You are on page 1of 6

is required or engaged by the employer to wait. Art. 82. Coverage.

The provisions of this Title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations. (b) An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. 2.) 3.)

employer or is free to choose his conveyance; Whether or not during the travel, he is subject to the employers supervision and control; Whether or not the travel takes place under vexing and dangerous conditions.

For teaching health subjects, she was not given compensation for teaching notwithstanding the fact that other teachers were duly compensated for extra work done. Notre Dame contended that Sibal was not entitled to extra compensation for teaching because teaching was allegedly part of her regular working program as school nurse. Failing to receive the compensation demanded, petitioner filed a complaint for non-payment of the following: Vacation pay for 4 months Compensation for teaching health subjects Deficiency in her 13th month pay Issue: WON Sibal is entitled to vacation pay and compensation for teaching. Yes! Ruling: Sibal is entitled to compensation for teaching health subjects. Although the subject taught is Health and allied to her profession, and is taught during regular working hours, petitioner's teaching the subject in the classroom and her administering to the health needs of students in the clinic involve two different and distinct jobs. They cannot be equated with each other for they refer to different functions. Teaching requires preparation of lesson plans, examinations and grades, while clinical work entails preparation of clinical records and treating illnesses of students in school. There can be no doubt that teaching health subjects is extra work for petitioner, and therefore necessitates extra compensation. After all it has been the practice of the school to pay extra compensation to teachers who were given extra load even during regular working hours. The fact that respondent school failed to produce the records of those teachers prove that they were paid for extra work. Hence, petitioner should likewise be paid compensation. Significantly, this Court has enunciated in the care of University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan that semestral breaks may be considered as "hours worked" under the Rules implementing the Labor Code and that regular professors and teachers are entitled to ECOLA during the semestral breaks, their "absence" from work not being of their own will. C.4 Work Hours of Seamen Soriano vs. Phil. Rock Products (CA decision)

Kinds of Travel SECTION 6. Lectures, meetings, training programs. Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs, and other similar activities shall not Travel from home to work- going to or from the be counted as working time if all of the following workplace As used herein, "managerial employees" refer to conditions are met: those whose primary duty consists of the (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular GR: Not work time management of the establishment in which they are working hours; Exception: When an employee receives an employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, emergency call outside of his regular working hours and to other officers or members of the managerial (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and and is required to travel to his regular place of staff. (c) The employee does not perform any productive business or some other work site. All time spent in such travel is work time. "Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural work during such attendance. employees who regularly perform their duties away NDC vs. CIR November 30, 1962 from the Travel that is all in the days work time spent by principal place of business or branch office of the an employee in travel as part of his principal employer and whose actual hours of work in the field Facts: National Development Co., had four shifts of activity (e.g travel from jobsite to jobsite during cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. work. In each shift, there was one hour meal time the work day) period. Workers were used to be paid 8 hours for Art. 83. Normal hours of work. The normal hours of GR: Hours Worked (even if beyond the 8-5 working work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours each shift but later on were credited only with 6 hours of work whenever workers in one shift were required hours) a to continue working until the next shift. day. Exception: If the employee goes home instead of Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a Petitioners contended that the two hours returning to employers premises, that would be travel population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in corresponding to the mealtime periods should not be to work and is not work time. hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least included in computing compensation. On the other one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for hand, National Textile Workers Union whose Travel away from home travel that keeps an eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, members are employed at the NDC, maintained the employee away from home overnight exclusive of time for meals, except where the opposite view and asked the Court of Industrial exigencies of the service require that such personnel Relations to order the payment of additional overtime GR: Work time when it cuts across or coincides with work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which pay corresponding to the mealtime periods. the employees regular work hours. case, they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of their Note: Away from home not back. regular wage for work on the sixth day. For ISSUE: WON the mealtime breaks should be purposes of this Article, "health personnel" shall considered working hours. Yes! C.2 SECTION 6. Lectures, meetings, training include resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, programs. Attendance at lectures, meetings, dietitians, Mealtime in this case should be considered working training programs, and other similar activities shall not pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, hours because working hours in petitioners company paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, was continuous and therefore the mealtime breaks be counted as working time if all of the following conditions are met: attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. should be counted as working time for purposes of (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular overtime compensation. (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours; working hours; (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and The idle time that an employee may spend for resting and during which he may leave the spot or place of (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and (c) The employee does not perform any productive work though not the premises of his employer, is not work during such attendance. counted as working time only where the work is (c) The employee does not perform any productive broken or is not continuous. The time cards show that work during such attendance. IRR BOOK III RULE 1 SECTION 3-6 the work was continuous and without any interruption. There is also the evidence adduced by the petitioner Q: Is time spent in grievance meeting work time? SECTION 3. Hours worked. The following shall be that the pertinent employees cannot freely leave their working place nor rest completely. considered as compensable hours worked: Yes, provided the time spent in such meeting is (a) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at the employer's premises or to be at a prescribed work place; and (b) All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. Pan American World vs. Pan American Employees February 23, 1961 Facts: Pan American was ordered by the CIR to permanently adopt the straight 8-hour shift inclusive of meal period. On appeal, Pan American contended that the finding that the one-hour meal period should be considered overtime work (deducting 15 minutes) as time allotted for eating) is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the evidence showed that the complainant could rest completely, and were not in any manner under the control of the company during the period.

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 Petitioner filed an answer saying that the overtime Facts: Luzon questions the applicability to seamen of Rule: Issue: WON one-hour meal period should be work was not authorized because the Chief Security the interpretation given to the phrase hours of work for the purpose of the Eight-Hour Labor Law. Officer acted without the authority of Management. (a) All hours are hours worked which the employee considered hours worked. Yes! is required to give his employer, regardless of whether or not such hours are spent in productive labor Ruling: The court below found that during the so or involve physical or mental exertion. called meal period, the mechanics were required to stand by for emergency work; that if they happened (b) An employee need not leave the premises of the not to be available when called, they were work place in order that his rest period shall not be reprimanded by the leadman; that as in fact it counted, it being enough that he stops working, may happened on many occasions, the mechanics had rest completely and may leave his work place, to go been called from their meals or told to hurry elsewhere, whether within or outside the premises of his Employees Association up eating to perform work work place. during this period. Such meal period (after deducting 15 minutes) is not rest period but overtime work. (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. SECTION 5. Waiting time. (a) Waiting time spent by an employee shall be considered as working time if waiting is an integral part of his work or the employee

Ruling: The fact that the tugboat was navigated 4 hours beyond 5 oclock in the afternoon does not necessarily mean that during those days the appellee performed service beyond 8 hours. His presence on also the time wherein the employees are required board for more than 8 hours a day might have been by the employer to be on the premises. required by the nature of his service, but there is no specific evidence that he has been working all time. It was not absolutely necessary for him to be continuously attending to the motor of the tugboat. He Price Stabilization Corp. (PRISCO) vs. CIR could leave the motor during part of said time and get rested completely. He had an assistant who could May 23, 1960 watch it and inform him of whatever disorder may develop therein. The fact that he was subject to call in Facts: PRISCO workers union filed a petition praying case some disorder may develop in the motor does that PRISCO be ordered to pay its present not necessarily mean he was working. employees, claimants-union members, additional compensation for overtime work (claimants are security guards that were made to report for duty and Luzon vs. Luzon April 29, 1957 hour in advance of the usual time work).

Issue: WON the reporting time of the security It has been the consistent stand of petitioner that guards, which is one hour in advance may be while it is true that the workers herein were required to considered overtime. Yes! report for work at 6:00 a.m. and were made to stay up to 6:00 p.m., their work was not continuous and they Ruling: Services rendered outside of the regular could have left the premises of their working place working hours partake the nature of overtime work. In were it not for the inherent physical impossibility this case, the guards were directed to report for duty peculiar to the nature of their duty which prevented one hour in advance for briefing purposes, and that them from leaving the tugboats. It is the Company's non-compliance is punishable. Services outside the defense that a literal interpretation of what constitutes regular working hours must be voluntary for it to be non-working hours would result in absurdity if made to apply to seamen aboard vessels in bays and rivers. taken out of the purview of overtime work. Issue: Is the definition for "hours of work" as presently applied to dryland laborers equally applicable to seamen? Or should a different criterion be applied by virtue of the fact that the seaman's employment is completely different in Facts: Petitioner Delia R. Sibal was employed as nature as well as in condition of work from that of school nurse by private respondent Notre Dame of a dryland laborer? No! Greater Manila. She was not required to report for work for the entire Christmas and summer vacations. Ruling: We do not need to set for seamen a criterion Even if employed as school nurse, she was asked to different from that applied to laborers on land, for help in the library, was required to report for work under the provisions of the above quoted section, the during the summer vacation (which she resisted and only thing to be done is to determine the meaning and she wasnt paid vacation pay), and was assigned to scope of the term "working place" used therein. As teach health subjects. Her 13th month pay was also we understand this term, alaborer need not leave counted based on 10 month period only instead of 12 the premises of the factory shop or boat in order that his period of rest shall not be counted, it months. being enough that he "cease to work", may rest

An employee who is required to remain on call on the C.3 Semestral Break employers premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is Sibal vs. Notre Dame working while on call. February 23, 1990 C.1 Travel Time Rule: Time spent travelling to or from the place of work may or may not be considered working time. It depends upon the kind of travel involved. Factors to consider WON travel is to be working time: 1.) Whether the employee is bound to travel in a conveyance furnished by the

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP

completely and leave or may leave at his will the spot where he actually stays while working, to go somewhere else, whether within or outside the premises of said factory, shop or boat. If these requisites are complied with, the period of such rest shall not be counted. Note: Seamen are not considered at work all the time they are on board on ship. If he rests, such is not considered work time. National Shipyards and Steel vs CIR December 30, 1961 Facts: In a complaint for payment of overtime compensation, the court examiner interpreted the words "Detail" or "Detailed on Board" to mean that as long as respondent Malondras was in his barge for twenty-four hours, he should be paid overtime for sixteen hours a day or the time in excess of the legal eight working hours that he could not leave his barge. Petitioner NASSCO, upon the other hand, argues that the mere fact that Malondras was required to be on board his barge all day so that he could immediately be called to duty when his services were needed does not imply that he should be paid overtime for sixteen hours a day, but that he should receive compensation only for the actual service in excess of eight hours that he can prove.

