December 1, 1987
Ponente: Paras, J.
FACTS:
·
In behalf of the faculty and personnel of Jose
Rizal College (JRC), the National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers
(NATOW) filed a complaint before the Ministry of Labor against JRC for its
non-payment of holiday pay to its
employees from 1975 to 1977.
·
The Labor Arbiter ruled that: (a) faculty and
personnel who are paid a uniform salary per month are no longer entitled to
separate payment for regular holidays; (b) personnel who are paid their wages
daily are entitled to be paid the 10 unworked regular holidays according to the
pertinent provisions of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code;
and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid compensation on a per hour basis are
not entitled to unworked regular holiday pay considering that these regular
holidays have been excluded in the programming of the student contact hours.
·
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling
on the first two types of employees but modified the ruling pertaining to the
third type. The NLRC held that teaching personnel paid by the hour are also
entitled to holiday pay. Hence, the instant petition.
ARGUMENTS:
ARGUMENTS:
·
JRC: Private school teachers paid by the hour
are required to hold classes for a particular number of hours. In the
programming of these student contract hours, legal holidays are excluded and
labelled in the schedule as "no class day. " On the other hand, if a
regular week day is declared a holiday, the school calendar is extended to
compensate for that day. As such, the advent of any of the legal holidays
within the semester will not affect the faculty's salary because this day is
not included in their schedule while the calendar is extended to compensate for
special holidays.
·
SolGen: Under Article 94 of the Labor Code
(P.D. No. 442 as amended), holiday pay applies to all employees except those in
retail and service establishments. To deprive therefore employees paid at an
hourly rate of unworked holiday pay is contrary to the policy considerations
underlying such presidential enactment, and its precursor, the Blue Sunday Law
(Republic Act No. 946) apart from the constitutional mandate to grant greater
rights to labor (Constitution, Article II, Section 9).
·
NLRC: The purpose of a holiday pay is obvious;
that is to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account
of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a
rest, he earns what he should earn. That is his holiday pay. It is no excuse
therefore that the school calendar is extended whenever holidays occur, because
such happens only in cases of special holidays.
RULING:
Whether or
not private school teachers paid by the hour are entitled to payment on
unworked regular holidays. – NO.
·
Regular holidays specified as such by law are
known to both school and faculty members as "no class days."
Certainly, the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this
was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts.
Whether or
not private school teachers paid by the hour are entitled to payment on
unworked special public holidays. – YES.
·
The law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday
pay are silent as to payment on Special Public Holidays. Nonetheless, it is
readily apparent that the declared purpose of the holiday pay – which is the
prevention of diminution of the monthly income of the employees on account of
work interruptions – is defeated when a regular class day is cancelled on
account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working
day to make up for time lost in the school calendar.
·
When a special public holiday is declared, the
faculty member paid by the hour is deprived of expected income, and it does not
matter that the school calendar is extended in view of the days or hours lost,
for their income that could be earned from other sources is lost during the
extended days. Similarly, when classes are called off or shortened on account
of typhoons, floods, rallies, and the like, these faculty members must likewise
be paid, whether or not extensions are ordered.
Whether or
not JRC was deprived of due process when it was not notified of the appeal made
to the NLRC against the decision of the labor arbiter. – NO.
·
The records show petitioner JRC was amply
heard and represented in the instant proceedings. It submitted its position
paper before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and even filed a motion for reconsideration
of the decision of the latter, as well as an "Urgent Motion for Hearing En
Banc." Thus, JRC's claim of lack of due process is unfounded.
·
The Court has already set forth what is now
known as the "cardinal primary" requirements of due process in administrative
proceedings, to wit: "(1) the right to a hearing which includes the right
to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal
must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to
support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence
means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected; (6) the tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its or his
own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should in all
controversial questions, render its decisions in such manner that the parties
to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered. " (Doruelo vs.
Commission on Elections, 133 SCRA 382 [1984]).