You are on page 1of 1

21 BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA NG PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC., plaintiff- benefits.

benefits. This factual information by itself constrains the petitioner to question the intention of
appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. that particular phrase in their CBA pertaining to overtime pay but could only claim that it
violated the Nawasa doctrine and insist that it be reformed to conform to said doctrine.
DOCTRINE:
The phrase "regular base pay" is clear, unequivocal and requires no interpretation. It means The Supreme Court held that the Nawasa ruling did not limit that the computation of overtime
regular basic pay and necessarily excludes money received in different concepts such as pay to be based solely on the employees' regular wage or salary, which according to law
Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits. In this connection it is necessary to remember that includes bonuses and other benefits. What is important is that the product resulting from the
in the enforcement of previous collective bargaining agreements containing the same computation must always be equal or higher than the statutory requirement of 25% more than
provision of overtime pay at the rate of "regular base pay plus 50% thereof", the overtime the regular wage. In the case at bar, the formula adopted by the CBA is 50% more than the
compensation was invariably based only on the regular basic pay, exclusive of Christmas regular basi pay, which when computer is much higher than what can be arrived at using the
bonus and other fringe benefits. statutory formula. Thus, the Court declared that the provisions of the CBA as to the
computation of overtime pay has amply complied with what is required by law, and therefore
Facts: is valid and not in contravention to the Nawasa doctrine.
1. April 15, 1966 Appellant labor union (Bisig ng Manggagawa) filed an action for
declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance praying that the 1968 Collective
Bargaining Agreement it had entered into with the company that: NOTES:
a. The union wanted to include the Christmas bonus and other fringe
benefits in the computation of overtime pay. Commonwealth Act No. 444
"SEC. 3. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or impending
2. The company contended that they never intended to include such benefits in the emergencies . . .; but in all such cases, the laborers and employees shall be entitled to receive
computation because they already increased the overtime computation from compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as their regular wages or
25% to 50% in the condition that overtime pay will only include the regular base salary, plus at least twenty-five per centum additional.
pay
NAWASA CASE 25% of REGULAR AND BENEFITS = OVERTIME PAY
3. The ruling in NAWASA vs. NAWASA Consolidated Unions the company CURRENT CASE 50% of REGULAR = OVERTIME PAY
contended could not be applied because that was a government controlled RATIO
corporation. - All employers covered by said law are under legal compulsion to grant their
employees overtime compensation in amounts not less than their basic pay and
4. During the hearing, it was established that all the other collective bargaining the fringe benefits regularly and continuously received by them plus 25%
agreements entered into between the parties before 1965 contained a provision thereof.
similar to subject provision and that overtime pay then was computed on the basis o BUT it does not mean computation should always include fringe
solely of the employee's basic monthly pay, and that appellant had attempted to benefits.
negotiate for the inclusion of the Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits in the - In the foregoing case, the company still complied with the basic requirement.
computation but the appellee refused to accede to its demand. Because based on the mathematical computation of the overtime pay in which
the compensation was increased from 25% to 50% of the Regular Base Pay. IT
CFI RULING: "regular base pay" does not include Christmas bonus and other YIELDED A HIGHER COMPENSATION THAN OF THE
fringe benefits. STATUTORY FORMULA.
Issue:
(1) whether or not the phrase "regular base pay as used in subject CBA includes
Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits - NO

(2) whether or not the stipulation in the Collective Bargaining Agreement on


overtime pay violates the NAWASA doctrine if the answer to question No. 1 is
in the negative NO
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the term "regular base pay" is clear, unequivocal and requires
no interpretation. It held that the term means regular basic pay which necessarily EXCLUDES
money received in different concepts such as Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits. The
Court observed that in framing up their CBA escpecially on the provision regarding overtime
pay, it was only the regular base pay that was considered, and the same fact was undeniably
known to the petitioner - the very reason, according to the court, why it attempted to have a
different provision pertaining to overtime pay which would include Christmas bonus and other

You might also like