Holiday pay is an additional pay provided to a covered employee during regular holidays. If no work is done on a holiday, the employee receives his holiday pay – i.e. 100% holiday pay. If there is work done, he receives his holiday pay plus his day’s wage – i.e. 100% holiday pay + 100% daily salary. If there is work done on a double holiday, he receives two (2) holiday pays due to the double holiday, plus his day’s wage – i.e. 200% holiday pay + 100% daily salary.
1. Concept
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.” It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 144664, 15 March 2004)
Thus, holiday pay is a legally mandated benefit required to be paid by the employer to the employee on regular holidays, whether or not the said employee worked. The amount of holiday pay will depend on whether the employee performed work or not as explained below.
2. Regular holidays
There are currently thirteen (13) regular holidays in the Philippines.
Regular holidays are different and should not be confused with special non-working days which require payment of premium pay if work is done, instead of holiday pay.
For more information, see: Premium Pay.
a. 13 Regular Holidays
These are the thirteen (13) regular holidays:
1) January 1 – New Year’s Day
2) Maundy Thursday (movable date)
3) Good Friday (movable date)
4) April 9 – Araw ng Kagitingan
5) May 1 – Labor Day
6) June 12 – Independence Day
7) National Heroes’ Day – Last Monday of August
8) Eid’l Fitr (movable date)
9) Eid’l Adha (movable date)
10) Bonifacio Day – November 30
11) Christmas Day – December 25
12) Rizal Day – December 30
13) General election (movable date)
(Article 94[c], Labor Code; Section 3, Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code; DOLE-BWC Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, hereinafter “DOLE Handbook”)
Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9), National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national identity, and deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the working class to the development of the nation, while the religious holidays designated in Executive Order No. 203 allow the worker to celebrate his faith with his family. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.)
b. Elections
The day designated by law for holding a general election is a legal holiday. (Article 94[b], Labor Code)
c. Double holiday
A double holiday happens when there are two holidays in one day.
For example, since Maundy Thursday is movable, there are occasions when it falls on Araw ng Kagitingan resulting in two holidays on the same day or a double holiday.
The fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce the holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.)
ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. CA, G.R. No. 144664, 15 March 2004
[Background]
⦁ The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11, 1993 wherein it clarified, inter alia, that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which[,] apart from being Good Friday [and, therefore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday]. The bulletin reads:
“On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9, 1993 which apart from being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on the same day, this Department is of the view that the covered employees are entitled to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage even if said holiday is unworked. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date as Araw ng Kagitingan.”
⦁ Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x
⦁ Despite the explanatory bulletin, [the employer] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested.
[Resolution: The employees are entitled to double holiday pay or 200%.]
⦁ [A]rt. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten [currently at 13] paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday [currently at 13] pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive.
⦁ It is elementary, under the rules of statutory construction, that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the law which provides or indicates that the entitlement to ten days of holiday pay shall be reduced to nine when two holidays fall on the same day.
3. Covered and excluded employees
The benefit applies to all employees (called the “covered employees”), except these “exempt employees”:
1. Government employees, whether employed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, including those employed in government-owned and/or controlled corporations with original charters or created under special laws;
2. Those of retail and service establishments regularly employing not more than five (5) workers;
3. Kasambahay and persons in the personal service of another;
4. Managerial employees, if they meet all of the following conditions:
4.1. Their primary duty is to manage the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof;
4.2. They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein; and
4.3. They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to hiring, firing, and promotion, or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.
5. Officers or members of a managerial staff, if they perform the following duties and responsibilities:
5.1. Primarily perform work directly related to management policies of their employer;
5.2. Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment
5.3. (a) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or managerial employee in the management of the establishment or subdivision thereof in which he or she is employed; or (b) execute, under general supervision, work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (c) execute, under general supervision, special assignments and tasks; and,
5.4. Do not devote more than twenty percent (20%) of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 above;
6. Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer, including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis or those who are paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof.
Employees who are not excluded are referred to as “covered employees.” (DOLE Handbook; Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
a. Managerial employees
As shown earlier, managerial employees are included in the list of exempt employees.
GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. GALVEZ, G.R. No. 178184, 29 January 2014
⦁ Galvez and Gruta, as managerial employees, are not entitled to their claims for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and premium pay for holiday and restday. Article 82 of the Labor Code specifically excludes managerial employees from the coverage of the law regarding conditions of employment which include hours of work, weekly rest periods, holidays, service incentive leaves and service charges.
In addition, officers or members of a managerial staff are also exempt from the coverage of holiday pay.
It should be emphasized that managerial employees, as well as officers or members of a managerial staff, have requirements as provided to be so-called as such. Meaning, the designation or title given to employee is not determinative of whether or not the employee is indeed a manager. To avoid paying holiday pay, some employers give employees the designation or title of “manager” or “officers or members of a managerial staff” even if they are actually not performing the duties and functions of a manager. This is not correct and may result in employee claims for holiday pay against the employer.
b. Field personnel
1) The phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis”
The phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis” should be related with “field personnel” applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow. (Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople, G.R. No. L- 58870, 18 December 1987)
The payment of an employee on task or pakyaw basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the coverage of SIL [service incentive leave] and holiday pay. They are exempted from the coverage of Title I (including the holiday and SIL pay) only if they qualify as “field personnel.” The IRR therefore validly qualifies and limits the general exclusion of “workers paid by results” found in Article 82 from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay. (David v. Macasio, G.R. No. 1954466, 02 July 2014)
In short, in determining whether workers engaged on “pakyaw” or “task basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker’s time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of “field personnel” under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary benefits. (Ibid.)
Workers engaged on pakyaw or “task basis” are entitled to holiday and service incentive leave pay (SIL) provided they are not field personnel. (A. Nate Casket Maker v. Arango, G.R. No. 192282, 05 October 2016)
c. Special groups of employees
Holiday pay rules are different for certain special groups of employees as illustrated below.
1) Piece-rate workers
They are entitled to holiday pay which shall not be less than his/her average daily earnings for the last seven (7) actual days of work immediately preceding the regular holiday. The holiday pay should not be less than the applicable statutory minimum wage rate. (DOLE Handbook; Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
2) Seasonal workers
They are not entitled to holiday pay for regular holidays during off-season. (Ibid.)
3) Workers without regular workdays
They are entitled to holiday pay. Workers without regular holidays include stevedores. (Ibid.)
4) Task or pakyaw employees, but not field personnel
If task or pakyaw employees are not field personnel, then the task or pakyaw employees are entitled to holiday pay.
DAVID (DBA YIELS HOG DEALERS) v. MACASIO, G.R. No. 1954466, 02 July 2014
[Background]
⦁ [The employee worked as a butcher for the employer, a butchering establishment. The employee filed a labor case praying for, among others, to be paid holiday pay. In response, the employer claimed that the employee is not entitled thereto since he is paid on a task basis or pakyaw.]
[Resolution: The employee is entitled to holiday pay since he is not a field personnel even if he is paid on task or pakyaw basis.]
⦁ A distinguishing characteristic of “pakyaw” or task basis engagement, as opposed to straight-hour wage payment, is the non-consideration of the time spent in working. In a task-basis work, the emphasis is on the task itself, in the sense that payment is reckoned in terms of completion of the work, not in terms of the number of time spent in the completion of work. Once the work or task is completed, the worker receives a fixed amount as wage, without regard to the standard measurements of time generally used in pay computation.
⦁ In [the employee’s] case, the established facts show that he would usually start his work at 10:00 p.m. Thereafter, regardless of the total hours that he spent at the workplace or of the total number of the hogs assigned to him for chopping, [the employee] would receive the fixed amount of ₱700.00 once he had completed his task. Clearly, these circumstances show a “pakyaw” or task basis engagement that all three tribunals uniformly found.
⦁ … the general rule is that holiday and SIL pay provisions cover all employees. To be excluded from their coverage, an employee must be one of those that these provisions expressly exempt, strictly in accordance with the exemption. Under the IRR, exemption from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay refer to “field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis[.]” Note that unlike Article 82 of the Labor Code, the IRR on holiday and SIL pay do not exclude employees “engaged on task basis” as a separate and distinct category from employees classified as “field personnel.” Rather, these employees are altogether merged into one classification of exempted employees.
