Obango VS NLRC and Antique Electric Cooperative Inc.

G.R. No. L-147420 June 10, 2004

Facts:

Petitioners argue that monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all days of the month including un-worked days. Petitioners assert that they should be paid for all the 365 days in a year. They argue that since in the computation of leave credits, ANTECO uses a divisor of 304, ANTECO is not paying them 61 days every year. Petitioners base their claim on Section 2, Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

On 29 November 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners granting them wage differentials amounting to P1,017,507.73 and attorney’s fees of 10%. ANTECO appealed the Decision to the NLRC on 24 December 1996. On 27 November 1997, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to their money claim?

Held:

Petitioners’ claim is without basis

Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions No. 9 issued by the Secretary (then Minister) of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion.

The Labor Code is clear that monthly-paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by inserting, under Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules, Section 2 which provides that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.

Thus, Section 2 cannot serve as basis of any right or claim. Absent any other legal basis, petitioners’ claim for wage differentials must fail.

The basic rule in this jurisdiction is "no work, no pay." The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.