top of page

No Work No Pay

The "No Work, No Pay" principle in Philippine labor law states that employees are not entitled to pay for days or hours they do not work, unless specified by law or their employment contract. This principle is based on the idea that wages are earned for work performed. However, there are exceptions, such as payment for regular holidays (whether worked or not), sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, and other legislated benefits. Employers must adhere to the Labor Code and any applicable agreements to ensure fair treatment. The Supreme Court has upheld the "No Work, No Pay" policy, but deviations from it require clear provisions that benefit workers.

​

The principle is not explicitly stated in a single provision of the Labor Code, but it is derived from the general provisions on wages and compensation. The guiding provisions are:

  1. Article 83 – Normal Hours of Work:
    This provision establishes the standard for a normal workweek and lays the foundation for payment for work performed. It says that employees are entitled to a wage only for hours worked, and does not require employers to pay for time not worked unless otherwise stipulated by the contract or specific laws (e.g., for holidays or authorized leaves).

  2. Article 95 – Weekly Rest Periods:
    Workers are entitled to a weekly rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours. This article emphasizes that employees must render work in order to be compensated for it, further reinforcing the "No Work, No Pay" principle. Workers are not entitled to pay for rest days unless they work on those days (such as on holidays or overtime).

  3. Article 94 – Holiday Pay:
    This provision guarantees that workers who do not work on regular holidays are still entitled to their daily wage (paid even without work). If they work on a holiday, they are entitled to double pay. This shows an exception to the "No Work, No Pay" rule, ensuring employees receive pay on holidays, even if they don't report for duty, unless there’s an agreement or rule stating otherwise.

 

Exceptions to the "No Work, No Pay" Rule

While the "No Work, No Pay" principle is the general rule, there are exceptions in Philippine labor law, where employees may still receive pay even if they do not physically work:

  1. Paid Leave Benefits
    Employees are entitled to paid leave in certain circumstances, such as:

    • Sick leave (if stipulated in the contract or collective bargaining agreement).

    • Vacation leave (if the employer has a paid leave policy).

    • Maternity leave (Republic Act No. 11210).

    • Paternity leave (Republic Act No. 8187).

    • Special Leave for Women (Republic Act No. 9710).

    • Force Majeure or other legitimate causes, such as natural calamities or government-mandated work stoppages.

  2. Holiday Pay
    Employees are entitled to holiday pay even if they don’t work on regular holidays, as per Article 94 of the Labor Code. If they work on holidays, they are entitled to double pay.

    • Provision: Employees who do not work on a regular holiday are entitled to receive their regular daily wage.

    • If the employee works on a regular holiday, they are entitled to double pay. If the holiday falls on a rest day and the employee works, they are entitled to double their regular rate.

 

Relevant Cases on the "No Work, No Pay" Principle

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 118862, March 17, 1997)
Facts: In this case, Philippine Airlines (PAL) implemented a "no work, no pay" policy for employees on days when the airline operations were suspended due to typhoons. The employees argued that they should still be paid despite not working, as the suspension was beyond their control. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that PAL's "no work, no pay" policy was valid because the suspension of work was caused by an external factor (a natural disaster), and no work was rendered. The Court upheld the general principle that employees are not entitled to pay when they do not work unless there are specific circumstances, such as holidays or leaves, that entitle them to compensation.

 

Manila Electric Company (Meralco) v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (G.R. No. 105081, August 18, 1995)
Facts: The case involved a dispute between Meralco and its employees regarding payment for non-working days. Meralco employees contended that they should be compensated even for days they did not work, based on their contracts. Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Merolco's payment of wages was consistent with the "No Work, No Pay" principle, and employees are only entitled to pay for actual services rendered unless otherwise provided by law or the employment contract. The case underscored the fact that an employer is only required to pay for work performed, unless there is an agreement or law stating otherwise (e.g., for holiday pay or sickness benefits).

 

Agro-Industrial Foundation of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 88360, September 30, 1992)
Facts: The case involved a claim for wages by employees who were laid off temporarily due to the suspension of operations. The workers argued that they should be paid even though they did not work. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court upheld the "No Work, No Pay" principle, emphasizing that if no work was performed, no compensation was due. The Court also ruled that workers could only claim wages if they were in paid leave status or if there was a specific holiday or work condition entitling them to compensation.

​

bottom of page