View full case

CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF v. NLRC

FACTS:

The petitioners are monthly-paid employees of Antique Electric Cooperative (ANTECO). After a routine inspection, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) found ANTECO liable for underpayment of the monthly salaries of its employees. The DOLE directed ANTECO to pay its employees wage differentials amounting to P1,427,412.75, but ANTECO failed to comply. As a result, thirty-three employees filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking payment of wage differentials, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter granted the wage differentials amounting to P1,017,507.73 and attorney's fees of 10% to the petitioners. However, ANTECO appealed the decision to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners sufficiently alleged in their petition the specific instances where the actions of the NLRC amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

  2. Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners complied with the requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.

  3. Whether monthly-paid employees are entitled to holiday pay.

  4. Whether the use of a divisor less than 365 days is a valid basis for computing holiday pay.

  5. Whether the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople is applicable to the present case.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the petitioners failed to sufficiently allege in their petition the specific instances where the actions of the NLRC amounted to grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners merely stated generalizations and conclusions of law, rather than discussing how the NLRC acted capriciously. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petition failed to show any demonstration that the NLRC acted either with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

  2. The Court ruled that the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners did not comply with the requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The petition failed to state the grounds relied on for the relief sought, as required by the said rule. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition outright.

  3. Monthly-paid employees are not entitled to holiday pay. The implementing rules on holiday pay exclude monthly-paid employees from this benefit.

  4. The use of a divisor less than 365 days is valid for computing holiday pay, provided that it does not deprive the employees of their right to be paid for the ten legal holidays in a year. In this case, the divisor used is 304 days, which does not deprive the petitioners of their right to be paid on legal holidays.

  5. The case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople is not applicable to the present case. Unlike in Chartered Bank, the employees in this case seek payment for un-worked non-legal holidays based on a void implementing rule. Additionally, there is no collective bargaining agreement prescribing the divisor in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must sufficiently allege the specific instances where the tribunal or agency acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  • The grounds relied upon for the relief sought in a petition for certiorari must be specifically stated in the petition.

  • Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It does not include correction of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence or its factual findings.

  • Petitions that fail to comply with procedural requisites or are unintelligible or without legal basis may be dismissed outright.

  • Monthly-paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay under the Labor Code, contrary to the provision in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

  • Monthly-paid employees are excluded from holiday pay benefits under the implementing rules.

  • The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.

  • The use of a divisor less than 365 days is valid for computing holiday pay, as long as it does not deprive employees of their right to be paid for the ten legal holidays.

  • The case of Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople is not applicable if the circumstances and legal basis differ.