Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 81176 April 19, 1989
PLASTIC TOWN CENTER CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG
MANGGAGAWA NLM!"KATIPUNAN, respondents.
Generosa R. Jacinto for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.

GUTIERRE#, JR., J.:
n issue in this petition is the interpretation of certain provisions of the !ollective
"ar#ainin# #ree$ent %!"& bet'een Plastic To'n !enter !orporation and the
respondent union.
On Septe$ber (,)*+,, the respondent Na#-a-aisan# .a-as n# Man##a#a'a %N.M&/
0atipunan filed a co$plaint dated u#ust 12, )*+, char#in# the petitioner 'ith3
a. Violation of 4a#e Order No. 5, b6 creditin# the Pl.22 per da6 increase in the !" as
part of the co$pliance 'ith said 4a#e Order No. 5, and 6 instead of thirt6 %12& da6s
e7uivalent to one %)& $onth as #ratuit6 pa6 to resi#nin# e$plo6ees. %p. 1, Rollo&
b. 8nfair labor practice thru violation of the !" b6 #ivin# onl6 t'ent6/si9 %:;& da6s pa6
instead of thirt6 %12& da6s e7uivalent to one %)& $onth as #ratuit6 pa6 to resi#nin#
e$plo6ees. %p. 1, Rollo&
On <ul6 :5,)*+5, .abor rbiter Ruben lberto ruled in favor of Plastic To'n !enter
!orporation. The pertinent portions of the decision read as follo's3
... In this particular case, the P).22 increase 'as ahead of the
i$ple$entation of the !" provision or could be said 'as
advanta#eous to co$plainant $e$bers, chronolo#icall6 stated. =or
the above co#ent reason 'e can not fault respondent for its refusal to
#rant a second Pl.22 increase on <ul6 ), )*+,.
999 999 999
!o$plainant sustains the vie' that a $onth salar6 pertains to salar6
for 12 da6s, citin# the provision of the !ivil !ode on the $atter.
8pon the other hand, respondents understandin# of the controverted
provision is pra#$atic or practical. Since the 'or-ers are paid on dail6
basis, it co$puted the salar6 received b6 the 'or-er in a $onth as a
$onth salar6. In this case the salar6 of :; da6s is a $onth salar6.
4e a#ree 'ith the respondent>s interpretation. s dail6 'a#e earner,
there 'ould be no instance that the 'or-er 'ould 'or- for 12 da6s a
$onth since 'or- does not include Sunda6 or rest da6s. In the $ind
of the dail6 'or-er in a $onth he could not e9pect a $onth salar6
e9ceedin# the e7uivalent of :; da6s service. To a'ard the dail6 'a#e
earner pa6 for $ore than :; da6s is pa6 for da6s he does not 'or-.
"ut as re#ards the $onthl6/ paid 'or-ers he e9pects his $onthl6
salar6 to be fi9ed 'hich is a $onth salar6. Hence, a distinction
separates hi$ 'ith the dail6 'a#es.
IN VI?4 O= TH? =OR?@OIN@, the unfair labor practice char#e
should be, as it is hereb6 dis$issed for lac- of le#al and factual basis.
%pp/ 5;/5(, Rollo&
On u#ust 12, )*+(, the respondent labor union appealed to the National .abor
Relations !o$$ission.
On <une 12, )*+(, the N.R! rendered the 7uestioned decision 'ith the follo'in#
dispositive portion3
4H?R?=OR?, the appealed decision is hereb6 reversed and the
respondent is ordered to #rant Pl.22 increase for <ul6 ), )*+, and the
e7uivalent of thirt6 da6s salar6 in #ratuit6 pa6, as re7uired b6 its !"
'ith the co$plainants. %p. 1*, Rollo&
1
The $otion for reconsideration of said decision 'as denied on Dece$ber (, )*+(.
Hence, this petition.
The applicable provisions of the !" read as follo's3
Section ) /The co$pan6 a#rees to #rant per$anent re#ular ran- and
file 'or-ers covered b6 this #ree$ent 'ho have rendered at least
one 6ear of continuous service, across/the/board 'a#e increases as
follo's3
a. ?ffective ) <ul6, )*+1/Pl.22 per 'or-ed da6A
b ?ffective ) <ul6, )*+,/Pl.22 per 'or-ed da6A
c. ?ffective ) <ul6, )*+5/Pl.22 per 'or-ed da6A
Section 1/ It is a#reed and understood b6 the parties herein that the
afore$entioned increase in pa6 shall be credited a#ainst future
allo'ances or 'a#e orders hereinafter i$ple$ented or enforced b6
virtue of .etters of Instructions, Decrees and other labor le#islation.
