GR L 26844; (September, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26844; September 30, 1969
FELIPE DE LEON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., respondent.
FACTS
The petitioners were security guards employed by the respondent Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), required to work eight hours daily, seven days a week. They filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) seeking payment of premium or differential pay for work on Sundays and legal holidays, totaling P49,581.79, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The CIR Judge dismissed the complaint, finding that the petitioners were paid their monthly salaries plus 25% additional compensation for Sunday and holiday work as required by law, and that such work was a term of their employment. The CIR en banc affirmed this dismissal. The petitioners appealed, contending that under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 444 (the Eight-Hour Labor Law), they were entitled to their regular monthly salary plus a premium or differential compensation of at least 25% of their regular remuneration for each Sunday or legal holiday worked.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive, in addition to their monthly salaries, a premium pay equivalent to 125% of their regular daily wage for work on Sundays and legal holidays, or only the additional 25% premium pay on top of their regular remuneration already included in their monthly salaries.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 444, as amended, an employee is entitled to (1) regular remuneration (100%) and (2) an additional sum of at least 25% of that regular remuneration (premium pay) for work on Sundays and legal holidays, totaling 125%. However, the key determination is whether the employee’s monthly salary already includes the regular remuneration (100%) for Sundays and holidays. If it does, the employee is only entitled to the additional 25% premium pay. The Court found that the petitioners’ own complaint indicated their monthly salaries were computed by dividing by 30 days, which includes Sundays and holidays, thereby admitting that their monthly salaries covered work on those days. Furthermore, the CIR’s factual finding that the petitioners were paid their monthly salaries plus the 25% additional compensation was conclusive, as it was supported by substantial evidence and not tainted by grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the petitioners had already received all compensation due under the law.