G.R. No.

L-52415 October 23, 1984

Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBBAEU), petitioner

vs.
Amado G. Inciong, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and Insular Bank of Asia and America
(IBAA), respondents

FACTS:
 On June 20, 1975, IBBAEU, filed against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday
before the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Commission. Conciliation
failed upon the request of both parties and was certified for arbitration on July 7, 1975.
 On August 25, 1975, Labor Arbiter Ricarte Soriano rendered a decision in the above-
entitled case, granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay, citing Article
208 of Labor Code.
 IBAA did not appeal from the decision and complied by paying holiday pay up to and
including January 1976.
 On December 16, 1975, P.D. No 850 was promulgated amending the provisions of the
Labor Code on the right to holiday pay.
 Accordingly, on February 16, 1976, by authority of Article 5 of the same Code, the
Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for
the implementation of holidays with pay.
 On April 23, 1976, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by then Secretary of Labor
interpreting Article 5: The 10 paid legal holidays law, to start with is intended to benefit
principally daily employees. In the case of monthly, only those whose monthly, only
those whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the 10 paid legal holidays
are entitled to the benefit. "Under the rules implementing PD 850, this policy has been
fully clarified to eliminate controversies on the entitlement of maximum monthly minimum
wage, and his monthly pray is uniform from Jan-Dec he is already presumed to be
already paid 10 legal holidays. However, if deductions are made from his monthly salary
on account of holidays in months where they occur, then he is entitled to 10 paid legal
holidays.
 Because of Policy Instruction No. 9, respondent bank filed an opposition to the motion
for a writ of execution, refusing to pay unworked holiday. They further stated that the
award of Labor Arbiter Soriano was repealed by PD 850. They argue that: 1.) their
employees are paid not less than the statutory minimum wage. 2.) their monthly pay is
uniform from January-December. and 3.) no deduction is made from their monthly salary
on account of holidays in the months where they occur.

ISSUES:
 Whether Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by Sec. of Labor, Amado G. Inciong violates the
Labor Code and should be considered null and void.

RULING:

 Yes. Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by Sec. of Labor is null and void. It is elementary in
the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear an
unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it means. The Policy Instruction
by the Sec. of Labor which categorically state that the benefit is principally intended only
for daily paid employees is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of
the Labor Code which in turn states that All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation and the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the code
including its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be resolved in the favor of the
labor.