Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 172 views

    G.R. No. 126383. November 28, 1997: San Juan vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Tiners
    1) The document discusses a case regarding whether hospital employees are entitled to a full weekly salary with two paid days off if they work a 40-hour, 5-day workweek per a Department of Labor policy. 2) The court ruled the policy invalid, as it contradicts both Article 83 of the Labor Code and the original statute, RA 5901, which only require an 8-hour workday and additional pay for weekends, not two paid days off. 3) The court found the Labor Secretary exceeded their authority in issuing the policy, as the clear language of the laws do not support two paid days off being granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 126383. November 28, 1997: San Juan vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Tiners
    172 views2 pages
    1) The document discusses a case regarding whether hospital employees are entitled to a full weekly salary with two paid days off if they work a 40-hour, 5-day workweek per a Department of Labor policy. 2) The court ruled the policy invalid, as it contradicts both Article 83 of the Labor Code and the original statute, RA 5901, which only require an 8-hour workday and additional pay for weekends, not two paid days off. 3) The court found the Labor Secretary exceeded their authority in issuing the policy, as the clear language of the laws do not support two paid days off being granted.

    Original Description:

    LABOR STANDARDS

    Original Title

    SAN JUAN vs. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document discusses a case regarding whether hospital employees are entitled to a full weekly salary with two paid days off if they work a 40-hour, 5-day workweek per a Department of Labor policy. 2) The court ruled the policy invalid, as it contradicts both Article 83 of the Labor Code and the original statute, RA 5901, which only require an 8-hour workday and additional pay for weekends, not two paid days off. 3) The court found the Labor Secretary exceeded their authority in issuing the policy, as the clear language of the laws do not support two paid days off being granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    172 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 126383. November 28, 1997: San Juan vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Tiners
    1) The document discusses a case regarding whether hospital employees are entitled to a full weekly salary with two paid days off if they work a 40-hour, 5-day workweek per a Department of Labor policy. 2) The court ruled the policy invalid, as it contradicts both Article 83 of the Labor Code and the original statute, RA 5901, which only require an 8-hour workday and additional pay for weekends, not two paid days off. 3) The court found the Labor Secretary exceeded their authority in issuing the policy, as the clear language of the laws do not support two paid days off being granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    San Juan vs. NLRC “Article 83. Normal Hours of Work.

    -- The normal
    G.R. No. 126383. November 28, 1997 hours of work of any employee shall not exceed
    eight (8) hours a day.
    Facts: Petitioners, the rank-and-file employee-union “Health personnel in cities and municipalities
    officers and members of San Juan De Dios Hospital with a population of at least one million
    Employees Association, sent a letter with attached (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed
    support signatures requesting and pleading for the capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold
    expeditious implementation and payment by regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for
    respondent San Juan De Dios Hospital of the 40- five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals,
    HOURS/5-DAY WORKWEEK with compensable weekly except where the exigencies of the service
    two (2) days off provided for by R.A. No. 5901 ( An Act require that such personnel work for six (6) days
    Prescribing Forty Hours A Week Of Labor For or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall
    Government and Private Hospitals Or Clinic Personnel) be entitled to an additional compensation of at
    as clarified for enforcement by the Secretary of Labor’s least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage
    Policy Instructions No. 54. for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this
    Article, “health personnel” shall include: resident
    With the failure of the hospital to give favorable physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians,
    response, the employees filed a complaint regarding pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
    their claims for statutory benefits under the above-cited technicians, paramedical technicians,
    law and policy issuance psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other
    hospital or clinic personnel.”
    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The
    employees appealed before public respondent NLRC, A cursory reading of Article 83 of the Labor Code
    which also affirmed the LA’s decision. Subsequently, the betrays petitioners’ position that “hospital employees”
    employees filed a motion for reconsideration but was are entitled to “a full weekly salary with paid two (2)
    denied hence, they filed a petition under Rule 65 of the days’ off if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day
    Rules of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the workweek”. What Article 83 merely provides are:
    part of NLRC in concluding that Policy Instructions No. 1) The regular office hour of eight hours a day,
    54 proceeds from a wrong interpretation of RA 5901 five days per week for health personnel, and
    and Article 83 of the Labor Code. 2) Where the exigencies of service require that
    health personnel work for six days or forty-
    Issue: Whether Policy Instructions No. 54 issued by then eight hours then such health personnel shall be
    Labor Secretary Drilon is valid or not. NO. entitled to an additional compensation of at
    least thirty percent of their regular wage for
    Ruling: The Court noted that Policy Instruction No. 54 work on the sixth day.
    relies on and purports to implement Republic Act No. There is nothing in the law that supports then
    5901. However, the employees reliance on Republic Secretary of Labor’s assertion that “personnel in
    Act No. 5901 is misplaced for the said statute, as subject hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full
    correctly ruled by respondent NLRC, has long been weekly wage for 7 days if they have completed the 40-
    repealed with the passage of the Labor Code. hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek”.
    Accordingly, only Article 83 of the Labor Code which Needless to say, the Secretary of Labor exceeded his
    appears to have substantially incorporated or authority by including a two days off with pay in
    reproduced the basic provisions of Republic Act No. contravention of the clear mandate of the statute. Such
    5901 may support Policy Instructions No. 54 on which act the Court shall not countenance.
    the latter’s validity may be gauged. Article 83 of the
    Labor Code states: Indeed, even if we were to subscribe with petitioners’
    erroneous assertion that Republic Act No. 5901 has
    neither been amended nor repealed by the Labor
    Code, we nevertheless find Policy Instructions No. 54
    invalid. A perusal of R.A No. 5901 reveals nothing
    therein that gives two days off with pay for health
    personnel who complete a 40-hour work or 5-day
    workweek. In fact, the Explanatory Note of House Bill
    No. 16630 (later passed into law as Republic Act No.
    5901) explicitly states that the bill’s sole purpose is to
    shorten the working hours of health personnel and not
    to dole out a two days off with pay. Further, employee’s
    position is also negated by the very rules and
    regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Labor
    Standards specifically Section 1, 7, and 15 which
    implement Republic Act No. 5901

    If the employees are entitled to two days off with pay,


    then there appears to be no sense at all why Section 15
    of the implementing rules grants additional
    compensation equivalent to the regular rate plus at
    least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on
    Sunday to health personnel, or an “additional straight-
    time pay which must be equivalent at least to the
    regular rate” “for work performed in excess of forty
    hours a week xxx. Policy Instructions No. 54 to our mind
    unduly extended the statute. The Secretary of Labor
    moreover erred in invoking the “spirit and intent” of
    Republic Act No. 5901 and Article 83 of the Labor Code
    for it is an elementary rule 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. No additions or revisions may be
    permitted. Therefore, Policy Instructions No. 54 being
    inconsistent with and repugnant to the provision of
    Article 83 of the Labor Code, as well as to Republic Act
    No. 5901, should be, as it is hereby, declared void.

    You might also like