IBAA EMPLOYEES UNION VS. INCIONG

FACTS

On June 20, 1975, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor, NLRC in Manila. Conciliation having failed, the case was certified for arbitration and later on a decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter granting petitioner’s complaint. Respondent bank complied by paying the holiday pay to and including January 1976. On December 1975, PD 850was promulgated amending the provisions of the Labor Code with the controversial section stating that monthly paid employees receiving uniform monthly pay is presumed to be already paid the “10 paid legal holidays”. Policy instruction 9 was issued thereafter interpreting the said rule. Respondents bank stopped the payment by reason of the promulgated PD 850 and Policy Instruction 9.

ISSUE

Whether or not monthly paid employees are excluded from the benefit of holiday pay.

HELD

No. It is elementary in 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, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit- it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy Instruction 9, the then Secretary of Labor categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statue by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, the same must be declared as null and void.