20.

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT - CA: affirmed NLRC decision on finding of

AGENCY v. CABILES illegal dismissal, Joy’s entitlement of 3
months worth of salary, reimbursement of
- Joy Cabiles submitted application for a withheld repatriation expenses, and atty’s
quality control job in Taiwan -> application fees
was accepted -> asked to sign a 1-year - SC: Pet failed to show that there was just
employment contract -> alleged that cause for the dismissal -> security of tenure
petitioner required her to pay a placement is guaranteed by our Consti. -> Pet’s
fee of 70k when she signed the employment allegation that R was inefficient in her work
contract and negligent in her duties may constitute a
- Joy was deployed to work for just cause for termination under Art. 282(b)
TaiwanWacoal and alleged that in her of LC, BUT only if pet was able to prove it ->
employment contract, she agreed to work as pet merely alleged that R failed to comply
quality control for 1 year -> In Taiwan, she with her foreign employer’s work
was asked to work as a cutter requirements and was inefficient in her
- Pet. Claims that a Mr. Huwang from work -> NO evidence was shown to support
Wacoal informed Joy without prior notice, such allegations
that she was terminated and that she should - R, having been illegally dismissed, is
immediately report to their office to get her entitled to her salary for the unexpired
salary and passport -> asked to prepare for portion of the employment contract that was
immediate repatriation violated together with atty’s fees and
- Went back to Manila -> filed a complaint reimbursement of amounts withheld from
with NLRC -> claimed that she was illegally her salary
dismissed and asked for the return of her - Sec 10 RA 8042 states that overseas
placement fee, withheld repatriation costs, workers who were terminated without just,
payment of her salary for 23 months, and valid, or authorized cause shall be entitled
moral and exemplary damages to the full reimbursement of his placement
- Pet alleged that Joy’s dismissal was due to fee with interest of 12% per annum, plus his
her inefficiency, negligence in her duties, salaries of the unexpired portion of his
and her failure to comply with the work employment contract
requirements of her foreign employer -> - RA 8042 ensures that overseas workers
claimed that it did not ask Joy for placement have recourse in law despite the
fee of 70k circumstances of their employment. By
- Pet. Alleged that Wacoal’s accreditation providing that the liability of the foreign
with pet has already been transferred to the employer may be enforced to the full extent
Pacific Manpower and Mgmt Svcs and against the local agent, the overseas worker
asserts that it was already substituted by is assured of immediate and sufficient
Pacific -> Pacific moved for the dismissal of payment of what is due them -> The local
pet’s claims against it -> no EER between agency that is held to answer for the
them and therefore, the claims against it overseas worker’s money claims is not left
were outside the juris of LA -> Pacific without remedy. The law does not preclude
argued that the employment contract should it from going after the foreign employer for
first be presented so that the employer’s reimbursement of whatever payment it has
contractual obligations might be identified made to the employee to answer for the
-> denied that it assumed liability for the money claims against the foreign employer
petitioner’s illegal acts - With the present state of the pleadings, it is
- LA: dismissed Joy’s complaint and not possible to determine whether there was
declared that her complaint was based on indeed a transfer of obligations from pet to
mere allegations -> found that there was no Pacific -> This should NOT be an obstacle
excess payment of placement fees based on for the respondent overseas worker to
the OR presented by Pet. proceed with the enforcement of this
- NLRC: declared that Joy was illegally judgment -> Pet is possessed with the
dismissed -> reiterated doctrine that burden resources to determine the proper legal
of proof to show that the dismissal was remedies to enforce its rights against Pacific,
based on a just or valid cause belongs to the if any.
employer -> Pet. Failed to prove just causes
for termination 21. MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING v.
AVESTRUZ
 procedures laid down in Sec 17 of the
- Avestruz was hired by Pet as Chief Cook POEA-SEC -> records are bereft of evidence
on board vessel M/V Nedlloyd Drake for 6 showing compliance with the rules, NLRC
months for foreign employer AP Moller held Pet jointly and severally liable to pay R
Singapore 30k for nominal damages
- Weekly inspection of the vessel’s galley” - CA: reversed and set aside the rulings of
Capt Woodward noticed that the cover of NLRC -> found R to have been illegally
the garbage bin in the kitchen was oily -> dismissed -> directed pet to pay him, jointly
Capt Woodward called Avestruz (part of his and severally, the full amount of his
job was to ensure the cleanliness of the placement fee and deductions made, with
galley) and asked him to stand near the interest at 12% per annum, as well as his
garbage bin -> Capt took Avestruz’s hand salaries for the unexpired portion of his
and swiped it on the oily cover of the contract and atty’s fees of 10% of total award
garbage bin telling him to feel it -> Avestruz -> NO factual basis for the charge of
said that if he wanted them to clean it then insubordination which Pet claimed was the
they would clean it -> Capt replied by ground for R’s dismissal
shoving him on the chest and Avestruz - SC: CA did not err in reversing and setting
complained and told him not to touch him aside the factual conclusions of the labor
-> argument ensued tribunals that R’s dismissal was lawful ->
- Afternoon: Capt summoned and required NO just or valid cause for his dismissal ->
Avestruz to state in writing what transpired emails sent by the Capt to Maersk were
in the galley that morning -> complied and uncorroborated and self-serving, and
submitted his written statement -> on same therefore, do not satisfy the requirement of
day, Capt informed Avestruz that he would substantial evidence as would sufficiently
be dismissed from service and be discharge the burden of proving that R was
disembarked in India legally dismissed -> pet failed to prove that
- Avestruz arrived in Phils -> filed a R committed acts of insubordination which
complaint for illegal dismissal, payment for would warrant his dismissal
the unexpired portion of his contract, - With respect to the monetary awards given
damages, and atty’s fees against Maersk, to R, SC finds the same to be in consonance
employer, and Agbayani, an officer of with Sec. 10 of RA 8042: “In case of
Maersk -> alleged that no investigation or termination of overseas employment
hearing was conducted nor was he given the without just, valid, or authorized cause as
chance to defend himself before he was defined by law or contract, or any
dismissed -> Capt failed to observe the unauthorized deductions from the migrant
provisions under POEA-SEC on disciplinary worker’s salary, the worker shall be entitled
procedures -> averred that he was not given to the fill reimbursement of his placement
any notice stating the ground for his fee and the deductions made with the
dismissal interest at 12% per annum, plus his salaries
- Pet claimed that during R’s stint on the for the unexpired portion of his employment
vessel, R failed to attend to his tasks, contract.
