G.R. No. 126383 November 28, 1997
SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW/MA. CONSUELO MACQUILING, LEONARDO MARTINEZ, DOMINGO ELA, JR., RODOLFO CALUCIN, JR., PERLA MENDOZA, REX RAPHAEL REYES, ROGELIO BELMONTE, and 375 other EMPLOYEE-UNION MEMBERS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the rank-and-file employee-union officers and members of San Juan De Dios Hospital Employees Association, sent a letter on July 8, 1991, requesting the implementation and payment of the “40-HOURS/5-DAY WORKWEEK” with compensable weekly two days off as provided by Republic Act 5901 and clarified by the Secretary of Labor’s Policy Instructions No. 54 dated April 12, 1988. The respondent hospital failed to give a favorable response, leading petitioners to file a complaint for statutory benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed this petition under Rule 65, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC for concluding that Policy Instructions No. 54 proceeds from a wrong interpretation of RA 5901 and Article 83 of the Labor Code.

ISSUE

Whether Policy Instructions No. 54 issued by then Labor Secretary Franklin M. Drilon is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Policy Instructions No. 54 void. The Court held that reliance on Republic Act No. 5901 was misplaced as it had been repealed by the passage of the Labor Code on May 1, 1974, under its Article 302. The validity of Policy Instructions No. 54 must be gauged against Article 83 of the Labor Code, which substantially incorporated the basic provisions of RA 5901. Article 83 provides for regular office hours of eight hours a day, five days a week for health personnel, and entitles them to additional compensation of at least thirty percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day if exigencies of service require a six-day or forty-eight-hour workweek. The Court found nothing in Article 83 that supports the Secretary of Labor’s assertion that personnel are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven days if they complete a 40-hour/5-day workweek. The Secretary of Labor exceeded his authority by including two days off with pay, contravening the clear mandate of the statute. Even assuming RA 5901 was not repealed, the Court found Policy Instructions No. 54 invalid as RA 5901 itself contains no provision granting two days off with pay; its sole purpose, as stated in its Explanatory Note, is to shorten working hours, not to provide paid days off. The Court emphasized that administrative interpretation is merely advisory and will be struck down if it deviates from the statute. Policy Instructions No. 54, being inconsistent with and repugnant to Article 83 of the Labor Code and RA 5901, was declared void. The decision of the NLRC was affirmed.