Trans-Asia Case 1999

7/23/2019 Trans-Asia Case 1999

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/trans-asia-case-1999 1/10

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118289. December 13, 1999]

TRANS-ASIA PHILS. EMPLOEES ASSO!IATION "TAPEA# $%&

ARNEL GAL'E( , petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LA)OR

RELATIONS !OMMISSION, TRANS-ASIA "PHILS.# $%&

ERNESTO S. DE !ASTRO, respondents.

D E ! I S I O N

*AP+NAN, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and

set aside the Resolutions, dated 2 Nove!"er #$$ and # Septe!"er #$$% of the

National &a"or Relations Co!!ission 'N&RC( )hi*h dis!issed petitioners appeal fro!the adverse de*ision of the la"or ar"iter and denied petitioners !otion for

re*onsideration, respe*tivel+

The ante*edents of this *ase are as follo)s-

On . /ul+ #$00, Trans1sia 3hilippines 4!plo+ees sso*iation 'T34(, the dul+1re*onied *olle*tive "arainin aent of the !onthl+1paid rank1and1file e!plo+ees of

Trans1sia '3hils(, entered into a Colle*tive 7arainin ree!ent 'C7( )ith their

e!plo+er The C7, )hi*h )as to "e effe*tive fro! # pril #$00 up to # 8ar*h #$$#, provided for, a!on others, the pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ )ith a stipulation that if an

e!plo+ee is per!itted to )ork on a leal holida+, the said e!plo+ee )ill re*eive a salar+

e9uivalent to 2::; of the reular dail+ )ae plus a 6:; pre!iu! pa+

Despite the *on*lusion of the C7, ho)ever, an issue )as still left unresolved )ithreard to the *lai! of T34 for pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ *overin the period fro!

/anuar+ of #$05 up to De*e!"er of #$0. Thus, the parties under)ent preventive

!ediation !eetins )ith a representative fro! the National 8ediation and Con*iliation7oard in order to settle their disaree!ent on this parti*ular issue Sin*e the parties )ere

not a"le to arrive at an a!i*a"le settle!ent despite the *on*iliation !eetins, T34, led

"+ its 3resident, petitioner rnie <alve, filed a *o!plaint "efore the la"or ar"iter, on #0uust #$00, for the pa+!ent of their holida+ pa+ in arrears On #0 Septe!"er #$00,

petitioners a!ended their *o!plaint to in*lude the pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ for the

duration of the re*entl+ *on*luded C7 'fro! #$00 to #$$#(, unfair la"or pra*ti*e,

da!aes and attorne+s fees

In their 3osition 3aper, petitioners *ontended that their *lai! for holida+ pa+ in

arrears is "ased on the non1in*lusion of the sa!e in their !onthl+ pa+ In this reard,

petitioners *ited *ertain *ir*u!stan*es )hi*h, a**ordin to the!, )ould support their



*lai! for past due holida+ pa+ First, petitioners presented Trans1sias 4!plo+ees

8anual )hi*h re9uires, as a pre1*ondition for the pa+!ent of holida+ pa+, that the

e!plo+ee should have )orked or )as on authoried leave )ith pa+ on the da+i!!ediatel+ pre*edin the leal holida+ 3etitioners arued that if the intention =of Trans1

sia> )as not to pa+ holida+ pa+ in addition to the e!plo+ees !onthl+ pa+, then there

)ould "e no need to i!pose or spe*if+ the pre1*ondition for the pa+!ent=#>

Se*ond, petitioners proffered as eviden*e their appoint!ent papers )hi*h do not *ontain an+

stipulation on the in*lusion of holida+ pa+ in their !onthl+ salar+ **ordin to

petitioners, the a"sen*e of su*h stipulation is an indi*ation that the !andated holida+ pa+is not in*orporated in the !onthl+ salar+ Third, petitioners noted the in*lusion of a

provision in the C7 for the pa+!ent of an a!ount e9uivalent to 2::; of the reular

dail+ )ae plus 6:; pre!iu! pa+ to e!plo+ees )ho are per!itted to )ork on a reular

holida+ 3etitioners *lai!ed that this ver+ enerous provision )as the re!ed+ availed of "+ Trans1sia to allo) its e!plo+ees to re*oup the holida+ pa+ in arrears and, as su*h, is

a ta*it ad!ission of the non1pa+!ent of the sa!e durin the period prior to the *urrent