%pp. 1;/1(, Rollo&
4a#e Order No. , provided for the inte#ration of the $andator6 e$er#enc6 cost of
livin# allo'ances %?!O.& under Presidential Decrees );),,);1,,);(+ and )()1 into
the basic pa6 of all covered 'or-ers effective Ma6 ), )*+,. It further provided that after
the inte#ration, the applicable statutor6 $ini$u$ dail6 'a#e rate $ust be co$plied 'ith,
'hich in this case is P1:.22.
The petitioner incurred a deficienc6 of P).22 in the 'a#e rate after inte#ratin# the
?!O. 'ith basic pa6. So the petitioner advanced to Ma6 ), )*+, or t'o $onths earlier
the i$ple$entation of the one/peso 'a#e increase provided for in the !" startin# <ul6
), )*+, for the benefit of the 'or-ers.
The petitioner ar#ues that it did not credit the Pl.22 per da6 across the board increase
under the !" as co$pliance 'ith 4a#e Order No. 5 i$ple$ented on <une );,)*+,
since it #ave an additional P1.22 per da6 to the basic salar6 pursuant to said order. It,
ho'ever, credited the Pl.22 a da6 increase to the re7uire$ent under 4a#e Order No. ,
to 'hich the private respondents alle#edl6 did not obBect.
The other controverted provision of the !" reads3
Section :. It is the intention of both the !OMPNC and the 8NION,
that the #rant of #ratuit6 pa6 b6 the !OMPNC herein set forth is to
re'ard e$plo6ees and laborers, 'ho have rendered satisfactor6 and
efficient service 'ith the !OMPNC. TH8S, in case of voluntar6
resi#nation, 'hich is not covered b6 Section ) above, the !OMPNC
nevertheless a#rees to #rant a #ratuit6 pa6 to the resi#nin# e$plo6ee
or laborer as follo's3
). T'o to =ive 6ears of service 3 ) $onth salar6
:. Si9 %;& to Ten %)2& 6rs. of 3 T'o and One/half %:)D:&service $onths
salar6
1 ?leven %ll& to =ifteen 6rs. of service 3 , $onths salar6
, Si9teen %);& to t'ent6 6rs. of 3 5 $onths
5 T'ent6 one 6rs. of service and above 3 T'elve %):& $onths salar6.
%p. 1+, Rollo&
The petitioner alle#es that one $onth salar6 for dail6 paid 'or-ers should be co$puted
on the basis of t'ent6/si9 %:;& da6s and not thirt6 %12& da6s since dail6 'a#e 'or-ers do
not 'or- ever6 da6 of the $onth includin# Sunda6s and holida6s.
The petition is devoid of $erit.
The subBect for interpretation in this petition for revie' is not the .abor !ode or its
i$ple$entin# rules and re#ulations but the provisions of the collective bar#ainin#
a#ree$ent entered into b6 $ana#e$ent and the labor union. s a contract, it
constitutes the la' bet'een the parties %=e#urin v. National .abor Relations
!o$$ission, ):2 S!R *)2 E)*+1F& and in interpretin# contracts, the rules on contract
$ust #overn.
!ontracts 'hich are not a$bi#uous are to be interpreted accordin# to their literal
$eanin# and should not be interpreted be6ond their obvious intend$ent %Herrera v.
Petrophil !orp., ),; S!R 1+5 E)*+;F&.
In the case at bar, the petitioner alle#es that on Ma6 ), )*+,, it #ranted a Pl.22 increase
pursuant to 4a#e Order No. , 'hich in consonance 'ith Section 1 of the !" 'as to
be credited to the <ul6 ), )*+, increase under the !". It 'as, therefore, a <ul6
2
increase. Section 1 of the !", ho'ever, clearl6 states that !" #ranted increases
shall be credited a#ainst future allo'ances or 'a#e orders. Thus, the !" increase to
be effected on <ul6 ), )*+, can not be retroactivel6 applied to $ean co$pliance 'ith
4a#e Order No. , 'hich too- effect on Ma6 ), )*+,. The 'ords of the contract are plain
and readil6 understandable so 'e find no need for an6 further construction or
interpretation petition %Dihiansan v. !ourt of ppeals, )51 S!R (): E)*+(F&.