Note: Meal periods maybe shorter than one hour schedule, break time and one-hour lunch break did but not lesser than 20 minutes. (1-19 minutes, it not have the effect of diminishing the benefits granted must be compensable) to factory workers as the working time did not exceed eight (8) hours. SECTION 7. Meal and Rest Periods. Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee: (a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen (16) hours a day;

(c) In case of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise Issue: WON respondent Malondras should be paid suffer; and overtime compensation for every hour in excess of the regular working hours that he was on board (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious his vessel or barge each day. No! loss of perishable goods. Ruling: We can not agree with the Court below that respondent Malondras should be paid overtime compensation for every hour in excess of the regular working hours that he was on board his vessel or barge each day, irrespective of whether or not he actually put in work during those hours. Seamen are required to stay on board their vessels by the very nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers to pay them overtime even when they are not actually working; otherwise, every sailor on board a vessel would be entitled to overtime for sixteen hours each day, even if he had spent all those hours resting or sleeping in his bunk, after his regular tour of duty. The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore, whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time. Art. 85. Meal periods. Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals. NDC vs. CIR November 30, 1962 Facts: National Development Co., had four shifts of work. In each shift, there was one hour meal time period. Workers were used to be paid 8 hours for each shift but later on were credited only with 6 hours of work whenever workers in one shift were required to continue working until the next shift.

Petitioners contended that the two hours corresponding to the mealtime periods should not be included in computing compensation. On the other Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services vs. NLRC July 11, hand, National Textile Workers Union whose 1996 members are employed at the NDC, maintained the opposite view and asked the Court of Industrial Facts: Hernandez was hired by petitioner Stolt- Relations to order the payment of additional overtime Nielsen marine Services (Phils.) Inc. as radio officer of pay corresponding to the mealtime periods. board M/T Stolt Condor for a period of ten months. He was ordered to disembark and was repatriated allegedly due to insubordination. Hernandez then filed ISSUE: WON the mealtime breaks should be with the POEA a complaint for asking among others considered working hours. Yes! for payment of overtime pay. Ruling: Mealtime in this case should be considered Stolt-Nielsen invoked the Court's pronouncement working hours because working hours in petitioners in Cagampan v. NLRC, wherein the NLRC ruled on company was continuous and therefore the mealtime the disallowance of overtime pay because the breaks should be counted as working time for complainant never produced any proof of actual purposes of overtime compensation. performance of overtime work. The idle time that an employee may spend for resting Issue: WON Hernandez is entitled to overtime pay. and during which he may leave the spot or place of No! work though not the premises of his employer, is not counted as working time only where the work is Ruling: The rendition of overtime work and the broken or is not continuous. The time cards show that submission of sufficient proof that the said work was the work was continuous and without any interruption. actually performed are conditions to be satisfied There is also the evidence adduced by the petitioner before a seaman could be entitled to overtime pay that the pertinent employees cannot freely leave their which would be computed on the basis of 30% of the working place nor rest completely. basic monthly salary. In short, the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime pay but the Sime Darby Philippines vs. NLRC entitlement to such benefit must first be established. Realistically speaking, a seaman, by the very nature of his job, stays on board a ship or vessel beyond the Facts: The work schedule in Sime Darby Pilipinas regular eight-hour work schedule. For the employer to was 7:45 am- 3:45 pm, with a 30 minute paid on call give him overtime pay for the extra hours when he lunch break. Sometime in 1992, the employer might be sleeping or attending to his personal chores changed the work schedule to 7:45 am- 4:45 pm. The or even just lulling away his time would be extremely lunch break from 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM would be unfair and unreasonable. without pay. A close scrutiny of the computation of the monetary award shows that the award for overtime was for the remaining six (6) months and three (3) days of private respondent's contract at which time he was no longer rendering services as he had already been repatriated. Thus, he is not entitled to overtime pay. D. Meal Periods ALU-TUCP an association of monthly salaried employees of Sime Darby in its Marikina factory filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair Labor practice and discrimination. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative and that the new work

Ruling: Yes. In effect held that "night work" is any and all work rendered between 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon and 6:00 o'clock in the morning, and consequently, if a certain employee performs his regular eight hours up to 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling and renders overtime from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. of because it is violative of Article 100 (prohibition on the same day, the said employee is entitled to an diminution of benefits). additional compensation for overtime services from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and at the same time to additional compensation for "night work" from 6:00 Issue: WON the new work schedule fully complies p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the very same work. with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code. Yes! When the tour of duty of a labourer falls at night time (between 10 pm and 6 am), the receipt of overtime Ruling: In the instant case, Sime Darby cites as pay will not preclude the right to night differential pay. reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct of its The latter is payment for work done during the night business operations and its improved productions. It while the other is payment for the excess of the rationalizes that while the old work schedule included regular 8 hour work. a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that period as they were on call. MERCURY DRUG CO. INC. VS. DAYAO FACTS: This is a verified petition dated March 17, With the new work schedule, the employees are now 1964 which was subsequently amended on July 31, given a one-hour lunch break without any interruption 1964 filed by Nardo Dayao and 70 others against from their employer. Since the employees are no Mercury Drug Co., Inc., and/or Mariano Que, longer required to work during this one-hour lunch President & General Manager, and Mercury Drug Co., break, there is no more need for them to be Inc. . Employees Association praying, with respect to compensated for this period. The Court agrees with respondent corporation and its president and general the Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully manager: 1) payment of their unpaid back wages for complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours work done on Sundays and legal holidays plus 25c/c without violating the Labor Code. Besides, the new additional compensation from date of their schedule applies to all employees in the factory employment up to June 30, 1962; 2) payment of extra similarly situated whether they are union members or compensation on work done at night; 3) reinstatement of Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar to their not. former positions with back salaries; and, as against the respondent union, for its disestablishment and the Management is free to regulate, according to its own refund of the money it had collected from petitioners. discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, The CIR sustained the claim of the petitioners for including hiring, work assignments, working methods, payment of back wages correspoding to the first four time, place and manner of work, processes to be hours work rendered on every other Sunday and first followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, four hours on legal holidays should be denied for lack transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of of merit. The motion for reconsideration was denied. workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of Thus, the instant petition (MERCURY) contending that workers. Further, management retains the private respondents' claims for 25% Sunday and prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so Legal Holiday premiums are not supported by require, to change the working hours of its substantial evidence, thus infringing upon the cardinal employees. So long as such prerogative is exercised rights of the petitioner, and that assuming it is, such in good faith for the advancement of the employers premiums are already included in the salary of private interest and not for the purpose of defeating or respondents. circumventing the rights of the employees under ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will entitled to the 25% Sunday and Legal Holiday uphold such exercise. premiums. HELD YES. While an employer may compel his employees to perform service on such days, the law nevertheless imposes upon him the obligation to pay Art. 86. Night shift differential. Every employee his employees at least 25% additional of their basic or shall be paid a night shift differential of not less than regular salaries. Under Section 4 of C. A. No. 444, no ten person, firm or corporation, business establishment or percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of place of center of labor shall compel an employee or work performed between ten oclock in the evening laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays and six oclock in the morning. unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twentyfive per centum of his regular remuneration: Provided, However, That this prohibition shall not apply to public Note: Night shift differential is 10 %. Time: 10 PM- utilities performing some public service such as 6AM supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of transportation or communication. Although a The Shell Company vs. National Labor Union July service enterprise, respondent company's employees are within the coverage of C. A. No. 444, as amended 26, 1948 known as the Eight Hour Labor Law, for they do not Ruling: Night work cannot be regarded as desirable, fall within the category or class of employees or either from the point of view of the employer or of the labourers excluded from its provisions. In not giving wage earner. It is uneconomical unless overhead weight to the evidence of the petitioner company, the costs are unusually heavy. Frequently the scale of respondent court sustained the private respondents' wages is higher as an inducement to employees to evidence to the effect that their 25% additional accept employment on the night shift, and the rate of compensation for work done on Sundays and Legal Holidays were not included in their respective monthly production is generally lower. salaries. The private respondents presented evidence through the testimonies of Nardo, Dayao, Ernesto The lack of sunlight tends to produce anemia and Talampas, and Josias Federico who are themselves tuberculosis and to predispose to other ills. Nightwork among the employees who filed the case for unfair brings increased liability to eyestrain and accident. labor practice in the respondent court and are private Serious moral dangers also are likely to result from respondents herein. The petitioner- company's the necessity of traveling the streets alone at night, contention that the respondent court's conclusion on and from the interference with normal home life. From the issue of the 25% additional compensation for work an economic point of view, moreover, the done on Sundays and legal holidays during the first investigations showed that nightwork was four hours that the private respondents had to work unprofitable, being inferior to day work both in quality under their respective contracts of employment was and in quantity. Wherever it had been abolished, in not supported by the long run the efficiency both of the management substantial evidence is, therefore, unfounded. and of the workers was raised. Furthermore, it was *************************************** found that nightwork laws are a valuable aid in SEABORNE VS NLRC (Amando Ternida, PR) enforcing acts fixing the maximum period of FACTS: PR began working for Seaborne on April 8, employment. 1983 as Tug Master with a monthly salary of P2,475.00. Sep 15, 1987, the tugboat he was manning met an accident. Half of the cost of repairs Naric vs. Naric Workers Union totalling P5,000.00 was shouldered by Seaborne. Private respondent was required to pay for the other half, and an initial salary deduction of P250.00 was May 29, 1959 made. September 24, 1987, he sought permission to go on leave of absence to ask from the Department of Issue: WON an employee performing his regular 8 Labor and Employment if such deduction was legal, hours work during the daytime from 8:00 oclock his request was not granted. Instead, he was asked in the morning to 12:00 oclock at noon and from by petitioner Gatan, Seaborne's president and 1:00 oclock to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon be manager, to tender his resignation. When he refused paid for his services from 5:00 oclock to 9:00 to resign, as he had not yet received any separation oclock in the afternoon as overtime work and at pay, he was dismissed. Complaint for illegal the same time be paid from 6:00 oclock to 9 dismissal, illegal deduction, and unpaid wages, which oclock in the evening as night work. Yes! was later amended to include petitioner Gatan as party-respondent and to embrace claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, sick leave pay, damages, and attorney's fees.

