Asian Transmission Corporation vs. CA

8/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 425
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 144664. March 15, 2004.
ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. The

Hon. COURT OF APPEALS, Thirteenth Division, HON. FROILAN
M. BACUNGAN as Voluntary Arbitrator, KISHIN A. LALWANI,
Union, Union representative to the Panel Arbitrators; BISIG NG
ASIAN TRANSMISSION LABOR UNION (BATLU); HON.
BIENVENIDO T. LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary of
Labor and Employment; and DIRECTOR CHITA G. CILINDRO in
her capacity as Director of Bureau of Working Conditions,
respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certiorari; For the writ of certiorari

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must show that he
has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
against its perceived grievance.—[S]ince the Court of Appeals had
jurisdiction over the petition under Rule 65, any alleged errors committed
by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment which
are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of
certiorari. If the aggrieved party fails to do so within the reglementary
period, and the decision accordingly becomes final and executory, he cannot
avail himself of the writ of certiorari, his predicament being the effect of his
deliberate inaction. The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of
Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, now Rule 45 and Rule 65, respectively,
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that the decisions,
final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e.,
regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be
appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Under Rule 45
the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of
judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration. x x x For the writ of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must
show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered
“plain, speedy and adequate” if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from
the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b4d5c35055472daa7000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/11
agency. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and
adequate remedy.
Labor Law; Salaries; Holiday Pay; Holiday pay is a legislated benefit
enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford
protection to labor.—Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of
the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
479
VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 479
labor. Its purpose is not merely “to prevent diminution of the monthly
income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words,
although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn,
that is, his holiday pay.” It is also intended to enable the worker to
participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as
with great historical and cultural significance.
Same; Same; Same; Unlike a bonus, which is a management
prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law.—
As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker
the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory,
regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis.
Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a
statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the
enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the
same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a
worker is entitled to receive.
Same; Same; Same; Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that all
doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions shall be
resolved in favor of labor.—In any event, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides
that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions,
including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor
of labor. For the working man’s welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration.
Same; Same; Same; The Omnibus Rules provides for non-diminution of
benefits for unworked regular holidays.—Sec. 11, Rule IV, Book III of the
Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides that “Nothing in the
law or the rules shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any
benefits, supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as

provided in existing individual or collective agreement or employer practice
or policy.”
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Augusto Gatmaytan and Lorenzo B. Ziga for petitioner.
Sanidad, Abaya, Te, Viterbo, Enriquez & Tan Law Firm for
BATLU.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Petitioner, Asian Transmission Corporation, seeks via petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1995 Rules of Civil Procedure
480

1
the nullification of the March 28, 2000 Decision of the Court of
Appeals denying its petition
2
to annul 1) the March 11, 1993
“Explanatory Bulletin” of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) entitled “Workers’ Entitlement to Holiday Pay
on April 9, 1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday,” which
bulletin the DOLE
3
reproduced on January 23, 1998, 2) the July 31,
1998 Decision of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruling that the
said explanatory bulletin
4
applied as well to April 9, 1998, and 3) the
September 18, 1998 Resolution of the Panel of Voluntary
Arbitration denying its Motion for Reconsideration.
The following facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are
undisputed:
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through

Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin
dated March 11, 1993 wherein it clarified, inter alia, that employees are
entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked,
which[,] apart from being Good Friday [and, therefore, a legal holiday], is
also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday]. The bulletin reads:
“On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9, 1993 which apart from
being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on
the same day, this Department is of the view that the covered employees are entitled
to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage, even if said holiday is
unworked. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as
Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date
as Araw ng Kagitingan.
Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998
was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x
Despite the explanatory bulletin, petitioner [Asian Transmission
Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic
pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union
(BATLU) protested.
In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU, the
controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. x x x x On July 31,
1998, the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 39-51.

2 Rollo at p. 37.
3 Rollo at pp. 58-70.
4 Rollo at p. 120.
481
VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 481

directing petitioner to pay its covered employees “200% and not just 100%
of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9, 1998 which covers
two regular holidays, namely, Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday.”
(Emphasis and italics supplied)
Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor

Code which reads:
ART. 94. Right to holiday pay.—(a) Every worker shall be paid his regular
daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service
establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers;
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but
such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his
regular rate; and
(c) As used in this Article, “holiday” includes: New Year’s Day,
Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of
May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, the thirtieth of
November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day
designated by law for holding a general election,
which was amended by Executive Order No. 203 issued on June 30,
1987, such that the regular holidays are now:
1. New Year’s Day January 1

2. Maundy Thursday Movable Date
3. Good Friday Movable Date

4. Araw ng Kagitingan (Bataan April 9
Corregidor Day)
5. Labor Day May 1

6. Independence Day June 12
7. National Heroes Day Last Sunday of August
8. Bonifacio Day November 30
9. Christmas Day December 25
10. Rizal Day December 30
In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor

