Book3ACases

8/10/2019 Book3ACases

1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968

JUANTO CARLOS,petitioner-appellant,vs.ANTONO J. !LLEGAS, "s M"#o$, C%t# o& M"'%(" "')*o$ EULOGO SAMO,"s C+%&, M"'%(" %$ /"$t't "')*o$ MANUEL CUAMAT, "sT$"su$$, C%t# o& M"'%(",respondents-appellees.

Juanito Carlos for and in his behalf as petitioner-appellant.Assistant City Fiscal Olimpio R. Navarro for respondents-appellees.

ANGELES, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of irst !nstance of Maniladismissin" the petition for mandamus#Civil Case No. $%$&'( see)in" to orderthe respondents to cause the Cit* of Manila to pa* petitioner and othermembers of the +niformed orce ivision of the Manila ire epartment #M(for overtime services rendered from anuar* &, &/0, up to the date 1hen thepetition 1as filed anuar* ', &/%2 to enforce immediatel* the '3-4our a 5ee)5or) 6a1 to petitioner and said other members of the M2 and to pa*dama"es sustained b* them as a conse7uence of the acts complained of.1ph!1."#t

The facts of the case are set forth in the stipulation of facts submitted b* theparties in the lo1er court, to 1it8 .

&. +nder 9ec. &$ of the Revised Charter of the Cit* of Manila #Rep. Act'3, as amended(, :there shall be a chief of the ire epartment, ...1ho shall have the mana"ement and control of all matters relatin" tothe administration of said department, and the or"ani;ation,"overnment, discipline, and disposition of fire forces2 ... , to thepresent, the petitioner and other members of the +niformed orceivision of the Manila ire epartment have been re7uired and orderedb* the Chief of the Manila ire epartment, upon approval of the Cit*

Ma*or, the Commissioner of the Civil 9ervice and the ?ffice of thePresident, to be 0' hours on dut* and 0' hours off dut*, alternatel*2

that is, a member of the M +niformed orce ivision reports to hisstation at @833 ocloc) in the mornin" and continues on dut* until @833ocloc) of the follo1in" mornin" for 0' hours2 he is then off dut* for thenet 0' hours immediatel* thereafter2 this schedule continuousthrou"hout the da*s of the 1ee) re"ardless of 9aturda*s, 9unda*s andholida*s2 for an avera"e of ei"ht*-four #@'( hours a 1ee) the firemensta* at the station and 1hile there, their duties are to clean andmaintain the station, fire en"ines or apparatuses and e7uipment to

respond to fire and to perform other duties re7uired b* ordinances andla1s2 durin" the 0' hours sta* in the station, unless the* are out1or)in" to fi"ht and etin"uish fires, the firemen are "iven time to restfrom &0833 noon to '833 ocloc) in the afternoon, and time to sleep from833 ocloc) in the evenin" to /833 ocloc) the follo1in" mornin".

%. ?n ul* &3, &$>, the Chief of the Manila ire epartment re7uestedthe ?ffice of the President for authorit*, in the interest of the service, forthe members of the +niformed orce ivision and of the ire Alarm andRadio ivision of the department to render service 1ithout overtime pa*be*ond the '3-hour-$-da* a 1ee) re7uirement of the la1.

'. ?n ecember , &/0, a petition 1as addressed to the Ma*or, Cit*of Manila, throu"h the Chief, ire epartment, Manila, claimin"pa*ment for overtime services rendered effective anuar* &, &/0 anddemandin" the enforcement of the '3-hour a 1ee) 1or) la1 1ithrespect to the +niformed orce ivision of the Manila ire epartment,and the repl* thereto 1as that services rendered be*ond a re"ularperiod fied b* R.A. No. &@@3 1ill not entitle the emplo*ee to overtimepa* as a matter of le"al ri"ht, citin" ?pinion No. 0&@, 9eries of &$>, ofthe 9ecretar* of ustice.

$. ?n ecember 0/, &/0, petitioner addressed a petition to 4isEcellenc*, the President of the Philippines, petitionin" also the latter to

order the Cit* of Manila to pa* petitioner and other members of theM +niformed orce ivision for overtime services rendered durin"&/0 and caused to be enforced the '3-hour a 1ee) la1 and there 1asno favorable repl*. :/. The parties herein reserve the ri"ht to submitadditional evidence should a necessit* therefor arise. :1ph!1."#t

No additional evidence 1as submitted thereafter, and upon the fore"oin"stipulation of facts and the la1 applicable thereon, the lo1er court dismissedthe petition.

The issue for adudication is 1hether the petitioner-appellant and other firemensimilarl* situated are entitled to collect overtime pa* for overtime servicesrendered b* them since anuar* &, &/0.


2/31

The provisions of la1 that resolve the issue are neither those of Republic Act&@@3, other1ise )no1n as the ort* 4our 5ee) 5or) 6a1, nor Common1ealth

Act ''', the Ei"ht-4our 6abor 6a1, as su""ested b* the petitioner-appellant,but the follo1in" sections of the Revised Administrative Code, to 1it8 .

9EC. $//. $%tension of hours and re&uirement of overtime or'. D5hen the interests of the public service so re7uire, the head of an*epartment, Bureau, or ?ffice ma* etend the dail* hours of labor, in

1hat manner so ever fied, for an* or all of the emplo*ees under him,and ma* li)e1ise re7uire an* or all of them to do overtime 1or) notonl* on 1or) da*s but also on holida*s.:.

9EC. 0$. (nhibition a)ainst payment of e%tra compensation. D !n theabsence of special provision, persons re"ularl* and permanentl*appointed under the Civil 9ervice 6a1 or 1hose salar*, 1a"es oremoluments are fied b* la1 or re"ulation shall not, for an* servicerendered or labor done b* them on holida*s or for other overtime 1or),receive or be paid an* additional compensation2 nor, in the absence ofspecial provision, shall an* officer or emplo*ee in an branch of theovernment service receive additional compensation on account of the

dischar"e of duties pertainin" to the position of another or for theperformance of an* public service 1hatever, 1hether such service isrendered voluntaril* or eacted of him under authorit* of la1.: .

The petitioner-appellant contends that the above-7uoted portions of theRevised Administrative Code have been repealed b* the provisions ofCommon1ealth Act ''', in so far as the provisions of the former areinconsistent 1ith the latter. The contention is erroneous. This Court haseplicitl* declared&that the Ei"ht-4our 6abor 6a1 1as not intended to appl* tocivil service emplo*ees 1ho are still "overned b* the above provisions of theRevised Administrative Code. As there appears to be no debate over theemplo*ment of petitioner-appellant and the other firemen similarl* situated as

fallin" under the civil service, the* bein" emplo*ees of the Cit* of Manila, amunicipal corporation, in its "overnmental capacit*, 5e perceive no reason todeviate from said rulin". And as 5e hold that the above sections of the Revised

Administrative Code are still le"all* in force, it necessaril* follo1s that Rule FG,section % of the Civil 9ervice Rules, a similar provision promul"ated pursuant tothat of 9ection &/#e( of the Civil 9ervice Act of &$ #Republic Act No. 00/3( isli)e1ise applicable to petitioner-appellant. 9aid provision reads8.

9EC. %. 5hen the nature of the duties to be performed or the interest ofthe public service so re7uires, the head of an* epartment or a"enc*ma* etend the dail* hours of 1or) specified for an* or all theemplo*ees under him, and such etension shall be 1ithout additional

compensation unless other1ise provided b* la1. ?ffice and emplo*eesma* be re7uired b* the head of the epartment or a"enc* to 1or) on

9aturda*s, 9unda*s and public holida*s also, 1ithout additionalcompensation unless other1ise specificall* authori;ed b* la1.

!t needs no len"th* eplanation that the nature of 1or) of a fireman re7uireshim to be al1a*s on the alert to respond to fire alarms 1hich ma* occur at an*time of the da*, for the ei"enc* of the service necessitates a round-the-cloc)observance of his duties, 1hich situation ecepts him from the applicabilit* of9ection $/0 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended b* Republic Act

&@@3 the ort*-4our a 5ee) 5or) 6a1, 1hich provides, in part8 .1ph!1."#t

9uch hours, ecept for schools, courts, hospitals and health clinics orhere the e%i)encies of service so re&uire, shall be as prescribed in theCivil 9ervice Rules and as other1ise from time to time disposed intemporar* eecutive orders in the discretion of the President of thePhilippines but shall be ei"ht #@( hours a da*, for five #$( da*s a 1ee) ora total of fort* #'3( hours a 1ee), eclusive of the time for lunch., to ta)e char"e ofcivil cases concernin" the Cit*. 5e believe this is not the proper forum to firstpass upon the 7uestion since the motion for 1ithdra1al of appearance filed b*the Cit* iscal and the opposition thereto put at issue the validit* of anordinance%passed b* the Cit* Council of Manila 1hich is alle"ed to be inconflict 1ith the said ecentrali;ation Act. An*1a*, the said motion for1ithdra1al of appearance 1as filed onl* on Ma* &, &/@, lon" after Au"ust &@,&/$, 1hen the case had been rested for resolution and 1hen there 1as nomore need for further representation in behalf of the parties.

!N G!E5 ? T4E ?RE?!N, the decision appealed from is hereb* affirmed.or e7uitable considerations, no costs.


3/31

EN ANC

G.R. No. L-18938. August 31, 1964.

NATONAL ATEROR5S SEERAGE AUT7ORT, Petitioner, .NSA CONSOLATE UNONS, ET AL., Respondents.

Got. Co$/. Cou's( S%o' M. Go/'g:o "') Asst. Got. Co$/. Cou's(

A$tu$o . S"'tos &o$ Petitioner.