⦁ Because of this difference, it may be argued that the Labor Code may be interpreted to mean that those who are engaged on task basis, per se, are excluded from the SIL and holiday payment since this is what the Labor Code provisions, in contrast with the IRR, strongly suggest. The arguable interpretation of this rule may be conceded to be within the discretion granted to the LA and NLRC as the quasi-judicial bodies with expertise on labor matters.
⦁ However, as early as 1987 in the case of Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople the phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis” in the rule has already been interpreted to mean as follows:
[the phrase] should however, be related with “field personnel” applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow xxx Clearly, petitioner’s teaching personnel cannot be deemed field personnel which refers “to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. [Par. 3, Article 82, Labor Code of the Philippines]. Petitioner’s claim that private respondents are not entitled to the service incentive leave benefit cannot therefore be sustained.
⦁ In short, the payment of an employee on task or pakyaw basis alone is insufficient to exclude one from the coverage of SIL [service incentive leave] and holiday pay. They are exempted from the coverage of Title I (including the holiday and SIL pay) only if they qualify as “field personnel.” The IRR therefore validly qualifies and limits the general exclusion of “workers paid by results” found in Article 82 from the coverage of holiday and SIL pay. This is the only reasonable interpretation since the determination of excluded workers who are paid by results from the coverage of Title I is “determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.”
⦁ The Cebu Institute Technology ruling was reiterated in 2005 in Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc., v. Bautista:
A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. According to the Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as “field personnel.” The phrase “other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer” must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.”
The same is true with respect to the phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis.” Said phrase should be related with “field personnel,” applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow.
⦁ The Autobus ruling was in turn the basis of Serrano v. Santos Transit which the CA cited in support of granting [the employee’s] petition.
⦁ In Serrano, the Court, applying the rule on ejusdem generis declared that “employees engaged on task or contract basis xxx are not automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave, unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel.” The Court explained that the phrase “including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis” found in Section 1(d), Rule V of Book III of the IRR should not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which SIL shall not be granted. Rather, as with its preceding phrase – “other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer” – the phrase “including those who are engaged on task or contract basis” serves to amplify the interpretation of the Labor Code definition of “field personnel” as those “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.”
⦁ In contrast and in clear departure from settled case law, the LA and the NLRC still interpreted the Labor Code provisions and the IRR as exempting an employee from the coverage of Title I of the Labor Code based simply and solely on the mode of payment of an employee. The NLRC’s utter disregard of this consistent jurisprudential ruling is a clear act of grave abuse of discretion. In other words, by dismissing [the employee’s] complaint without considering whether [the employee] was a “field personnel” or not, the NLRC proceeded based on a significantly incomplete consideration of the case. This action clearly smacks of grave abuse of discretion.
⦁ Entitlement to holiday pay
⦁ Evidently, the Serrano ruling speaks only of SIL pay. However, if the LA and the NLRC had only taken counsel from Serrano and earlier cases, they would have correctly reached a similar conclusion regarding the payment of holiday pay since the rule exempting “field personnel” from the grant of holiday pay is identically worded with the rule exempting “field personnel” from the grant of SIL pay. To be clear, the phrase “employees engaged on task or contract basis” found in the IRR on both SIL pay and holiday pay should be read together with the exemption of “field personnel.”
⦁ In short, in determining whether workers engaged on “pakyaw” or “task basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker’s time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of “field personnel” under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary benefits.
⦁ [The employee] does not fall under the classification of “field personnel.”
⦁ Based on the definition of field personnel under Article 82, we agree with the CA that [the employee] does not fall under the definition of “field personnel.” The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the established facts of this case: first, [the employee] regularly performed his duties at [the employer’] principal place of business; second, his actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty; and, third, [the employer] supervised his time and performance of duties. Since [the employer] cannot be considered a “field personnel,” then he is not exempted from the grant of holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis.
⦁ Not being a “field personnel,” we find the CA to be legally correct when it reversed the NLRC’s ruling dismissing [the employee’s] complaint for holiday and SIL pay for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
d. Whether monthly-paid or daily-paid
Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of [13] paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.)