specifically to maintain the cleanliness of the
galley, which prompted Capt to issue COMPULSORY INSURANCE
weekly reminders -> Despite reminders, R COVERAGE
still failed to comply with his duty -> R was
informed of his dismissal from service due Sec. 37-A RA 8042, added by RA 10022:
to insubordination -> Caot sent two emails
to Maersk explaining the decision to G.R.: Each migrant worker deployed by a
terminate R’s employment and requesting recruitment/manning agency shall be
for his replacement covered by a compulsory insurance policy
- LA: dismissed R’s complaint -> found that which shall be secured at no cost to the said
R failed to perform his duty of maintaining worker.
cleanliness in the galley and that he also
repeatedly failed to obey the directives of XPT: Insurance coverage is optional when
his superior, which was tantamount to the migrant worker is classified as a rehire,
insubordination name hire, or direct hire, in which case they
- NLRC: sustained validity of R’s dismissal may request their foreign employer to pay
but found that Pet failed to observe the for the cost of the insurance coverage, or
they may pay for it themselves (Sec. 14, term of about 24 months
Omnibus Rules Implementing RA 10022). - First contract of employment expired ->
MNEE stage 2 project was not finished
Coverage (minimum values) because of various contraints -> project
extended and remained in progress beyond
• Accidental death ($10,000.00); the original period of 2.3 years
- At the time the first contract expired, R was
• Permanent total disablement
in need of a driver for the extended project
($7,500.00);
-> since pet had the necessary experience
• Repatriation and transport of and his performance under the first contract
personal belongings when of employment was found satisfactory,
termination is without valid position of driver was offered to Pet -> pet
cause; accepted -> second contract of employment
for a definite period of 10 months was
• Subsistence allowance benefit executed
($100.00); - A part of the project was completed but the
bulk of it was yet to be finished -> pet was
• Money claims arising from among those whose contract was about to
employer’s liability (3 months for expire and since his service performance
every year of the employment was satisfactory, R renewed his contract of
contract); employment -> 3rd contract of employment
for a definite period of 19 months as driver
• Additional inclusions was executed
- 3rd contract of employment was
• Compassionate visit (when
subsequently extended for a number of
hospitalized and confined for at
times, the last extension for a period of 3
least 7 consecutive days);
months
• Medical evacuation (when an - Last extension was not extended any
adequate medical facility is not further because Pet had no more work to do
available proximate to the in the project -> confirmed by a notice and
worker); duly acknowledged by Pet
- Pet applied for personnel clearance with R
• Medical repatriation (when and acknowledged having rcvd amount of
medically necessary as P3796.20 as conversion to cash of unused
determined by the attending leave credits and financial assistance -> Pet
physician) Obligation to pay also released R from all obligations and/or
premiumsThe obligation rests claims, etc.
with the employer. Should there - A few months later, pet filed before NLRC
be a finding that the migrant a complaint for non-payment of separation
worker paid for the premium, pay and overtime pay ->Philnor (one of R)
the agency shall lose its license alleged that pet was not illegally terminated
and all its directors, partners, since the project was completed ->he was
proprietors, officers and hired under three distinct contracts for
employees shall be perpetually definite period and strictly confined to one
disqualified from engaging in the project -> pet did not render OT services and
business of recruitment of that there was no demand or claim for him
overseas workers. for such OT pay -> he signed a “release,
waiver, and quitclaim” releasing Philnor
from all obligations and claims
- Pet claimed that he was illegally dismissed
V. HOURS OF WORK since he was a regular employee entitled to
security of tenure and not a project
22. RADA v. NLRC
employee since Philnor is not engaged in the
- Pet initial employment with R was under a construction business -> his position as
contract of employment for a definite period driver was essential, necessary and desirable
-> hired as driver for the construction to the conduct of the business of Philnor ->
supervision phase of the Manila North he rendered OT work until 6pm daily except
Expressway Extension (MNEE Stage 2) -> Sundays and holidays and was entitled to
OT pay allowances (ECOLA); salary increase from
- Pet claimed that he was a regular employee the 60% of the incremental proceeds of
pursuant to Art. 278© LC and cannot be increased tuition fees; and payment of
terminated except for a just cause under Art. salaries for suspended extra loads
280 - In Nov and Dec 1981, pet’s members were
- LA: ordered R to reinstate Pet to his former fully paid their regular monthly salaries ->
position without losses of seniority rights however, during the semestral break (nov 7-
and other privileges with full backwages dec 5), they were not paid their ECOLA -> R
from the time of his dismissal to his actual claims that the teachers are not entitled
reinstatement -> directed R to pay Pet OT because the semestral break is not an
pay for the excess 3 hours of work integral part of the school year and there
performed during work days being no actual services rendered by the
- NLRC: set aside LA decision and teachers during said period, the principle
dismissed pet’s complaint “no work, no pay” applies
- SC: Pet is entitled to OT compensation. The - During same school year, R was
fact that he picks up employees of Philnor at authorized by the Ministry of Education and
certain points in EDSA in going to the Culture to collect from its students 15%
project site and drops them off at the same increase of tuition fees -> pet’s members
points on his way back from the field office demanded a salary increase effective the 1st
going home to Marikina is not merely semester of said schoolyear to be taken from
incidental to pet’s job as a driver -> the 60% incremental proceeds of the increased
trasnpo arrangement had been adopted, not tuition fees -> R refused -> this compelled
so much for the convenience of the pet to include this demand in the complaint
employees, but primarily for the benefit of filed in the instant case
the employer (R) - While complaint pending: R granted an
- R does not hesitate to admit that it is across-the –board salary increase of 5.86% ->
usually the project driver who is tasked with Pet still pursued full distribution of the 60%
picking up or dropping off his fellow of the incremental proceeds as mandated by
employees -> when pet is absent another PD 451
driver is supposed to replace him and drive - Aside from their regular loads, some of
the vehicle and likewise pick up and/or drop pet’s members were given extra loads
off the other employees at the designated during SY 1981-1982 and the claimed that
points on EDSA -> if driving these they were not paid for these loads
employees to and from the project site is not - SC: For ECOLA issue- it is beyond dispute
really part of the pet’s job, then there would that the pet’s members are full-time
have been no need to find a replacement employees rcving their monthly salaries
driver to fetch the employees irrespective of the number of working days
- Since the assigned task of fetching and or teaching hours in a month -> Semestral
delivering employees is INDISPENSABLE breaks are in the nature of work
and consequently MANDATORY, then the interruptions beyond the employee’s
time required of and used by pet in going control. -> These breaks cannot be
from his residence to the field office and considered as absences within the meaning
back (from 5:30am-7am and from 4pm- of the law for which deductions may be
6pm), which the LA rounded off as made from monthly allowance -> The “no
averaging 3 hours each working day, should work, no pay” principle does not apply in
be paid as OT work -> pet should be given the instant case
OT pay for the three excess hours of work - It is clear the provisions of law that it
performed during working days contemplates a “no work” situation where
the employees voluntarily absent
23. UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN themselves -> Pet certainly do not absent
FACULTY UNION v. UNIVERSITY OF themselves during semestral breaks -> they
PANGASINAN are constrained to take mandatory leave
from work and cannot be faulted nor can
they be begrudged that which is due them
- Pet is a labor union composed of faculty under the law -> it was not the intention of
members of R -> through its pres., pet filed a the framers of the law to allow employers to
complaint against R with NLRC for withhold employees benefits by the simple
payment of emergency cost of living expedient of unilaterally imposing “no
work” days and consequently avoiding compensable. A shorter mealtime (at least 20
compliance with the mandate of the law for mins) is allowed provided such mealtime is
those days credited as compensable (Sec. 5, DO 182-17)
- The intention of the law is to grant ECOLA
upon the payment of basic wages -> Hence, XPT: If they are required by the nature of
we have the principle of “No pay, no their work to work for 6 days (48 hours),
ECOLA” -> Pet cannot be considered to be they are entitled to additional compensation
on leave without pay so as not to be entitled of at least 30% of their regular wage for the
to ECOLA because the pet were paid their th
work on the 6 day.
wages in full for the months of Nov and
Dec, notwithstanding the intervening
See: DO 182-17
semestral break
- Although they may be considered by the R
24. SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL
to be on leave, the semestral break could not
EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. NLRC
be used effectively for the teacher’s own
purposes for the nature of a teacher’s job
- Pet. Sent a 4-page letter with attached
imposes upon him further duties which
supported signatures to San Juan De Dios
must be done during the said period of time
Hospital (SJDDH) requesting and pleading
-> Learning is a never-ending process,
for the expeditious implementation and
teachers and professors must keep abreast of
payment of the 40-hours/5-day workweek
developments all the time -> Teachers also
with compensable weekly 2 days off
cannot wait for the opening of the next
provided by RA 5901 -> hospital failed to
semester to begin their work
give a favorable response -> pet filed a
- Unfair for the R to consider these teachers
complaint regarding their claims for
as employees on leave without pay to suit its
statutory benefits with NLRC
purposes and yet, in the meantime, continue
- LA: dismissed the complaint of pet
availing their services as they prepare for
- NLRC: affirmed LA decision
the next semester or complete all of the last
- core issue is whether Policy instructions
semester’s requirements
no. 54 issued by then DOLE Sec is valid or
- The semestral break is an interruption
not
beyong pet’s control and it cannot be used
- SC: Policy Instruction No. 54 relies and
effectively nor gainfully in the employee’s
purports to implement RA 5901 -> reliance
interest -> thus, the sem break may also be
of RA 5901 is misplaced bec it has long been
considered as hours worked
repealed with the passage of the LC
- For this, the teachers are paid regular
- Only Art. 83 LC which appears to have
salaries and, for this, they should be entitled
substantially incorporated or reproduced
to ECOLA ->not only do the teachers
the basic provisions of RA 5901 may support
continue to work during this short recess
Policy instructions no. 54 on which the
but much less do they cease to live for which
latter’s validity may be gauged
the cost of living allowance is intended.
- A reading of Art 83 betrays pet’s position
that hospital employees are entitled to a full
EXCEPTION: HEALTH PERSONNEL
weekly salary with paid 2 days off if they
have completed a 40 hour/5 day work week
Art. 83 LC: Health personnel- resident
-> Art 83 merely provides: the regular office
physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians,
hour of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for
pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
health personnel; and where the exigencies
technicians, paramedical technicians,
of service require that health personnel
psychologists, midwives, attendants, and all
work for 6 days or 48 hours then such health
other hospital or clinic personnel.
personnel shall be entitled to an additional
compensation of at least 30% of their regular
G.R.: Those personnel in cities and
wage for work on the 6th day
municipalities with a population of at least
- There is nothing in the law that supports
1,000,000 OR in hospitals and clinics with a
the assertion that personnel in subject
bed capacity of at least 100 are subject to the
hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full
40-hour/5-day workweek at 8 hours of work
weekly wage for 7 days if they have
per day exclusive of mealtime. (Art. 83 LC)
completed the 40 hour/5 day work week in
any given work week
- Mealtime is at least 1-hour and is non-
. DOLE Sec exceeded his authority by
including a 2 days off with pay in upon the complainants was visited with
contravention of the clear mandate of the arbitrariness NOT amounting to unfair labor
statute practice -> a refund of the amount
equivalent to the earned leave of each of the
COMPRESSED WORKWEEKS complainants treated as their pay during
their vacation leave is in order
NOTE: Compressed workweeks are not - SC: there was no unfair labor practice ->
allowed in health services or in private R themselves never questioned the
occupations/workplaces where employees existence of an economic crisis -> there is
are exposed to airborne contaminants, basis for pet’s contentions that the reduction
human carcinogens, substances, chemicals, of work schedule was temporary, that it was
or noises that exceed threshold limit values taken only after notice and consultations
or tolerance levels for an 8-hour workday as with the workers and supervisors, that a
prescribed under the Occupational Safety consensus was reached on how to deal with
and Health Standards pursuant to DOLE deteriorating economic conditions and
DA 02-2004 (Sec. 9, DO 182-1&). reduced sales and that the temporary
reduction of working days was a more
Flexible Work Arrangements humane solution instead of retrenchment
and reduction of personnel
Definition: Alternative arrangements or - No showing that the imposition of forced
schedules other than the traditional or leave was exercised for the purpose of
standard work hours, workday, and defeating or circumventing the rights of
workweek. employees under special laws or under
valid agreements -> pet instituted the forced
Conditions for validity: leave due to economic crisis which private R
• Voluntary agreement by the workers to do not even question
work more than 8 hours/day, as - Forced leave was neither enforced in a
long as the total hours per week malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, nor
does not exceed their normal wanton manner, or out of malice or spite ->
weekly hours; what only hurts private R is that said
• No diminution in the weekly or monthly mgmt’s plan was not even discussed in the
pay and benefits; grievance procedure so that the Union
• Working in excess of the normal weekly members thereof may well be apprised of
hours prior to the adoption of the the reason therefor
compressed workweek scheme still
entitles the employee to overtime
pay; 25. UNICORN SAFETY GLASS v.