C%/$%"'o C%) Asso:%"ts "') s$"( o:o;o &o$ Respondents.

A(&$)o M. Mo'ts" &o$ %'t$'o$-$s/o')'t.

SLLAUS

&. P+B6!C C?RP?RAT!?N92 NA5A9A ?E9 N?T PER?RM?GERNMENTA6 B+T ?N6H PR?PR!ETARH +NCT!?N. D The National

5ater1or)s and 9e1era"e Authorit* is a "overnment corporation performin"not "overnmental but proprietar* functions, and as such comes 1ithin thecovera"e of Common1ealth Act No. '''.

0. !.2 9+PP6H ? 5ATER AN 9E5ERAE 9ERG!CE ARE M!N!9TRANT+NCT!?N9. D The business of providin" 1ater suppl* and se1era"e serviceare but ministrant functions of "overnment.

%. 6AB?R RE6AT!?N92 P+B6!C +T!6!TH ?B6!E T? PAH !ERENT!A69+M +NER C?66ECT!GE BARA!N!N AREEMENT. D The NA5A9A isa public utilit*. Althou"h pursuant to 9ection ' of Common1ealth Act ''', it isnot obli"ed to pa* an additional sum of 0$I to its laborers for 1or) done on

9unda*s and le"al holida*s, *et it must pa* said additional compensation b*virtue of the contractual obli"ation it assumed under the collective bar"ainin"a"reement.

'. !.2 N?N-MANAER!A6 EMP6?HEE9 C?GERE BH C?MM?N5EA6T4ACT N?. '''. D Emplo*ees 1ho have little freedom of action and 1hose mainfunction is merel* to carr* out the compan*Js orders, plans and policies, are notmana"erial emplo*ees and hence are covered b* Common1ealth Act No. '''.

$. !.2 +R!9!CT!?N ? C?+RT ? !N+9TR!A6 RE6AT!?N9ETERM!NE AT T!ME !9P+TE AR?9E. D The Court of !ndustrial Relationshas urisdiction to adudicate overtime pa* 1here there 1as emplo*er-

emplo*ee relationship eistin" bet1een the parties at the time the disputearose.

/. !.2 EMP6?HEE9 ? ?T4ER ?!CE9 A99!NE T? NA5A9A N?TEMP6?HEE9 ? 6ATTER. D The A? emplo*ees assi"ned to 1or) in theNA5A9A even if the* 1ere paid out of the latterJs funds cannot be re"arded asemplo*ees of the NA5A9A on matters relatin" to compensation. The* areemplo*ees of the national "overnment and are not covered b* the Ei"ht- 4our6abor 6a1. The same ma* be said of the Bureau of Public 5or)s assi"ned to1or) in the NA5A9A.

>. !.2 ?9ETT!N ?GERT!ME 5!T4 +NERT!ME 54EN +NA!R. D Themethod used b* the NA5A9A in offsettin" the overtime 1ith the undertime andat the same time char"in" said undertime to the accrued leave is unfair.

@. !.2 !ERENT!A6 PAH ?R 9+NAH9 !9 PART ? 6EA6 5AE. DThe differential pa* for 9unda*s is a part of the le"al 1a"e. 4ence, it 1ascorrectl* included in computin" the 1ee)l* 1a"es of those emplo*ees andlaborers 1ho 1or)ed seven da*s a 1ee) and 1ere re"ularl* receivin" the 0$Isalar* differential for a period of three months prior to the implementation ofRepublic Act &@@3. This is so even if petitioner is a public utilit* in vie1 of thecontractual obli"ation it has assumed on the matter.

. !.2 !ERENT C?MP+TAT!?N ? A!6H 5AE9 ? ?GERNMENTAN N?N-?GERNMENT EMP6?HEE9. D !n the computation of dail* 1a"esof emplo*ees paid b* the month distinction should be made bet1een"overnment emplo*ees li)e the A? emplo*ees and those 1ho are not. Thecomputation for "overnment emplo*ees is "overned b* 9ection 0$' of theRevised Administrative Code 1hile for others the correct computation is themonthl* salar* divided b* the actual number of 1or)in" hours in the month orthe re"ular monthl* compensation divided b* the number of 1or)in" da*s in themonth.

&3. !.2 N!4T C?MPEN9AT!?N T? BE PA! R?M T!ME 9ERG!CE9 5ERERENERE. D The laborers must be compensated for ni"httime 1or) as ofthe date the same 1as rendered.

&&. !.2 M!N!M+M 5AE9 RATE9 APP6!CAB6E A69? T? EMP6?HEE94!RE 9+B9EK+ENT T? ATE ? EC!9!?N. D The rates of minimum pa*fied in a C!R case are applicable not onl* to those 1ho 1ere alread* in theservice as of the date of the decision but also to those 1ho 1ere emplo*edsubse7uent to said date.

&0. !.2 :!9TRE99 PAH: APP6!CAB6E T? A66 EMP6?HEE9 54?9E 5?RL4AGE T? ? 5!T4 T4E 9E5ERAE C4AMBER9. D All the laborers,1hether assi"ned to the se1era"e division or not 1ho are actuall* 1or)in"inside or outside the se1era"e chambers, are entitled to distress pa*.


4/31

&%. !.2 9TAER!N N?T REK+!RE 54ERE 5?RL N?T C?NT!N+?+9.D 9ta""erin" of 1or)in" hours is not re7uired 1here the evidence sho1s thatthe 1or) is not continuous.

E C S O N

AUTSTA ANGELO, J., namel*8

implementation of the '3-4our 5ee) 6a1 #Republic Act No. &@@3(2 alle"ed

violations of the collective bar"ainin" a"reement dated ecember 0@, &$/

concernin" :distress pa*: 2 minimum 1a"e of P$.0$2 promotional appointments

and fillin" of vacancies of ne1l* created positions2 additional compensation for

ni"ht 1or)2 1a"e increases to some laborers and emplo*ees2 and stri)e

duration pa*. !n addition, respondent unions raised the issue of 1hether the

0$I additional compensation for 9unda* 1or) should be included in computin"

the dail* 1a"e and 1hether, in determinin" the dail* 1a"e of a monthl* salaried

emplo*ee, the salar* should be divided b* %3 da*s.

?n ecember &%, &$>, petitioner and respondent unions, conformabl* to a

su""estion of the Court of !ndustrial Relations, submitted a oint stipulation of

facts on the issues concernin" the '3-4our 5ee) 6a1, :distress pa*,: minimum

1a"e of P$.0$, fillin" of vacancies, ni"ht compensation, and salar*

adustments, reservin" the ri"ht to present evidence on matters not covered

therein. ?n ecember ', &$>, respondent intervenors filed a petition in

intervention on the issue of additional compensation for ni"ht 1or). 6ater,

ho1ever, the* amended their petition b* includin" a ne1 demand for overtime

pa* in favor of esus Centeno, Cesar Cabrera, eliciano ui"uan, CecilioRemoti"ue, and other emplo*ees receivin" P',033.33 per annum or

more.chanrobles.com 8 virtual la1 librar*

?n ebruar* $, &$@, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the claim for overtime

pa* alle"in" that respondent Court of !ndustrial Relations 1as 1ithout

urisdiction to pass upon the same because, as mere intervenors, the latter

cannot raise ne1 issues not liti"ated in the principal case, the same not bein"

the lis mota therein involved. To this motion the intervenors filed an opposition.

Thereafter, respondent court issued on order allo1in" the issue to be liti"ated.PetitionerJs motion to reconsider havin" been denied, it filed its ans1er to the

petition for intervention. inall*, on anuar* &/, &/&, respondent court

rendered its decision statin" substantiall* as follo1s8chanrob&es virtual &a1

librar*

The NA5A9A is an a"enc* not performin" "overnmental functions and,

therefore, is liable to pa* additional compensation for 1or) on 9unda*s and

le"al holida*s conformabl* to Common1ealth Act No. ''', )no1n as the Ei"ht-

4our 6abor 6a1, even if said da*s should be 1ithin the sta""ered five-1or)

da*s authori;ed b* the President2 the intervenors do not fall 1ithin the cate"or*

of :mana"erial emplo*ees: as contemplated in Republic Act 0%>> and so arenot eempt from the covera"e of the Ei"ht-4our 6abor 6a12 even those

intervenors attached to the eneral Auditin" ?ffice and the Bureau of Public

5or)s come 1ithin the purvie1 of Common1ealth Act No. '''2 the computation

follo1ed b* NA5A9A in computin" overtime compensation is contrar* to

Common1ealth Act '''2 the undertime of a 1or)er should not be set-off a"ainst

the 1or)er in determinin" 1hether the latter has rendered service in ecess of

ei"ht hours for that da*2 in computin" the dail* 1a"es of those emplo*ed on

dail* basis, the additional 0$I compensation for 9unda* 1or) should be

included2 the computation used b* the NA5A9A for monthl* salaried

emplo*ees, to 1it, dividin" the monthl* basic pa* b* %3 is erroneous2 the

minimum 1a"e a1arded b* respondent court 1a*bac) on November 0$, &$3

in Case No. %$-G entitled M5 5or)ers +nion v. Metropolitan 5ater istrict,

applies even to those 1ho 1ere emplo*ed lon" after the promul"ation of the

a1ard and even if the 1or)ers are hired onl* as temporar*, emer"enc* and

casual 1or)ers for a definite period and for a particular proect2 the authorit*

"ranted to NA5A9A b* the President to sta""er the 1or)in" da*s of its 1or)ers

should be limited eclusivel* to those specified in the authori;ation and should

not be etended to others 1ho are not therein specified2 and under the

collective bar"ainin" a"reement entered into bet1een the NA5A9A and

respondent unions on ecember 0@, &$/, as 1ell as under Resolution No. 0,

series of &$> of the rievance Committee, even those 1ho 1or) outside these1era"e chambers should be paid 0$I additional compensation as :distress