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP

LA declared the dismissal of the complainant as illegal. NLRC Modified reinstate complainant to his former position, plus give the amount illegally deducted from his salary, and attorney's fees of 10% ISSUE: (1) WON the PR is entitled to service incentive leave benefits as well as holiday and 13th month pay; YES (2) Jerry Ronaldo Gatan personally liable, with the petitioner corporation. NO PET CONTENDS: award to PR should not have included service incentive pay because it was never sought in the complaint and the private respondent is already enjoying vacation leave benefits, which bars the employee from entitlement to the yearly service incentive leave benefit mandated by Article 95 of the Labor Code.The award of 13th month pay and holiday pay, the petitioners allege that the private respondent failed to prove or establish that he is entitled to the same, he did not specify which holiday or what year he was not paid said benefits. (1) PRs allegation of non-payment of these benefits, to which he is by law entitled, is a negative allegation which need not be supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of the cause of action. It must be noted that the main cause of action of the private respondent is his illegal dismissal, and the claim for the monetary benefits is but an incident of the protest against such dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving that payment of said benefits has been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no evidence at all is presented by either party, that is, the petitioners as private respondent's employer. (2) There is nothing on record which would prove the insinuation that Jerry Gatan sanctioned the deduction of P250.00 from private respondent's salary, as well as the denial of the latter's request for leave of absence. *************************************** NATIONAL SEMI-CONDUCTOR VS NLRC (EDGAR SANTOS) FACTS:NSC manufactures and assembles electronic parts for export with principal office at Mactan, LapuLapu City. PR was employed by NSC as a technician in its Special Products Group with a monthly salary of P5,501.00 assigned to the graveyard shift starting at ten o clock in the evening until six o clock in the morning. On 8 January 1993 Santos did not report. He resumed his duties as on 9 January 1993. At the end of his shift the following morning, he made two (2) entries in his daily time record (DTR) to make it appear that he worked on both the 8th and 9th. Supervisor, Mr. Joel Limsiaco, received the report that there was no technician in the graveyard shift of 8 January 1993. He checked again in the morning of 9 January 1993 he found the entry made by Santos for the day before. Santos was required in a memorandum to explain in writing within 48 hours from notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for dishonesty, falsifying daily time record (DTR) and violation of company rules and regulations 11 January 1993 Santos submitted his written explanation alleging that he was ill on the day he was absent. he alleged that it was merely due to oversight or carelessness on his part. NSC dismissed him on 14 January 1993 on the ground of falsification of his DTR, which act was inimical to the company and constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct. Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of back wages, premium pay for holidays and rest days, night shift differential pay, allowances, separation pay, moral damages and attorneys fees. LA Santos was dismissed on legal grounds but violated due process likewise ordered the payment of P19,801.47 representing Santos unpaid night shift differentials. NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter NSC contends that the question of non-payment of night shift differentials was never raised as an issue nor pursued and proved by Santos in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter; that Santos was already paid his night shift differentials, and any further payment to him would amount to unjust enrichment; ISSUES: is the PR entitled to night diff payment? YES (2)Who has the burden of proving a claim for night shift differential pay, the worker who claims not to have been paid night shift differentials, or the employer in custody of pertinent documents which would prove the fact of payment of the same? THE COMPANY HELD: The fact that Santos neglected to substantiate his claim for night shift differentials is not prejudicial to his cause the burden of proving payment rests on petitioner NSC. Santos allegation of non-payment of this benefit, to which he is by law entitled, is a negative allegation which need not be supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of his cause of action his main cause of action is his illegal dismissal, and the claim for night shift differential is but an incident of the protest against such dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving that payment of such benefit has been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no evidence at all is presented by either party. GR:, one who pleads payment has the burden of

proving it. Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.For sure, private respondent cannot adequately prove the fact of non-payment of night shift differentials since the pertinent employee files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents - which will show that private respondent rendered night shift work; the time he rendered services; and, the amounts owed as night shift differentials - are not in his possession but in the custody and absolute control of petitioner. *************************************** NASSCO vs CIR FACTS: NASSCO, a government-owned and controlled corporation, is the owner of several barges and tugboats. Itsbargemen are required to stay in their respective barges, were given living quarters therein as well as subsistence allowance of P1.50 per day during the time they are on board. However, upon prior authority of their superior officers, they may leave their barges when said barges are idle. April 15, 1957, 39 crew members including therein respondent Dominador Malondras, filed with the Industrial Court a complaint for the payment of overtime compensation parties entered into a stipulation of facts wherein the NASSCO recognized and admitted 4. That to meet the exigencies of the service in the performance of the above work, petitioners have to work when so required in excess of eight (8) hours a day and/or during Sundays and legal holidays (actual overtime service is subject to determination on the basis of the logbook of the vessels, time sheets and other pertinent records of the respondent).6. The petitioners are paid by the respondent their regular salaries and subsistence allowance, without additional compensation for overtime work; Industrial Court, issued an order directing the court examiner to compute the overtime compensation due the claimants. Examiner found Malondras, rendered an average overtime service of five (5) hours each day for the period aforementioned On April 30, 1958, the court examiner submitted his second partial report covering the period from January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1956, again giving each crewman an average of five (5) overtime hours each day. Malondras was not, however, included He filed petitions in the same case asking for the compensation and payment of his overtime compensation for the period from January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1956, and from January to April 30, 1957 which, he alleged, was not included in the first report of the examiner because his time sheets for these months could not be found at the time. Malondras' petition was opposed by the NASSCO upon the argument, among others, that its records do not indicate the actual number of working hours rendered by Malondras during the periods in question. There appears to be no question that respondent Malondras actually rendered overtime services during the periods covered by the examiner's report. This is admitted in the stipulation of facts of the parties on the basis of this admission that the Court below, in its order of November 22, 1957, ordered the payment of overtime compensation to all the petitioners , the number of hours of overtime for which Malondras should be paid for the periods January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1956, and from January to April 30, 1957. Almost everyday Dominador Malondras was on "Detail" or "Detailed on Board". According to the officer in charge of Dominador Malondras, when he (Dominador Malondras) was on "Detail" or "Detailed on Board", he was in the boat for twenty-four (24) hours. Examiner interpreted the words "Detail" or "Detailed on Board" to mean that as long as respondent Malondras was in his barge for twenty-four hours, he should be paid overtime for sixteen hours a day or the time in excess of the legal eight working hours that he could not leave his barge. Petitioner NASSCO, upon the other hand, argues that the mere fact that Malondras was required to be on board his barge all day so that he could immediately be called to duty when his services were needed does not imply that he should be paid overtime for sixteen hours a day, but that he should receive compensation only for the actual service in excess of eight hours that he can prove. ISSUE: WON Malondras is entitled to overtime pay as to the 16 hours? NO HOW MANY HOURS? HELD:We can not agree with the Court below that respondent Malondras should be paid overtime compensation for every hour in excess of the regular working hours that he was on board his vessel or barge each day, irrespective of whether or not he actually put in work during those hours. Seamen are required to stay on board their vessels by the very nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers to pay them overtime even when they are not actually working; otherwise, every sailor on board a vessel would be entitled to overtime for sixteen hours each day, even if he had spent all those hours resting or