C7

Finall+, petitioners *ited the *urrent C7 provision )hi*h o"liates Trans1sia toive holida+ pa+ 3etitioners asserted that this provision is an a*kno)led!ent "+ Trans1

sia of its failure to pa+ the sa!e in the past sin*e, if it )as alread+ ivin holida+ pa+ prior to the C7, there )as no need to stipulate on the said o"liation in the *urrent

C7

?ith reard to the *lai! for the pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ for the duration of the C7,

the a**usation of unfair la"or pra*ti*e and the *lai! for da!aes and attorne+s fees, petitioners asserted that Trans1sia is uilt+ of "ad faith in neotiatin and e@e*utin the

*urrent C7 sin*e, after it re*onied the riht of the e!plo+ees to re*eive holida+ pa+,

Trans1sia alleedl+ refused to honor the C7 provision on the sa!e

In response to petitioners *ontentions, Trans1sia refuted the sa!e in seriatim ?ithreard to the pre1*ondition for the pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ stated in the 4!plo+ees

8anual and the a"sen*e of a stipulation on holida+ pa+ in the e!plo+ees appoint!ent

papers, Trans1sia asserted that the a"ove *ir*u!stan*es are not indi*ative of its non1 pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ sin*e it has al)a+s honored the la"or la) provisions on holida+

pa+ "+ in*orporatin the sa!e in the pa+!ent of the !onthl+ salaries of its e!plo+ees In

support of this *lai!, Trans1sia pointed out that it has lon "een the standin pra*ti*e of the *o!pan+ to use the divisor of 206 da+s in *o!putin for its e!plo+ees overti!e pa+

and dail+ rate dedu*tions for a"sen*es Trans1sia e@plained that this divisor is arrived at

throuh the follo)in for!ula-

52 @ %%1111111111 A 206 da+s

0

?here- 52 A nu!"er of )eeks in a +ear

%% A nu!"er of )ork hours per )eek

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/118289.htm#_edn1




0 A nu!"er of )ork hours per da+

Trans1sia further *larified that the 206 da+s divisor alread+ takes into a**ount the ten'#:( reular holida+s in a +ear sin*e it onl+ su"tra*ts fro! the 65 *alendar da+s the

un)orked and unpaid 52 Sunda+s and 26 Saturda+s 'e!plo+ees are re9uired to )ork

half1da+ durin Saturda+s( Trans1sia *lai!ed that if the ten '#:( reular holida+s )erenot in*luded in the *o!putation of their e!plo+ees !onthl+ salar+, the divisor )hi*h the+

)ould have used )ould onl+ "e 2.. da+s )hi*h is arrived at "+ su"tra*tin 52 Sunda+s,

26 Saturda+s and the #: &eal holida+s fro! 65 *alendar da+s Further!ore, Trans1siae@plained that the 206 da+s divisor is "ased on Repu"li* *t No 66%:, =2> )herein the

divisor of 262 da+s '*o!posed of the 252 )orkin da+s and the #: leal holida+s( is used

in *o!putin for the !onthl+ rate of )orkers )ho do not )ork and are not *onsidered

paid on Saturda+s and Sunda+s or rest da+s **ordin to Trans1sia, if the additional 26)orkin Saturda+s in a +ear is fa*tored1in to the divisor provided "+ Repu"li* *t No

