You are on page 1of 6


Conditions of Work • The 30-minute assembly time “long
practiced and institutionalized by mutual
e. Specific Rules consent of the parties” under their CBA
cannot be considered waiting time
3. Waiting time within the purview of Section 5 Rule 1,
Book III of the IRR of the Labor Code.
Arica v. NLRC • The assembly time (1) did not “deprive
the workers to attend to other personal
pursuits” (2) did not take a long time
J. Paras because the company did not need to
Facts: give them long briefings such as in the
case of new employees and (3) the
Arica sued Standard Fruits Corp. (Stanfilo) to homes of the workers were right on the
compel the latter to pay for uncompensated assembly area, allowing them to return
working time. He was referring to the to their chores and (4) they were not
preliminary activities that he and his fellow required to attend the roll call.
farm workers do between 5:30 and 6 in the
morning, which include: 2. “In short, they are not subject to the absolute
control of the company during this period,
• Answering a roll call and getting otherwise, their failure to report in the
their individual work assignments for assembly time would justify the company to
the day impose disciplinary actions.” Moreover, the
• Fill in their Labororer’s Daily facts demonstrate that the roll call was not
Accomplishment Reports “primarily intended for the interests of the
• Get their tools and equipment from workers but ultimately for the employees,
the stockroom to indicate their availability or non-availability
• Travel to the field where they were for work…”
assigned 3. The said ruling in ALU is res judicata, which
bars this present case.
Issue: Whether the said time should be
compensated by the company Dissenting Opinion
J. Sarmiento
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the NLRC in favor of the fruit 1. The workers maintained that the current
corporation circumstances surrounding their work
schedule are different from that, which were
Ratio: established in the ALU case. The company, in
Justice Sarmiento’s view, failed to rebut this
1. The Supreme Court noted that the same claim.
issue was raised against Stanfilo in the 2. “It is evident that the Ople decision was
NLRC case Associated Labor Union v. predicated on absence of any insinuation of
Standard Fruit Corporation. The Minister obligatoriness in the course or after the
of Labor Blas Ople made the following assembly activities on the part of the
findings, which were concurred in by the employees.” However, things had since
NLRC: changed as the employees “had since been
placed under a number of restrictions.”
4. On Call, Rule 1, section 5(b) cannot be considered absences contemplated
under the said PDs:
5. Inactive Work Due to work Interruptions, • “These semestral breaks are in the nature
Book III, Rule I Sec. 4 (d) of work interruptions beyond the
employees’ control.” All the schools in
University of Pangasinan Faculty the country have these breaks and they
Union v. University of Pangasinan themselves set their duration. The
teachers, thus, are forced to take leave of
absences. The rule “No work no pay”
Facts and Issues applies to a situation “where the
employees voluntarily absent
The faculty union is suing the university for, themselves”. The rule has no applicability
among others, unpaid Emergency Cost of in this case. Thus, they must be paid with
Living Allowances (ECOLA) during the their salary and allowances.
semestral break of academic year 1981-1982. • Moreover, wage regulations state that “all
The university denied that the teachers were
covered employees whether paid on a
entitled to the allowances since the semestral
monthly or daily basis shall be entitled to
break was not an integral part of the school
their daily living allowance when they are
year and no actual services were rendered by
paid their basic pay”. Conversely, the rule
them. The school applied the rule: “No work
is “No pay no ECOLA.” In this case, the
no pay. No pay, no ECOLA.”
teachers were paid their regular salaries
during the break. It follows that they are
Some of the faculty also claimed that the
entitled to their ECOLA.
school owed them for their unpaid salaries for
• Finally, the Court took notice of the nature
September 21, 1981. The school had assigned
extra loads to these teachers and it happened of the teachers’ work saying that
that they had scheduled loads on September “[a]lthough they may be considered by the
21, which was declared a holiday. respondents to be on leave, the semestral
break could not be used effectively for
Decision the teacher’s own purposes for the nature
of the teacher’s job imposes upon him
A. Re: ECOLA. further duties which must be done during
the said period of time.” (e.g. checking
The Court ordered the university to pay the papers, preparations for the next semester).
ECOLA. It would be unfair to consider them to be
on leave without pay.
1. According to the presidential decrees (PD)
granting ECOLA, all employees shall be B. Re: Alleged unpaid extra teaching load
paid in full the required monthly
allowance [i.e. ECOLA] regardless of their The Court upheld the finding (of fact) by the
regular working days if they incur no NLRC that the salaries for September 21 were
absences during the month. If they incur paid. However in an obiter, the court discussed
absences without pay, the amount the rule applicable, assuming, that the wages
corresponding to the absences may be were not paid:
2. Indeed, the teachers are not in school This time the rule No Work No Pay applies.
during the semestral break but these
1. “We are now concerned with extra, not spent daily as travel time during the duration of
regular loads for which the petitioners are his contracts.
paid regular salaries every month
regardless of the number of working days In its defense, the company said that Rada was not