sleeping in his bunk, after his regular tour of duty. The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore, whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 444, known as the Eight-Hour Labor Law, provides:"SEC. 1. The legal working day for any person employed by another shall be of not more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working AND CAN LEAVE HIS WORKING PLACE and can rest completely, shall not be counted." As we understand this term, alaborer need not leave the premises of the factory shop or boat in order that his period of rest shall not be counted, it being enough that he "cease to work", may rest completely and leave or may leave at his will the spot where he actually stays while working, to go somewhere else, whether within or outside the premises of said factory, shop or boat. If these requisites are complied with, the period of such rest shall not be counted. Overtime service he put in whenever he was required to be aboard his barge all day from 1954 to 1957 would be more or less consistent. In truth, the other claimants who served with Malondras under the same conditions and period have been finally paid for an overtime of 5 hours a day, and no substantial difference exists between their case and the present one, which was not covered by the same award only because Malondras' time records not found until later. *************************************** PNB VS PEMA NATURE Appeal from decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) FACTS PNB and PNB Employees Association (PEMA) had a dispute regarding the proper computation of overtime pay. PEMA wanted the cost of living allowance (granted in 1958) and longevity pay (granted in 1961) to be included in the computation. PNB disagreed and the 2 parties later went before the CIR to resolve the dispute. CIR decided in favor of PEMA and held that PNB should compute the overtime pay of its employees on the basis of the sum total of the employees basic salary or wage plus cost of living allowance and longevity pay. The CIR relied on the ruling in NAWASA v NAWASA Consolidated Unions, which held that for purposes of computing overtime compensation, regular wage includes all payments which the parties have agreed shall be received during the work week, including differentiated payments for working at undesirable times, such as at night and the board and lodging customarily furnished the employee. This prompted PNB to appeal, hence this case. ISSUE: WON the cost of living allowance and longevity pay should be included in the computation of overtime pay as held by the CIR. NO HELD Overtime pay is for extra effort beyond that contemplated in the employment contract; additional pay given for any other purpose cannot be included in the basis for the computation of overtime pay. Absent a specific provision in the CBA, the bases for the computation of overtime pay are 2 computations, namely: 1. WON the additional pay is for extra work done or service rendered 2. WON the same is intended to be permanent and regular, not contingent nor temporary as a given only to remedy a situation which can change any time. Reasoning - Longevity pay cannot be included in the computation of overtime pay for the very simple reason that the contrary is expressly stipulated in the CBA, which constitutes the law between the parties. - As regards cost of living allowance, there is nothing in Commonwealth Act 444 [or the 8-hour Labor Law, now Art. 87 Labor Code] that could justify PEMAs posture that it should be added to the regular wage in computing overtime pay. C.A. 444 prescribes that overtime work shall be paid at the same rate as their regular wages or salary, plus at least 25% additional. The law did not define what is a regular wage or salary. What the law emphasized is that in addition to regular wage, there must be paid an additional 25% of that regular wage to constitute overtime rate of pay. Parties were thus allowed to agree on what shall be mutually considered regular pay from or upon which a 25% premium shall be based and added to makeup overtime compensation. - No rule of universal application to other cases may be justifiably extracted from the NAWASA case. CIR relies on the part of the NAWASA decision where the SC cited American decisions whose legislation on overtime is at variance with the law in this jurisdiction. The US legislation considers work in excess of forty hours a week as overtime; whereas, what is generally considered overtime in the Philippines is work in excess of the regular 8 hours a day. It is understandably material to refer to precedents in the US for purposes of computing weekly wages under a 40-hour week rule, since the particular issue involved in NAWASA is the conversion of prior weekly regular earnings into daily rates without allowing diminution or addition.

- To apply the NAWASA computation would require a different formula for each and every employee. It would require reference to and continued use of individual earnings in the past, thus multiplying the administrative difficulties of the Company. It would be cumbersome and tedious a process to compute overtime pay and this may again cause delays in payments, which in turn could lead to serious disputes. To apply this mode of computation would retard and stifle the growth of unions themselves as Companies would be irresistibly drawn into denying, new and additional fringe benefits, if not those already existing, for fear of bloating their overhead expenses through overtime which, by reason of being unfixed, becomes instead a veritable source of irritant in labor relations. **Overtime Pay Rationale Why is a laborer or employee who works beyond the regular hours of work entitled to extra compensation called, in this enlightened time, overtime pay? Verily, there can be no other reason than that he is made to work longer than what is commensurate with his agreed compensation for the statutorily fixed or voluntarily agreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When he thus spends additional time to his work, the effect upon him is multi- faceted; he puts in more effort, physical and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to his family to enjoy the comforts thereof; he might have no time for relaxation, amusement or sports; he might miss important pre-arranged engagements; etc. It is thus the additional work, labor or service employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in his place of work that justify and are the real reasons for the extra compensation that is called overtime pay. **Overtime Pay Definition The additional pay for service or work rendered or performed in excess of 8 hours a day by employees or laborers in employment covered by the 8 hour Labor Law [C.A. 444, now Art. 87 Labor Code] and not exempt from its requirements. It is computed by multiplying the overtime hourly rate by the number of hours worked in excess of eight. Disposition decision appealed from is REVERSED ************************************************************* CALTEX vs CIR Ruling: If the Sunday, Holiday, and night differential pay and other fringe benefits are not continuously and regularly received by the employees, and considering that CA No. 444 (8 Hour Labor Law) makes the regular pay the basis of computing the overtime pay, which term should be sensibly interpreted and given its ordinary meaning, it should not include premiums for work done on rest days, night differentials, cost of living allowance, payments for sick leave etc., which items constitute extra pay or additions to the regular or basic pay.

************************************************************* BISIG vs PRC FACTS: Bisig ng Manggagawa ng Philippine Refining Company, Inc. filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for declaratory relief seeking, among others, the judgement that their Christmas bonus be included as part of their basic pay for the computation of overtime pay. Petitioner based its contention primarily on the ruling of the Supreme Court in NAWASA vs. NAWASA Consolidated Unions, et all G.R. No. L-18938, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 766 where it was declared that the 'regular rate' is also deemed to include other incentives and bonuses which employers may receive as part of their regular pay. Respondent Philippine Refining Company, Inc. on the other hand contended that in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the parties never intended to include the employees' Christmas bonus in the computation of the overtime pay, and that it did agree to raise the overtime rate to 50% instead of 25% of the regular base pay precisely on the consideration that it be based only on the regular base pay and should not include Christmas bonus. Issue: WON, in the interpretation of the provision of the CBA of the parties on overtime pay, the term "regular base pay" should include Christmas bonus, and that in case it should not, whether such interpretation would contravene the principle established in the Nawasa vs Nawasa case. HELD: SC held that the term "regular base pay" is clear, unequivocal and requires no interpretation. It held that the term means regular basic pay which necessarily EXCLUDES money received in different concepts such as Christmas bonus and other fringe benefits. The Court observed that in framing up their CBA escpecially on the provision regarding overtime pay, it was only the regular base pay that was considered, and the same fact was undeniably known to the petitioner - the very reason, according to the court, why it attempted to have a different provision pertaining to overtime pay which would include Christmas bonus and other benefits. This factual information by itself constrains the petitioner to question the intention of that particular phrase in their CBA pertaining to overtime pay but could only claim that it violated the Nawasa doctrine and insist that it be reformed to conform to said doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the Nawasa ruling did not limit that the computation of overtime pay to be

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP

based solely on the employees' regular wage or salary, which according to law includes bonuses and other benefits. What is important is that the product resulting from the computation must always be equal or higher than the statutory requirement of 25% more than the regular wage. In the case at bar, the formula adopted by the CBA is 50% more than the regular basi pay, which when computer is much higher than what can be arrived at using the statutory formula. Thus, the Court declared that the provisions of the CBA as to the computation of overtime pay has amply complied with what is required by law, and therefore is valid and not in contravention to the Nawasa doctrine. *************************************** PALEA vs PAL February 14, 1963 (PALEA) Philippine Air Lines Supervisors' Association (PALSA) commenced an action against the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) praying that PAL be ordered to revise its method of computing the basic daily and hourly rate of its monthly salaried employees, pay them their accrued sala differentials.Sought to be revised is PAL's formula in computing wages of its employees: Monthly salary x 12 365 (No. of calendar = x (Basic dailr rate) days in a year) x 8 = Basic hourly rate

his equivalent yearly salary. When he worked on his off-day, he was paid accordingly (125% or 137%), indicating that his off-days were not with pay. It seems illogical for said employe to be paid 125% or 137 % of his basic daily rate, if such off-days are already wtih pay, as indicated by the company WE agree.There should hardly be any doubt that off-days are not paid days, Precisely, off-days are rest days for the worker. He is not required to work on such days. This finds support not only in the basic principle in labor that the basis of remuneration or compensation is actual service rendered, but in the ever pervading labor spirit aimed at humanizing the conditions of hie working man. Since during his off-days an employee is not compelled to work he cannot, conversely, demand for his corresponding pay. If, however, a worker works on his off-day, our welfare laws duly reward him with a premium higher than what he would receive when he works on his regular working day.Such being the case, the divisor in computing an employee's basic daily rate should be the actual working days in a yar The number of off-days are not to be counted precisely because on such off-days, an employee is not required to work.