66%:, the resultin divisor )ould "e 206 da+s

On petitioners *ontention )ith reard to the C7 provision on the alleedl+

enerous holida+ pa+ rate of 26:;, Trans1sia e@plained that this holida+ pa+ rate )asin*luded in the C7 in order to *o!pl+ )ith Se*tion %, Rule IV, 7ook III of the O!ni"us

Rules I!ple!entin the &a"or Code The aforesaid provision reads-

Se* % Co!pensation for holida+ )ork n+ e!plo+ee )ho is per!itted or

suffered to )ork on an+ reular holida+, not e@*eedin eiht '0( hours, shall "e

paid at least t)o hundred per*ent '2::;( of his reular dail+ )ae If the

holida+ falls on the s*heduled rest da+ of the e!plo+ee, he shall "e entitled to

an additional pre!iu! pa+ of at least :; of his reular holida+ rate of 2::;

"ased on his reular )ae rate

On the *ontention that Trans1sias a*9uies*en*e to the in*lusion of a holida+ pa+

provision in the C7 is an ad!ission of non1pa+!ent of the sa!e in the past, Trans1sia

reiterated that it is si!pl+ a re*onition of the !andate of the &a"or Code that e!plo+eesare entitled to holida+ pa+ It *larified that the *o!pan+s fir! "elief in the pa+!ent of

holida+ pa+ to e!plo+ees led it to aree to the in*lusion of the holida+ pa+ provision in

the C7

?ith reard to the a**usation of unfair la"or pra*ti*e "e*ause of Trans1sias a*t of

alleedl+ "arainin in "ad faith and refusal to ive holida+ pa+ in a**ordan*e )ith the

C7, Trans1sia e@plained that )hat petitioners )ould like the *o!pan+ to do is to ivedou"le holida+ pa+ sin*e, as previousl+ stated, the *o!pan+ has alread+ in*luded the

sa!e in its e!plo+ees !onthl+ salar+ and, +et, petitioners )ant it to pa+ a se*ond set of

holida+ pa+

On # Fe"ruar+ #$0$, the la"or ar"iter rendered a de*ision dis!issin the *o!plaint,to )it-





fter *onsiderin *losel+ the aru!ents of the parties in support of their

respe*tive *lai!s and defenses, this 7ran*h upholds a different vie) fro! that

espoused "+ the *o!plainants

/ust like in the Chartered 7ank Case '&1%%.#.(, uust 20, #$05, #0 SCR

2., )hi*h is *ited "+ the *o!plainants in their 3osition 3aper, there appears to "e no *lear aree!ent "et)een the parties in the instant *ase, )hether ver"al or

in )ritin, that the !onthl+ salar+ of the e!plo+ees in*luded the !andated

holida+ pa+ In the a"sen*e of su*h aree!ent, the Supre!e Court in said

Chartered 7ank Case took into *onsideration e@istin pra*ti*es in the "ank in

resolvin the issue, su*h as e!plo+!ent "+ the "ank of a divisor of 25# da+s

)hi*h is the result of su"tra*tin all Saturda+s, Sunda+s and the ten '#:( leal

holida+s fro! the total nu!"er of *alendar da+s in a +ear Further, the Court

took note of the fa*t that the "ank used *onfli*tin or different divisors in

*o!putin salar+1related "enefits as )ell as the e!plo+ees a"sen*e fro!