5/31

pa*.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

!ts motion for reconsideration havin" been denied, NA5A9A filed the present

petition for revie1 raisin" merel* 7uestions of la1. 9uccinctl*, these 7uestions

are8chanrob&es virtual &a1 librar*

&. 5hether NA5A9A is performin" "overnmental functions and, therefore,

essentiall* a service a"enc* of the "overnment2

0. 5hether NA5A9A is a public utilit* and therefore, eempted from pa*in"

additional compensation for 1or) on 9unda*s and le"al holida*s2

%. 5hether the intervenors are :mana"erial emplo*ees: 1ithin the meanin" of

Republic Act 0%>> and, therefore, not entitled to the benefits of Common1ealth

Act No. ''', as amended2

'. 5hether respondent Court of !ndustrial Relations has urisdiction to

adudicate overtime pa* considerin" that this issue 1as not amon" the

demands of respondent union in the principal case but 1as merel* dra""ed intothe case b* the intervenors2

$. 5hether those attached to the eneral Auditin" ?ffice and the Bureau of

Public 5or)s come 1ithin the purvie1 of Common1ealth Act No. ''', as

amended2

/. !n determinin" 1hether one has 1or)ed in ecess of ei"ht hours, 1hether the

undertime for that da* should be set-off2

>. !n computin" the dail* 1a"e, 1hether the additional compensation for

9unda* 1or) should be included2

@. 5hat is the correct method to determine the e7uivalent dail* 1a"e of a

monthl*-salaried emplo*ee, especiall* in a firm 1hich is a public utilit*2

. Considerin" that the pa*ment of ni"ht compensation is not b* virtue of an*

statutor* provision but emanates onl* from an a1ard of respondent Court of

!ndustrial Relations, 1hether the same can be made retroactive and cover a

period prior to the promul"ation of the a1ard2

&3. 5hether the minimum 1a"e fied and a1arded b* respondent Court of!ndustrial Relations in another case #M5 5or)ers +nion v. M5, C!R Case

No. %$-G( applies to those emplo*ed lon" after the promul"ation thereof,

1hether hired as temporar*, emer"enc* and casual 1or)ers for a definite

period and for a specific proect2

&&. 4o1 should the collective bar"ainin" a"reement of ecember 0@, &$/ and

Resolution No. 0, series of &$> of the rievance Committee be interpreted

and construed insofar as the stipulations therein contained relative to :distress

pa*: is concerned2 and

&0. 5hether, under the first indorsement of the President of the Philippines

dated Au"ust &0, &$>, 1hich authori;es herein petitioner to sta""er the

1or)in" da*s of its emplo*ees and laborers, those 1hose services are

indispensabl* continuous throu"hout the *ear ma* be sta""ered in the same

manner as the pump, valve, filter and chlorine operators, "uards, 1atchman,

medical services, and those attached to the recreational facilities.

!9C+99!?N ? T4E !99+E9

&. !s NA5A9A an a"enc* that performs "overnmental functions and, therefore,essentiall* a service a"enc* of the "overnment Petitioner sustains the

affirmative because, under Republic Act No. &%@%, it is a public corporation, and

as such it eists as an a"enc* independent of the epartment of Public 5or)s

of our "overnment. !t also contends that under the same Act the Public 9ervice

Commission does not have control, supervision or urisdiction over it in the

fiin" of rates concernin" the operation of the service. !t can also incur

indebtedness or issue bonds that are eempt from taation 1hich circumstance

implies that it is essentiall* a "overnment-function corporation because it

eno*s that attribute of soverei"nt*. Petitioner li)e1ise invo)es the opinion of

the 9ecretar* of ustice 1hich holds that the NA5A9A bein" essentiall* a

service a"enc* of the "overnment can be classified as a corporation performin"

"overnmental function.

5ith this contention, 1e disa"ree. 5hile under Republic Act No. &%@% the

NA5A9A is considered as a public corporation it does not sho1 that it 1as so

created for the "overnment of a portion of the 9tate. !t should be borne in mind

that there are t1o )inds of public corporations, namel*, municipal and non-

municipal. A municipal corporation in its strict sense is the bod* politic

constituted b* the inhabitants of a cit* or to1n for the purpose of local

"overnment thereof. !t is the bod* politic established b* la1 particularl* as an

a"enc* of the 9tate to assist in the civil "overnment of the countr* chiefl* tore"ulate the local and internal affairs of the cit* or to1n that is incorporated #/0


6/31

C..9., p. /&(. Non-municipal corporations, on the other hand, are public

corporations created as a"encies of the 9tate for limited purposes to ta)e

char"e merel* of some public or state 1or) other than communit* "overnment

#Elliot, Municipal Corporations, %rd ed., p. >2 McKuillin, Mun. Corp. %rd ed., Gol.

&, p. '>/(.

The National 5ater1or)s 9e1era"e Authorit* 1as not created for purposes

of local "overnment. !t is not a municipal corporation. !t 1as created :for thepurpose of consolidatin" and centrali;in" all 1ater1or)s, se1era"e and

draina"e s*stems in the Philippines under one control and direction and

"eneral supervision. :The NA5A9A, therefore, thou"h a public corporation, is

not a municipal corporation, because it is not an a"enc* of the 9tate to re"ulate

or administer the local affairs of the to1n, cit*, or district 1hich is incorporated.

Moreover, the NA5A9A, b* its charter, has personalit* and po1er separate and

distinct from the "overnment. !t is an independent a"enc* of the "overnment

althou"h it is placed, for administrative purposes, under the epartment of

Public 5or)s and Communications. !t has continuous succession under its

corporate name and ma* sue and be sued in court. !t has corporate po1ers tobe eercised b* its board of directors2 it has its o1n assets and liabilities2 and it

ma* char"e rates for its services.

!n Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation, $% ?.., 0>@, 1e stated8 :To

recapitulate, 1e ma* mention that the term Oovernment of the Republic of the

PhilippinesJ . . . refers onl* to that "overnment entit* throu"h 1hich the

functions of the "overnment are eercised as an attribute of soverei"nt*, and in

this are included those arms throu"h 1hich political authorit* is made effective

1hether the* be provincial, municipal or other form of local "overnment. These

are 1hat 1e call municipal corporations. The* do not include "overnment

entities 1hich are "iven a corporate personalit* separate and distinct from the

"overnment and 1hich are "overned b* the Corporation 6a1. Their po1ers,

duties and liabilities have to be determined in the li"ht of that la1 and of their

corporate charter.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

The same conclusion ma* be reached b* considerin" the po1ers, functions

and activities of the NA5A9A 1hich are enumerated in 9ection 0, Republic Act

No. &%@%, amon" others, as follo1s8"c8chanrobles.com.ph

:#e( To construct, maintain and operate mains, pipes, 1ater reservoirs,

machiner*, and other 1ater1or)s for the purpose of suppl*in" 1ater to theinhabitants of its ;one, both domestic and other purposes2 to purif* the source

of suppl*, re"ulate the control and use, and prevent the 1aste of 1ater2 and to

fi 1ater rates and provide for the collection of rents therefor2

:#f( To construct, maintain and operate such s*stem of sanitar* se1ers as ma*

be necessar* for the proper sanitation of the cities and to1ns comprisin" the

Authorit* and to char"e and collect such sums for construction and rates for

this service as ma* be determined b* the Board to be e7uitable and ust2

:#"( To ac7uire, purchase, hold, transfer, sell, lease, rent, mort"a"e, encumber,

and other1ise dispose of real and personal propert*, includin" ri"hts and

franchises, 1ithin the Philippines, as authori;ed b* the purposes for 1hich the

Authorit* 1as created and reasonabl* and necessaril* re7uired for the

transaction of the la1ful business of the same, unless other1ise provided in this

Act2:

The business of providin" 1ater suppl* and se1era"e service, as this Court

held, :ma* for all practical purposes be li)ened to an industr* en"a"ed in b*

coal companies, "as companies, po1er plants, ice plants, and the li)e:

#Metropolitan 5ater istrict v. Court of !ndustrial Relations, Et Al., 6-''@@,Au"ust 0>, &$0(. These are but mere ministrant functions of "overnment 1hich

are aimed at advancin" the "eneral interest of societ*. As such the* are

optional #Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation, supra(. And it has been held

that :althou"h the state ma* re"ulate the service and rates of 1ater plants

o1ned and operated b* municipalities, such propert* is not emplo*ed for

"overnmental purposes and in the o1nership operation thereof the municipalit*

acts in its proprietar* capacit*, free from le"islative interference: #& McKuillin, p.

/@%(. !n Mendo;a v. e 6eon, %% Phil., $3@, $3, this Court also

held8"c8chanrobles.com.ph

:Municipalities of the Philippine !slands or"ani;ed under the Municipal Code

have both "overnmental and corporate or business functions. ?f the first class

are the adoption of re"ulations a"ainst fire and disease, preservation of the

public peace, maintenance of municipal prisons, establishment of primar*

schools and post-offices, etc. ?f the latter class are the establishment of

municipal 1ater1or)s for the use of the inhabitants, the construction and

maintenance of municipal slau"hterhouses, mar)ets, stables, bathin"

establishments, 1harves, ferries, and fisheries . . .:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

?n the stren"th of the fore"oin" considerations, our conclusion is that the

NA5A9A is not an a"enc* performin" "overnmental functions. Rather, itperforms proprietar* functions, and as such comes 1ithin the covera"e of


7/31

Common1ealth Act No. '''.

