Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
No. L-74156. June 29,1988.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
72
73
have been paid his base pay for Saturday and Sunday but should
have received only the 50% overtime premium."
Same; Same; Same; CBA, law between the parties and can be
subject of future re-negotiation.—Under the peculiar
circumstances obtaining, therefore, where the company observes a
5-day work week, it will have to be held that the COLA should be
computed on the basis of twenty two (22) days, which is the period
during which the monthly-paid employees of Petitioner
Corporation receive their basic wage. The CBA is the law between
the parties and, if not acceptable, can be the subject of future re-
negotiation.
Same; Same; Same; Formula for conversion ofdaily allowance
to its monthly equivalent.—Moreover, before Wage Order No. 4,
there was lack of administrative guidelines for the
implementation of the Wage Orders. It was only when the Rules
Implementing Wage Order No. 4 were issued on 21 May 1984 that
a formula for the conversion of the daily allowance to its monthly
equivalent was laid down, thus: "Section 3. Application of Section
2—"xxx xxx (a) Monthly rates for non-agricultural workers
covered under PDs 1614, 1634, 1678 and 1713: xxx xxx (3) For
workers who do not work and are not considered paid on
Saturdays and Sundays: P60 + P90 + P60 + (P2.00 x 262)
dividedby!2 = P253.7(X"
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner cannot be faulted for erroneous
application ofa "doubtful or difficult question oflaw." (Art. 2155
and 2154 ofthe Civil Code).—Absent clear administrative
guidelines, Petitioner Corporation cannot be faulted for erroneous
application of the law. Payment may be said to have been made
by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a
"doubtful or difficult question of law" (Article 2155, in relation to
Article 2154 of the Civil Code). Since it is a past error that is
being corrected, no vested right may be said to have arisen nor
any diminution of benefit under Article 100 of the Labor Code
may be said to have resulted by virtue of the correction.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
A special civil action for Certiorari with a prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin respondents from
enforcing the Decision of 10 March 1986 of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in NGR Case No. 1-
168-85 entitled "FFW-Globe Mackay Employees Union, et
al., vs. Globe Mackay Cable & Radio Corporation, et al.,"
the dispositive portion of which reads:
SO ORDERED."
77
________________
79
2
2154 of the Civil Code). Since it is a past error that is
being corrected, no vested right may be said to have arisen
nor any diminution
3
of benefit under Article 100 of the
Labor Code may be said to have resulted by virtue of the
correction.
With the conclusions thus reached, there is no further
need to discuss the liability of the officers of Petitioner
Corporation.
WHEREFORE, Certiorari is granted, the Decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission, dated 10 March
1986, is SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter,
dated 9 May 1985, is hereby REINSTATED. The
Temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby
made permanent.
SO ORDERED.
——oOo——
________________
80
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.