• Appropriate waivers with respect to BASARTE
overtime premium pay
• Effectivity and implementation of the new - R were regular employees of pet -> R
working time arrangement is by normally worked 6x a week, Mon-Sat, and
agreement of the parties (D.O. 21). were paid on a weekly basis -> R were also
officers of the organized union in pet
Effects of a CWW: company
- gen mgr of Unicorn issued Memorandum
24. PHILIPPINE GRAPHIC ARTS v. NLRC informing R that their workdays shall be
- Pet was forced by economic circumstances reduced due to economic considerations ->
to require its workers to go on mandatory R registered their protest to the proposed
vacation leave in batches of 7 or 9 for reduction of working days and expressed
periods ranging from 15, 30, to 45 days -> doubts on the reasons offered by the
workers were paid while on leave but the company -> R surmised that mgmt. was
pay was charged against their respective merely getting back at them for forming a
earned leaves union especially since only the union
- private R filed complaints of unfair labor officers were affected by the work reduction
practice and discrimination - general mgr issued another memorandum
- LA: complaint dismissed announcing the implementation of a work
- NLRC: affirmed LA decision with rotation schedule, which will effectively
modification -> the vacation leave forced reduce R’s workdays to merely 3 days a
week -> R wrote another letter of protest -> there was no other viable option ->
were told that it was mgmt’s prerogative to HOWEVER, pet ignored the letters sent by
do so R, which compelled the latter to seek redress
- Instead of reporting for work, R filed a with the LA
complaint against pet with MLRC for - the Court has always respected a
constructive dismissal and unfair labor company’s exercise of its prerogative to
practice -> R prayed for reinstatement and devise means to improve its operations ->
payment of full backwages -> since they however, the exercise of mgmt prerogative
failed to report to work, pet sent each of R a is not absolute -> it must be exercised in
telegram directing them to do so -> R sent good faith and with due regard to the rights
the general mgr a letter informing him that, of labor -> the prerogative accorded to
in view of the mgmt’s apparent indifference mgmt. cannot defeat the very purpose for
to their plight and blatant violation of their which our labor laws exist: to balance the
rights, a complaint was lodged against pet conflicting interests of labor and mgmt., not
for constructive dismissal to tilt the scale in favor of one over the other,
- LA: found that R were not constructively but to guaranty that labor and mgmt. stand
dismissed by pet -> also dismissed the on equal footing when bargaining in good
charge of unfair labor practice for lack of faith with each other
legal and factual basis -> Nonetheless, LA - the manner by which pet exercised their
ordered pet to pay R unpaid service mgmt. prerog. appears to be an
incentive leave pay underhanded circumvention of the law ->
- NLRC: sustained LA findings pet were keen on summarily implementing
- CA: pet were ordered to reinstate R to their the rotation plan, obviously singling out R
former positions without loss of seniority who were all union officers -> the mgmt’s
rights and privileges and to pay their full apparent lack of interest to hear what the R
backwages until their reinstatement OR to had to say created an uncertain situation
award them with separation pay in case where reporting for work was tantamount
reinstatement is no longer feasible or to an acquiescence in an unjust situation
possible - R cannot be said to have abandoned their
- SC: agrees with CA that pet’s bare jobs when precisely, the root cause of their
assertions on the alleged reason for the protest is their demand to maintain their
rotation plan as well as its failure to refute regular work hours -> R even prayed for
R’s contention that they were targeted due reinstatement and backwages => these are
to their union activities, merit the reversal of INCOMPATIBLE with the proposition that
the LA decision -> incumbent upon pet to R sought to abandon their work
prove that the rotation scheme was a - Art 279 LC provides that an employee who
genuine business necessity and not meant to is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled
subdue the organized union -> the reasons to reinstatement without loss of seniority
enumerated by pet in their memoranda rights and other privileges, and to his full
were factors too general to actually backwages -> However, if reinstatement is
substantiate the need for the scheme -> pet no longer possible, the employer has the
cite the reduction in their electric alternative of paying the employee his
consumption as proof of an economic slump separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
-> this may be true to an extent but it does
not, by itself, prove that the rotation scheme 26. LINTON COMMERCIAL v. HELLERA
was the most reasonable alternative to
remedy the company’s problems - pet issued a memorandum addressed to its
- pet’s unbending stance on the employees informing them of the company’s
implementation of the rotation scheme was decision to suspend its operations die to the
an indication that the rotation plan was currency crisis that affected its business
being implemented for reasons other than operations -> pet submitted an
business necessity -> R attempted on more establishment termination report to DOLE
than one occasion to have a dialogue with regarding the temporary closure of the
pet to discuss the work reduction -> good establishment -> company’s operation was
faith should have prompted the general mgr to resume jan 6, 1998
to hear the side of the R, to come up with a - pet issued another memorandum
scheme amenable to both parties or attempt informing employees that it would
to convince the employees concerned that implement a new compressed workweek of
3 days on a rotation basis -> each worker in determining when an employer can
would be working on a rotation basis for 3 validly reduce the regular number of
working days only instead of 6 days a week working days -> reduction of number of
-> pet submitted an establishment regular working days is valid where the
termination report concerning the rotation arrangement is resorted to by the employer
of its workers and proceeded with the to prevent serious losses due to causes
implementation of the new policy without beyond his control, such as when there is a
waiting for DOLE’s approval substantial slump in the demand for his
- 68 workers filed a complaint for illegal goods or services or when there is a lack of
reduction of workdays with the NLRC -> raw materials-> the bulletin has one main
pointed out the pet implemented the consideration in determining the validity of
reduction of workdays without observing reduction of working hours: that the
Art 283 LC which required submission of company was suffering from losses
notice to DOLE 1 month prior to the - An examination of pet’s financial reports
implementation of reduction of personnel -> show that while the company suffered a
pet filed only the establishment termination loss, it retained a considerable amount of
report on the very date of its earnings and operating income -> permitting
implementation reduction of work and pay at the slightest
