LABOR I Case Digest Prepared by: Reynoso, Marielle
101 - University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan
TOPIC: Inactive Due to Work Interruptions
Court First Division, SC
Citation G.R. No. L-63122
Date Feb 20, 1984
Petitioners University of Pangasinan Faculty Union
Respondent University of Pangasinan and the NLRC
Ponente J. Gutierrez Jr
Relevant Codal
Provision
Case Doctrine Related to Topic
Semestral breaks are in the nature of work interruptions beyond the employees’ control. The duration of the
semestral break varies from year to year depending on a variety of circumstances affecting at times only the
private respondent but at other times all educational institutions in the country. As such, these breaks cannot be
considered as absences within the meaning of the law for which deductions may be made from monthly
allowances. The "No work, no pay" principle does not apply. It is clear from the aforequoted provision of law that it
contemplates a "no work" situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves.
Case Summary
The University of Pangasinan Faculty Union filed a case against the University of Pangasinan because the
teachers were not paid during the semestral break. The University of Pangasinan claimed that the principle
of “No work, no pay” applies. However, the Supreme Court stated that the principle does not apply in the
situation because breaks should not be considered as absences. The principle applies when the
employees voluntarily choose not to go to work.
FACTS:
● Petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul and to set aside the decision of
the NLRC for denying the appeal of the union.
● University of Pangasinan Faculty Union is a labor union composed of faculty members of the respondent University
of Pangasinan, an educational institution duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Philippines.
● They filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, asking for the payment of Emergency Cost of Living
Allowances (ECOLA) for November 7 to December 5, 1981, a semestral break; salary increases from the sixty
(60%) percent of the incremental proceeds of increased tuition fees; and payment of salaries for suspended extra
loads.
● The teachers in the college level teach for a normal duration of ten months a school year, divided into two
semesters of five months each, excluding the two months summer vacation. These teachers are paid their salaries
on a regular monthly basis.
○ During the semestral break, they were not paid their ECOLA. Respondent claims that the teachers are
not entitled because the semestral break is not an integral part of the school year and there being no
actual services rendered by the teachers during said period, the principle of "No work, no pay"
applies.
○ Due to a 15% increase in tuition fees, they also demanded a salary increase effective the first
semester of said school year to be taken from the sixty percent incremental proceeds of the increased
tuition fees.
● Aside from their regular loads, some of the petitioner's members were given extra loads to handle during the same
1981-1982 school year. Some of them had extra loads to teach on September 21, 1981, but they were unable to
teach as classes in all levels throughout the country were suspended, although said days were proclaimed by the
President of the Philippines as a working holiday. Those with extra loads to teach on said day claimed they were
not paid their salaries for those loads, but the private respondent claims otherwise.
ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:
ISSUE # 1 HELD
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER’S MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO YES
ECOLA DURING THE SEMESTRAL BREAK FROM NOVEMBER 7 TO
DECEMBER 5, 1981 OF THE 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR
RATIO
● It is beyond dispute that the petitioner’s members are full-time employees receiving their monthly salaries
irrespective of the number of working days or teaching hours in a month.
● However, they are forced to go on leave during semestral breaks. These semestral breaks are in the nature of
work interruptions beyond the employees’ control.
Page 1 of 2
LABOR I Case Digest Prepared by: Reynoso, Marielle
101 - University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan
TOPIC: Inactive Due to Work Interruptions
○ The duration of the semestral break varies from year to year depending on a variety of circumstances
affecting at times only the private respondent but at other times all educational institutions in the
country.
○ As such, these breaks cannot be considered as absences within the meaning of the law for which
deductions may be made from monthly allowances. The "No work, no pay" principle does not apply in
the instant case.
○ The petitioner’s members received their regular salaries during this period. It is clear from the
aforequoted provision of law that it contemplates a "no work" situation where the employees
voluntarily absent themselves.
● The legal principles of "No work, no pay; No pay, no ECOLA" must necessarily give way to the purpose of the law
to augment the income of employees to enable them to cope with the harsh living conditions brought about by
inflation; and to protect employees and their wages against the ravages brought by these conditions.
ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:
ISSUE #2 HELD
WHETHER OR NOT 60% OF THE INCREMENTAL PROCEEDS OF YES
INCREASED TUITION FEES SHALL BE DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO
SALARY INCREASE,
RATIO
● The sixty (60%) percent incremental proceeds from the tuition increase are to be devoted entirely to wage or salary
increases which means increases in basic salary. The law cannot be construed to include allowances which are
benefits over and above the basic salaries of the employees. To charge such benefits to the 60% incremental
proceeds would be to reduce the increase in basic salary provided by law, an increase intended also to help the
teachers and other workers tide themselves and their families over these difficult economic times.
● Apply Section 3 of Presidential Decree 451: The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well as
the new fees or charges authorized under the next preceding section shall be subject to the following conditions:
○ "(a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%)
per centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the
faculty and all other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional
development, student assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided, That in
no case shall the return to investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds;
. . ."
● if the school happen to have no other resources to grant allowances and benefits, either mandated by law or
secured by collective bargaining, such allowances and benefits should be charged against the return to
investments referred to in the second purpose stated in Section 3(a) of P.D. 451
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
Page 2 of 2
