Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 118289 December 13, 1999
TRANS-ASIA PHILS. EMPLOEES ASSOCIATION !TAPEA" #$% ARNEL GAL&E',
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-ASIA !PHILS." #$%
ERNESTO S. DE CASTRO, respondents.

)APUNAN, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of "ourt see#s to reverse and set
aside the Resolutions, dated $% Nove&ber '((% and '% Septe&ber '(() of the
National *abor Relations "o&&ission +,N*R",- .hich dis&issed petitioners/ appeal
fro& the adverse decision of the labor arbiter and denied petitioners/ &otion for
reconsideration, respectivel0.
The antecedents of this case are as follo.s1
On 2 3ul0 '(44, Trans56sia Philippines 7&plo0ees 6ssociation +T6P76-, the dul05
reco8ni9ed collective bar8ainin8 a8ent of the &onthl05paid ran#5and5file e&plo0ees of
Trans56sia +Phils.-, entered into a "ollective :ar8ainin8 68ree&ent +,":6,- .ith their
e&plo0er. The ":6, .hich .as to be effective fro& ' 6pril '(44 up to %' March '((',
provided for, a&on8 others, the pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 .ith a stipulation that if an
e&plo0ee is per&itted to .or# on a le8al holida0, the said e&plo0ee .ill receive a salar0
e;uivalent to $<<= of the re8ular dail0 .a8e plus a <= pre&iu& pa0.
Despite the conclusion of the ":6, ho.ever, an issue .as still left unresolved .ith
re8ard to the clai& of T6P76 for pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 coverin8 the period fro&
3anuar0 of '(4! up to Dece&ber of '(42. Thus, the parties under.ent preventive
&ediation &eetin8s .ith a representative fro& the National Mediation and "onciliation
:oard in order to settle their disa8ree&ent on this particular issue. Since the parties
.ere not able to arrive at an a&icable settle&ent despite the conciliation &eetin8s,
T6P76, led b0 its President, petitioner 6rnie >alve9, filed a co&plaint before the labor
arbiter, on '4 6u8ust '(44, for the pa0&ent of their holida0 pa0 in arrears. On '4
Septe&ber '(44, petitioners a&ended their co&plaint to include the pa0&ent of holida0
pa0 for the duration of the recentl0 concluded ":6 +fro& '(44 to '(('-, unfair labor
practice, da&a8es and attorne0/s fees.
In their Position Paper, petitioners contended that their clai& for holida0 pa0 in arrears is
based on the non5inclusion of the sa&e in their &onthl0 pa0. In this re8ard, petitioners
cited certain circu&stances .hich, accordin8 to the&, .ould support their clai& for past
due holida0 pa0. First, petitioners presented Trans56sia/s 7&plo0ees/ Manual .hich
re;uires, as a pre5condition for the pa0&ent of holida0 pa0, that the e&plo0ee should
have .or#ed or .as on authori9ed leave .ith pa0 on the da0 i&&ediatel0 precedin8 the
le8al holida0. Petitioners ar8ued that ,if the intention ?of Trans56sia@ .as not to pa0
holida0 pa0 in addition to the e&plo0ee/s &onthl0 pa0, then there .ould be no need to
i&pose or specif0 the pre5condition for the pa0&ent.,
1
Second, petitioners proffered as
evidence their appoint&ent papers .hich do not contain an0 stipulation on the inclusion
of holida0 pa0 in their &onthl0 salar0. 6ccordin8 to petitioners, the absence of such
stipulation is an indication that the &andated holida0 pa0 is not incorporated in the
&onthl0 salar0. Third, petitioners noted the inclusion of a provision in the ":6 for the
pa0&ent of an a&ount e;uivalent to $<<= of the re8ular dail0 .a8e plus <= pre&iu&
pa0 to e&plo0ees .ho are per&itted to .or# on a re8ular holida0. Petitioners clai&ed
that this ver0 8enerous provision .as the re&ed0 availed of b0 Trans56sia to allo. its
e&plo0ees to recoup the holida0 pa0 in arrears and, as such, is a tacit ad&ission of the
non5pa0&ent of the sa&e durin8 the period prior to the current ":6.
Finall0, petitioners cited the current ":6 provision .hich obli8ates Trans56sia to 8ive
holida0 pa0. Petitioners asserted that this provision is an ac#no.led8&ent b0 Trans5
6sia of its failure to pa0 the sa&e in the past since, if it .as alread0 8ivin8 holida0 pa0
prior to the ":6, there .as no need to stipulate on the said obli8ation in the current
":6.
