were advised to await
the decision of the management whether or not the real
reason for their absence was intended to sabotage the
operations of Petitioner. But other line leaders were allowed
to resume their work despite their absence on May 5and 6,
l993.
ISSUE: 1.W/N the failure of Petitioner to allow Private
Respondents from resuming their work constitutes dismissal
from the service?
2.W/N the Labor Arbiter erred in limiting the award
of backwages for only a period not exceeding three 3 years?
HELD :Under the old doctrine, the backwages that can be
awarded to illegally dismissed employees was not to exceed
a
period
of
three
years.
However,
a
newdoctrine allowed the awarding of full backwages and al
so prevented thecompany from deducting the earnings of the
illegally dismissed employees
elsewhere during
the pendency of their case. The Labor Arbiter was wrong in
awarding backwages for a period of not exceeding three
years.
ISSUE:
a
religious
institution
invoking ejusdem
generi whether employer be limited to undertaking an
activity which has an element of profit or gain?