University Of Pangasinan Faculty Union Vs University Of Pangasinan.docx

University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs University of Pangasinan No. L-63122 | February 20, 1984 | Guttierrez, J Deriq M. David Facts   



Petitioner is a labor union composed of full-time professors of respondent University. Petitioner was not paid Emergency Cost of Living Allowances(ECOLA) for November 7 to December 5, 1981(Sem Break). Additionally they were not awarded an increase in salary from the proceeds of increased tuition fees(15%), and lastly they were no paid salaries for extra loads on September 21, 1981, due to the declaration of said date as a working holiday by the President. RESP on the other hand states that the Petitioners were not due ECOLA on the basis of the principle “No work, No Pay.”

Issues WON Petitioners are entitled to ECOLA during the Sem break? –Yes WON they should be paid for the extra load classes on September 21?-NO Ratio ECOLA as stated by various PDs (1614, 1634, 1678, 1713) provide that “employees should be paid the allowance regardless of the number of their regular working days if they incur no absences during the month.” And secondly “all covered employees shall be entitled to the allowance provided herein when they are leave of absence with pay.” Respondents argument that since they did not work, they were not entitled to ECOLA is inapplicable here. The no work, no pay doctrine does not apply to the case at bar. The principle of “no work, no pay” only applies to situations wherein employees voluntarily absent themselves. In this case semestral breaks are in the nature of work interruptions beyond the employees’ control, and as such cannot be considered as a voluntary stoppage of work. The semestral break is an interruption beyond the employees control and should be considered as hours worked. Teachers are paid their regular salaries and should be entitled to ECOLA. Under the Omnibus rules :

Sec. 4. Principles in Determining Hours Worked. — The following general principles shall govern in determining whether the time spent by an employee is considered hours worked for purposes of this Rule: (d) The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered time either if the imminence of the resumption of work requires the employee’s presence at the place of work or if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest." (Emphasis supplied) They are not however entitled to payment for September 21, as in this case the “no work no pay principle” applies, as what is in question now is extra not regular loads, which are paid monthly regardless of days or hours worked. Extra loads should only be paid for only when actually performed by the employee. Compensation for extra loads is based on actual work done and on the number of hours and days spent over and beyond their regular hours of duty. Since there was no work on September 21, 1981, they are not entitled to pay based on the “no work no pay” principle.