PERTINENT LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE AS TO 13th MONTH PAY BENEFIT
1. Part-time employees are entitled of 13th month pay
As provided in the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the
13th month pay law otherwise known as the Memorandum Order No. 28,
Section 5 thereof under paragraph (b) provides:
“Those with multiple employers- Government employees working
part time in a private educational institutions, as well as employees working
in two or more private firms, whether on full or part-time basis, are entitled
to the required 13th month pay from all their private employers regardless
of their total earnings from each or all their employers.”
Under this Administrative circular which seeks to implement the 13th
month pay law, it is crystal clear that part-time employees are indeed
entitled to receive this 13th month pay benefit as mandated by our Labor
Laws.
2. Inclusion of overload units in the 13th month pay of teaching faculty
As to the overload units of the teachers, it is noteworthy to visit the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees
Association vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Colegio De San
Juan De Letran Calamba,Inc. wherein the highest arbiter of the land had
ruled that overload pay is not part of the teacher’s basic salary. Ergo, it is
excluded in the computation of the 13th month pay benefit of the teachers.
However, despite the existence of this jurisprudence as to this
matter, one must also consider the provisions of Article 100 of the Labor
Code which refers to the nondiminution of benefits of the employees to
quote:
“Art.100.Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits.
Nothing in this Book shall be constructed to eliminate or in any way
diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the
time of promulgation of this Code.”
Under this provision, it is not allowed to eliminate any benefits of the
employees which they had already been used to or had ripened into a
company practice or tradition already. In the case of Sevilla Trading
Company Vs. A.V.A. Tomas E. Semana, Sevilla Trading Workers Union-
Super, the Supreme Court had the occasion to discuss this matter. In this
case, the employer had been including overtime pay, night premium, union
leave pay and several other items in their computation of the employees’
13th month pay benefits despite the fact that the law itself excludes those
items in the 13th month pay. Sometime later, the employer removed these
items in its computation of the 13th month pay and included only the basic
salary which is what the law provides and reasoned that the finance
department had just committed an error in including those items in their
13th month pay computation. This decision of the management had indeed
reduced the employees 13th month pay and thus Article 100 of the Labor
Code was invoked by the employees.
In the above quoted case, the practice of including those items in
their computation had been observed since 1975 to 1981. A company
practice favorable to the employees had indeed been established and the
payments made pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.
And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot
be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer, by
virtue of Sec. 10 of the Rules of and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851,
and Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines which prohibit the
diminution or elimination by the employer of the employees’ existing
benefit (Tiangco vs. Leogardo, Jr. 122 SCRA 267).
With respect as to the length of time the company practice should
have been exercised to constitute voluntary employer practice which
cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer, jurisprudence has not
laid down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years. In the
case of Davao Fruits Corporation vs. Associated Labor Unions, the
company practice lasted for six (6) years. In another case, Davao Integrated
Port Stevedoring Services vs. Abarquez, the employer, for three (3) years
and nine (9) months, approved the commutation to cash of the unenjoyed
portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of its intermittent workers. In all
these cases, this Court held that the grant of this benefits has ripened into
company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn.
Hence, once a benefit had already been granted to an employee for
such a long period of time that it had been the practice or tradition of the
employer to do so such, like inclusion of items which are not supposedly
included by law in computation of the 13th month pay like the overload pay,
said practice could not be unilaterally revoked by the employer. Elimination
or revocation of said benefits would indeed tantamount to a violation of
Article 100 of the Labor Code.
May this information will shed a light as to the legalities involved in
the distribution and computation of the 13th month pay of the employees.
May this one will be carefully considered in making decisions and
implementations as to the 13th month pay benefit of the employees to
promote fair play, social justice and equity which is the tantamount
purpose of the Labor Laws.
