RMF Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU

RMF Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU 

G.R. No.162324

February 4, 2009

DOCTRINE: 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. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay

FACTS: RFM Flour Division and SFI Feed Division entered into collective bargaining agreements with their respective labor unions, the Kasapian ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU)for the Flour Division, and Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI (SUMAPI NAFLU-KMU) for the feed Division(respondent). 

In their CBA, the company agrees to make payments to all daily paid employees and respect of any of the days enumerated hereunto if declared as special holidays by the national government. These include: black friday; november 1, and december 31. The compensation rate shall be the regular rate. Any work beyond eight (8) hours shall be paid the standard ordinary premium.

During the first year of the effectivity of the CBAs in 2000, December 31 which fell on a Sunday was declared by the national government as a special holiday. Respondents thus claimed payment of their members’ salaries, invoking the above-stated CBA provision. Petitioner refused the claims for payment, averring that December 31, 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest day. The controversy resulted in a deadlock, drawing the parties to submit the same for voluntary arbitration.

Voluntary Arbitrator Bernardino Volante declared that the provisions of the CBA is clear and ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioner motion for reconsideration and VA ruling has been denied, petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the same Decision. The appellate court held that if it was indeed petitioner's intent to pay the salaries of daily-paid employees during a special holiday, even if unworked, only if such special holiday fell on weekdays, then it should have been clearly and expressly stipulated in the CBAs.  

Petitioner through motion for reconsideration insists that the CBA provision in question was intended to protect the employees from reduction of their take-home pay, hence, it was not meant to remunerate them on Sundays, which are rest days, nor to increase their salaries. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the employees are entitled to question the salaries according to the provision of the CBA

HELD: 

Yes, If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, as in the herein questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That is settled. As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays which are so declared by the national government, regardless of whether they fall on rest days. 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. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay." The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its provisions.  Indeed, if petitioner and respondents intended  the provision in question to cover payment only during holidays falling on work or weekdays, it should have been so incorporated therein.

Petitioner maintains, however, that the parties failed to foresee a situation where the special holiday would fall on a rest day. The Court is not persuaded. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, it should be interpreted in favor of labor.