[139] University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v.
University of Pangasinan ○ Some UNION members were also given extra loads to handle in the
G.R. No. L-63122 | February 20, 1984 | J. Gutierrez
PROVISION:
● SECTION 5. IRR of Wage Order No. 1. Allowance for Unworked Days. — a) All
covered employees whether paid on a monthly or daily basis shall be entitled
to their daily living allowance when they are paid their basic wage.
SUMMARY: University of Pangasinan did not entitle its faculty to ECOLA during the
semestral break and when it increased its tuition fee, it refused its faculty the salary
increase 60% of the incremental proceeds of increased tuition fees. The private
respondent is ordered to pay its regular fulltime teachers/employees emergency cost
of living allowances for the semestral break from November 7 to December 5, 1981
and the undistributed balance of the sixty (60%) percent incremental proceeds from
tuition increases for the same school year as outlined above.
DOCTRINE: The time during which the employee is inactive by reason of work
interruption is considered time worked if the internal is too brief to be utilized effectively
and gainfully for the employee’s own interest.
FACTS:
● UNION is a labor union composed of faculty members of UNIVERSITY. UNION
filed a complaint, though its President, Miss Abad, against the UNIVERSITY for:
(a) payment of Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) for 7
November to 5 December 1981, the semestral break (“sembreak”);
(b) salary increases from the 60% of incremental proceeds of
increased tuition fees; and
(c) payment of salaries for extra loads.
● UNION members are full-time professors, instructors and teachers of
UNIVERSITY.
● The teachers in the college level teach for a normal duration of 10 mos in a
school year, excluding 2 months of summer vacation.
● During the sembreak, they were paid their monthly salaries but not the ECOLA.
○ UNIVERSITY claims they are not entitled on the grounds that the
break is not an integral part of the school year and there were no
actual services rendered during the break.
● During AY 1981-’82, UNIVERSITY was authorized by the Ministry of Education
and Culture to collect a 15% increase of tuition fees.
● UNION members demanded a salary increase to be taken from 60% of the
incremental proceeds.
○ UNIVERSITY refused, though it did grant a 5.86% salary increase
during the pendency of the proceedings.
said school year but were unable to teach on 21 September 1981 due
to said day being proclaimed a working holiday by the President.
Those with teaching loads claimed they were not paid salaries while
UNIVERSITY claimed they were paid.
● The case does not disclose how the lower tribunals ruled.
ISSUES w/ HELD & RATIO
[1] W/N UNION members are entitled to ECOLA during the sembreak - YES, UNION
members are entitled to ECOLA.
● Presidential Decrees providing for ECOLA (Nos. 1614, 1634, 1678, and 1713)
state that employees shall be paid monthly allowance if they incur no
absences such that absence without pay shall result in deductions in the
allowance while leave with pay will not.
● The sembreak, being in the nature of a work interruption beyond the
employee’s control, cannot be considered as absences within the meaning
of the law.
● The “no work, no pay” principle does not apply here as this contemplates a
situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves. In this case,
UNION member faculty do not voluntarily absent themselves but were
constrained to take mandatory leave from work.
● UNIVERSITY contends that fact receiving salary, as UNION members in fact
did during the sembreak, should not be basis for recovery of ECOLA.
○ The Court disagreed, citing Section 5 of the IRRs for Wage Order No.
1 which provides that:
“all covered employees are entitled to daily living allowance when
paid their basic wage.”
● Hence, there is the principle of “no pay, no ECOLA” the converse of which is
applicable in the present case.
● The payment of full wages during sembreak is a tacit recognition that
teachers are nevertheless, burdened with work consisting of papers to
correct, students to evaluate, deadlines to meet, and grades to submit.
Teachers must keep abreast of developments.
● Furthermore, applying the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the
time during which the employee is inactive by reason of work interruption is
considered time worked if the internal is too brief to be utilized effectively
and gainfully for the employee’s own interest.
[2] W/N 60% of proceeds are to be devoted to salary increase - YES, 60% of the
proceeds are to be devoted to salary increase.
● The Court here is called to interpret Section 3 of PD 451:
 ○ “The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well ● As found by respondent NLRC, the faculty members have been paid for the
as the new fees or charges authorized under the next preceding extra loads. This is a question of fact within the competence of the NLRC to
section shall be subject to the following conditions: a) That no pass upon.
increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved ● Assuming that these have not been paid, faculty members are not entitled
unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for thereto applying the “no work, no pay” principle. These are not regular loads
increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all for which faculty members are paid regular monthly salaries regardless of
other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for working days or hours. These are extra loads which should only be paid when
institutional development, student assistance and extension work is actually performed.
services, and return to investments: Provided, That in no case shall ● Since there was no work on 21 September 1981, faculty members should not
the return to investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the be granted extra wages for that day.
incremental proceeds; x x x ”
● The Court had earlier ruled in University of the East v. UE Faculty Association RULING: Petition is GRANTED. UNIVERSITY ordered to pay ECOLA and undistributed
that the “increase in salaries or wages shall not include allowances and balance 60% incremental proceeds as salary increases. NLRC decision SUSTAINED in
benefits which may be taken from the return on investment. Return on denying payment of salary for 21 September.
investment is fixed at a maximum of 12% but without any minimum.
● UNIVERSITY contends that this earlier decision disregards the spirit of the law
as the PD’s whereas clauses make references to “salary and other benefits,”
allegedly implying that the latter is included in the former.
○ The Court disregarded this saying that it is an elementary principle
of statutory construction that the whereas clauses cannot prevail
over the statements in the law itself.
● The law is clear that the 60% incremental proceeds shall be devoted entirely
to increases in basic salary. To charge other benefits to these proceeds would
reduce the increase in basic salary intended to help the teachers.
● The Court is not guilty of usurpation of legislative functions as it merely
interpreted the meaning of the law within its provisions. The ruling in
University of the East was merely to answer the query of where to charge the
said benefits.

[3] W/N payment of salary for 21 September 1981 was proven by substantial evidence
- YES, the payment of salary was proven by substantial evidence.