- pet contended that the devaluation of the indication of losses would be contrary to the
peso created a negative impact in State’s policy to afford protection to labor
international trade and affected their and provide full employment
business bec a majority of their raw
materials were imported -> pet decided to - If the standards set in determining the
reduce the working days of its employees to justifiability of financial losses under Article
3 days on rotation as a cost-cutting measure 283 (i.e., retrenchment) or Article 286 (i.e.,
-> alleged that the compressed workweek suspension of work) of the Labor Code were
was actually implemented on Jan 12 and not to be considered, petitioners would end up
Jan 7 and that Art 283 was not applicable failing to meet the standards. -> Article 286
- LA: foung pet guilty of illegal reduction of applies only when there is a bona fide
work hours and directing them to pay each suspension of the employer’s operation of a
of their workers their 3 days/week’s worth business or undertaking for a period not
of work compensation exceeding six (6) months -> Records show
- NLRC: reversed decision of LA -> an that Linton continued its business
employer has the prerog to control all operations during the effectivity of the
aspects of employment in its business compressed workweek, which spanned
organization, including the supervision of more than the maximum period -> and for
workers, work regulation, lay-off workers, retrenchment to be justified, any claim of
dismissal and recall of workers -> took actual or potential business losses must
judicial notice of the Asian currency crisis satisfy the following standards: (1) the losses
and found pet’s decision to implement a incurred are substantial and not de minimis;
compressed workweek as a valid exercise of (2) the losses are actual or reasonably
mgmt. prerog imminent; (3) the retrenchment is
- CA: reversed NLRC decision -> the reasonably necessary and is likely to be
employees were constructively dismissed effective in preventing the expected losses;
bec the short period of time between the and (4) the alleged losses, if already
submission of the establishment termination incurred, or the expected imminent losses
report informing DOLE of its intention to sought to be forestalled, are proven by
observe a compressed workweek and the sufficient and convincing evidence -> pet
actual implementation was a manifestation failed to comply with these standards.
of pet to eventually retrench the employees => the compressed workweek arrangement
-> pet failed to establish enough factual basis was unjustified and illegal; pet committed
to justify the necessity of a reduced illegal reduction of work hours
workweek
- MAIN ISSUE: WON there was an illegal 27. BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO v.
reduction of work when pet implemented a NLRC
compressed workweek
- SC: The Bureau of Working Conditions of - pet are Tryco’s regular employees assigned
the DOLE released a bulletin providing for to the Production Dept
- Tryco and pet signed separate MOA to shift the concentration of manufacturing
providing for a compressed workweek activities from the metropolis to the
schedule to be implemented in the company countryside -> decision to transfer the
-> under the MOA, 8AM-6:12PM from Mon- company’s production activities was
Fri shall be considered as the regular precipitated by the letter-reminder of the
working hours and no OT pay shall be due BAI
and payable to the employee for work - LA: the transfer of the pet would not
rendered during those hours -> MOA paralyze or render the union ineffective bec:
specifically stated that the employee waives (1) complainants are not members of the
the right to claim OT pay for work rendered negotiating panel; and (2) the transfer was
after 5PM until 6:12PM from Mon-Fri made pursuant to the directive of the
considering that the comprssed workweek Department of Agriculture- also denied the
schedule is adopted in lieu of the regular money claims stating that the nonpayment
workweek schedule which also consists of of wages was justified bec the pet did not
46 hrs -> However, should an employee be render work for 6 days -> OT pay is not due
permitted or required to work beyond 6:12, because of the compressed workweek
he shall be entitled to OT pay agreement and service incentive leave pay
- Tryco informed the Bureau of Working cannot be claimed bec thay are already
Conditions of DOLE of the implementation enjoying vacation leave with pay for at least
of a compressed workweek in the company 5 days
- pet and Tryco negotiated for the renewal of - NLRC: affirmed LA decision
their CBA but failed to arrive at a new - CA: ruled that the transfer order was a
agreement -> Tryco then rcvd a letter from mgmt. prerog not amounting to a
the Bureau of Animal Industry of the DA constructive dismissal or an unfair labor
reminding it that its production should be practice
conducted in Bulacan and not Caloocan - SC: refused to accept pet’s wild and
- Tryco then issued a memo which directed reckless imputation that the BAI conspired
one of the pet to report to the company’s with R just to effect the transfer of pet ->
plant site in Bulacan -> refused to obey -> there is not an iota of proof to support this
tryco reiterated the order -> through a outlandish claim -> Absent any evidence,
memo, tryco also directed other pet to report the allegation is not only highly
to the company’s plant site in Bulacan irresponsible but is grossly unfair to the
- pet opposed the transfer of its members to government agency concerned. -> Tryco's
Bulacan contending that it constitutes unfair decision to transfer its production activities
labor practice -> pet declared a strike -> pet to San Rafael, Bulacan, regardless of
then filed their separate complaints for whether it was made pursuant to the letter
illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, of the Bureau of Animal Industry, was
nonpayment of OT pay and service within the scope of its inherent right to
incentive leave, and refusal to bargain control and manage its enterprise effectively
against tryco and its president - While the law is solicitous of the welfare of
- pet allege that the company acted in bad employees, it must also protect the right of
faith during the CBA negotiations bec it sent an employer to exercise what are clearly
representatives without authority to bind management prerogatives. The free will of
the company, and this was the reason the management to conduct its own business
nego failed -> the mgmt. transferred pets affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be
from Caloocan to Bulacan to paralyze the denied.
union -> prayed for the company to pa them - Management's prerogative of transferring
their salaries, service incentive leaves, and and reassigning employees from one area of
OT pay operation to another in order to meet the
- R averred that the pet were not dismissed requirements of the business is, therefore,
but they refused to comply with the mgmt’s generally not constitutive of constructive
directive for them to report to the dismissal -> he consequent transfer of
company’s plant in Bulacan -> denied the Tryco's personnel, assigned to the
allegation that they negotiated in bad faith Production Department was well within the
->further averred that long before the start scope of its management prerogative.