0. 5e a"ree 1ith petitioner that the NA5A9A is a public utilit* because its

primar* function is to construct, maintain and operate 1ater reservoirs and

1ater1or)s for the purpose of suppl*in" 1ater to the inhabitants, as 1ell as to

consolidate and centrali;e all 1ater supplies and draina"e s*stems in the

Philippines. 5e li)e1ise a"ree 1ith petitioner that a public utilit* is eempt from

pa*in" additional compensation for 1or) on 9unda*s and le"al holida*sconformabl* to 9ection ' of Common1ealth Act No. ''' 1hich provides that

the prohibition re"ardin" emplo*ment on 9unda*s and holida*s unless an

additional sum of 0$I of the emplo*eeJs re"ular remuneration is paid shall not

appl* to public utilities such as those suppl*in" "as, electricit*, po1er, 1ater or

providin" means of transportation or communication. !n other 1ords, the

emplo*ees and laborers of NA5A9A can be made to 1or) on 9unda*s and

le"al holida*s 1ithout bein" re7uired to pa* them an additional compensation of

0$I.

!t is to be noted, ho1ever, that in the case at bar it has been stipulated that prior

to the enactment of Republic Act No. &@@3, providin" for the implementation ofthe '3-4our 5ee) 6a1, the Metropolitan 5ater istrict had been pa*in" 0$I

additional compensation for 1or) on 9unda*s and le"al holida*s to its

emplo*ees and laborers b* virtue of Resolution No. '>, series of &'@, of its

Board of irectors, 1hich practice 1as continued b* the NA5A9A 1hen the

latter too) over the service. And in the collective bar"ainin" a"reement entered

into bet1een the NA5A9A and respondent unions it 1as a"reed that all

eistin" benefits eno*ed b* the emplo*ees and laborers prior to its effectivit*

shall remain in force and shall form part of the a"reement, amon" 1hich

certainl* is the 0$I additional compensation for 1or) on 9unda*s and le"al

holida*s therefore eno*ed b* said laborers and emplo*ees. !t ma*, therefore,

be said that 1hile under Common1ealth Act No. ''' a public utilit* is not

re7uired to pa* additional compensation to its emplo*ees and 1or)ers for 1or)

done on 9unda*s and le"al holida*s, there is, ho1ever, no prohibition for it to

pa* such additional compensation if it voluntaril* a"rees to do so. The

NA5A9A committed itself to pa* this additional compensation. !t must pa* not

because of compulsion of la1 but because of contractual obli"ation.

%. This issue raises the 7uestion 1hether the intervenors are :mana"erial

emplo*ees: 1ithin the meanin" of Republic Act 0%>> and as such are not

entitled to the benefits of Common1ealth Act No. ''', as amended. 9ection 0

of Republic Act 0%>> provides.chanrobles virtual la1librar*

:9ec. 0. This Act shall appl* to all persons emplo*ed in an* industr* or

occupation, 1hether public or private, 1ith the eception of farm laborers,

laborers 1ho prefer to be paid on piece 1or) basis, mana"erial emplo*ees

outside sales personnel, domestic servants D persons in the personal service

of another and members of the famil* of the emplo*er 1or)in" for him.

:The term Omana"erial emplo*eeJ in this Act shall mean either #a( an* person

1hose primar* dut* consists of the mana"ement of the establishment in 1hichhe is emplo*ed or of a customaril* reco"ni;ed department or subdivision

thereof, or #b( an* officer or member of the mana"erial staff.:crala1 virtua&a1

librar*

?ne of the distin"uishin" characteristics b* 1hich a mana"erial emplo*ee ma*

be )no1n as epressed in the eplanator* note of Republic Act No. 0%>> is that

he is not subect to the ri"id observance of re"ular office hours. The true 1orth

of his service does not depend so much on the time he spends in office but

more on the results he accomplishes. !n fact, he is free to "o out of office

an*time.

?n the other hand, in the air 6abor 9tandards Act of the +nited 9tates, 1hich

1as ta)en into account b* the sponsors of the present Act in definin" the

de"ree of 1or) of a mana"erial emplo*ee, 1e find interestin" the follo1in"

dissertation of the nature of 1or) of a mana"erial emplo*ee.

:ecisions have construed and applied a re"ulation in substance providin" that

the term OprofessionalJ emplo*ee shall mean an* emplo*ee . . . 1ho is en"a"ed

in 1or) predominantl* intellectual and varied in character, and re7uires the

consistent eercise of discretion and ud"ment in its performance, and is of

such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be

standardi;ed in relation to a "iven period of time, and 1hose hours of 1or) of

the same nature as that performed b* noneempt emplo*ees, ecept 1here

such 1or) is necessaril* incident to 1or) of a professional nature2 and 1hich

re7uires, first, )no1led"e of an advanced t*pe in a filed of science or learnin"

customaril* ac7uired b* a prolon"ed course or speciali;ed intellectual ac7uired

b* a prolon"ed course or speciali;ed intellectual instruction and stud*, or,

second, predominantl* ori"inal and creative in character in a reco"ni;ed filed of

artistic endeavor. 9tran"er v. Gocafilm Corp., C.C.A. N.H., &$& . 0d @', &/0

A.6.R. 0&/2 4ofer v. ederal Cartrid"e Corp., .C. Minn >& . 9upp. 0'%2 Aulen

v. Triumph Eplosive, .C. Md., $@ . 9upp. '.: #$/ C..9., p. ///(.

:+nder the provisions of the air 6abor 9tandards Act 0 +.9.C.A., 9ection 0%


8/31

#a( #&(, eecutive emplo*ees are eempted from the statutor* re7uirements as

to minimum 1a"es overtime pa* . . .

:Thus the eemption attaches onl* 1here it appears that the emplo*eeJs

primar* dut* consists of the mana"ement of the establishment or of a

customaril* reco"ni;ed department or subdivision thereof, that he customaril*

and re"ularl* directs the 1or) of other emplo*ees therein, that he has the

authorit* to hire or dischar"e other emplo*ees or that his su""estions and

recommendations as to the hirin" or dischar"in" and as to the advancement

and promotion or an* other chan"e of status of other emplo*ees are "iven

particular 1ei"ht, that he customaril* and re"ularl* eercises discretionar*

po1ers, . . .: #$/ C..9., pp. ///-//@.(

:The term Oadministrative emplo*eeJ ordinaril* applies onl* to an emplo*ee 1ho

is compensated for his services at a salar* or fee of not less than a prescribed

sum per month, and 1ho re"ularl* and directl* assists an emplo*ee emplo*ed

in a bona fide eecutive or administrative capacit*, 1here such assistance is

nonmanual in nature and re7uires the eercise of discretion and independent

ud"ment2 or 1ho performs under onl* "eneral supervision, responsiblenonmanual office or filed 1or), directl* related to mana"ement policies or

"eneral business operations, alon" speciali;ed or technical lines re7uirin"

special trainin" eperience, or )no1led"e, and the eercise of discretion and

independent ud"ment2 . . .: #$/ C..9., p. />&.(

:The reason underl*in" each eemption is in realit* apparent. Eecutive,

administrative and professional 1or)ers are not usuall* emplo*ed at hourl*

1a"es nor is it feasible in the case of such emplo*ees to provide a fied hourl*

rate of pa* nor maimum hours of labor, 4elena lendale err* Co. v. 5allin",

C.C.A. Ar). &%0 . 0d /&/, /&,: #$/ C..9., p. //'.(

The philosoph* behind the eemption of mana"erial emplo*ees from the @-

4our 6abor 6a1 is that such 1or)ers are not usuall* emplo*ed for ever* hour of

1or) but their compensation is determined considerin" their special trainin",

eperience or )no1led"e 1hich re7uires the eercise of discretion and

independent ud"ment, or perform 1or) related to mana"ement policies or

"eneral business operations alon" speciali;ed or technical lines. or these

1or)ers it is not feasible to provide a fied hourl* rate of pa* or maimum hours

of labor.

The intervenors herein are holdin" position of responsibilit*. ?ne of them is the9ecretar* of the Board of irectors. Another is the private secretar* of the

"eneral mana"er. Another is a public relations officer, and man* chiefs of

divisions or sections and others are supervisors and overseers. Respondent

court, ho1ever, after eaminin" carefull* their respective functions, duties and

responsibilities found that their primar* duties do not bear an* direct relation

1ith the mana"ement of the NA5A9A, nor do the* participate in the formulation

of its policies nor in the hirin" and firin" of its emplo*ees. The chiefs of divisions

and sections are "iven read* policies to eecute and standard practices to

observe for their eecution. 4ence, it concludes, the* have little freedom of

action, as their main function is merel* to carr* out the compan*Js orders, plans

and policies.

To the fore"oin" comment, 1e a"ree. As a matter of fact, the* are re7uired to

observe 1or)in" hours and record their time 1or) and are not free to come and

"o to their offices, nor move about at their o1n discretion. The* do not,

therefore, come 1ithin the cate"or* of :mana"erial emplo*ees: 1ithin the

meanin" of the la1.

'. PetitionerJs claim is that the issue of overtime compensation not havin" been

raised in the ori"inal case but merel* dra""ed into it b* intervenors, respondentcourt cannot ta)e co"ni;ance thereof under 9ection &, Rule &%, of the Rules of

Court.