Hence, for purposes of holiday pay entitlement, it does not matter whether an employee is monthly-paid or daily-paid.
4. The benefit
a. No work on a holiday: 100% holiday pay
Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. (Article 94[a], Labor Code; Section 3, Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
Holiday pay is an additional pay of 100% of the basic wage of a covered employee on a regular holiday even if that employee does not work. (DOLE Handbook)
PIGCAULAN v. SECURITY AND CREDIT INVESTIGATION, INC., G.R. No. 173648, 16 January 2012
⦁ Under the Labor Code, [the Complainant – who was a covered employee] is entitled to his regular rate on holidays even if he does not work.
To reiterate, holiday entitlement depends on whether an employee is covered.
b. Work on a holiday: 100% holiday pay + day’s wage
The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate. (Article 94[b], Labor Code)
If the covered employee renders work on a regular holiday, he/she receives his holiday pay (100% of basic wage) plus his day’s wage. The day’s wage is subject to his actual hours of work rendered on that day. If he/she only renders work for six (6) hours, then he/she is entitled only to pay for the equivalent of the time worked.
PRODUCER’S BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100701, 28 March 2001
⦁ Article 94 of the Labor Code provides that every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays and that the employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate [i.e. 100% holiday pay + day’s wage].
This should be cross-referenced below work crossing a regular holiday. Meaning, work started a day before the holiday and then crossed over to the holiday. This usually happens when work started in the evening of a non-holiday and goes past midnight into the day of the holiday.
c. Work on a double holiday: 200% holiday pay + day’s wage
If the covered employee renders work on a double holiday, he/she receives his two holiday pays (200% of basic wage), plus his day’s wage.
As discussed earlier, since it is a legally mandated benefit, payment of holiday pay is due whenever there is a holiday regardless if it falls on the same day. This is because there is no law prohibiting double payment.
6. Rules on absences
NOTICE: Due to the confusion on the rules on absences, this section is a restatement of the rules for easier understanding. Thus, the focus is on whether employees are paid (instead of absence) on the workday immediately preceding a regular holiday. (See DOLE Handbook; Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
If employees are paid, this means:
1) That they were present or worked on that day; or
2) That they were absent but used a leave credit.
If employees are not paid, this means:
1) That they were absent on that day.
The “workday immediately preceding a regular holiday” – refers to a regular or scheduled workday that immediately precedes a given regular holiday. For example, June 11 (assuming there is work on that day) is the workday immediately preceding the regular holiday of June 12 – Independence Day.
However, if the day immediately preceding the regular holiday is a rest day – whether for the entire establishment or for certain employees only, then that is not to be considered or counted. The workday immediately preceding the regular holiday would be the day before the said rest day. In our earlier example, if June 11 happens to be a rest day, then the workday immediately preceding the regular holiday would be June 10. The same rules apply: if a regular holiday falls on a Monday and the establishment observes no work on weekends, the workday immediately preceding the regular holiday would be the Friday (before the regular holiday on Monday).
To continue, if on the said Friday it so happens that it is the scheduled rest day of certain employees for some reason, then the workday immediately preceding the regular holiday would be the Thursday (before the regular holiday on Monday).
a. Single regular holiday
The following are the rules on single regular holidays – e.g. Labor Day, Independence Day, etc.
1) Paid on workday before regular holiday
If employees are paid the workday immediately preceding a regular holiday, then they are entitled to holiday pay on the regular holiday – even if they do not render work on that day.
2) Not paid on workday before regular holiday
If employees are not paid the workday immediately preceding a regular holiday, then they are not entitled to holiday pay on the regular holiday.
However, in the above situation, if they render work on the regular holiday, then they will be entitled to double pay constituting: daily wage + holiday pay.
b. Successive regular holidays
“Successive regular holidays” – refer to regular holidays which are scheduled one after the other in a series – e.g. Maundy Thursday and Good Friday.
1) Paid on workday immediately preceding
If employees are paid the workday immediately preceding successive regular holidays, then they are entitled to holiday pay on the regular holidays – even if they do not render work on those days.
Example: During holy week, if employees are paid on Wednesday (assuming this is the workday immediately preceding the regular holidays), then they are entitled to holiday pay on Holy Thursday and Good Friday – even if they do not render work.
2) Not paid on workday immediately preceding
If employees are not paid the workday immediately preceding successive regular holidays, then they are not entitled to holiday pay on the regular holidays.
Example: During holy week, if employees are not paid on Wednesday (assuming this is the workday immediately preceding the regular holidays), then they are entitled to holiday pay on Holy Thursday and Good Friday.
Exceptions:
1) If they render work on the first regular holiday – i.e. Holy Thursday, then they are entitled to double pay (daily wage + holiday pay), plus they are entitled to holiday pay for Good Friday – even if they do not render work on that day.
2) If they render work on the successive regular holidays – i.e. Holy Thursday and Good Friday, then they are entitled to double pay (daily wage + holiday pay) for each day.
In the above two exceptions, it follows the general rule that: employees are entitled to double pay (daily wage + holiday pay) if they work on a regular holiday, plus the rule on absences.
7. Work crossing a regular holiday
For any work starting on a regular workday (e.g. April 30 at 11:00 pm; 1-hour) and crossing on a regular holiday (May 1 – Labor Day, from 12:01 am on a holiday; 7 hours), full holiday pay is due regardless of how many hours of work is rendered on that day.
To be clear, holiday pay is due by the mere occurrence of the regular holiday. Meaning, so long as there is a regular holiday, the 100% holiday pay is due. There are no conditions attached as to whether how many hours of work is necessary should the employee be required to work on that day.
Further, it is incorrect for some employers to think that no holiday pay is due in this situation because work started a day before the regular holiday. Remember, holiday pay is mandatory for covered employees. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.). As such, there has to be an express provision of law that would deny any employee from the entitlement of holiday pay (e.g. being exempted). For example, there is the rule on absences. However, there is no such rule for work crossing-over a holiday. That being the case, holiday pay is due.
8. Work suspension or temporary/periodic shutdown
“In cases of temporary or periodic shutdown and temporary cessation of work of an establishment, as when a yearly inventory or when the repair or cleaning of machineries and equipment is undertaken, the regular holidays falling within the period shall be compensated in accordance with the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended.” (DOLE Handbook)
What is referred to herein is the temporary work suspension (TWS), wherein an employer may temporarily suspend work on the establishment for a legitimate business reason and the work suspension should not exceed six (6) months.
9. Burden of proof: on employer
In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. (Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 207613, 31 January 2018)
This stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents – which will show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer. (Ibid.)
MINSOLA v. NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC., G.R. No. 207613, 31 January 2018
⦁ [The complainant-employee] is entitled to a holiday pay of Php 5,340.00 for two unworked legal holidays in December 2008, 11 unworked legal holidays in 2009 and one legal holiday in January 2010, as New City failed to present the payrolls that would show that Minsola’s salary was inclusive of holiday pay.
As shown in the above case, it is fatal on the part of the employer if it fails to show proof of payment of the holiday pay as the burden of proof rests on the employer. The employee simply needs to allege that he/she is no paid. Once the same is made, it becomes the responsibility of the employer to prove the contrary. Otherwise, the employer may be required to holiday pay to the employee (even if, in fact, holiday pay was already paid due to this technicality).
10. Pandemic
In this time of the pandemic, should the employer implement a temporary work suspension or be required to close due to a lockdown measure, holiday pay is still due to the employees even if no work is done. This is what it means when the law says it is mandatory or legally mandated. As discussed above, only another provision of law (e.g. rules on absences) can invalidate the existing rule on holiday pay. (See: Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.)
11. Employment contract, company policies, CBA
The above discussion may be superseded by any stipulation favorable to the employee via an employment contract, company policies, collective bargaining agreement, or analogous thereto.
12. When in doubt, interpretation favors labor
Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. For the working man’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. (Asian Transmission Corporation v. CA, supra.)
References
⦁ Book III, Presidential Decree No. 442, a.k.a. Labor Code of the Philippines
⦁ Book IIII, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
▪ 2022 DOLE-BWC Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits
▪ DOLE Department Order No. 206, Series of 2019
▪ DOLE Labor Advisory No. 14, Series of 2019
Related
— /Updated: February 12, 2023