of the negotiations, the company had - When the transfer is not unreasonable, or
already been planning to decongest the inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee,
Caloocan office to comply with govt policy and it does not involve a demotion in rank
or diminution of salaries, benefits, and other on the ground that it contemplated a
privileges, the employee may not complain straight computation of 26 working days in
that it amounts to a constructive dismissal -> one month when the period covered by the
the transfer orders do not entail a demotion computation was intermittently interrupted
in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits due to frequent brownouts and machine
and other privileges of the petitioners -> pet trouble and that R had only a total of 250.75
anchor their objection solely on the ground days of attendance in 1982 due to absences
that it would cause them great - LA: denied opposition to the computation
inconvenience since they are all residents of - NLRC: affirmed LA order
Metro Manila and they would incur - SC: illegal dismissal of R is conceded by
additional expenses to travel daily from pet -> pet is willing to pay backwages,
Manila to Bulacan. however, the pet argues that for days where
- mere incidental inconvenience is not no work was required and could be done by
sufficient to warrant a claim of constructive its employees, no wages could have been
dismissal. earned and, thereafter, lost by said
- The compressed workweek scheme was employees to justify an award of backwages
originally conceived for establishments - OSG: pet have valid reasons to claim that
wishing to save on energy costs, promote certain days should not be considered days
greater work efficiency and lower the rate of worked for purposes of computing R’s
employee absenteeism, among others. backwages since their business was not in
Workers favor the scheme considering that actual operation due to brownouts or power
it would mean savings on the increasing interruption and the retrenchment of
cost of transportation fares for at least one workers they had during the period of R’s
(1) day a week; savings on meal and snack dismissal
expenses; longer weekends, or an additional - During 1983, there was a chronic electrical
52 off-days a year, that can be devoted to power interruption resulting to disruption
rest, leisure, family responsibilities, studies of business operations -> the govt called on
and other personal matters, and that it will the industrial sector to the so-called
spare them for at least another day in a Voluntary Loan Curtailment Plan whereby
week from certain inconveniences that are brownouts or electrical power interruption
the normal incidents of employment, such was scheduled by area -> pet participated in
as commuting to and from the workplace, the VLCP
travel time spent, exposure to dust and - Ministry of Labor and Employment,
motor vehicle fumes, dressing up for work, through Policy Instruction No. 36 said that
etc. brownouts running for more than 20 mins
- the adoption of a compressed workweek may not be treated as hours worked
scheme in the company will help temper provided that any of the ff conditions are
any inconvenience that will be caused the present: (1) The employees can leave their
petitioners by their transfer to a farther work place or go elsewhere whether within
workplace or without the work premises; or (2) The
employees can use the time effectively for
WORK INTERRUPTION DUE TO their own interest.
BROWNOUTS
- It is of record that during electrical power
interruptions, pet’s business was not in
28. DURABILT RECAPPING PLANT v.
operation -> NEVER disputed by R
NLRC
- pet claim that the period during which
they effected retrenchment of workers
- complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by
owing to economic crisis then prevailing
R Bodegas against pet
likewise appears plausible -> SC held that
- LA: R was ordered reinstated to his former
where the failure of workers to work was
position with full backwages, from the time
not due to the employer’s fault, the burden
he was terminated up to the time he is
of economic loss suffered by the employees
actually reinstated -> pet failed to file a
should not be shifted to the employer ->
seasonable appeal and entry of final
each party must bear his own loss
judgment was made
- It would neither be fair nor just to allow R
- DOLE submitted a computation of
to recover something he has not earned and
backwages, ECOLA, 13th month pay, sick
could not have earned and to further
and vacation leave benefits in favor of R ->
penalize the pet over and above the losses it
pet filed its opposition to the computation
had suffered d/t lack of raw materials and - PR felt adversely affected by the change in
the energy-saving programs of the govt -> R the work schedule and discontinuance of the
cannot be allowed to enrich himself at the 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break, it filed
expense of the pet company a complaint with the LA for unfair labor
practice, discrimination, and evasion of
MEAL BREAKS: liability
- LA: dismissed the complaint on the ground
Conditions for validity: that the change in the work schedule and
the elimination of the 30-min paid lunch
29. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS break constituted a valid exercise of mgmt.
SYSTEM v. PAN AMERICAN preog -> the new work sched, break time
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and 1-hour lunch break did not have the
effect of diminishing the benefits granted to
- CIR (industrial relations) rendered factory workers as the working time did not
resolution en banc denying the MR filed by exceed 8 hours -> further held that the
pet herein -> in appeal, pet advances 5 factory workers would be unjustly enriched
propositions: x x x x x (2) the finding that the if they continued to be paid during their
1-hour meal period should be considered lunch break even if they were no longer “on
OT work (deducting 15 mins as time allotted call” or required to work during the break
for eating) is not supported by substantial - NLRC: sustained LA -> MR: NLRC
evidence x x x x x (5) CIR had no authority reversed its earlier decision as well as the
to order the company to adopt a straight 8- decision of the LA
hour shift INCLUSIVE of meal period - SC: the memorandum which contained the
- pet claims that the 1-hr meal period should new work sched was NOT discriminatory of
NOT be considered as OT work because the the union members nor did it constitute
evidence showed that complainants could unfair labor practice on the part of pet -> the
rest completely and were not in any manner right to fix the work sched of the employees
under the control of the company during rests principally on their employer -> pet
that period -> however, it was found by the cites as reason for the adjustment the
Court that during the so called meal period, efficient conduct of its business operations
the mechanics were required to stand by for and its improved production -> while the
emergency work; that if they happened not old work sched included a 30-min paid
to be available when called, they were lunch break, the employees could be called
