G.R. No. L-26844. September 30, 1969
FELIPE DE LEON, BALDOMERO SALVADOR, MARTINIANO EVANGELISTA, VICENTE PANLAQUI, CASTOR TUASON, FRANCISCO GONZALO, ENRIQUE PAGCU, CLAUDIO SICHON, ESTANISLAO SICHON, RUBEN ICBAN, AB…
RUIZ CASTRO, J.:
Review on certiorari of the resolution dated October 14, 1966 of the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) dismissing the petitioners’ complaint in case 38-V.
The respondent Pampanga Sugar
Development Company (PASUDECO) operates a sugar central at San
Fernando, Pampanga. The petitioners, 21 all told, were its
security guards required to work eight hours a day, seven days a week. On November
28, 1961 the petitioners filed with the CIR a complaint seeking
payment to them of premium or differential pay in the total amount of
P49,581.79, plus attorney’s fees of P3,000 and costs of suit. Upon the finding that the “petitioners
were paid their monthly salaries plus 25% additional compensation for work on
Sundays and holidays as provided for by law and that work on said days is one
of the terms and conditions of their employment as security guards,” CIR
Judge Joaquin M. Salvador dismissed the case.
Acting on the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the court en
banc affirmed Judge Salvador’s order.
Hence this appeal
The petitioners’ claim, in essence, is that under the authority
of section 4 of Commonwealth Act 444 as amended (Eight-Hour Labor Law), for a
Sunday or legal holiday work of not more than eight hours, each of them is
entitled to his monthly salary and his premium or differential compensation,
i.e., his wage for the said. Sunday or
legal holiday plus at least 25% thereof.
Sec. 4 of C.A. 444, as amended, reads:
“No person, firm, or corporation, business establishment or
place or center of labor-shall compel an employee or laborer to work during
Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least
twenty-five per centum of his regular remuneration: Provided, however, That this
prohibition shall not apply to public utilities per forming some public service
such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of
transportation or communication.”
The issue which the petitioners here pose is not one of novel
perception. In Manalo vs. Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc., L-26776, June 30, 1969, this Court disposed of
a similar contention, thus:
“The law is plain and unambiguous. It directs payment for work done not
exceeding eight hours during Sundays and legal holidays by an employee or laborer
not falling under the exception ‘an additional sum of at least twenty-five per
centum of his regular remuneration’. And
we already said in one case that ‘(t)he minimum legal additional compensation
for work on Sundays and legal holidays is – – – – 25% of the laborer’s regular
remuneration’. Thus, if said employee or
laborer regularly receives P6 a day for an eight-hour work on an ordinary day
and he is made to work for eight hours on a Sunday or legal holiday, he is
entitled to his base pay of P6 plus P1.50 (25% of P6), or a total of P7.50. His
premium pay is P1. 50, the ‘twenty-five per centum of his regular
remuneration’ of P6. It does not include
his base pay of P6. He gets that P6 for an eight-hour work performed any
day. And he gets the extra P1.50 if such
eight-hour work is rendered on a Sunday or legal holiday. This is the most logical and reasonable
import of the law. The CIR did not err
in following it.
“The same signification is, contrary to petitioners’
contention, given to the term ‘premium pay’ by the Department of Labor, as may
be gleaned from the following formula it devised in determining the daily wage
of monthly-salaried employees, except those employed by public utilities,
working the whole year round, including Sundays and legal holidays:
“Monthly salary multiplied by 12 (months) equals yearly
salary; yearly salary divided by 380.5 (days) equals daily wage.
“The figure 380.5 above is the sum of the 303 ordinary days of
the year and the 62 Sundays and legal holidays of the same year and 15.5 (25%
of 62). Stated otherwise, the last
figure 15.5 is the difference between 380.5 (theoretically, the number of days
worked by the employee in one year) and 365 days (the actual number of days in
a year). It is, in short, the equivalent
in days of the employee’s 25% premium pay for 52 Sundays and 10 legal holidays
in one year. The premium pay is not
therefore, 125% as petitioners want us to believe. Thus, if the employee’s
daily wage is P6, his total premium pay for one year is P93 (P6 times
15.5). Computed in another way, with the
same daily wage, his premium pay for one Sunday or legal holiday is 1.50 (25%
of P 6); multiplying P1.50 by 62 (the number of Sundays and legal holidays in
one year), we get the same amount of P93.
