Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
431,JUNE10,2004 633
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
*
G.R.No.147420.June10,2004.
CEZARODANGOinhisbehalfandinbehalfof32complainants,
petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
andANTIQUEELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.,respondents.
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
634
634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
MarianoR.Pefiancoforpetitioners.
AlexG.Sirveloforprivaterespondent.
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
1
Before the Court is a petition for review 2 assailing the Court of
AppealsResolutionsof27September2000 and7February2001in3
CAG.R.SPNo.51519.TheCourtofAppealsupheldtheDecision
dated27November1997andtheResolutiondated30April1998of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC
Case No. V004897. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
Decision of 29 November 1996, which found respondent Antique
Electric Cooperative (ANTECO) liable for petitioners wage
differentials amounting to P1,017,507.73 plus attorneys fees of
10%.
AntecedentFacts
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
2PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarianoM.UmaliwithAssociateJusticesRubenT.
ReyesandRebeccaDeGuiaSalvador,concurring.
3 Penned by Commissioner Bernabe S. Batuhan with Commissioners Irenea R.
CernizaandAmoritoV.Caete,concurring.
635
VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 635
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
routineinspection,theRegionalBranchoftheDepartmentofLabor
and Employment (DOLE) found ANTECO liable for
underpayment of the monthly salaries of its employees. On 10
September1989,theDOLEdirectedANTECOtopayitsemployees
wagedifferentialsamountingtoP1,427,412.75.ANTECOfailedto
pay.
Thus, on various dates in 1995, thirtythree (33) monthlypaid
employees filed complaints with the NLRC SubRegional Branch
VI,IloiloCity,prayingforpaymentofwagedifferentials,damages
and attorneys fees. Labor Arbiter Rodolfo G. Lagoc (Labor
Arbiter)heardtheconsolidatedcomplaints.
On29November1996,theLaborArbiterrenderedaDecisionin
favor of petitioners granting them wage differentials amounting to
P1,017,507.73 and attorneys fees of 10%. Florentino Tongson,
whosecasetheLaborArbiterdismissed,wasthesoleexception.
ANTECOappealedtheDecisiontotheNLRCon24December
1996. On 27 November 1997, the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiters Decision. The NLRC denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration in its Resolution dated 30 April 1998. Petitioners
thenelevatedthecasetothisCourtthroughapetitionforcertiorari,
which the Court dismissed for petitioners failure to comply with
Section11,Rule13oftheRulesofCourt.Onpetitionersmotionfor
reconsideration, the Court on 13 January 1999 set aside the
dismissal.
4
Following the doctrine in St. Martin Funeral Home v.
NLRC, theCourtreferredthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.
On27September2000,theCourtofAppealsissuedaResolution
dismissingthepetitionforfailuretocomplywithSection3,Rule46
of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals explained that
petitioners failed to allege the specific instances where the NLRC
abuseditsdiscretion.Theappellatecourtdeniedpetitionersmotion
forreconsiderationon7February2001.
Hence,thispetition
TheLaborArbitersRuling
_______________
4356Phil.811295SCRA494(1998).
636
636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
5
of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code (Section 2).
Petitioners claim that this includes not only the 10 legal holidays,
butalsotheirunworkedhalfofSaturdaysandallofSundays.
TheLaborArbitergavecredencetopetitionersargumentsonthe
computation of their wages based on the 304 divisor used by
ANTECO in converting the leave credits of its employees. The
LaborArbiteragreedwithpetitionersthatANTECOsuseof304as
divisorisanadmissionthatitispayingitsemployeesforonly304
days a year instead of the 365 days as specified in Section 2. The
Labor Arbiter concluded that ANTECO owed its employees the
wages for 61 days, the difference between 365 and 304, for every
year.
TheNLRCsRuling
_______________
5SEC.2.Statusofemployeespaidbythemonth.Employeeswhoareuniformly
paidbythemonth,irrespectiveofthenumberofworkingdaystherein,withasalaryof
notlessthanthestatutoryorestablishedminimumwageshallbepresumedtobepaid
foralldaysinthemonthwhetherworkedornot.
Forthispurpose,themonthlyminimumwageshallnotbelessthanthestatutory
minimumwagemultipliedby365daysdividedbytwelve.
637
VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 637
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
TheCourtofAppealsheldthatthepetitionwasinsufficientinform
andsubstancesinceitdoesnotallegetheessentialrequirementsof
theextraordinaryspecialactionofcertiorari.TheCourtofAppeals
faulted petitioners for failing to recite where and in what specific
instance public respondent abused its discretion. The appellate
courtcharacterizedtheallegationsinthepetitionassweepingand
clearlyfallingshortoftherequirementofSection3,Rule46ofthe
RulesofCourt.
TheIssues
Petitionersraisethefollowingissues:
WHETHERTHECOURTOFAPPEALSISCORRECTINDISMISSING
THECASE.