Union (BATLU), the Voluntary Arbitrator held that Article 94 of the
Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday, the
computation of which is determined by a legal formula which is not
changed by the fact that there are two holidays falling on one day,
like on April 9, 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at
482

the same time was Maundy Thursday; and that that the law, as
amended, enumerates ten regular holidays for every year should not
be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid
regular holidays “just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in
certain years, like 1993 and 1998, is also Holy Friday or Maundy
Thursday.”
In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the findings
of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and BATLU, the law
governing the relations between them, clearly recognizes their intent
to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday, on whatever
date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during
the effectivity of the CBA and that “[t]here is no condition,
qualification or exception for any variance
5
from the clear intent that
all holidays shall be compensated.”
The Court of Appeals further held that “in the absence of an
explicit provision in law which provides for [a] reduction of holiday
pay if two holidays happen to fall on the same day, any doubt in the
interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code provisions on
holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor.”
By the present petition, petitioners raise the following issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ERRONEOUSLY
INTERPRETING THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND SUBSTITUTING ITS
OWN JUDGMENT IN PLACE OF THE AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE
PARTIES THEMSELVES
II

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT
ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE POLICIES
ENUNCIATED IN THE EXPLANATORY BULLETIN WAS LAID TO
REST BY THE REISSUANCE OF THE SAID EXPLANATORY
BULLETIN
_______________
5 Rollo at p. 48.
483
VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 483

III

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN UPHOLDING THE
VALIDITY OF THE EXPLANATORY BULLETIN EVEN WHILE
ADMITTING THAT THE SAID BULLETIN WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE
OF A JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL, OR ONE OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS THAT [Department of Labor and Employment] DOLE
MAY PROMULGATE
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) BY ISSUING EXPLANATORY
BULLETIN DATED MARCH 11, 1993, IN THE GUISE OF PROVIDING
GUIDELINES ON ART. 94 OF THE LABOR CODE, COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AS IT LEGISLATED AND
INTERPRETED LEGAL PROVISIONS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO
CREATE OBLIGATIONS WHERE NONE ARE INTENDED BY THE
LAW

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN REITERATING

ITS EXPLANATORY BULLETIN DATED MARCH 11, 1993 AND IN
ORDERING THAT THE SAME POLICY OBTAINED FOR APRIL 9,
1998 DESPITE THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO THE
CONTRARY
VI
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS’ ACTS WILL DEPRIVE

PETITIONER OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BY THE
“EXPLANATORY BULLETIN” AS WELL AS EQUAL PROTECTION
OF LAWS
The petition is devoid of merit.

At the outset, it bears noting that instead of assailing the Court of
Appeals Decision by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner lodged the present
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
[S]ince the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition under Rule
65, any alleged errors committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction
would be errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not
by a special civil action of certiorari. If the aggrieved party fails to
484

do so within the reglementary period, and the decision accordingly becomes

final and executory, he cannot avail himself of the writ of certiorari, his
predicament being the effect of his deliberate inaction.
The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition
for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, now Rule 45 and Rule 65, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that the decisions, final orders or
resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature
of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing
a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. Under Rule 45 the reglementary period to
appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for
reconsideration.
xxx
For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a
petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is
considered “plain, speedy and adequate” if it will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the
lower court or agency. In this6 case, appeal was not only available but also a
speedy and adequate remedy.
The records of the case show that following petitioner’s receipt on

August 18, 2000 of a copy of the August 10, 2000 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals denying its Motion for Reconsideration, it filed the
present petition for certiorari on September 15, 2000, at which time
the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory, the
15-day period to appeal it under Rule 45 having expired.
Technicality aside, this Court finds no ground to disturb the
assailed decision.
Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the
Constitutional
7
imperative that the State shall afford protection to
labor. Its purpose is not merely “to prevent diminution of the
monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In
other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns
what
_______________
6 San Miguel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146775, January 30,
2002, 375 SCRA 311, 315, citing National Irrigation Administration v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 129169, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA, 263-264.
7 CONST., Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
485
VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 485

