Dear PAO,

My cousin is a regular full-time private school teacher in our province. Teaching is his only source of income. However, he mentioned that his school will soon have a semestral break, and he is concerned about whether he will receive any compensation during this period to cover his expenses. May I know if he is entitled to his salary during the semester break? Is the “No work, no pay” policy applicable in his case?

Jonalyn

Dear Jonalyn,

Understanding and managing hours worked is fundamental to ensuring fair labor practices, maintaining legal compliance, and fostering a positive work environment. In our country, the Labor Code of the Philippines governs the working hours of employees, specifically under Chapter I, Title I of Book III thereof. In addition, Section 4, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further elaborates on the principles for determining hours worked, viz.:

“Section 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:

“(a) All hours are hours worked which the employee is required to give his employer, regardless of whether or not such hours are spent in productive labor or involve physical or mental exertion.

“(b) An employee need not leave the premises of the workplace in order that his rest period shall not be counted, it being enough that he stops working, may rest completely and may leave his workplace, to go elsewhere, whether within or outside the premises of his workplace.

“(c) If the work performed was necessary, or it benefited the employer, or the employee could not abandon his work at the end of his normal working hours because he had no replacement, all time spent for such work shall be considered as hours worked, if the work was with the knowledge of his employer or immediate supervisor.

“(d) The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered working 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 ours)

The situation of your cousin was addressed in the case of University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan and National Labor Relations Commission and University of Pangasinan, GR L-63122, Feb. 20, 1984, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Hugo Gutierrez Jr., explained that a scheduled semestral break is an interruption of work beyond the teacher’s control and is therefore considered “hours worked.” It is specifically stated in the case that:

“The semestral break scheduled is an interruption beyond petitioner’s control, and it cannot be used ‘effectively nor gainfully in the employee’s interest.’ Thus, the semestral break may also be considered as ‘hours worked.’ For this, the teachers are paid regular salaries and, for this, they should be entitled to ECOLA. Not only do the teachers continue to work during this short recess, but much less do they cease to live for which the cost of living allowance is intended.”

Furthermore, Article 84, Chapter I, Title I of Book III of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, states that:

“Article 84. Hours Worked. — Hours worked shall include (a) all time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at a prescribed workplace; and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.”

Regarding the “No work, no pay” policy, it does not apply to your cousin’s case. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the abovementioned case explained that teachers do not voluntarily absent themselves during semestral break; rather, they are required to take mandatory leave from work. The Court elaborated:

“The petitioner’s members received their regular salaries during this period. It is clear from the law that it contemplates a “no work” situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves. Petitioners, in the case at bar, certainly do not, ad voluntatem absent themselves during semestral breaks. Rather, they are constrained to take mandatory leave from work. For this, they cannot be faulted nor can they be begrudged that which is due them under the law.”

With the foregoing discussions, it is clear that regular full-time teachers, such as your cousin, are entitled to their salaries during semestral breaks, and the principle of “No work, no pay” does not apply to them.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]