JDLABOR1-22

Topic: Overtime Work

G.R. No. 115755 December 4, 2000

IMELDA B. DAMASCO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, MANILA GLASS SUPPLY and BONIFACIO K. SIA, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner was hired as a sales clerk by Manila Glass Supply and Bonifacio K. Sia in
1992. She was instructed to carry out almost all the works associated with the respondents' glass
business. She was also made to work from 8:30 AM until to 9:30 PM continuously from Monday
to Sunday without having been paid overtime pay, rest day pay and holiday pay; during the
period of her employment, she did not receive any 13th-month pay and five days service
incentive leave pay. The petitioner did not report for work anymore because she was scared of
Sia after the latter swiped an ashtray and threw notebooks at the petitioner because she refused to
finish all her work that night because according to her, it was already late. Sia denied the
allegations. On December 7, 1992, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
non-payment of overtime pay.

LA RULING NLRC RULING

Ruled in favor of Damasco Upheld the ruling of the LA

ISSUE

W/N the petitioner is entitled to overtime compensation

RULING

YES. In view of Sia’s formal admission that Ms. Damasco worked beyond eight hours
daily, the latter is entitled to overtime compensation. No further proof is required. Sia already
admitted she worked an extra hour daily. Thus, public respondent gravely erred in deleting the
award of overtime pay to Ms. Damasco on the pretext that the claim has no factual basis.

Still, even assuming that Damasco received a wage which is higher than the minimum
provided by law, it does not follow that any additional compensation due her can be offset by her
pay in excess of the minimum, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. Moreover,
such arrangement, if there be any, must appear in the manner required by law on how overtime
compensation must be determined. For it is necessary to have a clear and definite delineation
between an employee’s regular and overtime compensation to thwart violation of the labor
standards provision of the Labor Code.