This is the amount of premium pay to which he is entitled in one year in
addition to his fixed yearly salary.
“Petitioners postulate that the monthly salary or, for that
matter, the yearly salary applies only to the ordinary working days and does
not take into account the Sundays and legal holidays found in a given calendar
month or year.
“The position thus taken by petitioners-appellants, that they
are entitled to 125% premium, or extra pay, for work done in each Sunday and holiday,
would only apply if it is shown that the monthly or yearly salaries stipulated
are intended to cover work on ordinary working days only or where the nature
or conditions of employment do not require work on Sundays and holidays. But
where, in agreeing to the monthly or yearly stipend, the parties knew, or had
reason to know, that the work would be continuous, without interruption on
Sundays and holidays, then the wage earner would only be entitled to the 25%
supplement (or extra pay) provided by section 4 of the Eight-Hour Labor law, as
the regular monthly or yearly wage already covered the work done on Sundays
and holidays.”
The import of the law and the decision in Manalo
is that for work on Sundays and legal holidays, the employer must pay the employee
(1) his regular remuneration, or 100%, and (2) an additional sum of at least
25% of the regular remuneration, which is called the “premium pay. In other words, the pay for Sundays and legal
holidays is 125% of the pay for ordinary days, but only the excess of 25% is
premium pay. With respect to employees
paid on a monthly basis, the first 100% (of the 125%), corresponding to the
regular remuneration, may or may not be included in the monthly salary. If it is, then the employee is entitled to
collect only the premium of 25%. If it
is not, then the employee has a right to receive the entire 125%.
The question that thus emerges is whether the petitioners’
monthly salaries already cover the 100% regular remuneration for Sundays and
legal holidays.[1]
From the allegations in paragraph 3 of the petitioners’ complaint
it can be clearly inferred that such regular remuneration of 100% is already
encompassed in the petitioners’ monthly salaries. We hereunder quote the itemization of the
claim (which is essentially the same in respect to the other petitioners) of
the petitioner Felipe de Leon:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the particular precise statement, “Rate per day plus
25% – – – P3.95,”[2]
it follows that the regular rate per ordinary day is P 3.1666, which is 1/30th
of the monthly salary of P95. This means
that in computing the daily wage, each of the petitioners divided his monthly
salary by 30, the average number of days in a month, which includes Sundays
and legal holidays. This is an effective
admission, or at least demonstrates awareness on the part of the petitioners,
that their monthly salaries covered work not only on ordinary days but also on
Sundays and legal holidays.[3]
The allegation, “300 Sundays and holidays multiplied by P 3.95 rate per
each Sunday and Holiday – – – – P1,185.00,” is correct. However, it must be remembered that of the
amount of P1,185, the sum of P948 had already been paid to De Leon
as part of his salary for the five-year period from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1950.
The only question remaining is whether the 25% premium pay has
also been paid. In the order of Judge
Salvador, affirmed by the court en banc, there is a finding that
the “petitioners were paid their monthly salaries plus 25% additional
compensation for work on Sundays and holidays.” The factual findings of
the trial judge, unaltered or unmodified by the court en banc,
cannot be reviewed by this Court.[4]
The findings of fact of the CIR are conclusive on this Court, where they are
supported by substantial evidence, and the lower court has not acted with
grave abuse of discretion in reaching them.[5]
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo dismissing
the complaint is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Reyes, JBL, J., on official
leave.
[1]
In Manalo vs. Pasudeco,
supra, this Court remanded the case to the CIR because the latter
failed to make a finding on this pivotal point.
[2]
Actually, it should be P3.9582 or P3.96.
[3] Otherwise,
the petitioners would have divided their monthly salaries only by the number
of regular working days, in which situation, with respect to De Leon’s
aforementioned claim, the daily wage should have been P3.74 and his Sunday and
legal holiday pay should have been P4.67 (Computation here is based on 365
days with only 60 Sundays and holidays a year, the latter being the number
claimed by the petitioners).
[4]
Liberation Steamship Co. & NDC vs. CIR, L-25389-25390, June 27, 1968.
[5]
Laguna Colleges vs. CIR, L-28927, Sept. 25, 1968; Luzon Stevedoring
Corporation vs. Celorio, L-22542, July 31,
1968; Tanglaw ng Paggawa vs. CIR, L-24498, Sept. 21, 1968; Mechanical
Department of Labor Union sa PNC vs. CIR,
L-28223, August 30, 1968.