II
WHETHER
6
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR MONEY
CLAIM.
TheRulingoftheCourt
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
Onthesufficiencyofthepetition
PetitionersarguethattheCourtofAppealserredindismissingtheir
petition because this Court had already ruled that their petition is
sufficientinformandsubstance.Theyarguethatthisprecludesany
judgment to the contrary by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners cite
this Courts Resolution dated 13 January 1999 as their basis. This
Resolution granted petitioners motion for reconsideration and set
asidethedismissaloftheirpetitionforreview.
Petitioners reliance on our 16 September 1998 Resolution is
misplaced.InourResolution,wedismissedpetitionerscasefor
_______________
6Rollo,p.9.
638
638 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
7
failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
Thepetitionlackedawrittenexplanationonwhyservicewasmade
throughregisteredmailandnotpersonally.
The error petitioners committed before the Court of Appeals is
different. The appellate court dismissed their petition for8
failure to
complywiththefirstparagraphofSection3ofRule46 inrelation
toRule65oftheRulesofCourt,outliningthenecessarycontentsof
a petition for certiorari. This is an entirely different ground. The
previous dismissal was due to petitioners failure to explain why
theyresortedtoservicebyregisteredmail.Thistimethecontentof
the petition itself is deficient. Petitioners failed to allege in their
petition the specific instances where the actions of the NLRC
amountedtograveabuseofdiscretion.
There is nothing in this Courts Resolution dated 13 January
1999thatremotelysupportspetitionersargument.Whatweresolved
then was to reconsider the dismissal of the petition due to a
proceduraldefectandtoreferthecasetotheCourtofAppealsforits
proper disposition. We did not in any way rule that the petition is
sufficientinformandsubstance.
Petitionersalsoarguethattheirpetitionisclearandspecificinits
allegationofgraveabuseofdiscretion.Theymaintainthattheyhave
sufficientlycompliedwiththerequirementinSection3,Rule46of
theRulesofCourt.
Again,petitionersaremistaken.
Wequotetherelevantpartoftheirpetition:
_______________
serviceandfilingofpleadingsandotherpapersshallbedonepersonally.Exceptwith
respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done
personally.AviolationofthisRulemaybecausetoconsiderthepaperasnotfiled.
8 Sec. 3. Content and filing of petition effect of noncompliance with
requirements.Thepetitionshallcontainthefullnamesandactualaddressesofall
the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the
factualbackgroundofthecase,andthegroundsrelieduponforthereliefprayedfor.
xxx
639
VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 639
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
REASONSRELIEDUPONFORALLOWANCEOFPETITION
12. This Honorable court can readily see from the facts and
circumstances of this case, the petitioners were denied of their
rights to be paid of 4 hours of each Saturday, 51 rest days and 10
legal holidays of every year since they started working with
respondentANTECO.
13. The respondent NLRC while with open eyes knew that the
petitioners are entitled to salary differentials consisting of 4 hours
pay on Saturdays, 51 rest days and 10 legal holidays plus 10%
attorneys fees as awarded by the Labor Arbiter in the above
mentioned decision, still contrary to law, contrary to existing
jurisprudenceissuedarbitrary,withoutjurisdictionandinexcessof
jurisdictionthedecisionvacatingandsettingasidethesaiddecision
oftheLaborArbiter,totheirreparabledamageandprejudiceofthe
petitioners.
14. That the respondent NLRC in grave abuse of discretion in the
exercise of its function, by way of evasion of positive duty in
accordance with existing labor laws, illegally refused to reconsider
itsdecisiondismissingthepetitionerscomplaints.
15. That there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
law from the abovementioned decision and9 resolution of
respondentNLRCexceptthispetitionforcertiorari.
Thesefourparagraphscomprisethepetitionersentireargument.In
these four paragraphs petitioners ask that a writ of certiorari be
issuedintheirfavor.WefindthattheCourtofAppealsdidnoterrin
dismissingthepetitionoutright.Section3,Rule46oftheRulesof
Court requires that a petition for certiorari must state the grounds
relied on for the relief sought. A simple perusal of the petition
readilyshowsthatpetitionersfailedtomeetthisrequirement.
The appellate courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the
NLRCinapetitionforcertiorariisconfinedtoissuesofjurisdiction
10
or grave abuse of discretion. An extraordinary remedy, a petition
for certiorari is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional
cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of
errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave11
abuse of
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction. Itdoesnot
_______________
9CARollo,p.6.
10 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603 360
SCRA173(2001).
11Orov.JudgeDiaz,413Phil.416361SCRA108(2001).