!ntervenors filed a petition for intervention alle"in" that bein" emplo*ees of

petitioner 1ho have 1or)ed at ni"ht since &$' 1ithout havin" been full*

compensated the* desire to intervene insofar as the pa*ment of their ni"ht 1or)

is concerned. Petitioner opposed the petition on the "round that this matter 1as

not in the ori"inal case since it 1as not included in the dispute certified b* the

President of the Philippines to the Court of !ndustrial Relations. The opposition

1as overruled. This is no1 assi"ned as error.

There is no dispute that the intervenors 1ere in the emplo* of petitioner 1hen

the* intervened and that their claim refers to the @- 4our 6abor 6a1 and since

this Court has held time and a"ain that disputes that call for the application of

the @-4our 6abor 6a1 are 1ithin the urisdiction of the Court of !ndustrial

Relations if the* arise 1hile the emplo*er-emplo*ee relationship still eists, it is

clear that the matter subect of intervention comes 1ithin the urisdiction of

respondent court. & The fact that the 7uestion of overtime pa*ment is not

included in the principal case in the sense that it is not one of the items of

dispute certified to b* the President is of no moment, for it comes 1ithin the

sound discretion of the Court of !ndustrial Relations. Moreover, in labor disputestechnicalities of procedure should as much as possible be avoided not onl* in


9/31

the interest of labor but to avoid multiplicit* of action. This claim has no merit.

$. !t is claimed that some intervenors are occup*in" positions in the eneral

Auditin" ?ffice and in the Bureau of Public 5or)s for the* are appointed either

b* the Auditor eneral or b* the 9ecretar* of Public 5or)s and, conse7uentl*,

the* are not officers of the NA5A9A but of the insular "overnment, and as such

are not covered b* the Ei"ht-4our 6abor 6a1.

The status of the A? emplo*ees assi"ned to, and 1or)in" in, "overnment-

controlled corporations has alread* been decided b* this Court in National

Mar)etin" Corporation, Et. Al. v. Court of !ndustrial Relations, Et Al., 6-&>@3',

anuar* %&, &/%. !n said case, this Court said8"c8chanrobles.com.ph

:5e a"ree 1ith appellants that members of the auditin" force can not be

re"arded as emplo*ees of the PR!9C? in matters relatin" to their

compensation. The* are appointed and supervised b* the Auditor eneral,

have an independent tenure, and 1or) subect to his orders and instructions,

and not to those of the mana"ement of appellants. Above all, the nature of their

functions and duties, for the purpose of fiscal control of appellantJs operations,imperativel* demands, as a matter of polic*, that their positions be completel*

independent from interference or inducement on the part of the supervised

mana"ement, in order to assure a maimum of impartialit* re7uire that the

emplo*ees in 7uestion be utterl* free from apprehension as to their tenure and

from epectanc* of benefits resultin" from an* action of the mana"ement, since

in either case there 1ould be an influence at 1or) that could possibl* lead, if

not to positive malfeasance, to lait* and indifference that 1ould "raduall*

erode and endan"er the critical supervision entrusted to these auditin"

emplo*ees.

:The inclusion of their items in the PR!9C? bud"et should be vie1ed as no

more than a desi"nation b* the national "overnment of the fund or source from

1hich their emoluments are to be dra1n, and does not si"nif* that the* are

thereb* made PR!9C? emplo*ees.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

The A? emplo*ees assi"ned to the NA5A9A are eactl* in the same position

re"ardin" their status, compensation and ri"ht to overtime pa* as the rest of the

A? emplo*ees assi"ned to the defunct PR!9C?, and follo1in" our rulin" in

the PR!9C? case, 1e hold that the A? emplo*ees herein are not covered b*

the @-4our 6abor 6a1, but b* other pertinent la1s on the matter.

The same thin" ma* be said 1ith re"ard to the emplo*ees of the Bureau of

Public 5or)s assi"ned to, and 1or)in" in, the NA5A9A. Their position is the

same as that of the A? emplo*ees. Therefore, the* are not also covered b*

the @-4our 6abor 6a1.

The respondent court, therefore, erred in considerin" them as emplo*ees of the

NA5A9A for the mere reason that the* are paid out of its fund and are subect

to its administration and supervision.

/. A 1or)er is entitled to overtime pa* onl* for 1or) in actual service be*ond

ei"ht hours. !f a 1or)er should incur in undertime durin" his re"ular dail* 1or),

should said undertime be deducted in computin" his overtime 1or) Petitioner

sustains the affirmative, 1hile respondent unions the ne"ative, and respondent

court decided the dispute in favor of the latter. hence this error.

There is merit in the decision of respondent court that the method used b*

petitioner in offsettin" the overtime 1ith the undertime and at the same time

char"in" said undertime to the accrued leave of the emplo*ee is unfair, for

under such method the emplo*ee is made to pa* t1ice for his undertime

because his leave is reduced to that etent 1hile he 1as made to pa* for it 1ith1or) be*ond the re"ular 1or)in" hours. The proper method should be to deduct

the undertime from the accrued leave but pa* the emplo*ee the overtime to

1hich he is entitled. This method also obviates the irre"ular schedule that

1ould result if the overtime should be set off a"ainst the undertime for that

1ould place the schedule for 1or)in" hours dependent on the emplo*ee.

>. and @. 4o1 is a dail* 1a"e of a 1ee)l* emplo*ee computed in the li"ht of

Republic Act &@@3

Accordin" to petitioner, the dail* 1a"e should be computed eclusivel* on the

basic 1a"e 1ithout includin" the automatic increase of 0$I correspondin" to

the 9unda* differential. To include said 9unda* differential 1ould be to increase

the basic pa* 1hich is not contemplated b* said Act. Respondent court

disa"rees 1ith this manner of computation. !t holds that Republic Act &@@3

re7uires that the basic 1ee)l* 1a"e and the basic monthl* salar* should not be

diminished not1ithstandin" the reduction in the number of 1or)in" da*s a

1ee). !f the automatic increase correspondin" to the salar* differential should

not be included there 1ould be a diminution of the 1ee)l* 1a"e of the laborer

concerned. ?f course, this should onl* benefit those 1ho have been 1or)in"

seven da*s a 1ee) and had been re"ularl* receivin" 0$I additional

compensation for 9unda* 1or) before the effectivit* of the Act.


10/31

!t is evident that Republic Act &@@3 does not intend to raise the 1a"es of the

emplo*ees over 1hat the* are actuall* receivin". Rather, its purpose is to limit

the 1or)in" da*s in a 1ee) to five da*s, or to '3 hours 1ithout ho1ever

permittin" an* reduction in the 1ee)l* or dail* 1a"e of the compensation 1hich

1as previousl* received. The 7uestion then to be determined is8 5hat is meant

b* 1ee)l* or dail* 1a"e oes the re"ular 1a"e include differential pa*ments

for 1or) on 9unda*s or at ni"hts, or is it the total amount received b* the

laborer for 1hatever nature or concept

!t has been held that for purposes of computin" overtime compensation a

re"ular 1a"e includes all pa*ments 1hich the parties have a"reed shall be

received durin" the 1or) 1ee), includin" piece- 1or) 1a"es, differential

pa*ments for 1or)in" at undesirable times, such as at ni"ht or on 9unda*s and

holida*s, and the cost of board and lod"in" customaril* furnished the emplo*ee

#5allin" v. Han"erman-Re*nolds 4ard1oo) Co., %0$ +. 9. '&, 5allin" v.

4arischfe"er Corp., %0$ +.9. '0>(. The :re"ular rate: of pa* also ordinaril*

includes incentives bonus or profit-sharin" pa*ments made in addition to the

normal basic pa* #$/ C..9., pp. >3'->3$(, and it 1as also held that the hi"her

rate for ni"ht, 9unda* and holida* 1or) is ust as much a re"ular rate as thelo1er rate for da*time 1or). The hi"her rate is merel* an inducement to accept

emplo*ment at times 1hich are not as desirable from a 1or)manJs standpoint

#!nternational 6. AssJn. v. National Terminals Corp. C. C. 5isc. $3 . 9upp. 0/,

affirmed C.C.A. Carbunao v. National Terminals Corp. &% . 0d @$%(.

Respondent court, therefore, correctl* included such differential pa* in

computin" the 1ee)l* 1a"es of those emplo*ees and laborers 1ho 1or)ed

seven da*s a 1ee) and 1ere continuousl* receivin" 0$I 9unda* differential for

a period of three months immediatel* precedin" the implementation of Republic

Act &@@3.

The net issue refers to the method of computin" the dail* rate of a monthl*

salaried emplo*ee. Petitioner in computin" this dail* rate divides the monthl*

basic pa* of the emplo*ee b* %3 in accordance 1ith 9ection 0$' of the Revised

Administrative Code 1hich in part provides that :!n ma)in" pa*ment for part of

a month, the amount to be paid for each da* shall be determined b* dividin"

the monthl* pa* into as man* parts as there are da*s in the particular month.:

The respondent court disa"rees 1ith this method and holds that the 1a* to

determine the dail* rate of a monthl* emplo*ee is to divide the monthl* salar*

b* the actual number of 1or)in" hours in the month. Thus, accordin" to

respondent court, 9ection @#"( of Republic Act No. &&/&, as amended b*Republic Act &>0, provides that the dail* rate of compensation is the total

re"ular compensation for the customar* number of hours 1or)ed each da*. !n

other 1ords, accordin" to respondent court, the correct computation shall be #a(

the monthl* salar* divided b* the actual number of 1or)in" hours in a month or

#b( the re"ular monthl* compensation divided b* the number of 1or)in" da*s in

a month.

