NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW), petitioner, vs. ETHELWOLDO R.

OVEJERA,
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA (CAC), COL. ROGELIO DEINLA, as Provincial Commander, 3311st
P.C. Command, Negros Occidental, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner, the bargaining representative of Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC) employees entered
into collective bargaining agreement with CAC wherein the parties agreed to maintain the present
practice on the grant of Christmas bonus, milling bonus and amelioration bonus equivalent to 1 1/2
month's salary.

On November 30, 1981, petitioner and respondent CAC entered into a compromise agreement two days
after the petition struck to compel payment of the 13th month pay agreeing to abide by the final
decision of the Supreme Court in any case involving the 13th month pay if it clearly held that the
employer is liable to pay the same separate and distinct from the bonuses already given.

Meanwhile, G.R. No. 51254, Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Marcopper Mining
Corporation which sought to annul the decision of the Labor Deputy Minister granting the 13th month
pay to its employees in addition to mid-year and Christmas bonuses under a CBA was dismissed on June
11, 1981 on the vote of seven (7) Justices and the motion for its reconsideration was denied by a vote of
five Justices. Thereafter, petitioner struck after six days notice with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (MOLE). One day after the commencement of the strike, petitioner filed a strike vote
report with MOLE . The strike was declared illegal by respondent Ovejera for violation of the 15 day
cooling-off period and the 7 day strike ban required by B.P. 130. Without appealing to the NLRC, the
present petition was filed questioning the declaration of illegality of the strike and the denial of the 13th
month pay.

ISSUES:

1. WON the strike staged by NFSW was illegal?

2. WON the employees are entitled to receive 13th month pay?

RULING:

On review, The Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of the deputy of labor minister, ruled that a)
the failure of the NFSW to abide with the mandatory cooling-off period and the 7 day strike ban made
the strike illegal and b) the NFSW cannot insist on its claim that its members are entitled to a 13th
month pay in addition to the bonuses already paid by CAC.
Dole Philippines, Inc. vs Leogardo, Jr., G. R. No. 60018, October 23, 1982; 117 SCRA 938
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011
(Labor Standards – Employer paying a year-end bonus less than 1/12th of the basic pay required under
the law, can pay its difference)

Facts: STANFILCO, a company merged with petitioner Dole Philippines, inc entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the Associated Labor Union. The CBA provided among others, the grant of a
year-end productivity bonus to all workers within the collective bargaining unit. The company agrees to
grant each worker within the bargaining unit a year-end productivity bonus equivalent to ten days of his
basic daily wage if eighty percent or more of the average total production for the two preceding
calendar years together with the current year’s estimate is attained.

Thereafter, PD 851 took effect. Section 1 thereof required all employers to pay their employees
receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment,
a 13th month pay not later than December 24 of every year. Section 2, however exempted from its
coverage those employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent.

Sec. 3 of The Rules and regulations Implementing PD 851 provides that the term “its equivalent” shall
include Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, profit sharing payments and other cash bonuses amounting to
not less than 1/12th of the basic salary but shall not include cash and stock dividends, cost of living
allowances and other allowances regularly enjoyed by the employees as well as non-monetary benefits.
The rules further added that where an employer pays less than 1/12th of the employee’s basic salary,
the employer shall pay the difference.

Complying with the provision of PD 851 and relying on the interpretation of section 2 by the MOLE’s
implementing rules, STANFILCO paid its workers the difference between 1/12th of their yearly basic
salary and their year-end productivity bonus. Respondent ALU, joined by petitioner’s employees filed a
complaint for the non-implementation of the CBA provision on the year-end productivity bonus.

Issue: WON productivity bonus agreed in the CBA is demandable aside from the 13th month pay
provided for in the PD 851.

Held: No. Year-end productivity bonus granted by petitioner to private respondents pursuant to their
CBA is, in legal contemplation, an integral part of their 13th month pay, notwithstanding its conditional
nature. In complying with PD 851, petitioner credited the year-end productivity bonus as part of the
13th month pay and adopted the procedure of paying only the difference between said bonus and
1/12th of the worker’s yearly basic salary, it acted well within the letter and spirit of the law and its
implementing rules. For in the event that an employer pays less than 1/12th of the employees’ basic
salary, all that the said employer is required to do under the law is to pay the difference.