Aith re8ard to the clai& for the pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 for the duration of the ":6, the
accusation of unfair labor practice and the clai& for da&a8es and attorne0/s fees,
petitioners asserted that Trans56sia is 8uilt0 of bad faith in ne8otiatin8 and eBecutin8 the
current ":6 since, after it reco8ni9ed the ri8ht of the e&plo0ees to receive holida0 pa0,
Trans56sia alle8edl0 refused to honor the ":6 provision on the sa&e.
In response to petitioner/s contentions, Trans56sia refuted the sa&e in seriatim. Aith
re8ard to the pre5condition for the pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 stated in the 7&plo0ees/
Manual and the absence of a stipulation on holida0 pa0 in the e&plo0ees/ appoint&ent
papers, Trans56sia asserted that the above circu&stances are not indicative of its non5
pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 since it has al.a0s honored the labor la. provisions on holida0
1
pa0 b0 incorporatin8 the sa&e in the pa0&ent of the &onthl0 salaries of its e&plo0ees.
In support of this clai&, Trans56sia pointed out that it has lon8 been the standin8
practice of the co&pan0 to use the divisor of ,$4, da0s in co&putin8 for its e&plo0ees/
overti&e pa0 and dail0 rate deductions for absences. Trans56sia eBplained that this
divisor is arrived at throu8h the follo.in8 for&ula1
!$ B ))
CCCC D $4 da0s
4
Ahere1 !$ D nu&ber of .ee#s in a 0ear
)) D nu&ber of .or# hours per .ee#
4 D nu&ber of .or# hours per da0
Trans56sia further clarified that the ,$4, da0s divisor alread0 ta#es into
account the ten +'<- re8ular holida0s in a 0ear since it onl0 subtracts fro& the
%! calendar da0s the un.or#ed and unpaid !$ Sunda0s and $ Saturda0s
+e&plo0ees are re;uired to .or# half5da0 durin8 Saturda0s-. Trans56sia
clai&ed that if the ten +'<- re8ular holida0s .ere not included in the
co&putation of their e&plo0ees/ &onthl0 salar0, the divisor .hich the0 .ould
have used .ould onl0 be $22 da0s .hich is arrived at b0 subtractin8 !$
Sunda0s, $ Saturda0s and the '< le8al holida0s fro& %! calendar da0s.
Further&ore, Trans56sia eBplained that the ,$4, da0s divisor is based on
Republic 6ct No. )<,
2
.herein the divisor of $$ da0s +co&posed of the $!$
.or#in8 da0s and the '< le8al holida0s- is used in co&putin8 for the &onthl0
rate of .or#ers .ho do not .or# and are not considered paid on Saturda0s and
Sunda0s or rest da0s. 6ccordin8 to Trans56sia, if the additional $ .or#in8
Saturda0s in a 0ear is factored5in to the divisor provided b0 Republic 6ct No.
)<, the resultin8 divisor .ould be ,$4, da0s.
On petitioners/ contention .ith re8ard to the ":6 provision on the alle8edl0 8enerous
holida0 pa0 rate of $<=, Trans56sia eBplained that this holida0 pa0 rate .as included
in the ":6 in order to co&pl0 .ith Section ), Rule IV, :oo# III of the O&nibus Rules
I&ple&entin8 the *abor "ode. The aforesaid provision reads1
Sec. ). Compensation for holiday work. C 6n0 e&plo0ee .ho is
per&itted or suffered to .or# on an0 re8ular holida0, not eBceedin8
ei8ht +4- hours, shall be paid at least t.o hundred percent +$<<=- of
his re8ular dail0 .a8e. If the holida0 falls on the scheduled rest da0 of
the e&plo0ee, he shall be entitled to an additional pre&iu& pa0 of at
least %<= of his re8ular holida0 rate of $<<= based on his re8ular
.a8e rate.
On the contention that Trans56sia/s ac;uiescence to the inclusion of a holida0 pa0
provision in the ":6 is an ad&ission of non5pa0&ent of the sa&e in the past, Trans5
6sia reiterated that it is si&pl0 a reco8nition of the &andate of the *abor "ode that
e&plo0ees are entitled to holida0 pa0. It clarified that the co&pan0/s fir& belief in the
pa0&ent of holida0 pa0 to e&plo0ees led it to a8ree to the inclusion of the holida0 pa0
provision in the ":6.
