G.R. No. 126383 November 28, 1997 SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW/MA. CONSUELO MACQUILING LEONARDO MARTINEZ, DOMINGO ELA, JR., RODOLFO CALUCIN, JR., PERLA MENDOZA, REX RAPHAEL REYES, ROGELIO BELMONTE, and 375 other EMPLOYEE-UNION MEMBERS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL, respondents.

FRANCISCO, J.:Petitioners, the rank-and-file employee-union officers and members of San Juan De Dios Hospital Employees Association, sent on July 08, 1991, a "four (4)-page letter with attached support signatures . . . requesting and pleading for the expeditious implementation and payment by respondent" Juan De Dios Hospital "of the '40-HOURS/5-DAY WORKWEEK' with compensable weekly two (2) days off provided for by Republic Act 5901 as clarified for enforcement by the Secretary of Labor's Policy Instructions No. 54 dated April 12, 1988." 1 Respondent hospital failed to give a favorable response; thus, petitioners filed a complaint regarding their "claims for statutory benefits under the above-cited law and policy issuance" 2, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-04815-19. On February 26, 1992, the Labor Arbiter 3 dismissed the complaint. Petitioners appealed before public respondent National Labor Relations Commission 4 (NLRC), docketed as NLRC NCR CA 003028-92, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC in concluding that Policy Instructions No. 54 "proceeds from a wrong interpretation of RA 5901" 5 and Article 83 of the Labor Code.

As the Court sees it, the core issue is whether Policy Instructions No. 54 issued by then Labor Secretary (now Senator) Franklin M. Drilon is valid or not.

The policy instruction in question provides in full as follows:

Policy Instruction No. 54

To:All Concerned

Subject:Working Hours and Compensation of Hospital/Clinic Personnel

This issuance clarifies the enforcement policy of this Department on the working hours and compensation of personnel employed by hospitals/clinics with a bed capacity of 100 or more and those located in cities and municipalities with a population of one million or more.

Republic Act 5901 took effect on 21 June 1969 prescribes a 40-hour/5 day work week for hospital/clinic personnel. At the same time, the Act prohibits the diminution of the compensation of these workers who would suffer a reduction in their weekly wage by reason of the shortened workweek prescribed by the Act. In effect, RA 5901 requires that the covered hospital workers who used to work seven (7) days a week should be paid for such number of days for working only 5 days or 40 hours a week.

The evident intention of RA 5901 is to reduce the number of hospital personnel, considering the nature of their work, and at the same time guarantee the payment to them of a full weekly wage for seven (7) days. This is quite clear in the Exemplary Note of RA 5901 which states:

As compared with the other employees and laborers, these hospital and health clinic personnel are over-worked despite the fact that their duties are more delicate in nature. If we offer them better working conditions, it is believed that the "brain drain", that our country suffers nowadays as far as these personnel are concerned will be considerably lessened. The fact that these hospitals and health clinics personnel perform duties which are directly concerned with the health and lives of our people does not mean that they should work for a longer period than most employees and laborers. They are also entitled to as much rest as other workers. Making them work longer than is necessary may endanger, rather than protect the health of their patients. Besides, they are not receiving better pay than the other workers. Therefore, it is just and fair that they may be made to enjoy the privileges of equal working hours with other workers except those excepted by law. (Sixth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, Third Session, House of Representatives, H. No. 16630)

The Labor Code in its Article 83 adopts and incorporates the basic provisions of RA 5901 and retains its spirit and intent which is to shorten the workweek of covered hospital personnel and at the same time assure them of a full weekly wage.

Consistent with such spirit and intent, it is the position of the Department that personnel in subject hospital and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek.

All enforcement and adjudicatory agencies of this Department shall be guided by this issuance in the disposition of cases involving the personnel of covered hospitals and clinics.

Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of April, 1988.

(Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILONSecretary

(Emphasis Added)

We note that Policy Instruction No. 54 relies and purports to implement Republic Act No. 5901, otherwise known as "An Act Prescribing Forty Hours A Week Of Labor For Government and Private Hospitals Or Clinic Personnel", enacted on June 21, 1969. Reliance on Republic Act No. 5901, however, is misplaced for the said statute, as correctly ruled by respondent NLRC, has long been repealed with the passage of the Labor Code on May 1, 1974, Article 302 of which explicitly provides: "All labor laws not adopted as part of this Code either directly or by reference are hereby repealed. All provisions of existing laws, orders, decree, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed." Accordingly, only Article 83 of the Labor Code which appears to have substantially incorporated or reproduced the basic provisions of Republic Act No. 5901 may support Policy Instructions No. 54 on which the latter's validity may be gauged. Article 83 of the Labor Code states:

Art. 83.Normal Hours of Work. The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.

Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, "health personnel" shall include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. (Emphasis supplied)

A cursory reading of Article 83 of the Labor Code betrays petitioners' position that "hospital employees" are entitled to "a full weekly salary with paid two (2) days' off if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek". 6 What Article 83 merely provides are: (1) the regular office hour of eight hours a day, five days per week for health personnel, and (2) where the exigencies of service require that health personnel work for six days or forty-eight hours then such health personnel shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. There is nothing in the law that supports then Secretary of Labor's assertion that "personnel in subject hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek". Needless to say, the Secretary of Labor exceeded his authority by including a two days off with pay in contravention of the clear mandate of the statute. Such act the Court shall not countenance. Administrative interpretation of the law, we reiterate, is at best merely advisory, 7 and the Court will not hesitate to strike down an administrative interpretation that deviates from the provision of the statute.

Indeed, even if we were to subscribe with petitioners' erroneous assertion that Republic Act No. 5901 has neither been amended nor repealed by the Labor Code, we nevertheless find Policy Instructions No. 54 invalid. A perusal of Republic Act No. 5901 8 reveals nothing therein that gives two days off with pay for health personnel who complete a 40-hour work or 5-day workweek. In fact, the Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 16630 (later passed into law as Republic Act No. 5901) explicitly states that the bill's sole purpose is to shorten the working hours of health personnel and not to dole out a two days off with pay.

Hence:

The accompanying bill seeks to grant resident physicians, staff nurses, nutritionist, midwives, attendants and other hospital and health clinic personnel of public and private hospitals and clinics, the privilege of enjoying the eight hours a week exclusive of time for lunch granted by law to all government employees and workers except those employed in schools and in courts. At present those hospitals and clinics, work six days a week, 8 hours a day or 48 hours a week.