place and he performed overtime services upon the order of his immediate superior, notwithstanding the fact that there was a standing circular to the effect that before overtime work may be performed with pay, the approval of the corresponding department head should be secured, such overtime services are compensable inspite of the fact that said overtime services were rendered without the prior approval of the Department Head. ************************************************** REOTAN VS NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION

commenced her employment with petitioner Global Incorporated in February, 1970, as a Sales Clerk. In November 1976 Global Inc. filed with the Department of Labor Regional Office, an application for clearance to terminate the services of Clarita Rosal, for having violated company rules and regulations by incurring repeated absences and tardiness. The subject employee was placed under preventive suspension on November 16, 1976 pending resolution of the application for clearance.c

Simple common sense dictates that should an employee opt not to work which he can legally do The unions would like PAL to modify the above on an off-day, and for such he gets no pay, he formula in this wise: would be unduly robbed of a portion of his legitimate pay if and when in computing his basic daily and hourly rate, such off-day is deemed subsumed by the Monthly salary x 12 No. of actual working = x (Basic divisor. For it is elementary in the fundamental daily rate) days x 8 = Basic hourly rate process of division that with a constant dividend, the bigger your divisor is, the smaller our quotient will be. CIR, issued an order denying the unions' prayer for a modified wage formula. PALSA and PALEA seek to PAL maintains that the NAWASA doctrine should change the long standing method in PAL of computing not apply to a public utility like PAL which, from the the basic daily and hourly rate of monthly salaried nature of its operations, requires a whole-year-round, employees for the purpose of determining overtime uninterrupted work by personnel. What PAL pay, Sunday and legal holiday premium pay, night apparently forgets is that just like it, NAWASA is also differential pay, vacation and sick leave pay, to wit, a public utility which likewise requires its workers to the monthly salary multiplied by 12 and dividing the work the whole year round. Moreover, the NAWASA product thereof by 365 and then the quotient by 8. is a government-owned corporation to which PAL PALEA and PALSA claim that the method of is akin, it being a government-controlled corporation. computing the basic daily and hourly rate of monthly salaried employees of PAL prior to the implementation of the 40-hour week schedule in PAL should be by And in the collective bargaining agreement entered dividing the monthly salary by 26 working days, and into between the NAWASA and respondent unions it after the 40-hour week schedule, by dividing the was agreed that all existing benefits enjoyed by the monthly salary by 20 working days, and then dividing employees and laborers prior to its effectivity shall the quotient thereof in each case by 8. it appears that remain in force and shall form part of the agreement, for may years since 1952, PAL has been consistently among which certainly is the 25% additional and regularly determining the basic and hourly rates compensation for work on Sundays and legal holidays of monthly salaried employees by multiplying the theretofore enjoyed by said laborers and employees. monthly salary by 12 momths and dividing the product The settled NAWASA doctrine should not be by 365 days to arive at the basic daily rate, and disturbed. dividing the quotient by 8 to compute the basic hourly rate. No attempt to revise this formula notwithstanding the various negotiations This, however, was a mere The principle of estoppel and laches cannot well be proposal by PALSA for the adoption of a new formula; invoked agains the Association. In the first place, it it was not a demand for the application of a formula would be contrary to the spirit of the Eight-Hour Labor claimed to be correct under the law. PALSA and Law, under which, as already seen, the laborers PALEA are estopped from questioning the cannot waive their right to extra compensation. In the correctness and propriety of PAL's method of second place, the law principally obligates the determining the basic hourly and daily rate of pay of employer to observe it, as much so that it punishes its monthly salaried personnel, and considering the the employer for its employer for its violation and long Unions attributed error to PAL's wage leaves the employee or laborer is in such a formula, particularly in the use of 365 days as divisor. disadvantageous position as to be naturally reluctant The unions contended that the use of 365 days as or even apprehensive in asserting any claim which divisor would necessarily include off-days which, may cause the employher to devise a way for under the terms of the collective bargaining exercising his right to terminate the employment. agreements entered into between the parties, were not paid days. This is so since for work done on an off-day, an employee was paid 100% plus 25%, or If the principle of estoppel and laches is to be applied, it may bring about a situation, whereby the employee 100% plus 37- of his regular working hour rate. or laborer, who cannot expressly renounce their right to extra compensation under the Eight-Hour Labor ISSUES: WON DAYS, 11 AS SATURDAYS, Law, may be compelled to accomplish the same thing SUNDAYS, COMPANY OBSERVED HOLIDAYS OR by mere silence or lapse of time, thereby frustrating ANY OTHER DESIGNATED HOLIDAYS ARE PAID the purpose of the law by indirection DAYS. (2) WON CIR ERED AND ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN SENTENCING PAL TO PAY DIFFERENTIALS FOR OVERTIME WORK, NIGHTWORK, HOLIDAY AND SUNDAY PAY FROM JULY 1, 1957 CONSIDERING THAT UNDER THE THREE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD PROVIDED IN SECTION 7-a OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 444, AS AMENDED, THE EIGHT-HOUR LABOR LAW, RESPONDENT UNIONS, ASSUMING THEY HAD ANY CAUSE OF ACTION, COULD RECOVER ONLY FROM FEBRUARY 14, 1960 UP TO THE PRESENT, SINCE RESPONDENT UNIONS FILED THEIR ACTION ONLY ON FEBRUARY 14, 1963. PAL's maiden argument has a strong tendency to mislead. off-days are paid and therefore should be reckoned with in determing the divisor for computing daily and hourly rate, PAL leans heavily on what it considers as additional payment of 125% or 137 %, as the case may be, of an employee's basic hourly rate, given to a worker who worked on his off-days. industrial court noted that before September 4, 1961, a monthly salaried employee of PAL had to work 304 days only in a year,a nd after said date, he had to work only 258 days in ayear, to be entitled to *************************************** MANILA RAILROAD VS CIR FACTS: The heirs of an employee of the Manila Railroad Company who died in 1945 were awarded the money equivalent of his unused vacation and sick leave although the law then in force provided for the forfeiture thereof upon the employee's separation from the service, for the reason, it is alleged, that Republic Act 611, effective only on May 5, 1951, which suppressed that part of the law relating to forfeiture, was applied. But a careful reading of the decision will show that the ruling was specifically based on a circular issued by the manager of the railroad company relative to the "grant of monetary aid to former employees and/or to the latter's dependents, who could not be reinstated on account of illness or death" and also on the "long-standing policy of the railroad company to pay vacation and sick leave duly acquired by its employees and laborers effective upon separation from the service." ISSUE: WON the overtime worked rendered by the employee without the approval of the Department Head should be paid. YES HELD: If the work performed was necessary, or that it benefited the company or that the employee could not abandon his work at the end of his eight hour work because there was no substitute ready to take his