Aith re8ard to the accusation of unfair labor practice because of Trans56sia/s act of
alle8edl0 bar8ainin8 in bad faith and refusal to 8ive holida0 pa0 in accordance .ith the
":6, Trans56sia eBplained that .hat petitioners .ould li#e the co&pan0 to do is to 8ive
double holida0 pa0 since, as previousl0 stated, the co&pan0 has alread0 included the
sa&e in its e&plo0ees &onthl0 salar0 and, 0et, petitioners .ant it to pa0 a second set of
holida0 pa0.
On '% Februar0 '(4(, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dis&issin8 the co&plaint, to
.it1
6fter considerin8 closel0 the ar8u&ents of the parties in support of
their respective clai&s and defenses, this :ranch upholds a different
vie. fro& that espoused b0 the co&plainants.
3ust li#e in the "hartered :an# "ase +*5))2'2-, 6u8ust $4, '(4!, '%4
S"R6 $2%, .hich is cited b0 the co&plainants in their Position Paper,
there appears to be no clear a8ree&ent bet.een the parties in the
instant case, .hether verbal or in .ritin8, that the &onthl0 salar0 of
the e&plo0ees included the &andated holida0 pa0. In the absence of
such a8ree&ent, the Supre&e "ourt in said "hartered :an# "ase
too# into consideration eBistin8 practices in the ban# in resolvin8 the
issue, such as e&plo0&ent b0 the ban# of a divisor of $!' da0s .hich
is the result of subtractin8 all Saturda0s, Sunda0s and the ten +'<-
le8al holida0s fro& the total nu&ber of calendar da0s in a 0ear.
Further, the "ourt too# note of the fact that the ban# used conflictin8
or different divisors in co&putin8 salar05related benefits as .ell as the
e&plo0ees/ absence fro& .or#. In the case at bar, not onl0 did the
":6 bet.een the co&plainants and respondents herein provides +sic-
that the ten +'<- le8al holida0s are reco8ni9ed b0 the "o&pan0 as full
holida0 .ith pa0. Ahat is &ore, there can be no doubt that since '(22
up to the eBecution of the ":6, the Trans56sia, unli#e that obtainin8
2
in the "hartered :an# "ase, never used conflictin8 or different
divisors but consistentl0 e&plo0ed the divisor of $4 da0s, .hich as
earlier pointed out, .as arrived at b0 subtractin8 onl0 the un.or#ed
!$ Sunda0s and the $ half5da05.or#ed Saturda0s fro& the total
nu&ber of da0s in a 0ear. The consistenc0 in the established practice
of the Trans56sia, .hich incidentall0 is not disputed b0 co&plainants,
did not 8ive rise to an0 doubt .hich could have been resolved in favor
of co&plainants.
:esides, the respondents unli#e the respondent ban# in the
Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople, et al.
+supra- citin8 also the case of IBAAEU vs. Hon. Amado Inciong +'%$
S"R6 %- .hich case have +sic- invalidated Section $, Rule IV, :oo#
III of the I&ple&entin8 Rules of the *abor "ode and Polic0 Instruction
No. (, have never relied on the said invalidated rule and Polic0
Instruction.
The co&plainants/ ar8u&ents and EuBtapositions in clai&in8 that the0
.ere denied pa0&ent of their holida0 pa0 paled in the face of the
prevailin8 co&pan0 practices and circu&stances abovestated.
6lso, for the reasons adverted to above, the co&plainants char8e of
unfair labor practice clai&in8 that respondents in bad faith refused to
co&pl0 .ith their contractual obli8ation under the ":6 b0 not pa0in8
the co&plainants/ holida0 pa0, &ust fail. Since respondents have
nothin8 &ore to pa0 b0 .a0 of le8al holida0 pa0 as it has alread0
been included in their &onthl0 salaries, the provision in the ":6
relative to holida0 pa0 is Eust but a reco8nition of the co&plainants
ri8ht to pa0&ent of le8al holida0 pa0 as &andated b0 the *abor "ode.
AF7R7FOR7, all the fore8oin8 pre&ises bein8 considered,
Eud8&ent is hereb0 rendered dis&issin8 the co&plaint for lac# of
&erit.
SO ORD7R7D.