As compared with the other employees and laborers, these hospital and health clinic personnel are over-worked despite the fact that their duties are more delicate in nature. If we offer them better working conditions, it is believed that the "brain drain", that our country suffers nowadays as far as these personnel are concerned will be considerably lessened. The fact that these hospitals and health clinic personnel perform duties which are directly concerned with the health and lives of our people does not mean that they should work for a longer period than most employees and laborers. They are also entitled to as much rest as other workers. Making them work longer than is necessary may endanger, rather than protect, the health of their patients. Besides, they are not receiving better pay than the other workers. Therefore, it is just and fair that they be made to enjoy the privileges of equal working hours with other workers except those excepted by law.

In the light of the foregoing, approval of this bill is strongly recommended.

(SGD.) SERGIO H. LOYOLA

"Congressman, 3rd DistrictManila" (Annex "F" of petition, emphasis supplied)

Further, petitioners' position is also negated by the very rules and regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Labor Standards which implement Republic Act No. 5901. Pertinent portions of the implementing rules provide:

RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTINGREPUBLIC ACT NO. 5901

By virtue of Section 79 of the Revised Administrative Code, as modified by section 18 of Implementation Report for Reorganization Plan No. 20-A on Labor, vesting in the Bureau of Labor Standards the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement wage and hour laws, the following rules and regulations to are hereby issued for the implementation of Republic Act No. 5901.

CHAPTER I Coverage

Sec. 1.General Statement on Coverage. Republic Act No. 5901, hereinafter referred to as the Act, shall apply to:

(a)All hospitals and clinics, including those with a bed capacity of less than one hundred, which are situated in cities or municipalities with a population of one million or more; and to

(b)All hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred, irrespective of the size of population of the city or municipality where they may be situated.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 7.Regular Working Day. The regular working days of covered employees shall be not more than five days in a workweek. The workweek may begin at any hour and on any day, including Saturday or Sunday, designated by the employer.

Employers are not precluded from changing the time at which the workday or workweek begins, provided that the change is not intended to evade the requirements of these regulations on the payment of additional compensation.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 15.Additional Pay Under the Act and C.A. No. 444. (a) Employees of covered hospitals and clinics who are entitled to the benefits provided under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, as amended, shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to their regular rate plus at least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on Sunday and Holidays, not exceeding eight hours, such employees shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least 25% of their regular rate.(b)For work performed in excess of forty hours a week, excluding those rendered in excess of eight hours a day during the week, employees covered by the Eight-Hour Labor Law shall be entitled to an additional straight-time pay which must be equivalent at least to their regular rate.If petitioners are entitled to two days off with pay, then there appears to be no sense at all why Section 15 of the implementing rules grants additional compensation equivalent to the regular rate plus at least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on Sunday to health personnel, or an "additional straight-time pay which must be equivalent at least to the regular rate" "[f]or work performed in excess of forty hours a week. . . . Policy Instructions No. 54 to our mind unduly extended the statute. The Secretary of Labor moreover erred in invoking the "spirit and intent" of Republic Act No. 5901 and Article 83 of the Labor Code for it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. 9 No additions or revisions may be permitted. Policy Instructions No. 54 being inconsistent with and repugnant to the provision of Article 83 of the Labor Code, as well as to Republic Act No. 5901, should be, as it is hereby, declared void.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. No costs.SO ORDERED.

INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU), petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, respondents. G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984 MAKASIAR, J.:This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order dated November 10, 1979, of respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, Amado G. Inciong, in NLRC case No. RB-IV-1561-76 entitled "Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (complainant-appellee), vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America" (respondent-appellant), the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: xxx xxx xxxALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment. promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 109 rec.).

The antecedent facts culled from the records are as follows:

On June 20, 1975, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. IV in Manila. Conciliation having failed, and upon the request of both parties, the case was certified for arbitration on July 7, 1975 (p. 18, NLRC rec.

On August 25, 1975, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in the above-entitled case, granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay. Pertinent portions of the decision read: xxx xxx xxx

The records disclosed that employees of respondent bank were not paid their wages on unworked regular holidays as mandated by the Code, particularly Article 208, to wit:

Art. 208.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 10 workers.

(b)The term "holiday" as used in this chapter, shall include: New Year's 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.

xxx xxx xxx

This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the daily rate of pay of the bank employees was computed in the past with the unworked regular holidays as excluded for purposes of determining the deductible amount for absences incurred Thus, if the employer uses the factor 303 days as a divisor in determining the daily rate of monthly paid employee, this gives rise to a presumption that the monthly rate does not include payments for unworked regular holidays. The use of the factor 303 indicates the number of ordinary working days in a year (which normally has 365 calendar days), excluding the 52 Sundays and the 10 regular holidays. The use of 251 as a factor (365 calendar days less 52 Saturdays, 52 Sundays, and 10 regular holidays) gives rise likewise to the same presumption that the unworked Saturdays, Sundays and regular holidays are unpaid. This being the case, it is not amiss to state with certainty that the instant claim for wages on regular unworked holidays is found to be tenable and meritorious.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

(a)xxx xxxx xxx

(b)Ordering respondent to pay wages to all its employees for all regular h(olidays since November 1, 1974 (pp. 97-99, rec., underscoring supplied).

Respondent bank did not appeal from the said decision. Instead, it complied with the order of Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano by paying their holiday pay up to and including January, 1976.

On December 16, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 850 was promulgated amending, among others, the provisions of the Labor Code on the right to holiday pay to read as follows: Art. 94.Right to holiday pay. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wages 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 Year's 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.

Accordingly, on February 16, 1976, by authority of Article 5 of the same Code, the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay. The controversial section thereof reads: Sec. 2.Status of employees paid by the month. Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve" (italics supplied).

On April 23, 1976, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor (now Minister) interpreting the above-quoted rule, pertinent portions of which read: t.hqw

xxx xxx xxx

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 P.D. 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. ..." (emphasis supplied).

Respondent bank, by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code and by Policy Instruction No. 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to an its employees.

On August 30, 1976, petitioner filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the arbiter's decision of August 25, 1975, whereby the respondent bank was ordered to pay its employees their daily wage for the unworked regular holidays.

On September 10, 1975, respondent bank filed an opposition to the motion for a writ of execution alleging, among others, that: (a) its refusal to pay the corresponding unworked holiday pay in accordance with the award of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, is based on and justified by Policy Instruction No. 9 which interpreted the rules implementing P. D. 850; and (b) that the said award is already repealed by P.D. 850 which took effect on December 16, 1975, and by said Policy Instruction No. 9 of the Department of Labor, considering that its monthly paid employees are not receiving less than P240.00 and their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and that no deductions are made from the monthly salaries of its employees on account of holidays in months where they occur (pp. 64-65, NLRC rec.).

On October 18, 1976, Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano, instead of issuing a writ of execution, issued an order enjoining the respondent bank to continue paying its employees their regular holiday pay on the following grounds: (a) that the judgment is already final and the findings which is found in the body of the decision as well as the dispositive portion thereof is res judicata or is the law of the case between the parties; and (b) that since the decision had been partially implemented by the respondent bank, appeal from the said decision is no longer available (pp. 100-103, rec.).