Clarita Rosal filed her opposition to the clearance application as well as a counter-complaint against Global Inc., for illegal dismissal, overtime pay and Plaintiffs Fermin Reotan, Silvestre Reotan and premium pay. Praxedes Balane were guards-watchmen in the agencies or branches of the NARIC in Naga, The officer-in-charge of Regional Office, Ministry of Camarines Sur,. Inasmuch as these agencies had labor Leogardo, Jr. lifted the preventive suspension each only two (2) guards-watchmen, the latter had of Clarita Rosal, finding her suspension not been required by their immediate superiors to work in warranted, and reinstated her to her former position two (2) shifts of 12 hours daily each, except when without loss of rights and with full backwages from they were on vacation or sick leave of absence. the time of preventive suspension up to the date of Having made demands of payment of the her actual reinstatement. corresponding overtime compensation which were not heeded by the NARIC, on July 15, 1954, plaintiffs filed The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision dismissing their respective claims for overtime with the Wage the complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime Administration Service, which, on February 16, 1955, compensation and premium pay, and the clearance rendered decision in their favor. NARIC persisted in for the complainants termination is granted. its refusal to pay said compensation, plaintiffs instituted the present separate actions, which were Rosal appealed the aforesaid decision to the jointly heard and disposed of in one decision, as NLRC.Respondents Commissioners Atienza and above stated. Quadra modified the appealed decision, whereby: Plaintiffs had rendered the overtime services aforementioned has been fully established, not only by their testimony and that of the corresponding officers-in-charge . also, by their respective timerecords, most of which duly certified and found correct as to the prescribed office hours, and bearing the signatures of the officers-in-charge were introduced in evidence. It was, also, proven satisfactorily that, some time-records had been destroyed by anay, and consequently, could not be produced in court, and that said overtime services were rendered by order of the aforementioned officers-in-charge, NARIC maintains: (1) that "except in special cases of overtime work specifically approved by the management to be with pay, no payment of overtime work will be approved", for pursuant to Resolution No. 479 of its Board of Directors, "no overtime nor meal allowance shall be allowed unless previously approved by the General Manager and only in cases of absolute necessity"; (2) that this case should be dismissed because, upon petition filed by the NARIC Workers union at the CIR, the same extended to the NARIC workers in the provinces, the benefits of a partial decision, rendered in said case, on February 16, 1953, granting differential pay to NARIC workers in Manila who had rendered night work, overtime and work on Sundays and legal holidays, for which reason an examiner of the Court of Industrial Relations reported thereto, inter alia, that plaintiffs herein, namely, Fermin Reotan, Silvestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane were entitled for such work, during the period from February 1945 to January 1953, to the sum of P5.82, P193.30 and P151.23, respectively; (3) that the Eight-Hour Labor Law is inapplicable to the NARIC; and (4) that the period during which said plaintiffs were on leave of absence should not have been included in the computation of the amounts due them by way of overtime according to the decision appealed from. Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 444 specifically provides that 'any agreement or contract between the employer and the laborer or employee contrary to the provision of this Act shall be null and void ab initio'. Even in cases of disaster or calamity, to prevent loss of life and property, Section 3 of said Commonwealth Act No. 444 provides that 'in all such cases the laborers and employees shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as the regular wages or salary, plus at least 25 per centum additional'. Section 4 of the same Act provides that 'no person, firm, or corporation ... shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least 25 per centum of his regular remuneration." .ISSUE:WON REOTAN were entitled to the overtime pay? YES (a) respondent is ordered to pay complainant overtime pay for the period Nov. 1, 1974 to Nov. 16, 1976 when she was suspended; (b) respondent is likewise ordered to pay complainant backwages from Dec. 2, 1976 to May 31, 1978; (c) the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting clearance to terminate the services of the complainant is affirmed. Respondent Commissioner Villatuya voted to affirm the Labor Arbiters decision. Hence, the instant petition. ISSUE: WON Rosal is entitled to overtime pay Rosal is entitled to backwages HELD: The assailed decision of the NLRC is modified, where the order to pay overtime pay to Rosal is set aside, the order to pay Rosal backwages affirmed, and the decision granting clearance to terminate the services of Rosal likewise affirmed 1. NO. We agree with the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter that the same should be denied for want of sufficient factual and legal basis. No employee is authorized to work after office hours, during Sundays and Holidays unless required by a written memorandum from the General Manager. During the period from Nov. 1, 1974 to Nov. 16, 1976, no employee of the company was never required to work after 5:00 in the afternoon. There is nothing in the record except her bare allegations which would show that she truly and actually rendered said overtime work 2. YES. the NLRC ordered petitioner to pay Rosal backwages from Dec. 2, 1976 to May 31, 1978, the date when Asst. Secretary Leogardo, Jr., rendered his decision lifting the preventive suspension of Rosal and ordering petitioner to reinstate her to her former position without loss of rights and with full backwages from the time of preventive suspension up to the date of her actual reinstatement.c We agree. We note that this decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering reinstatement had not been complied with. Neither was it appealed by petitioner, therefore, the decision had become final and executory. To exempt petitioner from the payment of backwages would be to give premium to the blant disregard of orders of the Ministry of Labor. Moreover, it would be in consonance with compassionate justice that Rosal be paid backwages during the period that she was supposed to be reinstated

Note that the only ground for the imposition of HELD: We are fully in accord with this view, which is preventive suspension is provided for under Sec. 4, in line with our decision in Manila Railroad Co: Rule XIV of the Implementing Regulations of the (REFER TO HELD OF MANILA RAILROAD) Ministry of Labor which readsHENCE. It appearing that Fermin Reotan had been on leave of absence for 36 days and that Silvestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane had been absent for one (1) day and four (4) days, respectively, and that these absences had not been considered in computing the overtime compensation due said plaintiffs, it is clear that the corresponding deductions should be made therefrom. GLOBAL VS ATIENZA FACTS: Rosal, herein SEC. 4. Preventive suspension. The employer may place the employee concerned under preventive suspension only if the continued employment of the employee poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the coemployees. Any preventive suspension before the filing of the application shall be considered worked days, and shall be duly paid as such if the continued presence of the employee concerned does not pose a serious threat to the life and property of the employer or of the co-employees.

private

respondent,

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP

As aptly held by Asst. Secretary Leogardo Jr., the continued presence of Clarita Rosal never posed a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or co-employees as would warrant her preventive suspension DURABUILT V NLRC FACTS: On July 11, 1983, a complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by respondent Reynaldo Bodegas, against petitioner Durabuilt, a tire recapping company. Labor Arbiter: private respondent was ordered reinstated to his former position with full backwages, from the time he was terminated up to the time he is actually reinstated, without loss of seniority rights and benefits accruing to him. Acting Chief of Research and Information and the Corporation Auditing Examiner of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment submitted a computation of backwages, ECOLA, 13th month pay, sick and vacation leave benefits in favor of Reynaldo Bodegas in the total amount of P24,316.38. The petitioner filed its opposition to the computation on the ground that it contemplated a straight computation of twenty six (26) working days in one month when the period covered by the computation was intermittently interrupted due to frequent brownouts and machine trouble and that respondent Bodegas had only a total of 250.75 days of attendance in 1982 due to absences. According to the petitioner, Bodegas is entitled only to the amount of P3,834.05 broken down as follows: salaries P1,993.00; ECOLA P1,433.50, and 13th month pay P407.55. On October 23, 1985, the Labor Arbiter denied the opposition to the computation. The petitioner appealed to the NLRC which, in an order dated May 16, 1986, affirmed the order of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal. Claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondents, Durabuilt filed the instant petition. ISSUE: WON Bodegas is entitled to backwages HELD: Backwages, in general, are granted on grounds of equity for earnings which a worker or employee has lost due to his dismissal from work (New Manila Candy Workers Union (NACONWAPAFLU v. CIR, 86 SCRA 37). The general principle is that an employee is entitled to receive as backwages all the amounts he may have lost starting from the date of his dismissal up to the time of his reinstatement The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and employee of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining employees' wages, and for that matter backwages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, or suspended (SSS v. SSS Supervisors Union-CUGCO, 117 SCRA 746). The illegal dismissal of the private respondent is conceded by the petitioner. It is willing to pay backwages. However, the petitioner argues that for days where no work was required and could be done by its employees, no wages could have been earned and, thereafter, lost by said employees to justify an award of backwages. The petitioner is ordered to pay private respondent his backwages from the time he was terminated up to the time he was actually reinstated computed on the basis of the number of days when petitioner's business was in actual operation. The number of days where no work was required and could be done by petitioner's employees on account of shutdowns due to electrical power interruptions, machine repair, and lack of raw materials are not considered hours worked for purposes of computing the petitioner's obligation to respondent employee. In no case shall the award exceed three year's backpay as above computed. WILLIAM LINES V LOPEZ FACTS: Lopez wsa storekeeper of Severa vessels. His services was terminated and approximately 1yr 5 mos and 4 days after his services were terminated filed a petitio with the CIR claiming salary differentials, premium pay for services rendered on Sundays and holidays, as well as daily overtime compensatrion, with a request for reinstatement. William lines maintained that Lopez was not entitled to premium pay bec WL was public utility corp; that the various claims had already prescribed; and that the claiman-respondent never redered overtime service bec the nature of his work was w/o fixed time and did not require him to work for more than 8hrs a day. ISSUE: WOM Lopes was entitled to premium pay H: since sec 7-A of the 8th-hour Labor Law allows the enforcement of an action w/n 3 yrs after the cause of action accrued, otherwise such action shall be forever

