INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES UNION VS.

INCIONG
G.R. NO. L 52415
OCTOBER 23, 1984
FACTS:
The Union filed a complaint against the bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department
of Labor, Regional Office IV in Manila. Conciliation having failed on June 20, 1975, and upon the
request of both parties, the case was certified for arbitration on July 7, 1975. On August 25, 1975, Labor
Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered decision granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay.
Respondent bank did not appeal from the said decision. Instead, it complied with the order of the Labor
Arbiter by paying their holiday pay up to and including January 1976. P.D. 850 was promulgated
amending the provisions of the Labor Code on the right to holiday pay. Accordingly by authority of
Article 5 of the Labor Code, the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and
regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay. The section reads:
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.
Policy Instruction 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor on April 23, 1976, interpreting the said
rule. The bank, by reason of the ruling laid down by the rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code
and by Policy Instruction 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to an its employees.
On August 30, 1976, the Union filed a motion for a writ of execution to enforce the arbiter's decision
dated August 1975, which the bank opposed. On October 18, 1976, the Labor Arbiter, instead of issuing a
writ of execution, issued an order enjoining the bank to continue paying its employees their regular
holiday pay. On November 17, 1976, the bank appealed from the order of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC.
On 20 June 1978, the NLRC promulgated its resolution dismissing the banks appeal, and ordering the
issuance of the proper writ of execution. On February 21, - 1979, the bank filed with the Office of the
Minister of Lab or a motion for reconsideration/appeal with urgent prayer to stay execution. On August
13, 1979 the NLRC issued an order directing the Chief of Research and Information of the Commission
to compute the holiday pay of the IBAA employees from April 1976 to the present in accordance with the
Labor Arbiter dated August 25, 1975. On November 10, 1979, the Office of the Minister of Labor,
through Deputy Minister Amado Inciong, issued an order setting aside the resolution of the NLRC dated
June 20, 1978, and dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not the monthly paid employees are excluded from the benefits of holiday pay.
Held:
No. 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
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 Codes provisions on
holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion.

From Article 92 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree 850, and Article 32 of the same
Code, 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 17 Rule IV, 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." Even if contemporaneous
construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it is given great weight
by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, the same must be declared as null and void. So
long, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid. 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. 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. Further,
administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means.
THE CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
vs.
HON. BLAS F. OPLE, and THE CHARTERED BANK,
G.R. No. L-44717 August 28, 1985

FACTS:
On May 20, 1975, petitioner instituted a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment
(MOLE) against private respondent Chartered Bank, for the payment of ten (10) unworked legal
holidays, as well as for premium and overtime differentials for worked legal holidays from November
1, 1974. Both the arbitrator and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of
the petitioners ordering the respondent bank to pay its monthly paid employees, holiday pay for the
ten (10) legal holidays effective November 1, 1974 and to pay premium or overtime pay differentials
to all employees who rendered work during said legal holidays. On appeal, the Minister of Labor set
aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petitioner's claim for lack of merit basing its
decision on Section 2, Rule IV, Book Ill of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9.
Petitioners contends that the respondent Minister of Labors promulgation of Section 2, Rule IV,
Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 as guidelines for the interpretation of
Articles 82 and 94 of the Labor Code and in applying said guidelines to this case constitutes a grave
abuse of his discretion of his authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement construe
and clarify the Labor Code On the other hand, the private respondent contends that the questioned
guidelines did not deprive the petitioner's members of the benefits of holiday pay but merely
classified those monthly paid employees whose monthly salary already includes holiday pay and
those whose do not, and that the guidelines did not deprive the employees of holiday pay.
Issue:
Whether or not the monthly salaries of the petitioner's members already include holiday pay
Held:

NO. The Court held that the issue in the case at bar, was the same issue raised and resolved in the
case of Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong (132 SCRA 663),
which the Court ruled that Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction
No. 9, are contrary to the provisions of the Labor Code and, therefore, invalid. Since the private
respondent premises its action on the invalidated rule and policy instruction, it is clear that the
employees belonging to the petitioner association are entitled to the payment of ten (10) legal
holidays under Articles 82 and 94 of the Labor Code, aside from their monthly salary. They are not
among those excluded by law from the benefits of such holiday pay.

CEZAR ODANGO VS. NLRC

G.R. NO. 147420
JUNE 10, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioners are monthly-paid employees of ANTECO whose workdays are from Monday to
Friday and half of Saturday. After a routine inspection, the Regional Branch of the Department of
Labor and Employment ("DOLE") found ANTECO liable for underpayment of the monthly
salaries of its employees. On 10 September 1989, the DOLE directed ANTECO to pay its
employees wage differentials amounting to P1,427,412.75. ANTECO failed to pay.
Thus, on various dates in 1995, thirty-three (33) monthly-paid employees filed complaints with
the NLRC Sub-Regional Branch VI, Iloilo City, praying for payment of wage differentials,
damages and attorneys fees. Labor Arbiter Rodolfo G. Lagoc ("Labor Arbiter") heard the
consolidated complaints.
On 29 November 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners granting
them wage differentials amounting to P1,017,507.73 and attorneys fees of 10%. Florentino
Tongson, whose case the Labor Arbiter dismissed, was the sole exception.
ANTECO appealed the Decision to the NLRC on 24 December 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 then elevated the case to this
Court through a petition for certiorari, which the Court dismissed for petitioners failure to
comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. On petitioners motion for
reconsideration, the Court on 13 January 1999 set aside the dismissal. Following the doctrine
in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,4 the Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
On 27 September 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for
failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals explained
that petitioners failed to allege the specific instances where the NLRC abused its discretion. The
appellate court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration on 7 February 2001.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to their money claims.
HELD:
No. The Court rules that the petitioners are not entitled to their money claims. Petitioner claim
based on Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions No. 9

issued by the Secretary (then Minister) of Labor which the court in its ruling on Insular Bank of
Asia v. Inciong, declared the said rule as null 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.
And that even assuming that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III is valid, petitioners claim will still
fail. The basic rule in this jurisdiction is "no work, no pay." The right to be paid for un-worked
days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.15 Petitioners claim is based on a
mistaken notion that Section 2, Rule IV of Book III gave rise to a right to be paid for un-worked
days beyond the ten legal holidays. In effect, petitioners demand that ANTECO should pay them
on Sundays, the un-worked half of Saturdays and other days that they do not work at all.
Petitioners line of reasoning is not only a violation of the "no work, no pay" principle, it also
gives rise to an invidious classification, a violation of the equal protection clause. Sustaining
petitioners argument will make monthly-paid employees a privileged class who are paid even if
they do not work.
Thus, Section 2 cannot serve as basis of any right or claim. Absent any other legal basis,
petitioners claim for wage differentials must fail.