or hours in such month.” working during the said hours. The company just
2. “Extra loads should be paid only when allowed him to take the car home for his and the
actually performed by the employee. other employees’ convenience; otherwise they
Compensation is based, therefore, on will spend 4 hours traveling every morning and
actual work done and on the number of will be late for work.
hours and days.” There was no work
done since the day was a holiday. The Decision:
teachers don’t have to be paid for that day.
The Supreme Court ordered that the company
to pay Rada for overtime.
6. Work after Normal Hours
Contrary to the position of the company, “said
7. Lectures Meetings, Training Programs transportation arrangement had been adopted not
so much for the convenience of the employees,
8. Travel Time but primarily for the benefit of the employer,
herein private respondent.”
This fact is inevitably deducible from the
Memorandum of respondent company, wherein it
Facts admitted that the transportation arrangement as a
practical solution to the employees tardiness
Rada was hired as a project employee brought by the traffic situation along the route to
(specifically, as a driver) of Philnor the project site.
Consultants and Planners Inc., which was
supervising the extension of the N. Picking up and dropping off the other company
Expressway. employees was a required task that Rada
generally performed. Note that when Rada, for
As driver, he would leave his home in some reason or another, could not go to work,
Marikina at 5:30 in the morning and pick up another driver was supposed to take his place. “If
some of Philnor’s employees at designated driving these employees to and from the project
points along EDSA and take them to the site is not really part of the petitioner’s job, then
project site, arriving there at 7 a.m. He would there would have been no need to find a
drop off the same employees as he took the replacement driver to fetch these employees.”
route home from the project site. This was
from 4 pm to 6 pm. Thus, all in all he spent Since the assigned task of fetching and delivering
around 3 hours per day for the said travel employees is “indispensable and consequently
time. mandatory”, the time spent for the same should
be considered overtime work.
Rada, after his last contract ended in 1985,
filed a suit before the labor arbiter asking that f. Overtime Work
the he paid overtime pay for the said 3 hours
1. Overtime Work in Ordinary Working Day, the weekly wage includes overtime
Art. 87; Rule I. Sec. 8 compensation, does not meet the requirements
of the Act (referring to the 8-hour labor law).”
2.Emergency or Compulsory Overtime Work,
Art 89 (A caveat: this is my view)
In other words, if the contract of employment
3. Undertime Work/Leave, Art. 88 requires the employee to work for more than 8
hours a day at specified wage, the contract must
4. Additional Compensation, Art. 87 state the hourly rate and if the same is multiplied
by 8, the product should be less than the set daily
5. No computation Formula Basic Contract wage. The difference should be sufficient to cover
for overtime premium (130% of the hourly rate x
Manila Terminal Co. Inc. v. NLRC regular overtime hours). Otherwise, the wage set
will not be considered inclusive of the overtime
2. The Court also said that there can be no
The workers suing Manila Terminal Co. were waiver of the right of overtime.
hired as watchmen to guard the goods that the
company handled as part of its arrastre The law mandates extra compensation for
services. They were employed on two 12-hour overtime. Thus, it would be contrary to public
shifts. Those with day shifts were paid P3 policy for any contract to expressly provide for its
while those with night shifts were paid P6. non-payment. If such right cannot be expressly
Later the company, implemented the required waived, then the same cannot be impliedly
8-hour shifts. The watchmen wanted the waived.
company to pay them overtime during the
time that they were under 12-hour shifts. The principles of estoppel and laches cannot be
Manila Terminal argued that the wage for the • It is contrary to public policy
12-hour shift was already inclusive of the
• The law “principally obligates the
overtime premium. Besides, the workers had
acquiesced to the arrangement for more than employer to observe it, so much as it
18 months; thus, they were deemed to have punished the employer for its violation
waived their right to it. and leaves the employee or laborer free
and blameless”
Decision • The employee is such a disadvantageous
position as to be naturally reluctant or
1. The court awarded overtime pay to the even apprehensive in asserting any claim
workers. which may cause the employer to devise a
way for exercising his right to terminate
“A contract of employment, which provides employment.
for a weekly wage for a specified number of
hours, [supposedly] sufficient to cover both
the statutory minimum wage and overtime
compensation, if computed on the basis of
the statutory minimum and which makes
no provision for fixed hourly rate or that
6. Proof of Work/ Employer Obligation 1. WON there was employee-employer
SSS v. CA (2000) 2. A related issue, is with regard to the proof
needed to ascertain its existence
Ynares-Santiago Decision:
Ignacio Tana, husband of the complainant, The Court reversed the CA decision
Margarita Tana, was allegedly an employee of 1. At the onset, there are 4 essential elements of
Ayalde for 12 years. During the said period, an employee-employer relationship:
SSS contributions were allegedly deducted • Selection and engagement of the employee
from his salaries. When he died, she found out
• Payment of wages
that his contributions were remitted to the
SSS. Thus, she could not claim burial and • Power of control
pension benefits. • Power of dismissal