This findin" of respondent court should be modified insofar as the emplo*ees of

the eneral Auditin" ?ffice and of the Bureau of Public 5or)s assi"ned to 1or)

in the NA5A9A are concerned for, as alread* stated, the* are "overnment

emplo*ees and should be "overned b* 9ection 0$' of the Revised

Administrative Code. This section provides that in ma)in" pa*ment for part of a

month, the amount to be paid for each da* shall be determined b* dividin" the

monthl* pa* into as man* parts as there are da*s in the particular month. 5ith

this modification 1e find correct the findin" of the respondent court on this

issue.

. The Court of !ndustrial Relations a1arded an additional 0$I ni"ht

compensation to some 1or)ers 1ith retroactive effect, that is, effective even

before the presentation of the claim, provided that the* had been "ivenauthori;ation b* the "eneral mana"er to perform ni"ht 1or). !t is petitionerJs

theor* that since there is no statute re7uirin" pa*ment of additional

compensation for ni"ht 1or) but it can onl* be "ranted either b* the voluntar*

act of the emplo*er or b* an a1ard of the industrial court under its compulsor*

arbitration po1er, such "rant should onl* be prospective in operation, and not

retroactive, as authori;ed b* the court.

!t is of common occurrence that a 1or)in" man 1ho has alread* rendered ni"ht

time service ta)es him a lon" time before he can muster enou"h coura"e to

confront his emplo*er 1ith the demand for pa*ment for it for fear of possible

reprisal. !t happens that man* months or *ears are allo1ed to pass b* before

he could be made to present such claim a"ainst his emplo*er, and so it is

neither fair nor ust that he be deprived of 1hat is due him simpl* because of

his silence for fear of losin" the means of his livelihood. 4ence, it is not

erroneous for the Court of !ndustrial Relations to ma)e the pa*ment of such

ni"ht compensation retroactive to the date 1hen the 1or) 1as actuall*

performed.

The po1er of the Court of !ndustrial Relations to order the pa*ment of

compensation for overtime service prior to the date of the filin" of the claim has

been reco"ni;ed b* this Court #6u;on 9tevedorin" Co., !nc. v. 6u;on Marineepartment +nion, Et Al., 6-0/$, April 0, &$>(. The same reasons "iven


11/31

therein for the retroactivit* of overtime compensation ma* also be "iven for the

retroactivit* of pa*ment of ni"ht compensation, as such reasonin" runs alon"

the line alread* abovestated.

&3. The Court of !ndustrial Relations in its resolution dated November 0$, &$3

issued in Case No. %$-G entitled M5 5or)ers +nion, Et. Al. v. Metropolitan

5ater istrict, fied the follo1in" rates of minimum dail* 1a"e8 P$.0$ for those

1or)in" in Manila and suburbs2 P'.$3 for those 1or)in" in Kue;on Cit*2 and

P'.33, for those 1or)in" in !po, Montalban and Balara. !t appears that in spite

of the notice to terminate said a1ard filed 1ith the court on ecember 0, &$%,

the Metropolitan 5ater istrict continued pa*in" the above 1a"es and the

NA5A9A 1hich succeeded it adopted the same rates for sometime. !n

9eptember, &$$, the NA5A9A hired the claimants as temporar* 1or)ers and

it is no1 contended that said rates cannot appl* to these 1or)ers.

The Court of !ndustrial Relations, ho1ever, held that the discontinuance of this

minimum 1a"e rates 1as improper and ordered the pa*ment of the difference

to said 1or)ers from the date the pa*ment of said rates 1as discontinued,

advancin", amon" others, the follo1in" reasons8 that the resolution ofNovember 0$, &$3 is applicable not onl* to those laborers alread* in the

service but also to those 1ho ma* be emplo*ed thereafter2 the notice of

termination of said a1ard "iven on ecember 0, &$% is not le"all* effective

because the same 1as "iven 1ithout hearin" and the emplo*er continued

pa*in" the minimum 1a"es even after the notice of termination2 and there is no

sho1in" that the minimum 1a"es violate Civil 9ervice 6a1 or the principles

underl*in" the 5APC?.

5e find no valid reason to disa"ree 1ith the fore"oin" findin" of the Court of

!ndustrial Relations considerin" that the a1ard continued to be valid and

effective in spite of the notice of termination "iven b* the emplo*er. No "ood

reason is seen 1h* such a1ard should not appl* to those 1ho ma* be

emplo*ed after its approval b* the court there bein" nothin" therein that ma*

prevent its etension to them. Moreover, the industrial court can at an* time

durin" the effectiveness of an a1ard alter and modif* in 1hole or in part said

a1ard or reopen an* 7uestion involved therein under 9ection &> of

Common1ealth Act No. &3%, and such is 1hat said court has done 1hen it

made the a1ard etensive to the ne1 emplo*ees, more so 1hen the* are

similarl* situated. To do other1ise 1ould be to foster discrimination.

&&. This issue has to do 1ith the meanin" of :distress pa*.: Para"raph %, ArticleG!!!, of the collective bar"ainin" a"reement entered into bet1een the emplo*er

and respondent unions, provides8"c8chanrobles.com.ph

:Because of the peculiar nature of the function of those emplo*ees and laborers

of the 9e1era"e ivision 1ho actuall* 1or) in the se1era"e chambers, causin"

O+nusual distressJ to them, the* shall receive etra compensation e7uivalent to

t1ent*-five percent #0$I( of their basic 1a"e.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

Pursuant to said a"reement, a "rievance committee 1as eecuted composed

of representatives of mana"ement and labor 1hich adopted the follo1in"

resolution8"c8chanrobles.com.ph

:Resolution No.

9eries of &$>

BE !T RE9?6GE, That the emplo*ees and laborers of the 9e1era"e ivision

1ho actuall* 1or) in the se1era"e chambers causin" unusual distress to them,

be paid etra compensation e7uivalent to 0$I of their basic 1a"e, as

embodied in Article G!!!, Para"raph % of the Collective Bar"ainin" A"reement2PR?G!E, ho1ever, that an* emplo*ee 1ho ma* be re7uired to 1or) actuall*

in the se1era"e chambers shall also be paid 0$I etra compensation and,

PR?G!E +RT4ER, that the term Ose1era"e chamberJ shall include pits,

trenches, and other ecavations that are necessar* to tap the se1er line, and

PR?G!E !NA66H that this 1ill not preudice an* laborer or emplo*ee 1ho

ma* be included in one 1a* or another in the term Ounusual distressJ 1ithin the

purvie1 of Para"raph % of Article G!!!, of the Collective Bar"ainin"

A"reement.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

And in a conference held bet1een mana"ement and labor on November 0$,

&$>, the follo1in" 1as a"reed upon :istress-Mana"ement a"reed to pa*

effective ?ctober &, &$/ 0$I additional compensation for those 1ho actuall*

1or) in and outside se1era"e chamber in accordance 1ith Resolution No. of

the rievance Committee.:crala1 virtua&a1 librar*

The 7uestion that arose in connection 1ith this distress pa* is 1ith re"ard to the

meanin" of the phrase :1ho actuall* 1or) in and outside se1era"e chambers.:

Petitioner contends that the distress pa* should be "iven onl* to those 1ho

actuall* 1or) inside the se1era"e chambers 1hile the union maintains that

such pa* should be "iven to all those 1hose 1or) have to do 1ith the se1era"e

chambers, 1hether inside or outside. The Court of !ndustrial Relationssustained the latter vie1 holdin" that the distress pa* should be "iven to those


12/31

1ho actuall* 1or) in and outside the se1era"e chambers effective ?ctober &,

&$/. This vie1 is no1 disputed b* petitioner.chanrobles virtual la1librar*

The solution of the present issue hin"es upon the interpretation of para"raph %,

Article G!!! of the collective bar"ainin" a"reement, copied above, as eplained

b* Resolution No. , and the a"reement of November 0$, &>$, also copied

above, 1hich stipulation has to be interpreted as a 1hole pursuant to Article

&%>' of the Civil Code. As thus interpreted, 1e find that those 1ho are entitled

to the distress pa* are those emplo*ees and laborers 1ho 1or) in the

se1era"e chambers 1hether the* belon" to the se1era"e division or not, and

b* se1era"e chambers should be understood to mean as the surroundin"s

1here the 1or) is actuall* done, not necessaril* :inside the se1era"e

chambers.: This is clearl* inferred from the conference held in the epartment

of 6abor on November 0$, &$> 1here it 1as a"reed that the compensation

should be paid to those 1ho 1or) :in and outside: the se1era"e chambers in

accordance 1ith the terms of Resolution No. of the rievance Committee. !t

should be noted that, accordin" to said resolution, se1era"e chambers include

:pits, trenches, and other ecavations that are necessar* to tap the se1er

lines.: And the reason "iven for this etra compensation is the :unusualdistress: that is caused to the laborers b* 1or)in" in the se1era"e chambers in

the form and etent abovementioned.

!t is clear then that all the laborers 1hether of the se1era"e division or not

assi"ned to 1or) in and outside the se1era"e chambers and sufferin" unusual

distress because of the nature of their 1or) are entitled to the etra

compensation. And this conclusion is further bolstered b* the findin"s of the

industrial court re"ardin" the main activities of the se1era"e division.

Thus, the Court of !ndustrial Relations found that the se1era"e division has

three main activities, to 1it8 #a( cooperation of the se1era"e pumpin" stations2

#b( cleanin" and maintenance of se1er mains2 and #c( installation and repairs of

house se1er connections.

The pump operators and the se1er attendants in the seven pumpin" stations in

Manila, accordin" to the industrial court, suffer unusual distress. The pump

operators have to "o to the 1et pit to see ho1 the cleanin" of the screen

protectin" the pump is bein" performed, and "o also to the dr* pit abuttin" the

1et pit to ma)e repairs in the brea)do1n of the pumps. Althou"h the operators

used to sta* near the motor 1hich is but a fe1 meters from the pump, the*

unavoidabl* smell the foul odor emittin" from the pit. The se1era"e attendants"o do1n and 1or) in the 1et pit containin" se1era"e materials in order to clean

the screen.