)ork In the *ase at "ar, not onl+ did the C7 "et)een the *o!plainants and

respondents herein provides 'si*( that the ten '#:( leal holida+s are re*onied

"+ the Co!pan+ as full holida+ )ith pa+ ?hat is !ore, there *an "e no dou"t

that sin*e #$.. up to the e@e*ution of the C7, the Trans1sia, unlike that

o"tainin in the Chartered 7ank Case, never used *onfli*tin or different

divisors "ut *onsistentl+ e!plo+ed the divisor of 206 da+s, )hi*h as earlier

pointed out, )as arrived at "+ su"tra*tin onl+ the un)orked 52 Sunda+s and

the 26 half1da+1)orked Saturda+s fro! the total nu!"er of da+s in a +ear The

*onsisten*+ in the esta"lished pra*ti*e of the Trans1sia, )hi*h in*identall+ is

not disputed "+ *o!plainants, did not ive rise to an+ dou"t )hi*h *ould have

"een resolved in favor of *o!plainants

7esides, the respondents unlike the respondent "ank in the Chartered 7ank

4!plo+ees sso*iation vs Bon 7las F Ople, et al 'supra( *itin also the *ase

of I74 vs Bon, !ado In*ion '#2 SCR 66( )hi*h *ase have 'si*(

invalidated Se*tion 2, Rule IV, 7ook III of the I!ple!entin Rules of the

&a"or Code and 3oli*+ Instru*tion No $, have never relied on the said

invalidated rule and 3oli*+ Instru*tion

The *o!plainants aru!ents and u@tapositions in *lai!in that the+ )ere

denied pa+!ent of their holida+ pa+ paled in the fa*e of the prevailin

*o!pan+ pra*ti*es and *ir*u!stan*es a"ovestated

lso, for the reasons adverted to a"ove, the *o!plainants *hare of unfair la"or

pra*ti*e *lai!in that respondents in "ad faith refused to *o!pl+ )ith their

*ontra*tual o"liation under the C7 "+ not pa+in the *o!plainants holida+

pa+, !ust fail Sin*e respondents have nothin !ore to pa+ "+ )a+ of leal



holida+ pa+ as it has alread+ "een in*luded in their !onthl+ salaries, the

provision in the C7 relative to holida+ pa+ is ust "ut a re*onition of the

*o!plainants riht to pa+!ent of leal holida+ pa+ as !andated "+ the &a"or

Code

?B4R4FOR4, all the foreoin pre!ises "ein *onsidered, ud!ent ishere"+ rendered dis!issin the *o!plaint for la*k of !erit

SO ORD4R4D=>

3etitioners appealed to the National &a"or Relations Co!!ission In its Resolution,

dated 2 Nove!"er #$$, the N&RC dis!issed the appeal and affir!ed the de*ision of

the la"or ar"iter, to )it-

?e find no *oent reason to *hane or distur" the de*ision appealed fro!, the

sa!e "ein su"stantiall+ supported "+ the fa*ts and eviden*e on re*ord EIt is a)ell1settled rule that findins of fa*ts of ad!inistrative "odies, if "ased on

su"stantial eviden*e are *ontrollin on the revie)in authorit+ '3lanters

3rodu*ts, In* vs N&RC, < R No .052% .0.$, /anuar+ 2:, #$0$G #6$

SCR 20(

?e find no a"use of dis*retion andHor error in the assailed de*ision

?B4R4FOR4, the appeal are 'si*( here"+ DIS8ISS4D for la*k of !erit and

the de*ision appealed fro! is FFIR84D

SO ORD4R4D=%>

3etitioners !otion for re*onsideration )as, like)ise, denied "+ the N&RC in its

Resolution, dated # Septe!"er #$$%

3etitioners are no) "efore us faultin the N&RC )ith the follo)in assin!ent of

errors-

I

37&IC R4S3OND4NT CT4D ?ITB <RV4 7S4 OF

DISCR4TION IN 3BO&DIN< TB4 &7OR R7IT4RS D4CISIOND4S3IT4 TB4 &C OF S7STNTI& 4VID4NC4 TO S33ORT IT

II

IN 3BO&DIN< TB4 &7OR R7IT4RS D4CISION D4S3IT4 TB4

&C OF S7STNTI& 4VID4NC4 TO S33ORT IT, 37&IC

R4S3OND4NT N&RC VIO&T4D TB4 CONSTITTION& ND







&4<& 8NDT4 TO R4SO&V4 && DO7TS IN SOCI&

&4<IS&TION IN FVOR OF &7OR=5>

3etitioners, in furtheran*e of their first assin!ent of error, assert that the N&RC "latantl+ an unsha!edl+ disrearded the nu!erous eviden*e in support of their *lai! and

relied !erel+ on the sole eviden*e presented "+ Trans1sia, the 206 da+s divisor, indis!issin their appeal and, in so doin, is uilt+ of rave a"use of dis*retion=6>

