SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS-FORMER THIRTEENTH DI ISION, HON. UNDERSECRETAR! "OSE M.

ESPA#OL, "R., Hon. CRESENCIANO B. TRA"ANO, $n% HON. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALLAN M. MACARA!A, respon%ents. G.R. No. &'())*. "$n+$r, -., /../
F$0ts1 The Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection in San Miguel Corporation, Iligan City and it was discovered that there was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees D!LE sent a copy of inspection result to SMC which the latter contested the findings SMC failed to submit proof and hence the Director of D!LE of Iligan District !ffice issued a compliance order to pay both its Muslim and non"Muslim employees the Muslim #olidays SMC appealed to D!LE main office but dismissed for having been filed late but later on reconsidered because it is within reglementary period but still dismissed for lac$ of merit #ence, this present petition for certiorari Iss+e1 %hether or not non"Muslim employees wor$ing in Muslim areas is entitled to Muslim #oliday &ay He2%1 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to pay its non"Muslim employees The basis for this decision were 'rticles ()* and (+, of & D -o (,./ 0Code of Muslim &ersonal Laws1 which listed all official Muslim holidays and provincies and cities where officially observed In this case, SMC is located in Iligan which is covered in the those provisions 'lso 'rticle ()* and (+, of &D -o (,./ should be read in con2unction with 'rticle *3 of Labor Code which provides for the right of every wor$er to be paid of holiday pay &etitioner asserts 'rt /4/5 of &D -o (,./ provides that it shall be applicable only to Muslims #owever, the Court said that said article declares that nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the pre2udice of a non"Muslim There should be no distinction between Muslims and non"Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays It was said also that the The Court of 'ppeals did not err in sustaining 6ndersecretary Espa7ol who stated8 0'ssuming arguendo that the respondent9s position is correct, then by the same to$en, Muslims throughout the &hilippines are also not entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays declared by law as regular holidays %e must remind the respondent"appellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the wor$ing man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and certainly not on the basis of the wor$er9s faith or religion 1 SMC appealed to the D!LE main office in Manila but its appeal was dismissed for having been filed late The dismissal of the appeal for late filing was later reconsidered in the order of (+ >uly (**. after it was found that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period " #owever, the appeal was still dismissed for lac$ of merit and the order of Director Macaraya was affirmed SMC then filed a petition for certiorari ISSUE1 %!- non"Muslim employees wor$ing in Muslim areas is entitled to the Muslim #oliday &ay HELD1 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered SMC to pay its non"Muslim employees The basis for this decision were 'rticles ()* and (+, of & D -o (,./ 0Code of Muslim &ersonal Laws1 which listed all official Muslim holidays and provinces and cities where it is officially observed In this case, SMC is located in Iligan which is covered in the those provisions 'lso 'rticle ()* and (+, of &D -o (,./ should be read in con2unction with 'rticle *3 of Labor Code which provides for the right of every wor$er to be paid of holiday pay Even though SMC asserts 'rt /4/5 of &D -o (,./ in which it provides that it shall be applicable only to Muslims, the Court had declared that the said article should not be construed to operate to the pre2udice of a non"Muslim FACTS1 !n (+ !ctober (**:, the Department of Labour and Employment 4D!LE5, Iligan City !ffice, had conducted a routine inspection in the premises of San Miguel Corporation 4SMC5 in Sta ;ilomena, Iligan City In the course of the inspection, it was discovered that there was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees " D!LE sent a copy of the inspection result to SMC which the latter contested the findings The D!LE then conducted summary hearings on (* -ovember (**:, :. May (**/ and 3 and < !ctober (**/ " #owever, SMC had failed to submit proof that it was paying regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees " 'lan M Macaraya, Director I= of D!LE Iligan District !ffice had issued a compliance order, dated (+ December (**/, directing SMC to consider Muslim holidays as regular holidays and to pay both its Muslim and non"Muslim employees holiday pay within thirty 4/,5 days from the receipt of the order

" #ence, there should be no distinction between Muslims and non"Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays