Odango v. NLRC

Petitioners were monthly-paid employees of Antique Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANTECO) who worked Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. In 1989 a DOLE regional office found ANTECO liable for underpaying monthly salaries and directed it to pay wage differentials, which ANTECO did not pay. In 1995, thirty-three employees filed complaints for wage differentials, damages and attorney's fees. Relying on Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules, they argued that monthly-paid employees are paid for all 365 days a year. They argued that ANTECO's use of a 304-day divisor for converting leave credits showed it paid for only 304 days. The Labor Arbiter awarded P1,017,507.73 in differentials. The NLRC reversed, noting that the employees' daily rates were above the P124 minimum wage. After a procedural detour, the Supreme Court referred the petitioners' certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals under St. Martin Funeral Home. The CA dismissed it for failing to allege where and how the NLRC abused its discretion.

1. 1Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for insufficiency in form and substance.
2. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to wage differentials for unworked Saturdays, rest days and holidays.

The petition was denied. The Court's January 13, 1999 resolution only reinstated the petition, which had been dismissed for a service defect, and referred it to the CA; it did not rule that the petition was sufficient in substance. Section 3, Rule 46 requires a certiorari petition to state the grounds relied upon. Petitioners offered only four paragraphs of generalizations. Certiorari against the NLRC is confined to jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion, and the party must show that the tribunal acted capriciously or in total disregard of material evidence. The CA was right to dismiss the petition outright under Sec. 6, Rule 65. The Court nevertheless addressed the merits. The claim rested on Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III, which Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union v. Inciong had declared void because it enlarged the Labor Code's exclusions on holiday pay. That rule "cannot serve as basis of any right or claim." Even if it were valid, the basic rule is "no work, no pay", and the right to pay for unworked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays. Paying monthly-paid employees for Sundays and unworked half-Saturdays would make them a privileged class, in violation of equal protection. A divisor below 365 does not by itself mean underpayment. For this work week, the minimum allowable divisor is 287 (365 less 52 Sundays and 26 Saturdays), and ANTECO's 304 was above it. Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople was distinguished. The Court also faulted both counsel for relying on a rule declared void twenty years earlier. The CA resolution dismissing the petition was affirmed.