On November 17, 1976, respondent bank appealed from the above-cited order of Labor Arbiter Soriano to the National Labor Relations Commission, reiterating therein its contentions averred in its opposition to the motion for writ of execution. Respondent bank further alleged for the first time that the questioned order is not supported by evidence insofar as it finds that respondent bank discontinued payment of holiday pay beginning January, 1976 (p. 84, NLRC rec.).

On June 20, 1978, the National Labor Relations Commission promulgated its resolution en banc dismissing respondent bank's appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

In view of the foregoing, we hereby resolve to dismiss, as we hereby dismiss, respondent's appeal; to set aside Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano's order of 18 October 1976 and, as prayed for by complainant, to order the issuance of the proper writ of execution (p. 244, NLRC rec.).

Copies of the above resolution were served on the petitioner only on February 9, 1979 or almost eight. (8) months after it was promulgated, while copies were served on the respondent bank on February 13, 1979.On February 21, 1979, respondent bank filed with the Office of the Minister of Labor a motion for reconsideration/appeal with urgent prayer to stay execution, alleging therein the following: (a) that there is prima facie evidence of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission, in dismissing the respondent's appeal on pure technicalities without passing upon the merits of the appeal and (b) that the resolution appealed from is contrary to the law and jurisprudence (pp. 260-274, NLRC rec.).

On March 19, 1979, petitioner filed its opposition to the respondent bank's appeal and alleged the following grounds: (a) that the office of the Minister of Labor has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal pursuant to the provisions of P. D. 1391; (b) that the labor arbiter's decision being final, executory and unappealable, execution is a matter of right for the petitioner; and (c) that the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 25, 1975 is supported by the law and the evidence in the case (p. 364, NLRC rec.).

On July 30, 1979, petitioner filed a second motion for execution pending appeal, praying that a writ of execution be issued by the National Labor Relations Commission pending appeal of the case with the Office of the Minister of Labor. Respondent bank filed its opposition thereto on August 8, 1979.

On August 13, 1979, the National Labor Relations Commission issued an order which states: The Chief, Research and Information Division of this Commission is hereby directed to designate a Socio-Economic Analyst to compute the holiday pay of the employees of the Insular Bank of Asia and America from April 1976 to the present, in accordance with the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated August 25, 1975" (p. 80, rec.).

On November 10, 1979, the Office of the Minister of Labor, through Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong, issued an order, the dispositive portion of which states:

ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be, as it is hereby, set aside and a new judgment promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. 436, NLRC rec.).Hence, this petition for certiorari charging public respondent Amado G. Inciong with abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The issue in this case is: whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay can still be set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already become final and had been partially executed, the finality of which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission sitting en banc, on the basis of an Implementing Rule and Policy Instruction promulgated by the Ministry of Labor long after the said decision had become final and executory.

WE find for the petitioner.IWE agree with the petitioner's contention that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion (p. 1 1, rec.).Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 850, 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. ...

The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82 thereof which reads: Art. 82.Coverage. The provision of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.... (emphasis supplied).

From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said benefits by inserting, under Rule IV, Book Ill of the implementing rules, Section 2, which provides that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. "Public respondent maintains that "(T)he rules implementing P. D. 850 and Policy Instruction No. 9 were issued to clarify the policy in the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. As interpreted, 'unworked' legal holidays are deemed paid insofar as monthly paid employees are concerned if (a) they are receiving not less than the statutory minimum wage, (b) their monthly pay is uniform from January to December, and (c) no deduction is made from their monthly salary on account of holidays in months where they occur. As explained in Policy Instruction No, 9, 'The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily paid employees. In 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' " (pp. 340-341, rec.). This contention is untenable.

It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits (Orlosky vs. Haskell, 155 A. 112.)Obviously, 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.

Public respondent vehemently argues that the intent and spirit of the holiday pay law, as expressed by the Secretary of Labor in the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. The Chartered Bank (NLRC Case No. RB-1789-75, March 24, 1976), is to correct the disadvantages inherent in the daily compensation system of employment holiday pay is primarily intended to benefit the daily paid workers whose employment and income are circumscribed by the principle of "no work, no pay." This argument may sound meritorious; but, until the provisions of the Labor Code on holiday pay is amended by another law, monthly paid employees are definitely included in the benefits of regular holiday pay. As earlier stated, the presumption is always in favor of law, negatively put, the Labor Code is always strictly construed against management.While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, as in the instant case, the same must be declared as null and void. It is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary, correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government, almost always in situations where some agency of the State has engaged in action that stems ultimately from some legitimate area of governmental power (The Supreme Court in Modern Role, C. B. Swisher 1958, p. 36).

Thus. in the case of Philippine Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission (106 SCRA 444, July 31, 1981) where the Secretary of Labor enlarged the scope of exemption from the coverage of a Presidential Decree granting increase in emergency allowance, this Court ruled that:

... the Secretary of Labor has exceeded his authority when he included paragraph (k) in Section 1 of the Rules implementing P. D. 1 1 23.xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, the inclusion of paragraph k contravenes the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Labor, and the same is therefore void, as ruled by this Court in a long line of cases . . . .. The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the administration of the statute, necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment, may be found in the early case of United States vs. Barrios decided in 1908. Then came in a 1914 decision, United States vs. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil. 119) delineation of the scope of such competence. Thus: "Of course the regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid." In 1936, in People vs. Santos, this Court expressed its disapproval of an administrative order that would amount to an excess of the regulatory power vested in an administrative official We reaffirmed such a doctrine in a 1951 decision, where we again made clear that where an administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, 'the mandate of the Act must prevail and must be followed. Justice Barrera, speaking for the Court in Victorias Milling inc. vs. Social Security Commission, citing Parker as well as Davis did tersely sum up the matter thus: "A rule is binding on the Courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom. ... On the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine chat the law means."

"It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution assert for itself a more extensive prerogative. Necessarily, it is bound to observe the constitutional mandate. There must be strict compliance with the legislative enactment. Its terms must be followed the statute requires adherence to, not departure from its provisions. No deviation is allowable. In the terse language of the present Chief Justice, an administrative agency "cannot amend an act of Congress." Respondents can be sustained, therefore, only if it could be shown that the rules and regulations promulgated by them were in accordance with what the Veterans Bill of Rights provides" (Phil. Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, 463, 464, citing Teozon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, PVA 33 SCRA 585; see also Santos vs. Hon. Estenzo, et al, 109 Phil. 419; Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil. 295; Sy Man vs. Jacinto & Fabros, 93 Phil. 1093; Olsen & Co., Inc. vs. Aldanese and Trinidad, 43 Phil. 259).