barred, claimant can collect only the overtime Furthermore, Aspera had not denied that he was compensation for the 2 hours in excess of the regualr aamanagerial employee w/n the meaning of sec 82. 8 hrs a day which accrued w/n 3 yrs immed before As such he was not entitled to OT pay. filing of the petition. MERCURY DRUG V DAYAO Similar claims w/c accrued prior to the 3yr period or FACTS 1. This is a verified petition dated March bfore March 17, 1961 have already prescribed and 17, 1964 which was subsequently amended on can no longer be enforced in this action. However, July 31, 1964 filed by Nardo Dayao and 70 others since claimant-respndents services were terminated against Mercury Drug Co., Inc., on 10/13/62, the computation of the 2hr-daily overtime and/or Mariano Que, President & General Manager, will cover the period from March17/61 to Oct13/62, or and Mercury Drug Co., Inc. 2. Employees a period of 1yr, 6mos and 26 days, from which shall Association praying, with respect to respondent be excluded Sundays and legal holidays based on the corporation and its principle that being on board the vessel on these days president and general manager: 1) payment of their were part and parcel of and inherent in his work. unpaid back wages for work done on Sundays and legal holidays plus 25c/c additional compensation PESALA V NLRC from date of their employment up to June 30, 1962; 2) payment of extra compensation on work done at FACTS 1. Private respondent Angel Esquejo started night; 3) reinstatement of Januario Referente and working with petitioner PAL Employees Savings and Oscar Echalar to their former positions with back Loan Association (PESALA) as a company guard and salaries; and, as against the respondent union, for its was receiving a monthly basic salary of P 1,900 plus disestablishment and the refund of the money it had an emergency allowance in the amount of P 510. collected from petitioners. 2. He was required to work 12 hours a day. That 3. The CIR sustained the claim of the during his entire period of employment with petitioner, petitioners for payment of back wages correspoding to herein private respondent was required to perform the first four hours work rendered on every other overtime work without any additional compensation Sunday and first four hours on legal holidays should from the latter. be denied for lack of merit. The motion for 3. Sometime later, private respondent was reconsideration was denied. administratively charged with serious misconduct or 4. Thus, the instant petition contending disobedience of the lawful orders of petitioner or its that private respondents' claims for 25% Sunday and officers. As a result, private respondent filed a Legal Holiday premiums are not supported by detailed and itemized computation of his money substantial evidence, thus infringing upon the cardinal claims. rights of the petitioner, and that assuming it is, such 4. Thereafter, the labor Arbiter rendered a decision premiums are already included in the salary of private granting private respondent overtime pay. respondents. 5. Aggrieved by the decision, petitioner appealed to ISSUE the NLRC only to be rejected later. 6. In the Whether or not private respondents are entitled to the meantime, petitioner filed the instant special civil 25% Sunday and Legal Holiday premiums. action for certiorari citing as reason that quite recently, HELD The contention is without merit. While an the employee payroll sheets which contained the employer may compel his employees to perform salaries and overtime pay received by private service on such days, the law nevertheless imposes respondent were located in the bodega of the upon him the obligation to pay his employees at least petitioner and based on the payroll sheets, it appears 25% additional of their basic or regular salaries. that substantial overtime pay Under Section 4 of C. A. No. 444, no person, firm or have been paid to private respondent. Art. 88. Undertime not offset by ISSUE Whether or not an employee is entitled to overtime. Undertime work on any overtime pay for work rendered in excess of the particular day shall not be offset by regular eight hour day given the fact that he entered overtime work on any other day. into a contract of labor specifying a work-day of Permission given to the employee twelve hours at a fixed monthly rate above the to go on leave on some other day of legislated minimum wage. the week shall not exempt the HELD YES. The Supreme Court held that based on employer from paying the petitioners own computation, it appears that the additional compensation required basic salary plus emergency allowance given to in this Chapter. private respondent did not actually include the overtime pay claimed by private respondent. corporation, business establishment or place of center Moreover, there was no meeting of the minds of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work between petitioner and private respondent as to what during Sundays and legal holidays unless he is paid is covered by the salary stipulated. The said contract an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of was definite only as to the number of hours to be his regular remuneration: Provided, However, That rendered. this prohibition shall not apply to public utilities Furthermore, the subsequent act of private performing some public service such as supplying respondent in filing the money claims negates the gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of theory that there was a clear agreement as to the transportation or communication. Although a service inclusion of his overtime pay in the contracted salary enterprise, respondent company's employees are rate. within the coverage of C. A. No. 444, as amended MERALCO VS MERALCO known as the Eight Hour Labor Law, for they do not fall within the category or class of employees or F:Some laborers of the petitioning union chose to laborers excluded from its provisions. In not giving work in the motor pool of the company and to be paid weight to the evidence of the petitioner company, the under Plan A wherein they were being paid monthly respondent court sustained the private respondents' rate rquivalent to 30times their daily wage, in addition evidence to the effect that their 25% additional to additional sick leave, vacation leave, and other compensation for work done on Sundays and Legal privileges of a regular employee. They also had the Holidays were not included in their respective monthly privilege of taking 4 days off with pay every month, salaries. The private respondents presented evidence plus time off with pay on such days when the through the testimonies of Nardo, Dayao, Ernesto executive or official using the car dies not need their Talampas, and Josias Federico who are themselves service of more than 8hrs a day in lieu of overtime. among the employees who filed the case for unfair I: is such waiver of OT pay valid in exchange of labor practice in the respondent court and are private certain benefits? respondents herein. The petitioner- company's H: Petitioner cant just assume that the waiver of OT contention that the respondent court's conclusion on compensation by the drivers who preferred to work in the issue of the 25% additional compensation for work the motor pool is against the law, it appearing that done on Sundays and legal holidays during the first such waiver was to bein consideration for certain four hours that the private respondents had to work privileges they were to enjoy, among them that of under their respective contracts of employment was being given tips when doing OT work, and there being not supported by substantial evidence is, therefore, no proof that the value sod those privileges did not unfounded. compensate for such work. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT V MOLE NWSA V NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS F: Miguel Asperas contract w/ petitioner stipulates F: Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled that his working day consists of 10hrs a day. He now corp created under RA 1383 while respondent NWSA claims that his monthly salary should correspond to Consol.Unions are various labor organizations 8hrs of daily work and that for the additional 2hrs composed of laborers and employees of NAWASA. daily, he was entitled to overtime pay. Acting on the certification of the president of Phil. Pet. Contends that Aspera is a managerial employee Court of Industrial Rel. conducted a hearing on and under sec82, is not entitled to OT pay. 12/5/57 on the controversy existing bet pet, and The Director of Employment Servces,and NLRC respon unions w/c the latter embodied in a sustained Asperas claim and awarded him that amt Manifesto namely: as OT pay but declared void the stipulation for a 10hr a. implementation of the 40-hr week law working day bec it was contrary to sec83 of b. alleged violations of the collecve LaborCode. bargaining agreement concerning I: WON 10hr working day is valid distress pay H: Acting Minister of Labor (MOLE) and Dir De la c. min. wage of P5.25 Cruz committed grave abuse of discretion amounting d. promotional appts and filing of to lack of jurisdiction in awarding OT pay and in vacancies of newly created positions; disregarding a contract that De la Cruz himself, who is e. addtl compensation for night work; supposed to know the 8hr labor law, had previously f. wage increases to some laborers and sealed with his imprimatur. Because of that approval, employees; and the petitioner acted in good faith on enforcing the g. strike duraition pay contract.

in addition, responn unions raised the issue of whether 25% addtl compensation for Sunday work should be included in computing the daily wage and whether, in determining the daily wage of a monthlysalaried employee, the salary should be divided by 30 days. Issue: WON the undertime should set-off the time worked in excess of 8hrs HELD: the method used by NWSA in offsetting the OT with undertime and at the same time charging said undertime to the accrued leave of the employee is UNFAIR, for under such method the employee is made to pay twice for his undertime bec his leave is reduced, to that extent while he was made to pay for it with work beyond the regukar working hours. The proper method should be to deduct the undertime from the accrued leave but pay the employee the overtime to w/c he is entitled. This method also obviated the irregular schedule that would result if the OT should be set off against the undertime for that would place the schedule for working hrs dependent on the employee. STO DOMINGO V PHIL.ROCK (?) Art. 89.(memo) Emergency overtime work. Any employee may be required by the employer to perform overtime work in any of the following cases: When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive; When it is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of imminent danger to public safety due to an actual or impending emergency in the locality caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity; When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other cause of similar nature; When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; and Where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth hour is necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of the employer. Any employee required to render overtime work under this Article shall be paid the additional compensation required in this Chapter. Art. 90. Computation of additional compensation. For purposes of computing overtime and other additional remuneration as required by this Chapter, the "regular wage" of an employee shall include the cash wage only, without deduction on account of facilities provided by the employer. CALTEZ V CIR MERALCO V MERALCO F: Employees workweek was 45hrs consisting of 8hrs daily, from Mon-Fri and 5hrs on Sunday. Realizing certain advantages in compressing the workdays to only Mon through Fri at 9hrs per day w/o OT, the employees and the mgt sought the approval of DOLE. DOLE took the ff positionGR: Right to OT pay cannot be waived however if there is a compressed workweek propsed, the same shall be valid if it meets the ff conditions: a. the employees voluntarily agree to work 9 hrs a day from Mon-Fri b. that there will not be any diminution whatsoever in the weekly of monthly take home pay and fringe benefits of the employees. c. The value of the benefits that will accrue to the employees under the proposed work schedule is more than or at least commensurate with or equal to the 1 hr OT pay that is due them during the weekdays based on the employees quantification d. The 1hr OT pay of the employees will become due and demandable if ever they are permitted or made to work on any Sat during the effectivity of the new working time arrangement, since the agreement betwn the employees and mgt is that there will be no Saturday work in exchange for a longer workday during weekdays e. The work of the employees does not involve strenuous physical exertion and they are provided with adequate rest periods or coffee breaks in the morning and afternoon; and f. The effectivity of the proposed working time arrangement shall be of temporary duration as determined by DOLE.

