Atty. Luna-Amisola, RMT

13/06/2026

Governing Labor Code rule (holiday pay) and the “day immediately preceding” qualification
General rule: Every worker is paid the regular daily wage during regular holidays even if no work is performed. This is the statutory right to holiday pay under Labor Code, Art. 94(a).
Qualification (important): Holiday pay may be withheld if the employee was on leave of absence without pay on the workday immediately preceding the regular holiday (and the employee also did not work on the holiday). This “immediately preceding day” rule is stated in the Implementing Rules on holiday pay: Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule on Holidays—Sec. 6(a). The Supreme Court reiterates the same qualification in Nippon Paint Philippines, Inc. v. Nippon Paint Philippines Employees Association (2021).

How it works in practice (examples)

Example 1 — Absent without pay the day before; unworked holiday = no holiday pay

Facts: Tuesday is a workday. Employee is absent without pay on Tuesday. Wednesday is a regular holiday. Employee does not work on Wednesday.
Result: Employer may lawfully not pay holiday pay for Wednesday, because the employee was on leave/absence without pay on the day immediately preceding the holiday. Basis: Omnibus Rules—Sec. 6(a), Nippon Paint (2021), implementing Labor Code, Art. 94(a).

Example 2 — Absent without pay the day before; but worked on the holiday = paid (holiday premium rules apply)

Facts: Employee is absent without pay on Tuesday (workday immediately preceding). Wednesday is a regular holiday but employee is required to work.
Result: Employee must be paid the holiday rate for work on a regular holiday (at least 200% of the regular rate for the first 8 hours), because the disqualification in Sec. 6(a) applies to unworked holidays; once work is rendered on the holiday, Art. 94(b) applies. Basis: Labor Code, Art. 94(b); see also the discussion of 200% holiday pay in Nippon Paint (2021). (DOLE advisories also reflect this computation for specific holidays, e.g., Labor Advisory No. 06-24 (2024).)

Example 3 — Day before holiday is rest day/non-working day; look at the last workday before that

Facts: Monday is the regular holiday. Sunday is the employee’s rest day (or the establishment’s non-working day). Employee worked Friday, did not report Saturday (not scheduled), and did not work Monday.
Result: Employee is not disqualified just because Sunday is a rest day. The rule is: if the day immediately preceding the holiday is a rest day/non-working day, the employee is entitled to holiday pay if the employee worked or was on leave with pay on the day immediately preceding the rest day/non-working day. Basis: Omnibus Rules—Sec. 6(c). DOLE advisories use the same approach (e.g., Labor Advisory No. 06-24 (2024)).

Example 4 — Successive regular holidays (Holy Thursday & Good Friday): can lose both if absent before the first

Facts: Holy Thursday and Good Friday are successive regular holidays. Employee is absent without pay on Wednesday (day immediately preceding Holy Thursday). Employee does not work on either holiday.
Result: Employee may be not paid for both holidays, unless the employee works on the first holiday, in which case the employee becomes entitled to holiday pay on the second. Basis: Omnibus Rules—Sec. 10 (Successive regular holidays).

13/06/2026

Notaryo.publiko

11/06/2026

Legal standing (or locus standi) is a party’s right to appear in court by showing a personal and substantial interest in the case—i.e., the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury from the act being challenged, not a generalized grievance shared by everyone. This requirement is tied to separation of powers and avoids courts deciding abstract disputes. Hagedorn v. House of Representatives (2025); Bayan v. Abaya (2024); PSE v. Secretary of Finance (2022)

1) Core test: “direct injury”
Philippine cases commonly frame standing through a direct injury inquiry: the litigant must show (a) actual or threatened injury, (b) traceability of the injury to the challenged act, and (c) redressability by a favorable ruling. Hagedorn v. House of Representatives (2025)
Standing requires a direct, personal, and material interest; the interest must be “material” (affected by the judgment), not “mere curiosity” or incidental interest. Colmenares v. ERC (2024); PSE v. Secretary of Finance (2022)

2) Standing in private suits: “real party in interest”
In ordinary civil actions, standing is enforced through the rule that every action must be prosecuted/defended in the name of the real party in interest—the one who will be benefited or injured by the judgment, or entitled to the avails of the suit. 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3, Sec. 2
Relatedly, if a defendant wants to challenge the plaintiff’s legal capacity to sue, it is an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer and is subject to the court’s prompt resolution under the 2019 Rules. 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8, Sec. 12

3) Public suits and recognized exceptions
Standing questions are more difficult in public suits (e.g., citizen/taxpayer suits) because the plaintiff may be affected similarly to the general public. Even then, the Court generally requires an injury-in-fact and a sufficient showing of entitlement to judicial protection as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.” Colmenares v. ERC (2024); Guiao v. PAGCOR (2024)

4) Third-party/representational standing (limited)
As a rule, a party must assert their own legal rights. However, the Supreme Court has recognized situations where petitioners may be allowed to plead for the protection of others’ rights when there is sufficient connection and harm from the challenged act (as when regulated entities challenged rules allegedly violating their clients’ privacy). PSE v. Secretary of Finance (2022)

10/06/2026

07/06/2026

Psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not medical.

06/06/2026

Upcoming holiday on June 12, 2026.

Know your pay

31/05/2026

Adultery vs. Concubinage