reprimanded -> the record clearly confirms upon to do jobs during that period as they
the above factual findings of the CIR were “on call” -> with the new work sched,
- The CIR order for permanent adoption of a the employees are now given a 1-hour lunch
straight 8-hour shift including the meal break, the employees can freely and
period was but a consequence of its finding effectively use this hour not only for eating
that the meal hour was not one of complete but also for their rest and comfort which are
rest but was actually a work hour bec for its conducive to more efficiency and better
duration, the laborers had to be on ready performance in their work
call - Since the employees are no longer required
to work during this 1-hour lunch break,
30. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS v. NLRC there is no more need for them to be
compensated for this period -> the new
- prior to the present controversy, ALL work sched fully complies with the daily
company factory workers in Marikina work period of 8 hours without violating the
including the members of PR union worked LC -> also, the new sched applies to ALL
from 7:45AM-3:45PM with a 30-min paid employees in the factory similarly situated
“on call” lunch break whether they are union members or not
- pet issued a memo to all factory-based
employees advising all its monthly salaried 31. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. NLRC
employees in its Marikina Tire Plant, except
those in the Warehouse and Quality - PR was employed as a flight surgeon at pet
Assurance Dept working on shifts, a change -> was on duty from 4PM-12MN
in the work schedule discarding their paid - around 7PM, PR left the clinic to have his
lunch break dinner at his residence which was about a
50min drive away -> a few minutes later, the
clinic rcvd an emergency call from the PAL waiting for the time of his next
Cargo Svcs -> one of its employees had job/engagement during which his time is
suffered a heart attack -> nurse on duty NOT controlled by the employer. Such
called PR at home to inform him of the waiting time is NOT considered working
emergency -> patient arrived at the clinic at time
7:50PM and nurse immediately rushed him
to the hospital -> when PR reached the clinic WAITING TIME
at 7:51PM, nurse had already left with the
patient -> patient died the following day - if the employee was “engaged to wait” –
- PAL Medical Director ordered for an made to wait BY the employer = such
investigation to be conducted -> PR was waiting time is working time
required to explain why no disciplinary
sanction should be taken against him -> PR 32. ARICA v. NLRC
asserted that he was entitled to a 30-min
meal break; that he immediately left his - case stemmed from a complaint filed by
residence upon being informed about the pet against PR company for assembly time,
emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few moral damages, and atty’s fees
minutes later -> the nurse panicked and - LA: complaint dismissed -> the 30-min
brought the patient to the hospital without assembly time long practiced cannot be
waiting for him CONSIDERED waiting time or work time
- mgmt. charges PR with abandonment of and, therefore, not compensable
post while on duty -> PR denied that he - NLRC: upheld LA decision
abandoned his post and said that he only - ISSUE: WON the 30-minute activity of the
left the clinic to have his dinner at home -> pet before the scheduled working time is
pet decided to suspend PR for 3 months -> compensable under the LC
PR filed a complaint for illegal suspension - pet contend that the 30-min preliminary
with LA activities in the assembly area is
- LA: declared the suspension of PR was compensable as working time since these are
illegal necessarily and primarily for the PR’s
- NLRC: affirmed LA decision benefit
- SC: the facts do not support pet’s allegation - R avers that the instant complaint is not
that PR abandones his post -> PR left the new, the very same claim having been
clinic only to have dinner at his house which brought against it by the same group of rank
was only a few mins drive away -> his and file employees in a previous case which
whereabouts were knows to the nurse on was filed way back in 1976 -> involved a
duty so that he could easily be reached in claim for waiting time as the complainants
case of emergency -> PR immediately left his purportedly were required to assemble at a
home and returned to the clinic upon designated area at least 30 mins prior to the
learning of the emergency -> these facts belie start of their scheduled working hours “to
pet’s claim of abandonment ascertain the work force available for the
- pet argues that being a full-time employee, day by means of a roll call, for the purpose
PR is obliged to stay in the company of assignment or reassignment of employees
premises for not less than 8 hours -> he may to such areas in the plantation where they
not leave the premises during such times, are most needed”
even to take his meals - The facts on which this decision was
- SC: the 8-hr work period does not include predicated continue to be the facts of the
the meal break -> nowhere in the law may it case in this questioned NLRC resol -> it is
be inferred that employees must take their clear that that herein pet are merely
meals within the company premises -> reiterating the very same claim which they
employees are not prohibited from going filed through the ALU and which records
out of the premises as long as they return to show had already been long been
their posts on time -> PR’s act of going home considered terminated and closed by the SC
DOES NOT constitute abandonment -> Therefore, NLRC cannot be faulted for
ruling that pet’s claim is already barred by
IDLE TIME res judicata
- It is axiomatic that the non-compensability
- if the employee was “waiting to be of the claim having been earlier established,
engaged” – he was on his OWN volition constitute the CONTROLLING legal rule or
decision between the parties and remains to worked.
be the law of the case making this petition
without merit Travel away from home
- SC: account should be taken of the cognate - This is travel that keeps an employee away
principle that res judicata operates to bar not from home overnight.
only the relitigation in a subsequent action - It is considered working time when it cuts
of the issue squarely raised, passed upon across the employer’s workday.
and adjudicated in the first suit, but also the - In this scenario, during regular hours on
ventilation in said subsequent suit of any both working and non-working days, the
other issue which could have been raised in employee is considered to be working, i.e.
the first but was not -> Even if new causes of when he regularly works from 9-5 pm
action are asserted in the 2 nd action, this Monday-Friday, his time travel away from
would not preclude the operation of the home from 9-5 pm on Saturdays is
doctrine of res judicata -> those issues are considered hours worked as well.
also barred, even if not passed upon in the - regular meal period is not counted, and
first times spent on travel away from home
outside regular working hours is also not
considered as working time.