A "roup assi"ned to the cleanin" and maintenance of the se1er mains 1hich

are located in the middle of the streets of Manila is usuall* composed of a

capata; and four se1era"e attendants. These attendants are rotated in "oin"

inside the manholes, operation of the 1indo1 "lass, bailin" out from the main to

the manhole and in suppl*in" the 1ater service as necessit* demands. These

attendants come into contact 1ith dirt, stin) and smell, dar)ness and heat

inside and near the se1a"e pipes. The capata; "oes from one manhole to

another seein" to it that the 1or) is properl* performed and as such also suffers

unusual distress althou"h to a lesser de"ree.

The "roup assi"ned to the third )ind of activit* is also usuall* composed of a

capata; and four attendants. Their 1or) is to connect se1er pipes from houses

to the se1er mains and to do this the* ecavate the trench across the street

from the proper line to the se1er main and then the* install the pipe after

tappin" the se1er main. !n the tappin", the se1er pipe is opened and so the

se1era"e "ets out and fills up the trench and the men have to 1ade in and

1or) 1ith the se1era"e 1ater. The capata; has to "o near the filth*ecavations or trenches full of filth* se1era"e matter to aid the attendants in

ma)in" pipe connections, especiall* 1hen these are complicated.

!t cannot therefore be "ainsaid that all these laborers suffer unusual distress.

The 1et pits, trenches, manholes, 1hich are full of se1a"e matters, are filth*

sources of "erms and different diseases. The* emit foul and filth* odor

dan"erous to health. Those 1or)in" in such places are eposed directl* to the

distress of contamination.

Premises considered, the decision of the Court of !ndustrial Relations in this

respect should be modified in the sense that all emplo*ees and laborers,

1hether or not the* belon" to the se1era"e division, 1ho actuall* 1or) in and

outside the se1era"e chambers, should be paid the distress pa* or the etra

compensation e7uivalent to 0$I of their basic 1a"e effective ?ctober &, &$/.

&0. ?n Au"ust /, &$>, the NA5A9A re7uested the President of the Philippines

for eemption from Eecutive ?rder No. 0$& 1hich prescribes the office hours

to be observed in "overnment and "overnment-o1ned or controlled

corporations in order that it could sta""er the 1or)in" hours of its emplo*ees

and laborers. The re7uest is based on the fact that there are essential and

indispensable phases in the operation of the NA5A9A that are re7uired to beattended to continuousl* for t1ent*-four hours for the entire seven da*s of the


13/31

1ee) 1ithout interruption some of 1hich bein" the 1or) performed b* pump

operators, valve operators, filter operators, chlorine operators, 1atchmen and

"uards, and medical personnel. This re7uest 1as "ranted and, accordin"l*, the

NA5A9A sta""ered the 1or) schedule of the emplo*ees and laborers

performin" the activities abovementioned. Respondent unions protested

a"ainst this sta""erin" schedule of 1or) and this protest havin" been

unheeded, the* brou"ht the matter to the Court of !ndustrial Relations.

!n resolvin" this issue, the industrial court ustified the sta""erin" of the 1or)

da*s of those holdin" positions as pump operators, valve operators, filter

operators, chlorine operators, 1atchmen and "uards, and those in the medical

service for the reason that the same 1as made pursuant to the authorit*

"ranted b* the President 1ho in the valid eercise of the po1ers conferred

upon him b* Republic Act No. &@@3 could prescribe the 1or)in" da*s of

emplo*ees and laborers in "overnment-o1ned and controlled corporations

dependin" upon the ei"encies of the service. The court, ho1ever, stated that

the sta""erin" should not appl* to the personnel in the construction, se1era"e,

maintenance, machineries and shops because the* 1or) belo1 %/$ da*s a

*ear and their services are not continuous to re7uire sta""erin". rom thisportion of the decision, the petitioner appeals.

Considerin" that respondent court found that the 1or)ers in 7uestion 1or) less

than %/$ da*s a *ear and their service are not continuous to re7uire sta""erin",

1e see no reason to disturb this findin". This is contrar* to the ver* essence of

the re7uest that the sta""erin" should be made onl* 1ith re"ard to those

phases of the operation of the NA5A9A that have to be attended to

continuousl* for t1ent*-four hours 1ithout interruption 1hich certainl* cannot

appl* to the 1or)ers mentioned in the last part of the decision of the respondent

court on the matter.

RECAP!T+6AT!?N

!n resum, this Court holds8chanrob&es virtual &a1 librar*

#&( The NA5A9A, thou"h a public corporation, does not perform "overnmental

functions. !t performs proprietar* functions, and hence, it is covered b*

Common1ealth Act No. '''2

#0( The NA5A9A is a public utilit*. Althou"h pursuant to 9ection ' of

Common1ealth Act ''' it is not obli"ed to pa* an additional sum of 0$I to itslaborers for 1or) done on 9unda*s and le"al holida*s, *et it must pa* said

additional compensation b* virtue of the contractual obli"ation it assumed

under the collective bar"ainin" a"reement2

#%( The intervenors are not :mana"erial emplo*ees: as defined in Republic Act

No. 0%>>, hence the* are covered b* Common1ealth Act No. ''', as

amended2

#'( The Court of !ndustrial Relations has urisdiction to adudicate overtime pa*

in the case at bar there bein" an emplo*er- emplo*ee relationship eistin"

bet1een intervenors and petitioner2

#$( The A? emplo*ees assi"ned to 1or) in the NA5A9A cannot be re"arded

as emplo*ees of the NA5A9A on matters relatin" to compensation. The* are

emplo*ees of the national "overnment and are not covered b* the Ei"ht-4our

6abor 6a1. The same ma* be said of the emplo*ees of the Bureau of Public

5or)s assi"ned to 1or) in the NA5A9A2

#/( The method used b* the NA5A9A in offsettin" the overtime 1ith the

undertime and at the same time char"in" said undertime to the accrued leaveis unfair2

#>( The differential pa* of 9unda*s is a part of the le"al 1a"e. 4ence, it 1as

correctl* included in computin" the 1ee)l* 1a"es of those emplo*ees and

laborers 1ho 1or)ed seven da*s a 1ee) and 1ere re"ularl* receivin" the 0$I

salar* differential for a period of three months prior to the implementation of

Republic Act &@@3. This is so even if petitioner is a public utilit* in vie1 of the

contractual obli"ation it has assumed on the matter2

#@( !n the computation of the dail* 1a"es of emplo*ees paid b* the month

distinction should be made bet1een "overnment emplo*ees li)e the A?

emplo*ees and those 1ho are not. The computation for "overnment emplo*ees

is "overned b* 9ection 0$' of the Revised Administrative Code 1hile for others

the correct computation is the monthl* salar* divided b* the actual number of

1or)in" hours in the month or the re"ular monthl* compensation divided b* the

number of 1or)in" da*s in the month2

#( The Court of !ndustrial Relations did not err in orderin" the pa*ment of ni"ht

compensation from the time such services 1ere rendered. The laborer must be

compensated for ni"httime 1or) as of the date the same 1as rendered2

#&3( The rates of minimum pa* fied in a C!R Case No. %$-G are applicable


14/31

not onl* to those 1ho 1ere alread* in the service as of the date of the decision

but also to those 1ho 1ere emplo*ed subse7uent to said date2

#&&( All the laborers, 1hether assi"ned to the se1era"e division or not 1ho are

actuall* 1or)in" inside or outside the se1era"e chambers, are entitled to

distress pa*2 and

#&0( There is no valid reason to disturb the findin" of the Court of !ndustrial

Relations that the 1or) of the personnel in the construction, se1era"e,

maintenance, machineries and shops of petitioner is not continuous as to

re7uire sta""erin".

C?NC6+9!?N

5ith the modification indicated in the above resum as elaborated in this

decision, 1e hereb* affirm the decision of respondent court in all other

respects, 1ithout pronouncement as to costs.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

!R9T !G!9!?N

G.R. No. =>039 J"'u"$# 28, 1988

RAN5LN A5ER COMPAN O T7E P7LPPNES, petitioner,

vs.7ONORALE CRESENCO . TRAJANO, RECTOR O UREAU OLAOR RELATONS, RAN5LN A5ER ROT7ER7OO ASSOCATON?TEC7NCAL AN OCE EMPLOEES@-ASSOCATON O TRAEUNONS ?ATU@, respondents.

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari see)in" the annulment of. #a( the ?rder ofMediator-Arbiter Conchita . Martine; of the Ministr* of 6abor and Emplo*ment,

avao Cit*, dated 9eptember &>, &@' in 6R Case No. R-00 ME-R?F!-+R-

0@-@' entitled :!n Re8 Petition for Certification Election Amon" the ?ffice andTechnical Emplo*ees of ran)lin Ba)er Compan* of the Philippines, avaoPlant at Coronan, 9ta. Cru;, avao del 9ur, ran)lin Ba)er Compan* of thePhilippines, avao Plant, Emplo*er, ran)lin Ba)er Brotherhood Association#Technical and ?ffice Emplo*ees(-Association of Trade +nions #AT+(,: insofaras it includes the mana"erial emplo*ees #inspectors, foremen and supervisors(in the certification election2 #b( the ?rder of April >, &@/ of irector CresencioB. Traano, also of the M?6E, dismissin" the appeal of aforesaid ?rder of9eptember &>, &@$ for lac) of merit2 and #c( the ?rder of une /, &@/ of saidirector den*in" reconsideration of his ?rder of April >, &@/ and affirmin" thesame in toto#Rollo, p. 3(.