?e do not aree

Trans1sias in*lusion of holida+ pa+ in petitioners !onthl+ salar+ is *learl+

esta"lished "+ its *onsistent use of the divisor of 206 da+s in the *o!putation of its

e!plo+ees "enefits and dedu*tions The use "+ Trans1sia of the 206 da+s divisor )asnever disputed "+ petitioners si!ple appli*ation of !athe!ati*s )ould reveal that the

ten '#:( leal holida+s in a +ear are alread+ a**ounted for )ith the use of the said

divisor s e@plained "+ Trans1sia, if one is to dedu*t the un)orked 52 Sunda+s and 26

Saturda+s 'derived "+ dividin 52 Saturda+s in half sin*e petitioners are re9uired to )ork

half1da+ on Saturda+s( fro! the 65 *alendar da+s in a +ear, the resultin divisor )ould "e 206 da+s 'should a*tuall+ "e 20. da+s( Sin*e the ten '#:( leal holida+s )ere never

in*luded in su"tra*tin the un)orked and unpaid da+s in a *alendar +ear, the onl+ loi*al*on*lusion )ould "e that the pa+!ent for holida+ pa+ is alread+ in*orporated into the

said divisor Thus, )hen vie)ed aainst this ver+ *onvin*in pie*e of eviden*e, the

aru!ents put for)ard "+ petitioners to support their *lai! of non1pa+!ent of holida+ pa+, ie, the pre1*ondition stated in the 4!plo+ees 8anual for entitle!ent to holida+ pa+,

the a"sen*e of a stipulation in the e!plo+ees appoint!ent papers for the in*lusion of

holida+ pa+ in their !onthl+ salar+, the stipulation in the C7 re*oniin the

entitle!ent of the petitioners to holida+ pa+ )ith a *on*o!itant provision for the rantinof an alleedl+ ver+ enerous holida+ pa+ rate, )ould appear to "e !erel+ inferen*es and

suppositions )hi*h, in the apropos )ords of the la"or ar"iter, paled in the fa*e of the prevailin *o!pan+ pra*ti*es and *ir*u!stan*es a"ovestated

Ben*e, it is on a**ount of the *onvin*in and leall+ sound aru!ents and eviden*e

of Trans1sia that the la"or ar"iter rendered a de*ision adverse to

petitioners *kno)ledin that the de*ision of the la"or ar"iter )as "ased on su"stantialeviden*e, the N&RC affir!ed the for!ers disposition It is also )ith this

a*kno)led!ent that the Court affir!s the 9uestioned resolutions of the N&RC s aptl+

put "+ the Soli*itor <eneral, *itin Sunset View Condominium Corporation vs. NLRC ,=.> findins of fa*t of ad!inistrative "odies should not "e distur"ed in the a"sen*e of ravea"use of dis*retion or unless the findins are not supported "+ su"stantial eviden*e =0> In

this reard, the Soli*itor <eneral o"served- s said a"ove, pu"li* respondent a*ted on the

"asis of su"stantial eviden*e, hen*e, rave a"use of dis*retion is ruled out=$>

Bo)ever, petitioners insist that the aree!ent of Trans1sia in the C7 to ive a

enerous 26:; holida+ pa+ rate to e!plo+ees )ho )ork on a holida+ is *on*lusive proof

that the !onthl+ pa+ of petitioners does not in*lude holida+ pa+ =#:> 3etitioners *ite as "asis the *ase of Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople,=##> )hi*h reads-


















n+ re!ainin dou"ts )hi*h !a+ arise fro! the *onfli*tin or different

divisors used in the *o!putation of overti!e pa+ and e!plo+ees a"sen*es are

resolved "+ the !anner in )hi*h )ork a*tuall+ rendered on holida+s is

paid Thus, )henever !onthl+ paid e!plo+ees )ork on a holida+, the+ are

iven an additional #::; "ase pa+ on top of a pre!iu! pa+ of 5:; If the

e!plo+ees !onthl+ pa+ alread+ in*ludes their salaries for holida+s, the+ should "e paid onl+ pre!iu! pa+ "ut not "oth "ase pa+ and pre!iu! pa+=#2>