3
Petitioners appealed to the National *abor Relations "o&&ission. In its Resolution,
dated $% Nove&ber '((%, the N*R" dis&issed the appeal and affir&ed the decision of
the labor arbiter, to .it1
Ae find no co8ent reason to chan8e or disturb the decision appealed
fro&, the sa&e bein8 substantiall0 supported b0 the facts and
evidence on record. ,It is a .ell5settled rule that findin8s of facts of
ad&inistrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence are controllin8
on the revie.in8 authorit0., +Planters Products, Inc. vs. N*R", >.R.
No. 24!$) G 242%(, 3anuar0 $<, '(4(H '( S"R6 %$4-.
Ae find no abuse of discretion andIor error in the assailed decision.
AF7R7FOR7, the appeal are +sic- hereb0 DISMISS7D for lac# of
&erit and the decision appealed fro& is 6FFIRM7D.
SO ORD7R7D.
*
Petitioners/ &otion for reconsideration .as, li#e.ise, denied b0 the N*R" in its
Resolution, dated '% Septe&ber '(().
Petitioners are no. before us faultin8 the N*R" .ith the follo.in8 assi8n&ent of errors1
I
PJ:*I" R7SPOND7NT 6"T7D AITF >R6V7 6:JS7 OF
DIS"R7TION IN JPFO*DIN> TF7 *6:OR 6R:IT7R/S D7"ISION
D7SPIT7 TF7 *6"K OF SJ:ST6NTI6* 7VID7N"7 TO SJPPORT
IT
II
IN JPFO*DIN> TF7 *6:OR 6R:IT7R/S D7"ISION D7SPIT7 TF7
*6"K OF SJ:ST6NTI6* 7VID7N"7 TO SJPPORT IT, PJ:*I"
R7SPOND7NT N*R" VIO*6T7D TF7 "ONSTITJTION6* 6ND
*7>6* M6ND6T7 TO R7SO*V7 6** DOJ:TS IN SO"I6*
*7>IS*6TION IN F6VOR OF *6:OR.
+
Petitioners, in furtherance of their first assi8n&ent of error, assert that the N*R"
,blatantl0 and unasha&edl0 disre8arded, the nu&erous evidence in support of their
clai& and relied &erel0 on the sole evidence presented b0 Trans56sia, the ,$4, da0s
divisor, in dis&issin8 their appeal and, in so doin8, is 8uilt0 of 8rave abuse of discretion.
,
Ae do not a8ree.
3
Trans56sia/s inclusion of holida0 pa0 in petitioners/ &onthl0 salar0 is clearl0 established
b0 its consistent use of the divisor of ,$4, da0s in the co&putation of its e&plo0ees/
benefits and deductions. The use b0 Trans56sia of the ,$4, da0s divisor .as never
disputed b0 petitioners. 6 si&ple application of &athe&atics .ould reveal that the ten
+'<- le8al holida0s in a 0ear are alread0 accounted for .ith the use of the said divisor.
6s eBplained b0 Trans56sia, if one is to deduct the un.or#ed !$ Sunda0s and $
Saturda0s +derived b0 dividin8 !$ Saturda0s in half since petitioners are re;uired to
.or# half5da0 on Saturda0s- fro& the %! calendar da0s in a 0ear, the resultin8 divisor
.ould be $4 da0s +should actuall0 be $42 da0s-. Since the ten +'<- le8al holida0s .ere
never included in subtractin8 the un.or#ed and unpaid da0s in a calendar 0ear, the onl0
lo8ical conclusion .ould be that the pa0&ent for holida0 pa0 is alread0 incorporated into
the said divisor. Thus, .hen vie.ed a8ainst this ver0 convincin8 piece of evidence, the
ar8u&ents put for.ard b0 petitioners to support their clai& of non5pa0&ent of holida0
pa0, i.e., the pre5condition stated in the 7&plo0ees/ Manual for entitle&ent to holida0
pa0, the absence of a stipulation in the e&plo0ees/ appoint&ent papers for the inclusion
of holida0 pa0 in their &onthl0 salar0, the stipulation in the ":6 reco8ni9in8 the
entitle&ent of the petitioners to holida0 pa0 .ith a conco&itant provision for the 8rantin8
of an ,alle8edl0, ver0 8enerous holida0 pa0 rate, .ould appear to be &erel0 inferences
and suppositions .hich, in the apropos .ords of the labor arbiter, ,paled in the face of
the prevailin8 co&pan0 practices and circu&stances abovestated.,
Fence, it is on account of the convincin8 and le8all0 sound ar8u&ents and evidence of
Trans56sia that the labor arbiter rendered a decision adverse to petitioners.