640
640 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
Ontherightofthepetitionerstowagedifferentials
PetitionersclaimthattheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredindenying
their claim for wage differentials. Petitioners base their claim on
Section2,RuleIVofBookIIIoftheOmnibusRulesImplementing
theLaborCode.Petitionersarguethatunderthisprovisionmonthly
paid employees are considered paid for all days of the month
includingunworkeddays.Petitionersassertthattheyshouldbepaid
for all the 365 days in a year. They argue that since in the
computation of leave credits, ANTECO uses a divisor of 304,
ANTECOisnotpayingthem61dayseveryyear.
_______________
12Floresvs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,323Phil.589253SCRA494
(1996).
13Sajonas vs. National Labor Relations Commission,G.R. No. 49286, March 15,
1990,183SCRA182.
641
VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 641
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
Petitionersclaimiswithoutbasis
WehavelongagodeclaredvoidSection2,RuleIVofBookIIIof
theOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCode.InInsularBank
14
ofAsiav.Inciong, weruledasfollows:
Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy
InstructionsNo.9issuedbytheSecretary(thenMinister)ofLaborarenull
and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Codes provisions on
holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their
exclusion.
The Labor Code is clear that monthlypaid 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
paidemployeesfromthesaidbenefitsbyinserting,underRuleIV,BookIII
of the implementing rules, Section 2 which provides that monthlypaid
employeesarepresumedtobepaidforalldaysinthemonthwhetherworked
ornot.
Thus,Section2cannotserveasbasisofanyrightorclaim.Absent
anyotherlegalbasis,petitionersclaimforwagedifferentialsmust
fail.
Even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is valid,
petitionersclaimwillstillfail.Thebasicruleinthisjurisdictionis
no work, no pay. The right to be paid for unworked
15
days is
generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year. Petitioners
claimisbasedonamistakennotionthatSection2,RuleIVofBook
IIIgaverisetoarighttobepaidforunworkeddaysbeyondtheten
legal holidays. In effect, petitioners demand that ANTECO should
pay them on Sundays, the unworked half of Saturdays and other
daysthattheydonotworkatall.Petitionerslineofreasoningisnot
onlyaviolationofthenowork,nopayprinciple,italsogivesrise
to an invidious classification, a violation of the equal protection
clause. Sustaining petitioners argument will make monthlypaid
employeesaprivilegedclasswhoarepaideveniftheydonotwork.
The use of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make ANTECO
automatically liable for underpayment. The facts show that
petitioners are required to work only from Monday to Friday and
half
_______________
14InsularBankofAsiaandAmericaEmployeesUnion(IBAAEU)v.Inciong,217
Phil.629132SCRA663(1984).
15SeeArticle94oftheLaborCodeandExecutiveOrderNo.223.
642
642 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Odangovs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
ofSaturday.Thus,theminimumallowabledivisoris287,whichis
theresultof365days,less52Sundaysandless26Saturdays(or52
halfSaturdays).Anydivisorbelow287daysmeansthatANTECOs
workersaredeprivedoftheirholidaypayforsomeoralloftheten
legal holidays. The 304 days divisor used by ANTECO is clearly
abovetheminimumof287days.
Finally,petitionersciteCharteredBankEmployeesAssociationv.
16
Ople asananalogoussituation.Petitionershavemisreadthiscase.
In Chartered Bank, the workers sought payment for unworked
legal holidays as a right guaranteed by a valid law. In this case,
petitionersseekpaymentofwagesforunworkednonlegalholidays
citingasbasisavoidimplementingrule.Thecircumstancesarealso
markedly different. In Chartered Bank, there was a collective
bargainingagreementthatprescribedthedivisor.NoCBAexistsin
this case. In Chartered Bank, the employer was liable for
underpaymentbecausethedivisoritusedwas251days,afigurethat
clearlyfailstoaccountforthetenlegalholidaysthelawrequiresto
be paid. Here, the divisor ANTECO uses is 304 days. This figure
does not deprive petitioners of their right to be paid on legal
holidays.
Afinalnote.ANTECOsdefenseislikewisebasedonSection2,
RuleIVofBookIIIoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLabor
Code although ANTECOs interpretation of this provision is
opposite that of petitioners. It is deplorable that both parties
premised their arguments on an implementing rule that the Court
had declared void twenty years ago in Insular
17
Bank. This case is
citedprominentlyinbasiccommentaries. Andyet,counselforboth
partiesfailedtoconsiderthis.Thisdoesnotspeakwellofthequality
of representation they rendered to their clients. This controversy
should have ended long ago had either counsel first checked the
validity of the implementing rule on which they based their
contentions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the
Court of Appeals DISMISSING CAG.R. SP No. 51519 is
AFFIRMED.
_______________
16G.R.No.L44717,28August1985,138SCRA273.
17SeeAzucena,The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. 1, pp. 174 to
175.
643
VOL.431,JUNE10,2004 643
Peoplevs.Dagpin
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.(C.J.,Chairman),Panganiban,YnaresSantiago
andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,resolutioninCAG.R.SPNo.51519affirmed.
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.