This ruling of the Court was recently reiterated in the case of American Wire & Cable Workers Union (TUPAS) vs. The National Labor Relations Commission and American Wire & Cable Co., Inc., G.R. No. 53337, promulgated on June 29, 1984.

In view of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to implement the Labor Code and Policy instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared null and void. Accordingly, public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. Inciong had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed by the Labor Code.

IIIt is not disputed that the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dated August 25, 1975, had already become final, and was, in fact, partially executed by the respondent bank.

However, public respondent maintains that on the authority of De Luna vs. Kayanan, 61 SCRA 49, November 13, 1974, he can annul the final decision of Labor Arbiter Soriano since the ensuing promulgation of the integrated implementing rules of the Labor Code pursuant to P.D. 850 on February 16, 1976, and the issuance of Policy Instruction No. 9 on April 23, 1976 by the then Secretary of Labor are facts and circumstances that transpired subsequent to the promulgation of the decision of the labor arbiter, which renders the execution of the said decision impossible and unjust on the part of herein respondent bank (pp. 342-343, rec.).

This contention is untenable.

To start with, unlike the instant case, the case of De Luna relied upon by the public respondent is not a labor case wherein the express mandate of the Constitution on the protection to labor is applied. Thus Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that, "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor and Article 1702 of the Civil Code provides that, " In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.Consequently, contrary to public respondent's allegations, it is patently unjust to deprive the members of petitioner union of their vested right acquired by virtue of a final judgment on the basis of a labor statute promulgated following the acquisition of the "right".On the question of whether or not a law or statute can annul or modify a judicial order issued prior to its promulgation, this Court, through Associate Justice Claro M. Recto, said: xxx xxx xxxWe are decidedly of the opinion that they did not. Said order, being unappealable, became final on the date of its issuance and the parties who acquired rights thereunder cannot be deprived thereof by a constitutional provision enacted or promulgated subsequent thereto. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes, except penal laws favorable to the accused, have retroactive effect in the sense of annulling or modifying vested rights, or altering contractual obligations" (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324, emphasis supplied).

In the case of In re: Cunanan, et al., 19 Phil. 585, March 18, 1954, this Court said: "... when a court renders a decision or promulgates a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision, order, or resolution already promulgated, in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect." Thus, the amendatory rule (Rule IV, Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code) cannot be given retroactive effect as to modify final judgments. Not even a law can validly annul final decisions (In re: Cunanan, et al., Ibid).Furthermore, the facts of the case relied upon by the public respondent are not analogous to that of the case at bar. The case of De Luna speaks of final and executory judgment, while iii the instant case, the final judgment is partially executed. just as the court is ousted of its jurisdiction to annul or modify a judgment the moment it becomes final, the court also loses its jurisdiction to annul or modify a writ of execution upon its service or execution; for, otherwise, we will have a situation wherein a final and executed judgment can still be annulled or modified by the court upon mere motion of a panty This would certainly result in endless litigations thereby rendering inutile the rule of law.

Respondent bank counters with the argument that its partial compliance was involuntary because it did so under pain of levy and execution of its assets (p. 138, rec.). WE find no merit in this argument. Respondent bank clearly manifested its voluntariness in complying with the decision of the labor arbiter by not appealing to the National Labor Relations Commission as provided for under the Labor Code under Article 223. A party who waives his right to appeal is deemed to have accepted the judgment, adverse or not, as correct, especially if such party readily acquiesced in the judgment by starting to execute said judgment even before a writ of execution was issued, as in this case. Under these circumstances, to permit a party to appeal from the said partially executed final judgment would make a mockery of the doctrine of finality of judgments long enshrined in this jurisdiction.

Section I of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "... execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal ... or if no appeal has been duly perfected." This rule applies to decisions or orders of labor arbiters who are exercising quasi-judicial functions since "... the rule of execution of judgments under the rules should govern all kinds of execution of judgment, unless it is otherwise provided in other laws" Sagucio vs. Bulos 5 SCRA 803) and Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "... decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards, orders, or decisions. ..."

Thus, under the aforecited rule, the lapse of the appeal period deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment and the judgment becomes final ipso jure (Vega vs. WCC, 89 SCRA 143, citing Cruz vs. WCC, 2 PHILAJUR 436, 440, January 31, 1978; see also Soliven vs. WCC, 77 SCRA 621; Carrero vs. WCC and Regala vs. WCC, decided jointly, 77 SCRA 297; Vitug vs. Republic, 75 SCRA 436; Ramos vs. Republic, 69 SCRA 576).

In Galvez vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 3 SCRA 422, 423, October 31, 1961, where the lower court modified a final order, this Court ruled thus: xxx xxx xxxThe lower court was thus aware of the fact that it was thereby altering or modifying its order of January 8, 1959. Regardless of the excellence of the motive for acting as it did, we are constrained to hold however, that the lower court had no authorities to make said alteration or modification. ...xxx xxx xxxThe equitable considerations that led the lower court to take the action complained of cannot offset the dem ands of public policy and public interest which are also responsive to the tenets of equity requiring that an issues passed upon in decisions or final orders that have become executory, be deemed conclusively disposed of and definitely closed for, otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting at naught the main role of courts of justice, which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order, by settling justiciable controversies with finality.xxx xxx xxxIn the recent case of Gabaya vs. Mendoza, 113 SCRA 405, 406, March 30, 1982, this Court saidxxx xxx xxxIn Marasigan vs. Ronquillo (94 Phil. 237), it was categorically stated that the rule is absolute that after a judgment becomes final by the expiration of the period provided by the rules within which it so becomes, no further amendment or correction can be made by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes. And such final judgment is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which must have been offered for that purpose (L-7044, 96 Phil. 526). In the earlier case of Contreras and Ginco vs. Felix and China Banking Corp., Inc. (44 O.G. 4306), it was stated that the rule must be adhered to regardless of any possible injustice in a particular case for (W)e have to subordinate the equity of a particular situation to the over-mastering need of certainty and immutability of judicial pronouncements

xxx xxx xxxIIIThe despotic manner by which public respondent Amado G. Inciong divested the members of the petitioner union of their rights acquired by virtue of a final judgment is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law Public respondent completely ignored the rights of the petitioner union's members in dismissing their complaint since he knew for a fact that the judgment of the labor arbiter had long become final and was even partially executed by the respondent bank.

A final judgment vests in the prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process clause of the Constitution (China Ins. & Surety Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Manila, 63 Phil. 324). A final judgment is "a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could no. be deprived arbitrarily without injustice" (Rookledge v. Garwood, 65 N.W. 2d 785, 791).

lt is by this guiding principle that the due process clause is interpreted. Thus, in the pithy language of then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion "... acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity, and judicial proceedings suffering from the same flaw are subject to the same sanction, any statutory provision to the contrary notwithstanding (Vda. de Cuaycong vs. Vda. de Sengbengco 110 Phil. 118, emphasis supplied), And "(I)t has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divested the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights" (Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 211, June 5, 1973).

