Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 245 views

    JRC V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Marivic Veneracion
    The Jose Rizal College petitioned for re-examination of a decision requiring it to pay contractual professors non-working holiday pay. It argued three classes of employees received different holiday pay. The NLRC ruled faculty must receive holiday pay. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the college fulfilled due process but exempted it from giving faculty general holiday pay, instead requiring payment only for income lost on holidays and extensions to the school year.

    Copyright:

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

    JRC V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Marivic Veneracion
    245 views2 pages
    The Jose Rizal College petitioned for re-examination of a decision requiring it to pay contractual professors non-working holiday pay. It argued three classes of employees received different holiday pay. The NLRC ruled faculty must receive holiday pay. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the college fulfilled due process but exempted it from giving faculty general holiday pay, instead requiring payment only for income lost on holidays and extensions to the school year.

    Original Description:

    Jrc vs nlrc case digest

    Original Title

    JRC_V_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?

    The Jose Rizal College petitioned for re-examination of a decision requiring it to pay contractual professors non-working holiday pay. It argued three classes of employees received different holiday pay. The NLRC ruled faculty must receive holiday pay. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the college fulfilled due process but exempted it from giving faculty general holiday pay, instead requiring payment only for income lost on holidays and extensions to the school year.

    Copyright:

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

    JRC V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Marivic Veneracion
    The Jose Rizal College petitioned for re-examination of a decision requiring it to pay contractual professors non-working holiday pay. It argued three classes of employees received different holiday pay. The NLRC ruled faculty must receive holiday pay. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the college fulfilled due process but exempted it from giving faculty general holiday pay, instead requiring payment only for income lost on holidays and extensions to the school year.

    Copyright:

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

    JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE V.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. L-65482
    December 1, 1987
    FACTS. The Jose Rizal College, the petitioner filed for a re-examination regarding the decision
    of the National Labor Relations Commission in favor of the National Alliance of Teachers and
    Workers on the appeal to make the Jose Rizal College pay their contractual professors non-
    working holiday pay.
    The petitioner has three classes of employment, each with their corresponding pay. These are the
    following, lifted directly from G.R. No. L-65482:
    “a) personnel on monthly basis, who receive their monthly salary uniformly
    throughout the year, irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without
    deduction for holidays;
    (b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they receive
    unworked holiday pay; and
    (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour.”
    The National Alliance of Teachers and Workers, one of the respondents, and the JRC could not
    reach an agreement, and their case was recommended to the National Labor Relations
    Commission, the other respondent. The judgment rendered by the arbiter was to assume that the
    first two classes of workers were already being paid the required holiday pay, and that the
    collegiate faculty were not. As such, the NLRC ruled that the faculty be given non-working holiday
    pay as well.
    Later on, the petitioner argues that they were not given due process regarding the result of the
    appeal made by the NATW.
    ISSUE.
    1.) Whether the petitioner was obliged to give the collegiate faculty non-working holiday pay
    or not.
    2.) Whether the petitioner was deprived from the right to due process or not.
    HELD.
    1.) Yes. The petitioner argued that under book V of the Labor Code, they were being paid
    under contractual obligation – which was pay them according to the number of hours used
    to teach students. The Solicitor General disagreed, that under Article 94 of the Labor Code,
    every worker is entitled to holiday pay except for those that work in “retail and service
    establishments”. Doing otherwise would deprive the faculty from the right to not
    experience “diminuition of pay”.
    2.) No. They have sufficiently been heard and fulfilled the “cardinal primary requirements for
    due process”. To quote G.R. No. L-65482, they have fulfilled:

    “(1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to


    present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
    (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
    (3) the decision must have something to support itself;
    (4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial
    evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind might
    accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
    (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented
    at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
    disclosed to the parties affected;
    (6) the tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its
    or his own independent consideration of the law and facts
    of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
    subordinate;
    (7) the board or body should in all controversial questions,
    render its decisions in such manner that the parties to the
    proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
    reason for the decision rendered. “

    The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the NRLC was “set aside” and the Supreme
    Court rendered a new decision, which exempts the JRC from giving the faculty holiday
    pay. However, the petitioner is required to pay the collegiate faculty the income they would
    have earned had it not been for the holiday. Additionally, any extensions to the school
    curriculum shall likewise be paid accordingly.

    You might also like