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP

IRR on HOURS OF WORK IN GENERAL WHO ARE paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, MEAL PERIODS: INCLUDED/EXCLUDED attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. ART. 85. Meal periods. - Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be Art. 82. Coverage. The provisions of this Title shall ART. 84. Hours worked. - Hours worked shall the duty of every employer to give his employees not apply to employees in all establishments and include (a) all time during which an employee is less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to required to be on duty or to be at a prescribed meals. government employees, managerial employees, field workplace; and (b) all time during which an employee personnel, members is suffered or permitted to work. Rest periods of short IRR BK III Rule 1SECTION 7. Meal and Rest of the family of the employer who are dependent on duration during working hours shall be counted as Periods. Every employer shall give his employees, him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the hours worked. regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off personal service of another, and workers who are for regular meals, except in the following cases when paid by results as determined by the Secretary of **IRR BK III Rule 1 sec 3-6 a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes Labor in SECTION 3. Hours worked. The following shall be may be given by the employer provided that such appropriate regulations. considered as compensable hours worked: shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours (a) All time during which an employee is required to worked of the employee: As used herein, "managerial employees" refer to be on duty or to be at the employer's premises or to (a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or those whose primary duty consists of the be at a prescribed work place; and does not involve strenuous physical exertion; management of the establishment in which they are (b) All time during which an employee is suffered or (b) Where the establishment regularly operates not employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, permitted to work.cralaw less than sixteen (16) hours a day; and to other officers or members of the managerial SECTION 4. Principles in determining hours (c) In case of actual or impending emergencies or staff. worked. The following general principles shall there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, govern in determining whether the time spent by an equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which "Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural employee is considered hours worked for purposes of the employer would otherwise suffer; and employees who regularly perform their duties away this Rule: (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious from the (a) All hours are hours worked which the employee is loss of perishable goods.cralaw principal place of business or branch office of the required to give his employer, regardless of whether Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to employer and whose actual hours of work in the field or not such hours are spent in productive labor or twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. involve physical or mental exertion.cralaw compensable working time.cralaw SECTION 1. General statement on coverage. (b) An employee need not leave the premises of the The provisions of this Rule shall apply to all work place in order that his rest period shall not be NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL employees in all establishments and undertakings, counted, it being enough that he stops working, may ART. 86. Night shift differential. - Every employee whether operated for profit or not, except to those rest completely and may leave his work place, to go shall be paid a night shift differential of not less than specifically exempted under Section 2 hereof.cralaw elsewhere, whether within or outside the premises of ten percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of SECTION 2. Exemption. The provisions of this his work place.cralaw work performed between ten oclock in the evening Rule shall not apply to the following persons if they (c) If the work performed was necessary, or it and six oclock in the morning. qualify for exemption under the conditions set forth benefited the employer, or the employee could not herein: abandon his work at the end of his normal working OVERTIME WORK (a) Government employees whether employed by the hours because he had no replacement, all time spent ART. 87. Overtime work. - Work may be performed National Government or any of its political subdivision, for such work shall be considered as hours worked, if beyond eight (8) hours a day provided that the including those employed in government-owned the work was with the knowledge of his employer or employee is paid for the overtime work, an additional and/or controlled corporations; immediate supervisor.cralaw compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at (b) Managerial employees, if they meet all of the (d) The time during which an employee is inactive by least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. Work following conditions: reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control performed beyond eight hours on a holiday or rest day (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of shall be considered working time either if the shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to the establishment in which they are employed or of a imminence of the resumption of work requires the the rate of the first eight hours on a holiday or rest day department or sub-division thereof.cralaw employee's presence at the place of work or if the plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof. (2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and two or more employees therein.cralaw gainfully in the employee's own interest.cralaw ART. 88. Undertime not offset by overtime. (3) They have the authority to hire or fire employees SECTION 5. Waiting time. (a) Waiting time spent Undertime work on any particular day shall not be of lower rank; or their suggestions and by an employee shall be considered as working time if offset by overtime work on any other day. Permission recommendations as to hiring and firing and as to the waiting is an integral part of his work or the employee given to the employee to go on leave on some other promotion or any other change of status of other is required or engaged by the employer to wait.cralaw day of the week shall not exempt the employer from employees, are given particular weight.cralaw (b) An employee who is required to remain on call in paying the additional compensation required in this (c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they the employer's premises or so close thereto that he Chapter. perform the following duties and responsibilities: cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of own purpose shall be considered as working while on ART. 89. Emergency overtime work. - Any work directly related to management policies of their call. An employee who is not required to leave word at employee may be required by the employer to employer; his home or with company officials where he may be perform overtime work in any of the following (2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and reached is not working while on call.cralaw cases:chan robles virtual law library independent judgment; and SECTION 6. Lectures, meetings, training (3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a programs. Attendance at lectures, meetings, (a) When the country is at war or when any other managerial employee whose primary duty consists of training programs, and other similar activities shall not national or local emergency has been declared by the the management of the establishment in which he is be counted as working time if all of the following National Assembly or the Chief Executive; employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under conditions are met: general supervision work along specialized or (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular (b) When it is necessary to prevent loss of life or technical lines requiring special training, experience, working hours; property or in case of imminent danger to public or knowledge; or (iii) execute, under general (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and safety due to an actual or impending emergency in supervision, special assignments and tasks; and (c) The employee does not perform any productive the locality caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, (4) Who do not devote more than 20 percent of their work during such attendance. typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or hours worked in a work week to activities which are calamity; not directly and closely related to the performance of TRAVEL TIME: the work described in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) 3 kinds: (c) When there is urgent work to be performed on above.cralaw Travel From Home to Work- Normal travel from machines, installations, or equipment, in order to (d) Domestic servants and persons in the personal home to work which is not work time. GR: not avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or service of another if they perform such services in the Compensable Work time because it is a normal some other cause of similar nature; employer's home which are usually necessary or incident of employment Exceptions: desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, 1. where employee made to work on an emergency (d) When the work is necessary to prevent loss or or minister to the personal comfort, convenience, or call and travel is necessary in proceeding to the damage to perishable goods; and safety of the employer as well as the members of his workplace employer's household.cralaw 2. travel is done through a conveyance provided by (e) Where the completion or continuation of the work (e) Workers who are paid by results, including those the employer started before the eighth hour is necessary to prevent who are paid on piece-work, "takay," "pakiao" or task 3. travel is done under the supervision and control of serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or basis, and other non-time work if their output rates are the employer operations of the employer. in accordance with the standards prescribed under 4. travel is done under vexing and dangerous Section 8, Rule VII, Book Three of these regulations, circumstances Any employee required to render overtime work under or where such rates have been fixed by the Secretary this Article shall be paid the additional compensation of Labor and Employment in accordance with the required in this Chapter. aforesaid Section.cralaw Travel that is all in a days work- Time spent by an (f) Non-agricultural field personnel if they regularly employee in travel as part of his principal activity, like ART. 90. Computation of additional compensation . perform their duties away from the principal or branch travel from jobsite to jobsite during the workday. - For purposes of computing overtime and other office or place of business of the employer and whose COMPENSABLE AND COUNTED AS HOURS additional remuneration as required by this Chapter, actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined WORKED the "regular wage" of an employee shall include the with reasonable certainty.cralaw cash wage only, without deduction on account of Travel Away from Home- Travel that keeps an facilities provided by the employer. ART. 83. Normal hours of work. - The normal hours employee away from home overnight. WORKTIME of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) when it cuts across an employees workday because IRR ON OVERTIME hours a day. it substitutes for the hours the employee should have SECTION 8. Overtime pay. Any employee been in the office covered by this Rule who is permitted or required to Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a work beyond eight (8) hours on ordinary working days population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in SEMESTRAL BREAK: Regular full-time monthly paid shall be paid an additional compensation for the hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least teachers in a private school are entitled to salary and overtime work in the amount equivalent to his regular one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for emergency cost-of-living allowance during semestral wage plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, breaks. thereof.cralaw exclusive of time for meals, except where the SECTION 9. Premium and overtime pay for holiday exigencies of the service require that such personnel WORK HOURS OF SEAMEN: The rule is that a and rest day work. (a) Except employees referred work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which laborer need not leave the premises of the factory, to under Section 2 of this Rule, an employee who is case, they shall be entitled to an additional ship or boat in order that his period of rest shall not be permitted or suffered to work on special holidays or on compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of their counted, it being enough the he ceases to work may his designated rest days not falling on regular regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes rest completely and leave or may leave at his will the holidays, shall be paid with an additional of this Article, "health personnel" shall include resident spot where he actually stays while working. compensation as premium pay of not less than thirty physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, percent (30%) of his regular wage. For work pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, performed in excess of eight (8) hours on special

holidays and rest days not falling on regular holidays, an employee shall be paid an additional compensation for the overtime work equivalent to his rate for the first eight hours on a special holiday or rest day plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof.cralaw (b) Employees of public utility enterprises as well as those employed in non-profit institutions and organizations shall be entitled to the premium and overtime pay provided herein, unless they are specifically excluded from the coverage of this Rule as provided in Section 2 hereof.cralaw (c) The payment of additional compensation for work performed on regular holidays shall be governed by Rule IV, Book Three, of these Rules.cralaw SECTION 10. Compulsory overtime work. In any of the following cases, an employer may require any of his employees to work beyond eight (8) hours a day, provided that the employee required to render overtime work is paid the additional compensation required by these regulations: (a) When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been declared by Congress or the Chief Executive; (b) When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property, or in case of imminent danger to public safety due to actual or impending emergency in the locality caused by serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, epidemic or other disaster or calamities; (c) When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other causes of similar nature; (d) When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; (e) When the completion or continuation of work started before the 8th hour is necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of the employer; or (f) When overtime work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent thereon.cralaw In cases not falling within any of these enumerated in this Section, no employee may be made to work beyond eight hours a day against his will.

LABSTAND-CANADA.REMOROZA.YAP