Tested by and pitted against this broad concept of the constitutional guarantee of due process, the action of public respondent Amado G. Inciong is a clear example of deprivation of property without due process of law and constituted grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order dated November 10, 1979.

WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED, THE ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS SET ASIDE, AND THE DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER RICARTE T. SORIANO DATED AUGUST 25, 1975, IS HEREBY REINSTATED.COSTS AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICASO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-48437, September 30, 1986]MANTRADE/FMMC DIVISION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (REPRESENTED BY PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNION - PSSLU FED. - TUCP, PETITIONER, VS. ARBITRATOR FROILAN M. BACUNGAN AND MANTRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NFERIA, J.:This is a petition forCertiorariandMandamusfiled by petitioner against arbitrator Froilan M. Bacungan and Mantrade Development Corporation arising from the decision of respondent arbitrator, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

"CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE, We rule that Mantrade Development Corporation is not under legal obligation to pay holiday pay (as provided for in Article 94 of the Labor Code in the third official Department of Labor edition) to its monthly paid employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage, and this rule is applicable not only as of March 2, 1976 but as of November 1, 1974."

Petitioner questions the validity of the pertinent section of the Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code as amended on which respondent arbitrator based his decision.

On the other hand, respondent corporation has raised procedural and substantive objections. It contends that petitioner is barred from pursuing the present action in view of Article 263 of the Labor Code which provides in part that "voluntary arbitration awards or decisions shall be final, inappealable, and executory," as well as the rules implementing the same; the pertinent provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and respondent corporation; and Article 2044 of the Civil Code which provides that "any stipulation that the arbitrators' award or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice to Articles 2038, 2039, and 2040." Respondent corporation further contends that the special civil action of certiorari does not lie because respondent arbitrator is not an "officer exercising judicial functions" within the contemplation of Rule 65, Section 1, of the Rules of Court; that the instant petition raises an error of judgment on the part of respondent arbitrator and not an error of jurisdiction; that it prays for the annulment of certain rules and regulations issued by the Department of Labor, not for the annulment of the voluntary arbitration proceedings; and that appeal by certiorari under Section 29 of the Arbitration Law, Republic Act No. 876, is not applicable to the case at bar because arbitration in labor disputes is expressly excluded by Section 3 of said law.

These contentions have been ruled against in the decision of this Court in the case of Oceanic Bic Division (FFW) vs. Romero, promulgated on July 16, 1984, wherein it stated:

"We agree with the petitioner that the decisions of voluntary arbitrators must be given the highest respect and as a general rule must be accorded a certain measure of finality. This is especially true where the arbitrator chosen by the parties enjoys the first rate credentials of Professor Flerida Ruth Pineda Romero, Director of the U. P. Law Center and an academician of unquestioned expertise in the field of Labor Law. It is not correct, however, that this respect precludes the exercise of judicial review over their decisions. Article 262 of the Labor Code making voluntary arbitration awards final, inappealable and executory, except where the money claims exceed P100,000.00 or 40% of the paid-up capital of the employer or where there is abuse of discretion or gross incompetence refers to appeals to the National Labor Relations Commission and not to judicial review.

"In spite of statutory provisions making 'final' the decisions of certain administrative agencies, we have taken cognizance of petitions questioning these decisions where want of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process, denial of substantial justice, or erroneous interpretation of the Law were brought to our attention. x x x

x x x x x x x x x "A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. There is no reason why her decisions involving interpretation of law should be beyond this Court's review. Administrative officials are presumed to act in accordance with law and yet we do not hesitate to pass upon their work where a question of law is involved or where a showing of abuse of discretion in their official acts is properly raised in petitions forcertiorari." (130 SCRA 392, 399, 400-401)

In denying petitioner's claim for holiday pay, respondent arbitrator stated that although monthly salaried employees are not among those excluded from receiving such additional pay under Article 94 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, to wit: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 compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and

(c) As used in this Article, "holiday" includes: New Year's 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.

they appear to be excluded under Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules and Regulations implementing said provision which reads thus:

SEC. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. - Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

Respondent arbitrator further opined that respondent corporation does not have any legal obligation to grant its monthly salaried employees holiday pay, unless it is argued that the pertinent section of the Rules and Regulations implementing Section 94 of the Labor Code is not in conformity with the law, and thus, without force and effect.

This issue was subsequently decided on October 24, 1984 by a division of this Court in the case of Insular Bank of Asia andAmerica Employees' Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong,wherein it held as follows:

"WE agree with the petitioner's contention that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion (p. 11, rec.)."Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended by P. D. 850, 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. x x x'

"The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82 thereof which reads:'Art. 82. Coverage.- The provision of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.'xxx xxx xxx

"From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said benefits by inserting under Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules, Section 2, which provides that: 'employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.'" (132 SCRA 663, 672-673)

This ruling was reiterated by the Court en banc on August 28, 1985 in the case ofChartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople,wherein it added that:

"The questioned Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and the Secretary's Policy Instruction No. 9 add another excluded group, namely 'employees who are uniformly paid by the month'. While the additional exclusion is only in the form of a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already been paid holiday pay, it constitutes a taking away or a deprivation which must be in the law if it is to be valid. An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or withholds is obviously ultra vires." (138 SCRA 273, 282. See alsoCBTC Employees Union vs. Clave,January 7, 1986, 141 SCRA 9.)

Lastly, respondent corporation contends that mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act which the law does not clearly enjoin as a duty. True it is also that mandamus is not proper to enforce a contractual obligation, the remedy being an action for specific performance (Province of Pangasinan vs. Reparations Commission,November 29, 1977, 80 SCRA 376). In the case at bar, however, in view of the above-cited subsequent decisions of this Court clearly defining the legal duty to grant holiday pay to monthly salaried employees, mandamus is an appropriate equitable remedy (Dionisio vs. Paterno,July 23, 1980, 98 SCRA 677;Gonzales vs. Government Service Insurance System,September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 492).

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of respondent arbitrator is SET ASIDE and respondent corporation is ordered to GRANT holiday pay to its monthly salaried employees. No costs.SO ORDERED.

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE), petitioner, vs. BENIGNO VIVAR, JR., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTL PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly FILIPRO, INC.), respondents. G.R. No. 79255 January 20, 1992

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the holiday pay award and the change of the divisor in the computation of benefits from 251 to 261 days.

On November 8, 1985, respondent Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay in the light of the Court's decision in Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (138 SCRA 273 [1985]).

Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar, Jr. as voluntary arbitrator.

On January 2, 1980, Arbitrator Vivar rendered a decision directing Filipro to:

pay its monthly paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code, subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code. (Rollo, p. 31)

Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award to three years, (2) the exclusion of salesmen, sales representatives, truck drivers, merchandisers and medical representatives (hereinafter referred to as sales personnel) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3) deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. (Rollo, pp. 138-145)

Petitioner UFE answered that the award should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, that their sales personnel are not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and that the use of 251 as divisor is an established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.

On January 14, 1986, the respondent arbitrator issued an order declaring that the effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to November 1, 1974, the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. He adjudged, however, that the company's sales personnel are field personnel and, as such, are not entitled to holiday pay. He likewise ruled that with the grant of 10 days' holiday pay, the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 and ordered the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 days as divisor.

Both Nestle and UFE filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration. Respondent Arbitrator treated the two motions as appeals and forwarded the case to the NLRC which issued a resolution dated May 25, 1987 remanding the case to the respondent arbitrator on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to review decisions in voluntary arbitration cases pursuant to Article 263 of the Labor Code as amended by Section 10, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and as implemented by Section 5 of the rules implementing B.P. Blg. 130.

However, in a letter dated July 6, 1987, the respondent arbitrator refused to take cognizance of the case reasoning that he had no more jurisdiction to continue as arbitrator because he had resigned from service effective May 1, 1986.

Hence, this petition.

The petitioner union raises the following issues:

1)Whether or not Nestle's sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay; and

2)Whether or not, concomitant with the award of holiday pay, the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 days and whether or not the previous use of 251 as divisor resulted in overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave pay.

The petitioner insists that respondent's sales personnel are not field personnel under Article 82 of the Labor Code. The respondent company controverts this assertion.

Under Article 82, field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. Said article defines field personnel as "non-agritultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty."

The controversy centers on the interpretation of the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty."

It is undisputed that these sales personnel start their field work at 8:00 a.m. after having reported to the office and come back to the office at 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. if they are Makati-based.

The petitioner maintains that the period between 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. comprises the sales personnel's working hours which can be determined with reasonable certainty.

The Court does not agree. The law requires that the actual hours of work in the field be reasonably ascertained. The company has no way of determining whether or not these sales personnel, even if they report to the office before 8:00 a.m. prior to field work and come back at 4:30 p.m, really spend the hours in between in actual field work.

We concur with the following disquisition by the respondent arbitrator:

The requirement for the salesmen and other similarly situated employees to report for work at the office at 8:00 a.m. and return at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. is not within the realm of work in the field as defined in the Code but an exercise of purely management prerogative of providing administrative control over such personnel. This does not in any manner provide a reasonable level of determination on the actual field work of the employees which can be reasonably ascertained. The theoretical analysis that salesmen and other similarly-situated workers regularly report for work at 8:00 a.m. and return to their home station at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m., creating the assumption that their field work is supervised, is surface projection. Actual field work begins after 8:00 a.m., when the sales personnel follow their field itinerary, and ends immediately before 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. when they report back to their office. The period between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. comprises their hours of work in the field, the extent or scope and result of which are subject to their individual capacity and industry and which "cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." This is the reason why effective supervision over field work of salesmen and medical representatives, truck drivers and merchandisers is practically a physical impossibility. Consequently, they are excluded from the ten holidays with pay award. (Rollo, pp. 36-37)

Moreover, the requirement that "actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty" must be read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules which provides:

Rule IV Holidays with Pay

Sec. 1.Coverage This rule shall apply to all employees except:

xxx xxx xxx

(e)Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer . . . (Emphasis supplied)

While contending that such rule added another element not found in the law (Rollo, p. 13), the petitioner nevertheless attempted to show that its affected members are not covered by the abovementioned rule. The petitioner asserts that the company's sales personnel are strictly supervised as shown by the SOD (Supervisor of the Day) schedule and the company circular dated March 15, 1984 (Annexes 2 and 3, Rollo, pp. 53-55).

Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the Court finds that the aforementioned rule did not add another element to the Labor Code definition of field personnel. The clause "whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer" did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Article 82 which defines field personnel. Hence, in deciding whether or not an employee's actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not such employee's time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer.

The SOD schedule adverted to by the petitioner does not in the least signify that these sales personnel's time and performance are supervised. The purpose of this schedule is merely to ensure that the sales personnel are out of the office not later than 8:00 a.m. and are back in the office not earlier than 4:00 p.m.

Likewise, the Court fails to see how the company can monitor the number of actual hours spent in field work by an employee through the imposition of sanctions on absenteeism contained in the company circular of March 15, 1984.

The petitioner claims that the fact that these sales personnel are given incentive bonus every quarter based on their performance is proof that their actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty.

The Court thinks otherwise.

The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales target; (2) good collection performance; (3) proper compliance with good market hygiene; (4) good merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns; and (6) proper truck maintenance. (Rollo, p. 190).

The above criteria indicate that these sales personnel are given incentive bonuses precisely because of the difficulty in measuring their actual hours of field work. These employees are evaluated by the result of their work and not by the actual hours of field work which are hardly susceptible to determination.

In San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Democratic Labor Organization (8 SCRA 613 [1963]), the Court had occasion to discuss the nature of the job of a salesman. Citing the case of Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, C.C.A. Okla., 118 F. 2d 202, the Court stated:

The reasons for excluding an outside salesman are fairly apparent. Such a salesman, to a greater extent, works individually. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall work and he can earn as much or as little, within the range of his ability, as his ambition dictates. In lieu of overtime he ordinarily receives commissions as extra compensation. He works away from his employer's place of business, is not subject to the personal supervision of his employer, and his employer has no way of knowing the number of hours he works per day.

While in that case the issue was whether or not salesmen were entitled to overtime pay, the same rationale for their exclusion as field personnel from holiday pay benefits also applies.

The petitioner union also assails the respondent arbitrator's ruling that, concomitant with the award of holiday pay, the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 days to include the additional 10 holidays and the employees should reimburse the amounts overpaid by Filipro due to the use of 251 days' divisor.

Arbitrator Vivar's rationale for his decision is as follows:

. . . The new doctrinal policy established which ordered payment of ten holidays certainly adds to or accelerates the basis of conversion and computation by ten days. With the inclusion of ten holidays as paid days, the divisor is no longer 251 but 261 or 262 if election day is counted. This is indeed an extremely difficult legal question of interpretation which accounts for what is claimed as falling within the concept of "solutio indebti."