8
he should earn, that is, his holiday pay.” It is also intended to enable
the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the
days identified as with great historical and cultural significance.
Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9),
National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day
(November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared
national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to
commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national
identity, and deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a
day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the
working class to the development of the nation, while the religious
holidays designated in Executive Order No. 203 allow the worker to
celebrate his faith with his family.
As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, 9
affords a worker the enjoyment
10
of ten paid regular holidays. The
provision is mandatory, regardless 11
of whether an employee is paid
on a monthly or daily 12basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a
management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit
demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the

enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays
fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten
holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive.
It is elementary, under the rules of statutory construction, that
when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law
_______________
8 Vide Jose Rizal College v. National Labor Relations Commission and NATOW,
G.R. No. 65482, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 27.
9 Vide Book V, Title I of Pres. Decree No. 1083, “Code of Muslim Personal Laws
of the Philippines,” (February 4, 1977) which recognizes the official Muslim
holidays.
10 Art. 94 of the Labor Code provides by way of exception retail and service
establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers.
11 Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong, No.
L-52415, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 663; Chartered Bank Employees Association
v. Ople, No. L-44717, August 28, 1985, 138 SCRA 273; Mantrade/FMMC Division
Employees and Workers Union v. Bacungan, No. L-48437, September 30, 1986, 144
SCRA 510.
12 Producers Bank of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 100701, March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 459, 496.
486

13
must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, there
is nothing in the law which provides or indicates that the entitlement
to ten days of holiday pay shall be reduced to nine when two
holidays fall on the same day. 14
Petitioner’s assertion that Wellington v. Trajano has “over-
ruled” the DOLE March 11, 1993 Explanatory Bulletin does not lie.
In Wellington, the issue was whether monthly-paid employees are
entitled to an additional day’s pay if a holiday falls on a Sunday.
This Court, in answering the issue in the negative, observed that in
fixing the monthly salary of its employees, Wellington took into
account “every working day of the year including the holidays
specified by law and excluding only Sunday.” In the instant case, the
issue is whether daily-paid employees are entitled
15
to be paid for two
regular holidays which fall on the same day.
In any event, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in
the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
labor. For the working man’s
16
welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration.
Moreover, Sec. 11, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules to
Implement the Labor Code provides that “Nothing in the law or the
rules shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any
benefits, supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as
provided in existing 17
individual or collective agreement or employer
practice or policy.”
From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by the
parties, petitioner had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as
required by law. Thus the 1997-1998 CBA incorporates the
following provision:
_______________
13 Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong, G.R.
No. L-52415, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 663, 673.
14 Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation v. Trajano, G.R. No.
114698, July 3, 1995, 245 SCRA 561.
15 Rollo at p. 49.
16 Abella v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 71812, July 20, 1987,
152 SCRA 140, 146.
17 Vide Oceanic Pharmacol Employees Union v. Inciong, No. L-50568, 94 SCRA
270, 275.
487
VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 487

ARTICLE XIV

PAID LEGAL HOLIDAYS
The following legal holidays shall be paid by the COMPANY as required by

law:
1. New Year’s Day (January 1st)

2. Holy Thursday (moveable)
3. Good Friday (moveable)
4. Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9th)
5. Labor Day (May 1st)
6. Independence Day (June 12th)
7. Bonifacio Day [November 30]
8. Christmas Day (December 25th)
9. Rizal Day (December 30th)
10. General Election designated by law, if declared public nonworking

holiday
11. National Heroes Day (Last Sunday of August)
Only an employee who works on the day immediately preceding or after

a regular holiday shall be entitled to the holiday pay.
A paid legal holiday occurring during the scheduled vacation leave will
result in holiday payment in addition to normal vacation pay but will not
entitle the employee to another vacation leave.
Under similar circumstances, the COMPANY will give a day’s wage for
November 1st and December 31st whenever declared a holiday. When
required to work on18
said days, the employee will be paid according to Art.
VI, Sec. 36 hereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Vitug (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ.,

concur.
Petition dismissed.
Note.—A bonus is a demandable or enforceable obligation when

it is made part of the wage or salary or compensation of the
employee. (Metro Manila Transit Organization, Inc. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 245 SCRA 767 [1995])
——o0o——
_______________
18 Rollo at p. 8.
488
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 425

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. The

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certiorari; For the writ of certiorari

VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 479

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

benefits, supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, Asian Transmission Corporation, seeks via petition for

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through

1 Rollo at pp. 39-51.

VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 481

Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor

1. New Year’s Day January 1

3. Good Friday Movable Date

5. Labor Day May 1

In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS

VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 483

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS

WHETHER OR NOT THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN REITERATING

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS’ ACTS WILL DEPRIVE

The petition is devoid of merit.

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

do so within the reglementary period, and the decision accordingly becomes

The records of the case show that following petitioner’s receipt on

VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 485

demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 425, MARCH 15, 2004 487

PAID LEGAL HOLIDAYS

The following legal holidays shall be paid by the COMPANY as required by

1. New Year’s Day (January 1st)

10. General Election designated by law, if declared public nonworking

Only an employee who works on the day immediately preceding or after

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Vitug (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ.,

Note.—A bonus is a demandable or enforceable obligation when

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like