TAPEA v. National Labor Relations Commission

KAPUNAN, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolutions, dated 23 November 1993 and 13 September 1994 of the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC") which dismissed petitioners' appeal from the adverse decision of the labor arbiter and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, respectively. The antecedents of this case are as follows: On 7 July 1988, Trans-Asia Philippines Employees Association (TAPEA), the duly-recognized collective bargaining agent of the monthly-paid rank-and-file employees of Trans-Asia (Phils.), entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with their employer. The CBA, which was to be effective from 1 April 1988 up to 31 March 1991, provided for, among others, the payment of holiday pay with a stipulation that if an employee is permitted to work on a legal holiday, the said employee will receive a salary equivalent to 200% of the regular daily wage plus a 60% premium pay.

Despite the conclusion of the CBA, however, an issue was still left unresolved with regard to the claim of TAPEA for payment of holiday pay covering the period from January of 1985 up to December of 1987. Thus, the parties underwent preventive mediation meetings with a representative from the National Mediation and Conciliation Board in order to settle their disagreement on this particular issue. Since the parties were not able to arrive at an amicable settlement despite the conciliation meetings, TAPEA, led by its President, petitioner Arnie Galvez, filed a complaint before the labor arbiter, on 18 August 1988, for the payment of their holiday pay in arrears.

On 18 September 1988, petitioners amended their complaint to include the payment of holiday pay for the duration of the recently concluded CBA (from 1988 to 1991), unfair labor practice, damages and attorney's fees. In their Position Paper, petitioners contended that their claim for holiday pay in arrears is based on the non-inclusion of the same in their monthly pay. In this regard, petitioners cited certain circumstances which, according to them, would support their claim for past due holiday pay.

First, petitioners presented Trans-Asia's Employees' Manual which requires, as a pre-condition for the payment of holiday pay, that the employee should have worked or was on authorized leave with pay on the day immediately preceding the legal holiday. Petitioners argued that "if the intention [of Trans-Asia] was not to pay holiday pay in addition to the employee's monthly pay, then there would be no need to impose or specify the pre-condition for the payment."1 Second, petitioners proffered as evidence their appointment papers which do not contain any stipulation on the inclusion of holiday pay in their monthly salary. According to petitioners, the absence of such stipulation is an indication that the mandated holiday pay is not incorporated in the monthly salary.

Third, petitioners noted the inclusion of a provision in the CBA for the payment of an amount equivalent to 200% of the regular daily wage plus 60% premium pay to employees who are permitted to work on a regular holiday. Petitioners claimed that this very generous provision was the remedy availed of by Trans-Asia to allow its employees to recoup the holiday pay in arrears and, as such, is a tacit admission of the non-payment of the same during the period prior to the current CBA. Finally, petitioners cited the current CBA provision which obligates Trans-Asia to give holiday pay.

Petitioners asserted that this provision is an acknowledgment by Trans-Asia of its failure to pay the same in the past since, if it was already giving holiday pay prior to the CBA, there was no need to stipulate on the said obligation in the current CBA. With regard to the claim for the payment of holiday pay for the duration of the CBA, the accusation of unfair labor practice and the claim for damages and attorney's fees, petitioners asserted that Trans-Asia is guilty of bad faith in negotiating and executing the current CBA since, after it recognized the right of the employees to receive holiday pay, Trans-Asia allegedly refused to honor the CBA provision on the same. In response to petitioner's contentions, Trans-Asia refuted the same in seriatim.

With regard to the pre-condition for the payment of holiday pay stated in the Employees' Manual and the absence of a stipulation on holiday pay in the employees' appointment papers, Trans-Asia asserted that the above circumstances are not indicative of its non-payment of holiday pay since it has always honored the labor law provisions on holiday pay by incorporating the same in the payment of the monthly salaries of its employees. In support of this claim, Trans-Asia pointed out that it has long been the standing practice of the company to use the divisor of "286" days in computing for its employees' overtime pay and daily rate deductions for absences.

Trans-Asia explained that this divisor is arrived at through the following formula: 52 x 44