When the claim of the Union for payment of ten holidays was granted, there was a consequent need to abandon that 251 divisor. To maintain it would create an impossible situation where the employees would benefit with additional ten days with pay but would simultaneously enjoy higher benefits by discarding the same ten days for purposes of computing overtime and night time services and considering sick and vacation leave credits. Therefore, reimbursement of such overpayment with the use of 251 as divisor arises concomitant with the award of ten holidays with pay. (Rollo, p. 34)

The divisor assumes an important role in determining whether or not holiday pay is already included in the monthly paid employee's salary and in the computation of his daily rate. This is the thrust of our pronouncement in Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (supra). In that case, We held:

It is argued that even without the presumption found in the rules and in the policy instruction, the company practice indicates that the monthly salaries of the employees are so computed as to include the holiday pay provided by law. The petitioner contends otherwise.

One strong argument in favor of the petitioner's stand is the fact that the Chartered Bank, in computing overtime compensation for its employees, employs a "divisor" of 251 days. The 251 working days divisor is the result of subtracting all Saturdays, Sundays and the ten (10) legal holidays from the total number of calendar days in a year. If the employees are already paid for all non-working days, the divisor should be 365 and not 251.

In the petitioner's case, its computation of daily ratio since September 1, 1980, is as follows:

monthly rate x 12 months251 days

Following the criterion laid down in the Chartered Bank case, the use of 251 days' divisor by respondent Filipro indicates that holiday pay is not yet included in the employee's salary, otherwise the divisor should have been 261.

It must be stressed that the daily rate, assuming there are no intervening salary increases, is a constant figure for the purpose of computing overtime and night differential pay and commutation of sick and vacation leave credits. Necessarily, the daily rate should also be the same basis for computing the 10 unpaid holidays.

The respondent arbitrator's order to change the divisor from 251 to 261 days would result in a lower daily rate which is violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found in Article 100 of the Labor Code. To maintain the same daily rate if the divisor is adjusted to 261 days, then the dividend, which represents the employee's annual salary, should correspondingly be increased to incorporate the holiday pay. To illustrate, if prior to the grant of holiday pay, the employee's annual salary is P25,100, then dividing such figure by 251 days, his daily rate is P100.00 After the payment of 10 days' holiday pay, his annual salary already includes holiday pay and totals P26,100 (P25,100 + 1,000). Dividing this by 261 days, the daily rate is still P100.00. There is thus no merit in respondent Nestle's claim of overpayment of overtime and night differential pay and sick and vacation leave benefits, the computation of which are all based on the daily rate, since the daily rate is still the same before and after the grant of holiday pay.

Respondent Nestle's invocation of solutio indebiti, or payment by mistake, due to its use of 251 days as divisor must fail in light of the Labor Code mandate that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." (Article 4). Moreover, prior to September 1, 1980, when the company was on a 6-day working schedule, the divisor used by the company was 303, indicating that the 10 holidays were likewise not paid. When Filipro shifted to a 5-day working schebule on September 1, 1980, it had the chance to rectify its error, if ever there was one but did not do so. It is now too late to allege payment by mistake.

Nestle also questions the voluntary arbitrator's ruling that holiday pay should be computed from November 1, 1974. This ruling was not questioned by the petitioner union as obviously said decision was favorable to it. Technically, therefore, respondent Nestle should have filed a separate petition raising the issue of effectivity of the holiday pay award. This Court has ruled that an appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed. (Franco v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 178 SCRA 331 [1989], citing La Campana Food Products, Inc. v. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, 142 SCRA 394 [1986]). Nevertheless, in order to fully settle the issues so that the execution of the Court's decision in this case may not be needlessly delayed by another petition, the Court resolved to take up the matter of effectivity of the holiday pay award raised by Nestle.

Nestle insists that the reckoning period for the application of the holiday pay award is 1985 when the Chartered Bank decision, promulgated on August 28, 1985, became final and executory, and not from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. Although the Court does not entirely agree with Nestle, we find its claim meritorious.

In Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663 [1984], hereinafter referred to as the IBAA case, the Court declared that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9, issued by the then Secretary of Labor on February 16, 1976 and April 23, 1976, respectively, and which excluded monthly paid employees from holiday pay benefits, are null and void. The Court therein reasoned that, in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay, the aforementioned implementing rule and policy instruction amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion. The Chartered Bank case reiterated the above ruling and added the "divisor" test.

However, prior to their being declared null and void, the implementing rule and policy instruction enjoyed the presumption of validity and hence, Nestle's non-payment of the holiday benefit up to the promulgation of the IBAA case on October 23, 1984 was in compliance with these presumably valid rule and policy instruction.

In the case of De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank, 38 SCRA 429 [1971], the Court discussed the effect to be given to a legislative or executive act subsequently declared invalid:

xxx xxx xxx

. . . It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the government organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication.

In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: "The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination of [unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official." (Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter States Bank, 308 US 371, 374 [1940]). This language has been quoted with approval in a resolution in Araneta v. Hill (93 Phil. 1002 [1952]) and the decision in Manila Motor Co., Inc. v. Flores (99 Phil. 738 [1956]). An even more recent instance is the opinion of Justice Zaldivar speaking for the Court in Fernandez v. Cuerva and Co. (21 SCRA 1095 [1967]. (At pp. 434-435)

The "operative fact" doctrine realizes that in declaring a law or rule null and void, undue harshness and resulting unfairness must be avoided. It is now almost the end of 1991. To require various companies to reach back to 1975 now and nullify acts done in good faith is unduly harsh. 1984 is a fairer reckoning period under the facts of this case.

Applying the aforementioned doctrine to the case at bar, it is not far-fetched that Nestle, relying on the implicit validity of the implementing rule and policy instruction before this Court nullified them, and thinking that it was not obliged to give holiday pay benefits to its monthly paid employees, may have been moved to grant other concessions to its employees, especially in the collective bargaining agreement. This possibility is bolstered by the fact that respondent Nestle's employees are among the highest paid in the industry. With this consideration, it would be unfair to impose additional burdens on Nestle when the non-payment of the holiday benefits up to 1984 was not in any way attributed to Nestle's fault.

The Court thereby resolves that the grant of holiday pay be effective, not from the date of promulgation of the Chartered Bank case nor from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, but from October 23, 1984, the date of promulgation of the IBAA case.WHEREFORE, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby MODIFIED. The divisor to be used in computing holiday pay shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be computed from October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

OCEANIC PHARMACAL EMPLOYEES UNION (FFW), complainant/appellant, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG and OCEANIC PHARMACAL INC, respondents/appellees.G.R. No. L-50568 November 7, 1979

ABAD SANTOS, J.:'This is a petition to review a decision of Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong who acted by authority of tile Minister of Labor in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-10042-77.