Margarita filed a case before the Social 2. Ayalde’s argument that one of the elements is
Security Commission against Ayalde for the missing, i.e., that she had no control over
payment of the premiums. SSS filed a Tana, who was hired on a pakyaw basis and as
petition-in-intervention and also sought a an independent contractor, is specious. First,
ruling against Ayalde. They presented the he was not hired on pakyaw basis. He was
testimonies of Tana’s fellow workers to show hired not just to plow the fields for
that Tana was regularly employed in the intermittent periods but was tasked with other
hacienda and performed various tasks for 10 work in the hacienda like cutting sugar cane,
months each year (2 months was used to weeding, hauling fertilizers etc. Second, there
prepare the land for cultivation). In return, he was an overseer through whom Ayalde
was paid every 15th day of the month and exercised power to hire and dismiss
signed a yellow pad (which served as the employees like Tana and check on their work.
payroll) receiving the same. “…[T]he power of control refers merely to
the existence of the power. It is not essential
Ayalde argued that Ignacio was an for the employer to actually supervise the
independent contractor hired at a “pakyaw” performance of (sic) duties of the
basis to plow Ayalde’s hacienda. She also employees; it is sufficient that the former
pointed out that he did not actually work in the has a right to wield the same.
hacienda for 12 years. To prove she presented
payrolls for 1974-1976 and from 1978-1979. 3. The Court also did not agree that the mere
absence of Tana’s name in the payroll
The Commission gave a judgment against presented by Ayalda necessarily meant he was
Ayalde but the CA reversed it on the ground not the latter’s employee. First, the payrolls
that there was no employee-employer presented were only samplings and were even
relationship between Ayalde and Tana. unsigned by the purported laborers. Secondly,
Mandatory SSS coverage is premised on the there was competent testamentary evidence
existence of such relationship. Absent that, that contradicted Ayalde’s claims. The
Tana was not entitled to be paid. presentation of the payroll is not an absolute
requirement to establish the existence of
Issues Tana’s employment and his entitlement to its
consequential rights. “No particular form of
evidence is required to prove the
existence of an employee-employer
relationship. Any competent and
relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted. For, if
only documentary evidence would be
required to show that relationship, no
scheming employer would ever be
brought before the bar of justice, as no
employer would wish to come out with
any trace of the illegality he has
authored considering that it should take
much weightier proof to invalidate a
written instrument.”

g. Nightwork, Art. 86; Rule II, Sections. 1-6

1. Coverage and Exclusion

2. Additional Compensation