=urther$ore, 'e a#ree 'ith the N.R! as it held3
It is our findin# that the respondent is bound b6 the !" to #rant an
increase on <ul6 ), )*+,.
In this case, bet'een <ul6 ), )*+1 and <ul6 ), )*+,, there 'ere
actuall6 t'o increases $andated b6 4a#e Order No. , on Ma6 ),
)*+, and b6 4a#e Order No. 5 on <une );,)*+,. The fact that the
respondent had co$plied 'ith 4a#e Order No. , and 4a#e Order
No. 5 does not relieve it of its obli#ation to #rant the P).22 increase
under the !". %pp. 1(/1+, Rollo&
4ith re#ards to the second issue, the petitioner $aintains that under the principle of
Gfair da6>s 'a#e for fair da6>s laborG, #ratuit6 pa6 should be co$puted on the basis of :;
da6s for one $onth salar6 considerin# that the e$plo6ees are dail6 paid.
4e find no abuse of discretion on the part of the N.R! in #rantin# #ratuit6 pa6
e7uivalent to one $onth or 12 da6s salar6 .
4e 7uote 'ith favor the N.R! decision 'hich states3
999 999 999
... To sa6 that a'ardin# the dail6 'a#e earner salar6 for $ore than :;
da6s is pa6in# hi$ for da6s he does not 'or- $isses the point
entirel6. The issue here is not pa6$ent for da6s 'or-ed but pa6$ent
of #ratuit6 pa6 e7uivalent to one $onth or 12 da6s salar6. %p. :*,
Rollo&
.oo-in# into the definition of #ratuit6, 'e find the follo'in# in Moreno>s Philippine Law
Dictionary, to 'it3
So$ethin# #iven freel6, or 'ithout reco$penseA a #iftA so$ethin#
voluntaril6 #iven in return for a favor or servicesA a bount6A a tip.
/Pirovano v. De la Ra$a Stea$ship !o., *; Phil. 15(.
That paid to the beneficiar6 for past services rendered purel6 out of
the #enerosit6 of the #iver or #rantor./Peralta v. uditor @eneral, )22
Phil. )25,.
Salar6 or co$pensation. The ver6 ter$ >#ratuit6> differs fro$ the
'ords >salar6> or >co$pensation> in leavin# the a$ount thereof, 'ithin
the li$its of reason, to the arvitra$ent of the #iver./HerranH I @arriH
v. "arbudo,): Phil. *.
=ro$ the fore#oin#, #ratuit6 pa6 is therefore, not intended to pa6 a 'or-er for actual
services rendered. It is a $one6 benefit #iven to the 'or-ers 'hose purpose is Gto
re'ard e$plo6ees or laborers, 'ho have rendered satisfactor6 and efficient service to
the co$pan6.G %Sec. :, !"& 4hile it $a6 be enforced once it for$s part of a
contractual underta-in#, the #rant of such benefit is not $andator6 so as to be
considered a part of labor standard la' unli-e the salar6, cost of livin# allo'ances,
holida6 pa6, leave benefits, etc., 'hich are covered b6 the .abor !ode. No'here has it
ever been stated that #ratuit6 pa6 should be based on the actual nu$ber of da6s
'or-ed over the period of 6ears for$in# its basis. 4e see no point in countin# the
nu$ber of da6s 'or-ed over a ten/6ear period to deter$ine the $eanin# of Gt'o and
one/ half $onths> #ratuit6.G Moreover an6 doubts or a$bi#uit6 in the contract bet'een
$ana#e$ent and the union $e$bers should be resolved in the li#ht of rticle )(2: of
the !ivil !ode that3
In case of doubt, all labor le#islation and all labor contracts shall be
construed in favor of the safet6 and decent livin# for the laborer.
This is also in consonance 'ith the principle enunciated in the .abor !ode that all
doubts should be resolved in favor of the 'or-er.
The !ivil !ode provides that 'hen $onths are not desi#nated b6 na$e, a $onth is
understood to be thirt6 %12& da6s. The provision applies under the circu$stances of this
case.
In vie' of the fore#oin#, the public respondent did not act 'ith #rave abuse of discretion
'hen it rendered the assailed decision 'hich is in accordance 'ith la' and
Burisprudence.
4H?R?=OR?, the petition is hereb6 DISMISS?D for lac- of $erit.
SO ORD?R?D.
3