4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly year of the unexpired term” which follows the [wording] “salaries x x x for three months.” To follow petitioners’ thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It is not disputed that private respondent’s employment contract in the instant case was for six (6) months. Hence, we see no reason to disregard the ruling in Marsaman that private respondent should be paid his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.[26] (Emphases supplied) At this juncture, the courts, especially the CA, should be reminded to read and apply this Court’s labor pronouncements with utmost care and caution, taking to mind that in the very heart of the judicial system, labor cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection of labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival of the employees and their families, who depend upon the former for all the basic necessities in life. Thus, petitioner must be awarded his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his six-months employment contract, or equivalent to four months. This includes all his corresponding monthly vacation leave pay and tonnage bonuses which are expressly provided and guaranteed in his employment contract as part of his monthly salary and benefit package. These benefits were guaranteed to be paid on a monthly basis, and were not made contingent. In fact, their monetary equivalent was fixed under the contract: US$2,500.00 for vacation leave pay and US$700.00 for tonnage bonus each month. Thus, petitioner is entitled to back salaries of US$32,800 (or US$5,000 + US$2,500 + US$700 = US$8,200 x 4 months). “Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee’s full backwages shall be inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.”[27] As we have time and again held, “[i]t is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.”[28] This well-defined principle has likewise been lost on the CA in the consideration of the case. The CA likewise erred in deleting the award of attorney’s fees on the ground that bad faith may not readily be attributed to the respondents given the circumstances. The Court’s discussion on the award of attorney’s fees in Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc.,[29] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55699 8/12