6c#no.led8in8 that the decision of the labor arbiter .as based on substantial evidence,
the N*R" affir&ed the for&er/s disposition. It is also .ith this ac#no.led8&ent that the
"ourt affir&s the ;uestioned resolutions of the N*R". 6s aptl0 put b0 the Solicitor
>eneral, citin8 unset !iew Condominium Corporation vs. "#$C,
-
,findin8s of fact of
ad&inistrative bodies should not be disturbed in the absence of 8rave abuse of
discretion or unless the findin8s are not supported b0 substantial evidence.,
8
In this
re8ard, the Solicitor >eneral observed1 ,6s said above, public respondent acted on the
basis of substantial evidence, hence, 8rave abuse of discretion is ruled out.,
9
Fo.ever, petitioners insist that the a8ree&ent of Trans56sia in the ":6 to 8ive a
8enerous $<= holida0 pa0 rate to e&plo0ees .ho .or# on a holida0 is conclusive
proof that the &onthl0 pa0 of petitioners does not include holida0 pa0.
1.
Petitioners cite
as basis the case of Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople,
11
.hich reads1
6n0 re&ainin8 doubts .hich &a0 arise fro& the conflictin8 or different
divisors used in the co&putation of overti&e pa0 and e&plo0ees/
absences are resolved b0 the &anner in .hich .or# actuall0 rendered
on holida0s is paid. Thus, .henever &onthl0 paid e&plo0ees .or# on
a holida0, the0 are 8iven an additional '<<= base pa0 on top of a
pre&iu& pa0 of !<=. If the e&plo0ees/ &onthl0 pa0 alread0 includes
their salaries for holida0s, the0 should be paid onl0 pre&iu& pa0 but
not both base pa0 and pre&iu& pa0.
12
Ae are not convinced. The cited case cannot be relied upon b0 petitioners since the
facts obtainin8 in the "hartered :an# case are ver0 different fro& those in the present
case. In the "hartered :an# case, the ban# used different divisors in co&putin8 for its
e&plo0ees benefits and deductions. For co&putin8 overti&e co&pensation, the ban#
used $!' da0s as its divisor. On the other hand, for co&putin8 deductions due to
absences, the ban# used %! da0s as divisor. Due to this confusin8 situation, the "ourt
declared that there eBisted a doubt as to .hether holida0 pa0 is alread0 incorporated in
the e&plo0ees/ &onthl0 salar0. Since doubts should be resolved in favor of labor, the
"ourt in the "hartered :an# case ruled in favor of the e&plo0ees and further stated that
its conclusion is fortified b0 the &anner in .hich the e&plo0ees are re&unerated for
.or# rendered on holida0s. In the present case, ho.ever, there is no confusion .ith
re8ard to the divisor used b0 Trans56sia in co&putin8 for petitioners/ benefits and
deductions. Trans56sia consistentl0 used a ,$4, da0s divisor for all its co&putations.
Nevertheless, petitioners/ cause is not entirel0 lost. The "ourt notes that there is a need
to adEust the divisor used b0 Trans56sia to $42 da0s, instead of onl0 $4 da0s, in order
to properl0 account for the entiret0 of re8ular holida0s and special da0s in a 0ear as
prescribed b0 7Becutive Order No. $<%
13
in relation to Section of the Rules
I&ple&entin8 Republic 6ct 2$2.
1*
Sec. ' of 7Becutive Order No. $<% provides1
Sec. '. Jnless other.ise &odified b0 la., order or procla&ation, the
follo.in8 re8ular holida0s and special da0s shall be observed in the
countr01
6. Re8ular Folida0s
Ne. Lear/s Da0 C 3anuar0 '
Maund0 Thursda0 C Movable Date
>ood Frida0 C Movable Date
6ra. n8 Ka8itin8an C 6pril (
+:ataan and "orre8idor Da0-
4
*abor Da0 C Ma0 '
Independence Da0 C 3une '$
National Feroes Da0 C *ast Sunda0 of 6u8ust
:onifacio Da0 C Nove&ber %<
"hrist&as Da0 C Dece&ber $!
