Short answer. Only in the specific situations Article 92 of the Labor Code lists — emergencies, urgent equipment work, abnormal workloads, perishable goods, or continuous operations. Outside those categories, or anything the Secretary of Labor has recognized as similar to them, your employer has no statutory basis under this article to require rest-day work.
What the law says
The employer may require his employees to work on any day: In case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accident, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic or other disaster or calamity to prevent loss of life and property, or imminent danger to public safety; In cases of urgent work to be performed on the machinery, equipment, or installation, to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; In the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances, where the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures; To prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; Where the nature of the work requires continuous operations and the stoppage of work may result in irreparable injury or loss to the employer; and Under other circumstances analogous or similar to the foregoing as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Labor Code, Article 92 — Work On A Rest Day. Read the full provision →
The rest day is the default; work on it is the exception
Article 92 is written as a closed list of situations, not a general permission. It allows rest-day work only for named circumstances: actual or impending emergencies such as disasters or danger to public safety, urgent work on machinery or equipment to avoid serious loss, abnormal pressure of work that could not ordinarily be handled another way, preventing loss of perishable goods, and operations that are genuinely continuous in nature. If none of these describe your situation, the article does not authorize the employer to require you to report.
"Abnormal pressure of work" is not simply being busy
The category most often stretched to cover ordinary scheduling needs is abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances. But the article ties that ground to circumstances where the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures — meaning it is meant for situations genuinely outside the normal rhythm of the business, not for recurring busy periods that could be staffed through ordinary shift planning. A store's regular weekend rush, for instance, sits uneasily with a provision aimed at the abnormal and unavoidable.
The catch-all still needs a real basis
Article 92 also allows work under other circumstances analogous or similar to the foregoing as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. This is not a blank check for the employer to declare any day an exception — it is limited to what genuinely resembles the listed categories, and the determination is the Secretary's to make. An employer invoking this ground still has to point to something that functions like an emergency, urgent repair, perishable-goods risk, or continuous-operations need.
If you were made to work outside these grounds
Note down the reason your employer actually gave for requiring the rest-day work, and whether it resembles any of the listed grounds or looks more like ordinary staffing convenience. That contrast — the reason given versus what the article actually allows — is the core of any complaint. Article 92 does not by itself set the pay rate for rest-day work; it only governs when the employer may require you to report at all.