?e are not *onvin*ed The *ited *ase *annot "e relied upon "+ petitioners sin*e the

fa*ts o"tainin in the Chartered Bank *ase are ver+ different fro! those in the present*ase In the Chartered Bank *ase, the "ank used different divisors in *o!putin for its

e!plo+ees "enefits and dedu*tions For *o!putin overti!e *o!pensation, the "ank used

25# da+s as its divisor On the other hand, for *o!putin dedu*tions due to a"sen*es, the "ank used 65 da+s as divisor Due to this *onfusin situation, the Court de*lared that

there e@isted a dou"t as to )hether holida+ pa+ is alread+ in*orporated in the e!plo+ees

!onthl+ salar+ Sin*e dou"ts should "e resolved in favor of la"or, the Court inthe Chartered Bank *ase ruled in favor of the e!plo+ees and further stated that its

*on*lusion is fortified "+ the !anner in )hi*h the e!plo+ees are re!unerated for )ork

rendered on holida+s In the present *ase, ho)ever, there is no *onfusion )ith reard to

the divisor used "+ Trans1sia in *o!putin for petitioners "enefits anddedu*tions Trans1sia *onsistentl+ used a 206 da+s divisor for all its *o!putations

Nevertheless, petitioners *ause is not entirel+ lost The Court notes that there is a

need to adust the divisor used "+ Trans1sia to 20. da+s, instead of onl+ 206 da+s, inorder to properl+ a**ount for the entiret+ of reular holida+s and spe*ial da+s in a +ear as

pres*ri"ed "+ 4@e*utive Order No 2:=#> in relation to Se*tion 6 of the Rules

I!ple!entin Repu"li* *t 6.2.=#%>

Se*tion # of 4@e*utive Order No 2: provides-

S4CTION # nless other)ise !odified "+ la), order or pro*la!ation, the

follo)in reular holida+s and spe*ial da+s shall "e o"served in the *ountr+-

Reular !olidays

Ne) Jears Da+ 1 /anuar+ #

8aund+ Thursda+ 1 8ova"le Date

<ood Frida+ 1 8ova"le Date

ra) n aitinan 1 pril $

'7ataan and Correidor Da+(

&a"or Da+ 1 8a+ #









Independen*e Da+ 1 /une #2

National Beroes Da+ 1 &ast Sunda+ of uust

7onifa*io Da+ 1 Nove!"er :

Christ!as Da+ 1 De*e!"er 25

Rial Da+ 1 De*e!"er :

7 Nationwide Special "ays

ll Saints Da+ 1 Nove!"er #

&ast Da+ of the Jear 1 De*e!"er #

On the other hand, Se*tion 6 of the I!ple!entin Rules and Reulations of Repu"li*

*t No 6.2. provides-

Se*tion 6 Suested For!ula in Deter!inin the 49uivalent 8onthl+ Statutor+

8ini!u! ?ae Rates1 ?ithout preudi*e fro! e@istin *o!pan+ pra*ti*es,

aree!ents or poli*ies, the follo)in for!ulas !a+ "e used as uides in

deter!inin the e9uivalent !onthl+ statutor+ !ini!u! )ae rates-

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

d( For those )ho do not )ork and are not *onsidered paid on Saturda+s andSunda+s or rest da+s-

