21 BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA NG PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC., plaintiff- benefits.

benefits. This factual information by itself constrains the petitioner to question the intention of
appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC.
DOCTRINE:
The phrase "regular base pay" is clear, unequivocal and requires no interpretation. It means
regular basic pay and necessarily excludes money received in different concepts such as
Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits. In this connection it is necessary to remember that
in the enforcement of previous collective bargaining agreements containing the same
provision of overtime pay at the rate of "regular base pay plus 50% thereof", the overtime
compensation was invariably based only on the regular basic pay, exclusive of Christmas
bonus and other fringe benefits.
Facts:
1. April 15, 1966 Appellant labor union (Bisig ng Manggagawa) filed an action for
declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance praying that the 1968 Collective
Bargaining Agreement it had entered into with the company that:
a. The union wanted to include the Christmas bonus and other fringe
benefits in the computation of overtime pay.
that particular phrase in their CBA pertaining to overtime pay but could only claim that it
violated the Nawasa doctrine and insist that it be reformed to conform to said doctrine.
The Supreme Court held that the Nawasa ruling did not limit that the computation of overtime
pay to be based solely on the employees' regular wage or salary, which according to law
includes bonuses and other benefits. What is important is that the product resulting from the
computation must always be equal or higher than the statutory requirement of 25% more than
the regular wage. In the case at bar, the formula adopted by the CBA is 50% more than the
regular basi pay, which when computer is much higher than what can be arrived at using the
statutory formula. Thus, the Court declared that the provisions of the CBA as to the
computation of overtime pay has amply complied with what is required by law, and therefore
is valid and not in contravention to the Nawasa doctrine.

2. The company contended that they never intended to include such benefits in the
computation because they already increased the overtime computation from
25% to 50% in the condition that overtime pay will only include the regular base
pay

3. The ruling in NAWASA vs. NAWASA Consolidated Unions the company

contended could not be applied because that was a government controlled
corporation.

4. During the hearing, it was established that all the other collective bargaining
agreements entered into between the parties before 1965 contained a provision
similar to subject provision and that overtime pay then was computed on the basis
solely of the employee's basic monthly pay, and that appellant had attempted to
negotiate for the inclusion of the Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits in the
computation but the appellee refused to accede to its demand.

CFI RULING: "regular base pay" does not include Christmas bonus and other
fringe benefits.
Issue:
(1) whether or not the phrase "regular base pay as used in subject CBA includes
Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits - NO

(2) whether or not the stipulation in the Collective Bargaining Agreement on

overtime pay violates the NAWASA doctrine if the answer to question No. 1 is
in the negative NO
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that the term "regular base pay" is clear, unequivocal and requires
no interpretation. It held that the term means regular basic pay which necessarily EXCLUDES
money received in different concepts such as Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits. The
Court observed that in framing up their CBA escpecially on the provision regarding overtime
pay, it was only the regular base pay that was considered, and the same fact was undeniably
known to the petitioner - the very reason, according to the court, why it attempted to have a
different provision pertaining to overtime pay which would include Christmas bonus and other