Oceanic Pharmacal Employees Union and Oceanic Pharmacal, Inc. had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) good from March 1, 1976 to February 28, 1979. On April 27, 1976, the following letter was sent to the Union:

Mr. Arturo Fernandez President Oceanic Pharmacal Employees Union (FFW)Makati, Rizal

Dear Mr. Fernandez:

Subject: Supplementary Agreement to CBA

This is to confirm in writing the agreement made between your panel and our own panel on April 24, 1976 on the following points:

1) Emergency Allowance The management of OPI will continue its present practice of extending emergency allowance to all employees receiving less than P1,000.00 per month as basic pay.

2)Holiday Pay OPI management will likewise continue to give holiday pay to monthly-salaried employees.

Please be informed too that we shall continue to extend the said benefits unless otherwise directed by other new requirements, rules, laws, decrees, etc. on the subject.

Very truly yours,

OCEANIC PHARMACAL, INC.

R. A. ALCANTARAPresident-Treasurer

On October 25, 1976, the Company posted on its bulletin board the following memorandum:

October 25, 1976

To:All Concern

From :Personnel Dept.

Ref.:Discontinuance of The Payment to RegularEmployees of The Regular Holidays Pay ForRegular Holidays.

This has reference to the payment of the subject benefit forming part of the supplemental Collective Bargaining Agreement dated April 27, 1976.

This commitment to pay said benefit is being discontinued on account to the proviso in the said memo of the General Manager dated April 27, 1976, taken in relation to Section 2, Rule IV, Book Ill of the Implementing Rules, Policy Instruction No. 9 and the decision of the Secretary of Labor in the Chartered Bank Case dated September 7. 1976.

For your information and dissemination.

The Union objected to the discontinuance of the holiday pay and when an amicable settlement could not be reached, the Union filed a complaint against the Company for unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA regarding holiday pay. In a decision dated March 24, 1977, Labor Arbiter Apolonio R. Reyes ordered the Company to resume payment of the holiday p . pay effective October 25, 1976. On appeal by the Company to the National Labor Relations Commission, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Still not satisfied, the Company appealed to the Minister of Labor who, on April 16, 1979, rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion: "Wherefore, the Resolution appealed from is hereby set aside, and a new judgment entered dismissing this case for lack of merit."

We required the respondents to comment on the petition, which they did. Private respondent, as expected, urges us to dismiss the petition. However, the Solicitor General recommends that the petition be given due course. We did so on November 12, 1979. Hence this decision.

We have to reverse the decision of the Minister of Labor.

The issue in this case is whether the Company may discontinue the holiday pay it had agreed to give pursuant to its letter dated April 27, 1976, by invoking the last paragraph thereof, namely: "Please be informed too that we shall continue to extend the said benefits unless otherwise directed by other new requirements, rules, laws, decrees, etc. on the subject." Stated in other words, is the discontinuance of the of the benefit justified by Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Rules and Regulation Implementing the Labor Code and Policy Instructions No. 9 of the Minister of Labor, as stated in the second paragraph of the Company's memorandum dated October 25, 1976? These issuances are respectively as follows:

Section 2. Status of employees paid by the month. Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wages shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve. (Issued in February 16, 1976.)

Policy Instructions No. 9 The rules implementing PD 850 have clarified the policy in the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. Before PD 850, the number of working days a year in a firm was considered important in determining entitlement to the benefit. Thus, where an employee was working for at least 313 days, he was considered definitely already paid. If he was working for less than 313, there was no certainty 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. ln 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.

This issuance shall take effect immediately. (Issued on February 23, 1916.)

As stated by the Solicitor General, the questions above stated should be answered in the negative for the following reasons:

1.Section 2, Rule IV, Book Ill of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code was promulgated on February 16, 1976. On the other hand, Policy Instructions No. 9 was issued on February 23, 1976. Since the said rules and policy instructions were already existing and effective prior to the execution of the Supplementary Agreement on April 27, 1976, it is clear that respondent company agreed to continue giving holiday pay to its monthly paid employees knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment of holiday pay. When respondent company, therefore, interposed the condition that it "shall continue to extend the said benefits unless otherwise directed by other new requirements, rules, laws, decrees, etc. on the subject," it was referring to laws, decrees, rules, etc. other than the abovecited issuances.

2.Even granting arguendo that the said issuance were promulgated after the execution of the agreement, there is still no justification for withdrawal of holiday pay benefits by respondent. company, in view of Section 11, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, which explicitly provides:

Sec. 11. Relation to agreements. Nothing in this Rule shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any benefits, supplements or payments for unworked holidays as provided it) existing individual or collective agreement or employer practice or policy."

In the case of States Marine Corporation v. Cebu Seaman's Association (G.R. No. L-12444, February 28, 1963; 7 SCRA 294), this Court, on the basis of a similar provision in the Minimum Wage Law (R.A. No. 602), ruled that nothing in the Act justified an employer in reducing the wage paid to any of his employees in excess of the minimum wage established under the Act or in reducing supplements furnished on the date of enactment.

Evidently, there is no legal basis for the withdrawal of holiday benefits by the Company. Consequently, its violation of the Supplementary Agreement constitutes unfair labor practice.It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer to violate a collective bargaining agreement (Art. 248, Labor Code)WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and those of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC are reinstated. No costs.SO ORDERED.

CITIBANK PHILS. EMPLOYEES UNION NATU, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR and CITIBANK, N. A., respondents. G.R. No. L-50184 April 11, 1980

BARREDO, J.:Petition for certiorari praying that the order of the respondent Minister of Labor dated February 19, 1979 setting aside the resolution of National Labor Relations Commission of December 19, 1977, which in turn dismiss private respondent Citibank, N. A.'s appeal from the order dated December 13, 1976 of Executive Labor Arbiter Guillermo C. Medina denying said respondent's motion to quash the writ of execution issued against it in Case No. RB4-8-6332-75, entitled FNCB Employees Union Natu vs. First National City Bank, by virtue of the award made in said case by the mutually chosen lone voluntary Arbitrator Ruben F. Santos of December 19, 1975.

The basic facts are stated in the order under review, which being quite brief may be quoted in full as basis for further discussion:

Briefly, the undisputed facts are as follows: On 5 August 1975, petitioner filed the instant case for payment of regular holiday pay pursuant to Article 208 (a) of the Labor Code. Upon failure of concilation efforts to settle the case, the parties agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration.

After hearing, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered an Award, dated 15 December 1975, ordering respondent to pay the employees herein concerned, their holiday pay on the basis of his finding that the monthly salary of said employees does not include their pay for unworked holidays. The award was partially implemented by the respondent when it paid to the employees concerned their accrued holiday pay benefits covering the period November 1974 to December 1975.

However, when the promulgation of the Integrated Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, pursuant to P. D. 850 on 16 February 1976 and the issuance by the Secretary of Labor on 23 April 1976 of Policy Instructions No. 9, the respondent stopped such payment. Hence, petitioner f