JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE WORKERS, RESPONDENTS.

THIS IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, SEEKING THE ANNULMENT OF THE
DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION* IN NLRC CASE No.
RB-IV-23037-78 (CASE No. R4-1-1081-71) ENTITLED “NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS AND OFFICE WORKERS
AND JUAN E. ESTACIO, JAIME MEDINA, ET AL. VS. JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE” MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR
ARBITER AS FOLLOWS:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, THE
DECISION APPEALED FROM IS MODIFIED, IN THE SENSE THAT TEACHING PERSONNEL PAID
BY THE HOUR ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ENTITLED TO HOLIDAY
PAY.

“SO ORDERED.”

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE WHICH IS UNDISPUTED IS AS
FOLLOWS:

PETITIONER IS A NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
DULY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES.  IT HAS THREE GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES CATEGORIZED
AS FOLLOWS:  (A) PERSONNEL ON MONTHLY
BASIS, WHO RECEIVE THEIR MONTHLY SALARY UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS IN A MONTH WITHOUT DEDUCTION
FOR HOLIDAYS; (B) PERSONNEL ON DAILY BASIS WHO ARE PAID ON ACTUAL DAYS WORKED
AND THEY RECEIVE UNWORKED HOLIDAY PAY AND (C) COLLEGIATE FACULTY WHO ARE PAID
ON THE BASIS OF STUDENT CONTACT HOUR. 
BEFORE THE START OF THE SEMESTER THEY SIGN CONTRACTS WITH THE COLLEGE
UNDERTAKING TO MEET THEIR CLASSES AS PER SCHEDULE.

UNABLE TO RECEIVE THEIR CORRESPONDING HOLIDAY
PAY, AS CLAIMED, FROM 1975 TO 1977, PRIVATE RESPONDENT NATIONAL ALLIANCE
OF TEACHERS AND OFFICE WORKERS (NATOW) IN BEHALF OF THE FACULTY AND PERSONNEL
OF JOSE RIZAL
COLLEGE FILED WITH THE MINISTRY OF
LABOR A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COLLEGE FOR SAID ALLEGED NON-PAYMENT OF HOLIDAY
PAY, DOCKETED AS CASE NO. R04-10-81-72.  DUE
TO THE FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES ON CONCILIATION, THE
CASE WAS CERTIFIED FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION WHERE IT WAS DOCKETED AS RB-IV-23037-78 (ROLLO, PP. 155-156).

AFTER THE PARTIES HAD SUBMITTED THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITION PAPERS,
THE LABOR ARBITER*
RENDERED A DECISION ON FEBRUARY 5,
1979, THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF WHICH READS:

“WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT
IS HEREBY RENDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1.  THE FACULTY AND PERSONNEL OF THE RESPONDENT
JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE WHO ARE PAID THEIR SALARY BY THE MONTH UNIFORMLY IN A SCHOOL
YEAR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS IN A MONTH, WITHOUT DEDUCTION
FOR HOLIDAYS, ARE PRESUMED TO BE ALREADY PAID THE 10 PAID LEGAL HOLIDAYS AND
ARE NO LONGER ENTITLED TO SEPARATE PAYMENT FOR THE SAID REGULAR HOLIDAYS;

2.  THE PERSONNEL OF THE RESPONDENT JOSE RIZAL
COLLEGE 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;

3.  COLLEGIATE FACULTY OF THE RESPONDENT
JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE
WHO BY CONTRACT ARE PAID COMPENSATION PER STUDENT CONTACT HOUR ARE NOT ENTITLED TO UNWORKED REGULAR HOLIDAY
PAY CONSIDERING THAT THESE REGULAR HOLIDAYS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED IN THE
PROGRAMMING OF THE STUDENT CONTACT HOURS.” (ROLLO, PP. 26-27)

ON APPEAL, RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IN A
DECISION PROMULGATED ON JUNE 2, 1982, MODIFIED
THE DECISION APPEALED FROM, IN THE SENSE THAT TEACHING PERSONNEL PAID BY THE
HOUR ARE DECLARED TO BE ENTITLED TO HOLIDAY PAY (ROLLO, P. 33).

HENCE,
THIS PETITION.

THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SCHOOL FACULTY
WHO ACCORDING TO THEIR CONTRACTS ARE PAID PER LECTURE HOUR ARE
ENTITLED TO UNWORKED HOLIDAY PAY.

LABOR ARBITER JULIO ANDRES, JR. FOUND THAT FACULTY AND PERSONNEL
EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER WHO ARE PAID THEIR SALARIES MONTHLY, ARE UNIFORMLY PAID
THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR REGARDLESS OF WORKING DAYS, HENCE THEIR HOLIDAY PAY
ARE INCLUDED THEREIN WHILE THE DAILY PAID EMPLOYEES ARE RENUMERATED FOR WORK
PERFORMED DURING HOLIDAYS PER AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER’S TREASURER (ROLLO, PP. 72-73).

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PROBLEM THEREFORE AS TO THE FIRST TWO
CLASSES OR CATEGORIES OF PETITIONER’S WORKERS.

THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, LIES WITH ITS FACULTY MEMBERS, WHO ARE PAID
ON AN HOURLY BASIS, FOR WHILE THE LABOR ARBITER SUSTAINS THE VIEW THAT SAID
INSTRUCTORS AND PROFESSORS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO HOLIDAY PAY, HIS DECISION WAS
MODIFIED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION HOLDING THE CONTRARY.  OTHERWISE STATED, ON APPEAL THE NLRC RULED THAT TEACHING PERSONNEL
PAID BY THE HOUR ARE DECLARED TO BE ENTITLED TO HOLIDAY
PAY.

PETITIONER MAINTAINS THE POSITION AMONG OTHERS, THAT IT IS NOT
COVERED BY BOOK V OF THE LABOR
CODE ON LABOR RELATIONS CONSIDERING THAT IT IS A NON-PROFIT INSTITUTION AND
THAT ITS HOURLY PAID FACULTY MEMBERS ARE PAID
ON A “CONTRACT” BASIS BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HOLD CLASSES FOR A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF
HOURS.  IN THE PROGRAMMING OF THESE
STUDENT CONTACT 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.  THUS PETITIONER
ARGUES THAT 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.  THUS THE PROGRAMMED NUMBER OF
LECTURE HOURS IS NOT DIMINISHED
(ROLLO, PP. 157-158).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUES THAT 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).  (ROLLO, PP. 76-77).

IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IN
ITS DECISION PROMULGATED ON JUNE 2, 1982, RULED
THAT 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 (ROLLO, P. 32).

SUBJECT HOLIDAY PAY IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE LABOR CODE
(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS
AMENDED), WHICH READS:

“ART. 94.  RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY – (A) EVERY
WORKER SHALL BE PAID HIS REGULAR DAILY WAGE DURING REGULAR HOLIDAYS, EXCEPT IN
RETAIL AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS REGULARLY EMPLOYING LESS THAN TEN (10) WORKERS;

(B)  THE EMPLOYER MAY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO WORK
ON ANY HOLIDAY BUT SUCH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PAID A COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO
TWICE HIS REGULAR RATE; X X X“

AND IN THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS, RULE IV, BOOK III, WHICH READS:

“SEC.
8.  HOLIDAY PAY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.  – (A) PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS, INCLUDING
FACULTY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, MAY NOT BE PAID FOR THE REGULAR
HOLIDAYS DURING SEMESTRAL VACATIONS, THEY SHALL, HOWEVER, BE PAID FOR THE
REGULAR HOLIDAYS DURING CHRISTMAS VACATIONS. 
X X X“

UNDER THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, APPARENTLY, THE PETITIONER,
ALTHOUGH A NON-PROFIT INSTITUTION IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO GIVE PAY EVEN ON UNWORKED REGULAR HOLIDAYS TO HOURLY
PAID FACULTY MEMBERS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED IMPLEMENTING RULE IS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY THE PROVISONS OF THE LAW WHICH AFTER ALL IS SILENT WITH RESPECT TO
FACULTY MEMBERS PAID BY THE HOUR WHO BECAUSE OF THEIR TEACHING CONTRACTS ARE
OBLIGED TO WORK AND CONSENT TO BE PAID ONLY FOR WORK ACTUALLY DONE (EXCEPT WHEN
AN EMERGENCY OR A FORTUITOUS EVENT OR A NATIONAL NEED CALLS FOR THE DECLARATION
OF SPECIAL HOLIDAYS).  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.

ON THE OTHER HAND, BOTH THE LAW AND THE IMPLEMENTING RULES
GOVERNING HOLIDAY PAY ARE SILENT AS TO PAYMENT ON SPECIAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS.

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.  OTHERWISE STATED,
THE FACULTY MEMBER, ALTHOUGH FORCED TO TAKE A REST, DOES NOT EARN WHAT HE
SHOULD EARN ON THAT DAY.  BE IT NOTED
THAT 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.

PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT IT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AS IT WAS
NOT NOTIFIED OF THE APPEAL MADE TO THE NLRC
AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER.

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]).

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”
(ROLLO, P. 175).  THUS, PETITIONER’S CLAIM OF
LACK OF DUE PROCESS IS UNFOUNDED.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE, AND A NEW ONE IS HEREBY RENDERED:

(A)  EXEMPTING PETITIONER FROM PAYING HOURLY
PAID FACULTY MEMBERS THEIR PAY FOR REGULAR HOLIDAYS, WHETHER THE SAME BE
DURING THE REGULAR SEMESTERS OF THE SCHOOL YEAR OR DURING SEMESTRAL, CHRISTMAS,
OR HOLY WEEK VACATIONS;

(B)  BUT ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY SAID FACULTY
MEMBERS THEIR REGULAR HOURLY RATE ON DAYS DECLARED AS SPECIAL HOLIDAYS OR FOR
SOME REASON CLASSES ARE CALLED OFF OR SHORTENED FOR THE HOURS THEY ARE SUPPOSED
TO HAVE TAUGHT, WHETHER EXTENSIONS OF CLASS DAYS BE ORDERED OR NOT; IN CASE OF
EXTENSIONS SAID FACULTY MEMBERS SHALL LIKEWISE BE PAID THEIR HOURLY RATES
SHOULD THEY TEACH DURING SAID EXTENSIONS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.

*
RENDERED BY PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, COMMISSIONER GABRIEL M. GATCHALIAN AND
COMMISSIONER MIGUEL B. VARELA.

*
LABOR ARBITER JULIO F. ANDRES, JR.