49uivalent 8onthl+ A verae Dail+ ?ae Rate @ 262 da+s

Rate '48R( #2

?here 262 da+s A

25: da+s Ordinar+ )orkin da+s

#: da+s Reular holida+s

2 da+s Spe*ial da+s 'If *onsidered paidG if a*tuall+ )orked, this is e9uivalent to

26 da+s(

11111111111

262 da+s Total e9uivalent nu!"er of da+s



7ased on the a"ove, the proper divisor that should "e used for a situation )herein the

e!plo+ees do not )ork and are not *onsidered paid on Saturda+s and Sunda+s or rest

da+s is 262 da+s In the present *ase, sin*e the e!plo+ees of Trans1sia are re9uired to)ork half1da+ on Saturda+s, 26 da+s should "e added to the divisor of 262 da+s, thus,

resultin to 200 da+s Bo)ever, due to the fa*t that the rest da+s of petitioners fall on a

Sunda+, the nu!"er of un)orked "ut paid leal holida+s should "e redu*ed to nine '$(,instead of ten '#:(, sin*e one leal holida+ under 4O No 2: al)a+s falls on the last

Sunda+ of uust, National Beroes Da+ Thus, the divisor that should "e used in the

present *ase should "e 20. da+s

Bo)ever, the Court notes that if the divisor is in*reased to 20. da+s, the resultindail+ rate for purposes of overti!e pa+, holida+ pa+ and *onversions of a**u!ulated

leaves )ould "e di!inished To illustrate, if an e!plo+ee re*eives 30,::::: as his

!onthl+ salar+, his dail+ rate )ould "e 3%%$, *o!puted as follo)s-

30,::::: @ #2 !onths

1111111111111111111111111 A 3%%$Hda+

20. da+s

?hereas if the divisor used is onl+ 206 da+s, the e!plo+ees dail+ rate )ould "e 3566,

*o!puted as follo)s-

30,::::: @ #2 !onths

111111111111111111111111 A 3566Hda+

206 da+s

Clearl+, this !uddled situation )ould "e violative of the pros*ription on the non1

di!inution of "enefits under Se*tion #:: of the &a"or Code On the other hand, the useof the divisor of 20. da+s )ould "e to the advantae of petitioners if it is used for

purposes of *o!putin for dedu*tions due to the e!plo+ees a"sen*es In vie) of thissituation, the Court rules that the adusted divisor of 20. da+s should onl+ "e used "+

Trans1sia for *o!putations )hi*h )ould "e advantaeous to petitioners, ie, dedu*tions

for a"sen*es, and not for *o!putations )hi*h )ould di!inish the e@istin "enefits of the

e!plo+ees, ie, overti!e pa+, holida+ and leave *onversions

For their se*ond assin!ent of error, petitioners arue that, sin*e the+ provided the

N&RC )ith over)hel!in proof of their *lai! aainst Trans1sia, the least that the

N&RC *ould have done )as to de*lare that there e@isted an a!"iuit+ )ith reard toTrans1sias pa+!ent of holida+ pa+ 3etitioners then posits that if the N&RC had onl+

done so, this a!"iuit+ )ould have "een resolved in their favor "e*ause of the*onstitutional !andate to resolve dou"ts in favor of la"or

?e are not persuaded s previousl+ stated, the de*ision of the la"or ar"iter and theresolutions of the N&RC )ere "ased on su"stantial eviden*e and, as su*h, no a!"iuit+

or dou"t e@ists )hi*h *ould "e resolved in petitioners favor

HEREORE, pre!ises *onsidered, the Resolutions of the N&RC, dated 2 Nove!"er #$$ and # Septe!"er #$$%, are here"+ FFIR84D )ith the



8ODIFICTION that Trans1sia is here"+ ordered to adust its divisor to 20. da+s and

pa+ the resultin holida+ pa+ in arrears "rouht a"out "+ this adust!ent startin fro! :

/une #$0., the date of effe*tivit+ of 4O No 2:

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Trans-Asia Case 1999