Ri9al Da0 C Dece&ber %<
:. Nation.ide Special Da0s
6ll Saints Da0 C Nove&ber '
*ast Da0 of the Lear C Dece&ber %'
On the other hand, Section of the I&ple&entin8 Rules and Re8ulations of Republic
6ct No. 2$2 provides1
Sec. . uggested Formula in %etermining the E&uivalent 'onthly
tatutory 'inimum (age $ates. C Aithout preEudice fro& eBistin8
co&pan0 practices, a8ree&ents or policies, the follo.in8 for&ulas
&a0 be used as 8uides in deter&inin8 the e;uivalent &onthl0
statutor0 &ini&u& .a8e rates1
BBB BBB BBB
d- For those .ho do not .or# and are not considered paid on
Saturda0s and Sunda0s or rest da0s1
7;uivalent Monthl0 D 6vera8e Dail0 Aa8e Rate B $$ da0s
Rate +7MR- '$
Ahere $$ da0s D
$!< da0s C Ordinar0 .or#in8 da0s
'< da0s C Re8ular holida0s
$ da0s C Special da0s +If considered paidH if actuall0
.or#ed, this is e;uivalent to $. da0s-
CCCC
$$ da0s C Total e;uivalent nu&ber of da0s
:ased on the above, the proper divisor that should be used for a situation .herein the
e&plo0ees do not .or# and are not considered paid on Saturda0s and Sunda0s or rest
da0s is $$ da0s. In the present case, since the e&plo0ees of Trans56sia are re;uired
to .or# half5da0 on Saturda0s, $ da0s should be added to the divisor of $$ da0s,
thus, resultin8 to $44 da0s. Fo.ever, due to the fact that the rest da0s of petitioners fall
on a Sunda0, the nu&ber of un.or#ed but paid le8al holida0s should be reduced to nine
+(-, instead of ten +'<-, since one le8al holida0 under 7.O. No. $<% al.a0s falls on the
last Sunda0 of 6u8ust, National Feroes Da0. Thus, the divisor that should be used in the
present case should be $42 da0s.
Fo.ever, the "ourt notes that if the divisor is increased to $42 da0s, the resultin8 dail0
rate for purposes of overti&e pa0, holida0 pa0 and conversions of accu&ulated leaves
.ould be di&inished. To illustrate, if an e&plo0ee receives P4,<<<.<< as his &onthl0
salar0, his dail0 rate .ould be P%%).)(, co&puted as follo.s1
P4,<<<.<< B '$ &onths
CCCCCCCCCC D
P%%).)(Ida0
$42 da0s
Ahereas if the divisor used is onl0 $4 da0s, the e&plo0ee/s dail0 rate .ould
be P%%!., co&puted as follo.s1
P4,<<<.<< B '$ &onths
CCCCCCCCCC D
P%%!.Ida0
5
$4 da0s
"learl0, this &uddled situation .ould be violative of the proscription on the
non5di&inution of benefits under Section '<< of the *abor "ode. On the other
hand, the use of the divisor of $42 da0s .ould be to the advanta8e of
petitioners if it is used for purposes of co&putin8 for deductions due to the
e&plo0ee/s absences. In vie. of this situation, the "ourt rules that the
adEusted divisor of $42 da0s should onl0 be used b0 Trans56sia for
co&putations .hich .ould be advanta8eous to petitioners, i.e., deductions for
absences, and not for co&putations .hich .ould di&inish the eBistin8 benefits
of the e&plo0ees, i.e., overti&e pa0, holida0 pa0 and leave conversions.
For their second assi8n&ent of error, petitioners ar8ue that, since the0 provided the
N*R" .ith ,over.hel&in8 proof, of their clai& a8ainst Trans56sia, the least that the
N*R" could have done .as to declare that there eBisted an a&bi8uit0 .ith re8ard to
Trans56sia/s pa0&ent of holida0 pa0. Petitioners then posits that if the N*R" had onl0
done so, this a&bi8uit0 .ould have been resolved in their favor because of the
constitutional &andate to resolve doubts in favor of labor.
Ae are not persuaded. 6s previousl0 stated, the decision of the labor arbiter and the
resolutions of the N*R" .ere based on substantial evidence and, as such, no a&bi8uit0
or doubt eBists .hich could be resolved in petitioners/ favor.
AF7R7FOR7, pre&ises considered, the Resolutions of the N*R", dated $% Nove&ber
'((% and '% Septe&ber '((), are hereb0 6FFIRM7D .ith the MODIFI"6TION that
Trans56sia is hereb0 ordered to adEust its divisor to $42 da0s and pa0 the resultin8
holida0 pa0 in arrears brou8ht about b0 this adEust&ent startin8 fro& %< 3une '(42, the
date of effectivit0 of 7.O. No. $<%.
SO ORD7R7D.
6