ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU)-TUCP IN BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS AT AMS FARMING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ROSALINA LETRONDO-MONTEJO AND AMS FARMING CORPORATIO…

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the
decision dated July 19, 1993 of public respondent Voluntary Arbitrator Rosalina
Letrondo-Montejo insofar as it dismissed the claim of petitioner’s members for
holiday pay for December 4, 1992, which had been declared a special day for the
holding of Sangguniang Kabataan election.

The facts are as follows:

On December 27, 1990, petitioner Associated Labor Unions
(ALU)-TUCP and private respondent AMS Farming Corporation entered into a
five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement beginning November 1, 1990 and ending
midnight of October 31, 1995. The CBA
covers the regular daily-paid rank-and-file employees of private respondent AMS
Farming Corp. at Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte and Magatos, Asuncion, Davao
del Norte.

Art. VII, sec. 3 of the CBA provides:

New Year, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Araw ng Kagitingan, 1st of
May, 12th of June, Araw ng Dabaw, 4th of July, Last Sunday of August, 1st of
November, 30th of November, 25th of December, 30th of December and the days
designated by law for holding referendum and local/national election shall be
considered paid regular holidays. Consequently, they shall receive their basic pay even if they do not
work on those days. Any employee
required to work on these holidays shall be paid at least TWO HUNDRED PERCENT
(200%) of his daily wage. Covered
employees performing overtime work on these days shall be entitled to another
THIRTY PERCENT (30%) overtime pay. It
is understood however, that any covered employee who shall be absent for more
than one day immediately preceding the paid holiday shall not be entitled to
the holiday pay.

The President of the Philippines declared December 4, 1992 a
“special day” for the holding of election for Sangguniang Kabataan
(SK) throughout the nation. Employees
covered by the CBA subsequently filed claims for the payment to them of holiday
pay for that day. Private respondent,
however, refused their claims on the ground that December 4, 1992 was not a regular
holiday within the contemplation of the CBA.

The matter was eventually submitted to voluntary
arbitration. At the conference held on
February 19, 1993, the parties agreed, among other things, to submit the
following issue:

Is the Sangguniang Kabataan Election Day considered a regular
holiday for purposes of said Section 3, Article VII of the CBA?

In connection with this issue, they
agreed that the Sangguniang Kabataan Election Day was a holiday as decreed by
the President of the Philippines.

The parties presented position papers and thereafter submitted
the case for resolution.

On July 19, 1993, public respondent rendered an “Award”^[1]
in which, while holding employees who had become regular employees on November
1, 1990 entitled to salary increases under the CBA, nonetheless dismissed their
claim for holiday pay for December 4, 1992 on the ground that the Sangguniang
Kabataan election “by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered
as a local election within the meaning of CBA because not all people can vote
in the said election but only the qualified youths.” According to the
Voluntary Arbitrator, “A ‘local election’ is generally understood to mean
the election by the people of their local leaders like the governors, mayors,
members of the provincial and municipal councils, and barangay officials. And when a local election is held, the day
is declared a non-working holiday. This
is our experience in local and national elections. In the case of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections, it was a
working holiday. Except for the
qualified youthful voters, not everybody noticed said election as not everyone
voted in the said election.”

Hence this petition, the only issue in which is whether the
election for the Sangguniang Kabataan on December 4, 1992 was a
“local/national election” within the contemplation of Art. VII, sec.
3 of the CBA so as to entitle petitioner’s members, who are employed at the AMS
Farming Corp. to the payment of holiday pay for that day.

We hold that it is and that, in denying petitioner’s claim,
respondent Voluntary Arbitrator denied members of petitioner union substantial
justice as a result of her erroneous interpretation of the CBA, thereby
justifying judicial review.^[2]

First. The
Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is part of the local government structure. The Local Government Code (Rep. Act. No.
7160) creates in every barangay a Sangguniang Kabataan composed of a chairman,
seven (7) members, a secretary and a treasurer.^[3] The
chairman and the seven members are elected by the Katipunan ng Kabataan, which
is composed of citizens of the Philippines residing in the barangay for at
least six (6) months, who are between the ages of 15 and 21 and who are
registered as members.^[4] The
chairman of the SK is an ex officio
member of the Sangguniang Barangay with the same powers duties,
functions and privileges as the regular members of the Sangguniang Barangay.^[5]
The president of the Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan, which is composed
of the SK chairmen of the sangguniang kabataan of the barangays in the
province, city, or municipality, is an ex
officio member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, and Sangguniang Bayan.^[6]

Hence, as the Solicitor General points out, the election for
members of the SK may properly be considered a “local election”
within the meaning of Art. VII, sec. 3 of the CBA and the day on which it is
held to be a holiday, thereby entitling petitioner’s members at the AMS Farming
Corp. to the payment of holiday on such day.

Second. The
Voluntary Arbitrator held, however, that the election for members of the SK
cannot be considered a local election as the election for Governors, Vice
Governors, Mayors and Vice Mayors and the various local legislative assemblies (sanggunians)
because the SK election is participated in only by the youth who are
between the ages of 15 and 21 and for this reason the day is not a nonworking
holiday.

To begin with, it is not true that December 4, 1992 was not a
nonworking holiday. It was a nonworking
holiday and this was announced in the media.^[7] In
Proclamation No. 118 dated December 2, 1992 President Ramos declared the day as
“a special day throughout the country on the occasion of the
Sangguniang Kabataan
Elections” and enjoined all “local government units through their
respective Chief Local Executives [to] extend all possible assistance and
support to ensure the smooth conduct of the general elections.”

A “special day” is a “special holiday,” as
provided by the Administrative Code of 1987.^[8] On
the other hand, the term “general elections” means, in the context of
SK elections, the regular elections for members of the SK, as
distinguished from the special elections for such officers.^[9]

Moreover, the fact that only those between 15 and 21 take part in
the election for members of the SK does not make such election any less a
regular local election. The
Constitution provides, for example, for the sectoral representatives in the
House of Representatives of, among others, women and youth.^[10]
Only voters belonging to the relevant sectors can take part in the election of
the representatives. Yet it cannot be
denied that such election is a regular national election and the day set for
its holding, a holiday.

Third. Indeed, the
CBA provision in question merely reiterates the legal provision on paid
holidays. Thus, the Labor Code
provides:

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; and

(c) As used in this
Article, “holiday” includes: New Years Day, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the
first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of
November, the twenty-fifth and the thirtieth of December, and the day
designated by law for holding a general election.

As already explained, the phrase “general election”
means regular local and national elections.

Consequently, whether in the context of the CBA or the Labor
Code, December 4, 1992 was a holiday for which holiday pay should be paid by
respondent employer.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated July 19, 1993 of public
respondent Rosalina Letrondo-Montejo, insofar as it dismissed petitioner’s
claim for holiday pay, is SET ASIDE and private respondent is ORDERED to pay
petitioner’s members their regular holiday pay for December 4, 1992 in
accordance with Art. VII, sec. 3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 22.

^[2]
Maranaw Hotel and Resorts Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 103215, November 6, 1992, 215 SCRA 501, 505.

^[3]
§ 423 (a).

^[4]
Id., § 424.

^[5]
Id., § 430.

^[6]
Id., § 438(a).

^[7]
E.g., “Except in Manila,
Bulacan All’s Set for SK elections,” The Philippine Star, pp. 1
& 12, Dec. 3, 1992.

^[8]
Bk. I, Ch. 7, § 26(2).

^[9]
Cf. Yñiguez v. COMELEC, 30 SCRA 328, 331 (1969).

^[10]
CONST., ART. VI, § 5(1)(2).