Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Asian Transmission Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals
Facts:
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 is also Araw ng Kagitingan. 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. This
controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration and the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator
rendered a decision directing Asian Transmission Corporation 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.” 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 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.”
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Asian Transmission 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
from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated.” The case was then raised to the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator holding the
CBA between Asian Transmission and BATLU.
Held:
The Supreme Court found the petition devoid of merit. It reiterated that Holiday pay is a legislated
benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional 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. Another 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.
The Supreme Court also stated that 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. The Supreme
Court further reiterated 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.” 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 Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Transmission Corporation vs.

You might also like