Title
San Miguel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 146775
Decision Date
Jan 30, 2002
DOLE found SMC underpaid employees for Muslim holidays; SC ruled both Muslim and non-Muslim employees entitled to holiday pay, upholding DOLE's jurisdiction and due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146775)

Factual Background

On October 17, 1992, DOLE conducted a standard inspection of SMC and determined there was underpayment of Muslim holiday pay to its employees. The inspection results were communicated to SMC, which contested the findings. Subsequent summary hearings took place on November 19, 1992, May 28, 1993, and October 4-5, 1993; nonetheless, SMC did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating compliance with holiday pay regulations. Consequently, on December 17, 1993, Director Macaraya issued a compliance order directing SMC to recognize Muslim holidays as regular holidays and ensure holiday pay was disbursed within thirty days.

Procedural History

SMC appealed the compliance order to the DOLE main office in Manila; however, initially, the appeal was dismissed due to late filing. Although this dismissal was reconsidered in July 1998 after determining that the appeal was timely, it was subsequently dismissed again due to a lack of merit, affirming Macaraya's compliance order. Following this, SMC sought relief from the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, which was subsequently referred to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, in its decision promulgated on May 8, 2000, modified the previous order regarding Muslim holiday pay, reducing the payment due from 200% to 150% of an employee's basic salary, and mandated remanding the case to the Regional Director for accurate computation. Following the denial of SMC's motion for reconsideration, the petition for certiorari was filed at the Supreme Court, wherein SMC claimed that the public respondents had erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Framework

Applicable laws in this case include Presidential Decree No. 1083, also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, which recognizes official Muslim holidays and stipulates their observance in specified regions. Additionally, Article 94 of the Labor Code provides workers the right to holiday pay during legal holidays. These legal provisions establish a framework for determining entitlement to holiday pay, irrespective of the employee's religion.

Issue of Jurisdiction and Due Process

SMC contended that the compliance order issued by Regional Director Macaraya exhibited grave abuse of discretion due to a claimed lack of due process. The Court found that SMC was sufficiently informed of the compliance order and participated in hearings, thereby diminishing the claim of the denial of due process. Furthermore, the Court confirmed that Macaraya acted within his jurisdiction as a duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code.

Non-Discrimination on Basis of Religion

The Court categorized SMC's claims regarding the exclusivity of holiday pay for Muslims under Article 3(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 as misinterpretations, emphasizing that benefits should not be limited by religious affiliation. The conclusion reached by Undersecretary Espaol—that allowances for holiday pay should

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.