GR 162324; (February, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162324 , February 4, 2009
RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION and SFI FEEDS DIVISION, Petitioner, vs. KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and SANDIGAN AT UGNAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU), Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner RFM Corporation entered into separate five-year Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005 with respondent labor unions representing its Flour Division and SFI Feeds Division. Section 3, Article XVI of each CBA stipulated that the company agrees to pay all daily paid employees for certain days, including December 31, if declared as special holidays by the national government, at the regular rate. In 2000, December 31 fell on a Sunday and was declared a special holiday. Respondents claimed payment for this day under the CBA. Petitioner refused, arguing that December 31, 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest day. The dispute was submitted to voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the unions, ordering payment of salaries for December 31, 2000 and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioner filed the present petition, insisting the CBA provision was intended only to protect employees from reduction in take-home pay on workdays, not to remunerate them on rest days or increase salaries, and that attorney’s fees were unwarranted.
ISSUE
Whether the CBA provision obligates petitioner to pay daily-paid employees for the special holiday (December 31) even when it falls on a rest day (Sunday).
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. The terms of the CBA are clear and must be given their literal meaning. The provision requires payment to daily-paid employees for the enumerated days if declared special holidays by the national government, with no qualification that they must fall on weekdays. The CBA is the law between the parties, and they are obliged to comply. If the intent was to limit payment to holidays falling on workdays, it should have been expressly stipulated. Doubts in the interpretation of provisions affecting labor are resolved in favor of labor. The award of attorney’s fees is sustained as respondents were compelled to litigate due to petitioner’s refusal to satisfy their valid claim.