COMMUTING TIME AND TRAVEL
TIME OVERTIME WORK

- ANY work which an employee is Definition and nature of OT work

REQUIRED to perform WHILE
TRAVELLING is considered in hours 33. SALAZAR v. NLRC
worked
- to determine if commuting/travel time is - PR employed pet as construction/project
working time = look at the KIND of travel engineer -> by virtue of an ORAL contract,
involved. There are 3 kinds: pet would also receive a share in the profits
1) Travel from home to work; (2) Travel that is after completion of the project and that pet’s
all in the day’s work; and (3) Travel away from svcs in excess of 8 hrs on regular days and
home. svcs rendered on weekends and legal
holidays shall be compensable OT at the rate
Travel from home to work (and vice-versa) of Php27.85/hr
- Generally, this is not working time. Ordinary
- pet rcvd a memo issued by PR project mgr
home-to-work travel is a normal incident of
employment, whether the employee works at a informing him of the termination of his svcs
fixed location or at different jobsites. because the project has already been
- Exception: when an employee receives an competed
emergency call outside his regular working - pet filed a complaint against PR for illegal
hours and is then required to travel to the dismissal, unfair labor practice, illegal
workplaces, all that time spent traveling is deduction, non-payment of wages, OT
considered working time. rendered, svc incentive leave pay,
commission, allowances, profit-sharing and
Travel that is all in the day’s work separation pay with the NLRC
- If travel is part of the employee’s principal - LA: pet was a managerial employee and
activity, it is counted as hours worked, such therefore exempt from payment of benefits
as when the employee is required to report such as OT pay, etc -> he was hired as a
to a meeting place to receive instructions, or project employee and his svcs were
perform some work there, or to pick and to terminated d/t the completion of the project
carry tools. - NLRC: LA decision affirmed in toto
- If an employee normally finishes his work - ISSUE: WON pet is entitled to OT pay,
at 5 pm and is sent to another job which he premium pay for svcs rendered on rest days
finished at 8 pm and is required to return to and holidays and service incentive leave
his employer’s premises at 9 pm, the period pay, pursuant to Art 87, 93, 94. And 95 LC
between 5-9 pm is considered working time. - pet claims that since he perfoms his duties
But if he went straight home after 8 pm and in the project site or away from the principal
didn’t go back to the employer’s premises, place of business of his employer, he falls
the period between 8-9 pm is considered under the category of “field personnel”
home-to-work and is not considered hours - although pet cannot strictly be classified as
a managerial employee under Art 82, - pet filed present petition for review with
nonetheless, he is still NOT entitled to SC
payment of the benefits because he falls - pet contend that since the employees
squarely under another exempt category: concerned are paid a commission on the
“officers or members of a managerial staff” sales they make outside of the required 8
-> pet has supervisory duties as PR’s project hours besides the fixed salary that is paid to
engineer, duties which, pet does not dispute them, they should not be paid OT
- pet also claims that NLRC failed to give compensation under the 8-hour labor law
due weight and consideration to the fact that bec the commission they are paid already
PR compensated him for his OT svcs as takes the place of such OT compensation ->
indicated in the various disbursement OT compensation is an additional pay for
vouchers he submitted as evidence -> that work or svcs rendered in excess of 8 hours a
pet was paid OT benefits does not day by an employee -> if the employee is
automatically and necessarily denote that already given extra compensation for labor
pet is entitled to such benefits -> Art 82 LC performes in excess of 8 hours a day, he is
specifically delineates who are entitled to not covered by the law -> the situation can
the OT premiums and svc incentive leave be likened to an employee who is paid on
pay provided under Art 87, 93, 94, and 95 piece-work or “pakiao”, or commission
and the exemptions basis, which is expressly excluded from the
- pet falls under the exemptions and has no operation of the 8-hour labor law
legal claim to the said benefits -> it is well - SC: in accord with pet’s view -> the 8-hour
and good that pet was compensated for his labor law only has application where an
OT svcs -> however, this does not translate employee or laborer is paid on a monthly or
into a right on the part of pet to demand daily basis, in which case, if he is made to
additional payment when, under the law, work beyond the required period of 8hrs, he
pet is clearly exempted should be paid the additional compensation
prescribed by law -> 8-hr labor law has NO
34. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. application when the employee is paid on a
DEMOCRATIC LABOR UNION piece-work, “pakiao”, or commission basis
regardless of the time employed -> his
- R filed complaint against pet embodying earnings are in the form of commission
12 demands for the betterment of the based on the gross receipts of the day ->
conditions of employment of its members participation depends on his industry so
- R manifested to confine its claim to its that the more hours he employs in the work,
demands for OT, night-shift diff pay, and the greater are his gross returns and the
atty’s fees, although it was allowed to higher his commission
present evidence on svc rendered during - the employees concerned are paid a fixed
Sundays and holidays, or on its claim for salary for their month of service and
additional separation pay and sick and sometimes they work in excess of the
vacation leave compensation required 8-hrs -> but for their extra work,
- With regard to OT compensation, Judge of they are paid a commission which is IN
industrial court held that the provisions of LIEU of the extra compensation to which
the 8-hour labor law apply to the employees they are entitled
concerned for those working in the field or => the 8-hour labor law DOES NOT apply to
engaged in the sale of the company’s the employees composing the outside
products outside the premises and service force
consequently they should be paid the extra
compensation accorded them by said law in 35. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND
addition to the monthly salary and LOAN ASSOC v. NLRC
commission earned by them, regardless of
the meal allowance given to employees who - PR filed with NLRC a complaint for non-
work up to late at night payment of OT pay and non-payment of the
- With regard to work done during Sundays Php25 statutory minimum wage increase
and holidays, Judge also decreed that the mandated by RA 6727
employees be paid an additional - PR started working with pet as a company
compensation of 25% as provided in CA No guard and was required to work 12 hours a
444 even if they had been paid a day -> was given several salary increases for
compensation on monthly salary basis his outstanding performance -> during this
entire period of employment with pet, he
was required to perform OT wok without
any additional compensation and it was also
at this point where pet refused to give the
Php25 increase on the minimum wage rates
provided for by law -> PR was suspended
for 37 days for an offense allegedly
committed by the pet
- LA: granted claim for PT pay
- NLRC: LA decision affirmed
- ISSUE: Is an employee entitled to OT pay
for work rendered in excess of the regular 8-
hour day given the fact that he entered into
a contract of labor SPECIFYING a work-day
of 12 hours at a fixed monthly rate above the
legislated minimum wage?
- SC: upheld NLRC ruling that PR is entitled
to OT pay -> based on pet’s own
computation, it appears that the basic salary
plus emergency allowance given to PR did
not actually include the OT pay claimed by
PR -> basic salaray plus emergency
allowance SHOULD HAVE amounted to
Php2,800.50, but pet only actually paid PR a
total of Php2,500 -> pet’s own calculations
clearly establish that PR’s claim for OT pay
is valid
- NLRC found no agreement as to OT pay
under the employment contract -> the
contract was definite only as to the number
of hours of work to be rendered but vague
as to what is covered by the salary
stipulated
- pet contends that the agreed salary rate in
the employment contract should be deemed
to cover OT pay, otherwise serious
distortions in wages would result since a
mere company guard will be receiving a
salary much more than the salaries of other
employees who are much higher in rank and
position than him in the company -> SC
finds this argument undeserving of
consideration -> how can paying an
employee the OT pay due him cause serious
distortions in salary rates or scales? And
how can “other employees” be aggrieved
when they did not render any OT service?