!n brief, the undisputed facts of this case are as follo1s8

?n April 0%, &@', private respondent ran)lin Ba)er Brotherhood Association-#AT+( filed a petition for certification election amon" the office and technicalemplo*ees of petitioner compan* 1ith the Ministr* of 6abor and Emplo*ment,Re"ional ?ffice No. F!, avao Cit*, doc)eted as 6R No. R-00, ME-R?F!-+R-0@@'. Amon" other thin"s, it alle"es that ran)lin Ba)er Compan* of thePhils. avao Plant, had in its emplo* approimatel* ninet* #3( re"ular

technical and office emplo*ees, 1hich "roup is separate and distinct from there"ular ran) and file emplo*ees and is ecluded from the covera"e of eistin"Collective Bar"ainin" A"reement.

Petitioner compan* did not obect to the holdin" of such an election butmanifested that out of the ninet* #3( emplo*ees sou"ht to be represented b*the respondent union, sevent* four #>'( are mana"erial emplo*ees 1hile t1o#0( others are confidential emplo*ees, hence, must be ecluded from thecertification election and from the bar"ainin" unit that ma* result from suchelection #Rollo, p. %(.

4earin"s 1ere held and thereafter, the parties a"reed to f ile their respective

memoranda. 6i)e1ise, petitioner filed a repl* to private respondentsMemorandum #Rollo, p. '(.

9ubse7uentl*, on 9eptember &>, &@', Med-Arbiter Conchita . Martine;issued an order, the dispositive part of 1hich reads8

Accordin"l*, the petition is hereb* "ranted and a certificationelection amon" the office and technical emplo*ees of ran)linBa)er Compan* of the Philippines, avao Plant is ordered1ithin t1ent* #03( da*s from receipt hereof. The choices shallbe the follo1in"8

&. ran)lin Ba)er Brotherhood Association-#AT+(


15/31

0. No +nion

The representation officer assi"ned shall call the parties for apre-election conference at least five #$( da*s before the date ofthe election to thresh out the mechanics of the election, thefinali;ation of the list of voters, the postin" of notices and otherrelevant matters.

The compan*s latest pa*roll shall be the basis for determinin"the office and technical 1or)ers 7ualified to vote.

9? ?RERE. #Rollo, pp. '>-'@(.

rom the afore7uoted order petitioner Compan* appealed to the Bureau of6abor Relations, doc)eted as B6R Case No. A-00@@', pra*in" that theappealed order be set aside and another be issued declarin" the sevent* four#>'( inspectors, foremen and supervisors as mana"erial emplo*ees.

urin" the pendenc* of the appeal, sit* one #/&( of the emplo*ees involved,filed a Motion to 5ithdra1 the petition for certification election pra*in" thereinfor their eclusion from the Bar"ainin" +nit and for a cate"orical declarationthat the* are mana"erial emplo*ees, as the* are performin" mana"erialfunctions #Rollo, p. '(.

?n April >, &@/, public respondent Bureau of 6abor Relations Cresencio B.Traano issued a Resolution affirmin" the order dated 9eptember &>, &@', thedispositive part of 1hich reads8

54ERE?RE, the appealed ?rder dated 9eptember &>, &@$is hereb* affirmed and the appeal dismissed for lac) of merit.6et the certification election amon" the office and technical

emplo*ees of ran)lin Ba)er Compan* of the Philippinesproceed 1ithout dela*.

The latest pa*rolls of the compan* shall be used as basis ofdeterminin" the list of eli"ible voters. #Rollo, p. >>(,

Petitioner compan* sou"ht the reconsideration of the afore7uoted resolutionbut its motion 1as denied b* irector Cresencio B. Traano in his order datedune /, &@/, the dispositive part of 1hich reads8

54ERE?RE, the appeal of respondent compan* is,dismissed for lac) of merit and the Bureaus Resolution dated

April &@/ affirmed in toto.

6et, therefore, the pertinent papers of this case be immediatel*for1arded to the ?ffice of ori"in for the conduct of thecertification election. #Rollo, p. 3(.

4ence, this petition.

!n the resolution of ul* %3, &@/, the 9econd ivision of this Court 1ithout"ivin" due course to the petition re7uired the respondents to file their comment

#Rollo, p. &(. ?n Au"ust 0@, &@/, public respondent filed its comment #Rollo,pp. to &30(. 6i)e1ise private respondent filed its comment on 9eptember $,&@/ #Rollo, pp. &3' to &3>(.

!n the resolution of 9eptember @, &@/, petitioner 1as re7uired to file its repl* topublic respondents comment #Rollo, p. &&( 1hich repl* 1as filed on9eptember &@, &@/ #Rollo, pp. &00-&0>(.

?n ?ctober 03, &@/, this Court resolved to "ive due course to the petition andre7uired the parties to file their respective Memoranda #Rollo, p. &%%(. !ncompliance 1ith said resolution, petitioner and private respondent filed theirMemoranda on ecember @, &@/ and ecember 0, &@/, respectivel* #Rollo,

pp. &@%-&@>(. ?n the other hand, public respondent filed 1ith this Court amanifestation #Rollo, p. &$%( to the effect that it is adoptin" as its memorandumits comment dated Au"ust &@, &@/ #Rollo, p. ( 1hich manifestation 1asnoted b* this Court in its resolution dated November 0/, &@/#Rollo, p. &$$(.

The lone assi"nment of error raised b* petitioner states8

Public respondent acted 1ith "rave abuse of discretionamountin" to lac) of urisdiction 1hen he ruled that the >/emplo*ees subect of this petition are not mana"erialemplo*ees #inspectors, foremen, supervisors and the li)e( andtherefore, ma* participate in the certification election amon"the office and technical emplo*ees. 9uch rulin" is contrar* to

urisprudence and to the factual evidence presented b*petitioner 1hich 1as not rebutted b* private respondent unionand is therefore patentl* baseless.

rom this assi"ned error t1o 7uestions are raised b* petitioner, namel*8 #&(1hether or not subect emplo*ees are mana"erial emplo*ees under the purvie1of the 6abor Code and its !mplementin" Rules2 and #0( 1hether the irector ofthe Bureau of 6abor Relations acted 1ith abuse of discretion in affirmin" theorder of Mediator-Arbiter Conchita . Martine;.


16/31

There is no 7uestion that there are in the AGA? Plant of petitioner compan*approimatel* 3 re"ular technical and office emplo*ees 1hich form a unit,separate and distinct from the re"ular ran) and file emplo*ees and areecluded from the covera"e of eistin" Collective Bar"ainin" A"reement2 thatsaid "roup of emplo*ees or"ani;ed themselves as ran)lin Ba)er Brotherhood

Association #technical and office emplo*ees( and affiliated 1ith the localchapter of the Association of trade +nions #AT+(, a le"itimate labor or"ani;ation1ith Re"istration Permit No. @>'$ #ed( 6C and 1ith office located at the %rdloor of Ant1ell Bld"., 9ta. Ana, avao Cit*2 that petitioner compan* did notobect to the holdin" of such certification, but onl* sou"ht the eclusion ofinspectors, foremen and supervisors, members of ran)lin Ba)er Brotherhood

Association #technical and office emplo*ees( numberin" >/ from thecertification election on the "round that the* are mana"erial emplo*ees.

A mana"erial emplo*ee is defined as one :1ho is vested 1ith po1ers orprero"atives to la* do1n and eecute mana"ement policies andQor to hire,transfer, suspend, la*-off, recall, dischar"e, assi"n or discipline emplo*ees, orto effectively recommend such mana)erial actions.: #Re*nolds Phil. Corp. v.Eslava, &%> 9CRA / are mana"erial emplo*ees, petitioner painsta)in"l* demonstrates thatsubect emplo*ees indeed participate in the formulation and eecution ofcompan* policies and re"ulations as to the conduct of 1or) in the plant,eercised the po1er to hire, suspend or dismiss subordinate emplo*ees andeffectivel* recommend such action, b* citin" concrete cases, amon" 1hich are8#&( Mr. Ponciano Giola, a 1et process inspector, 1ho 1hile in the performanceof his dut*, found Mr. Enri7ue Asuncion, a trimmer :for"in":, falsif*in" andsimulatin" a compan* time card #timesheet( resultin" in pa*roll paddin",

immediatel* recommended the dismissal of said errin" emplo*ee, resultin" inthe latters dischar"e. #Emplo*ers Memo, Rollo, p.&@(2 #0( Mr. Manuel Alipio, anopenin" inspector, recommended for suspension Nut ?perator Ephraimuma*os 1ho 1as cau"ht in the act of surreptitiousl* transferrin" to a co-1or)ers bin some 1hole nuts 1hich act constitutes a violation of compan*polic*2 #%( Mr. 9ofronio Aban"an, a line inspector, censured and thereafterrecommended the suspension of Mr. Romeo ullante, for bein" remiss in theproper and accurate countin" of nuts2 #'( Binleader ionisio A"tan" 1asre7uired to eplain his inefficienc* of Mr. 9aturnino Ban")as, Bin 6oadin"!nspector2 #$( for disobe*in" the orders of Bin 6oadin" !nspector Mauricio6umano"s order, Macario Mante, Eduardo Adaptor, Rodolfo !rene and eor"eRellanos 1ere all recommended for suspension 1hich culminated in an

investi"ation conducted b* 6umano"s hi"her bosses # (bid., p. 03(.

!t has also been sho1n that subect emplo*ees have the po1er to hire, asevidenced b* the hirin" of Rolando Asis, Ro* 6a*son, Arcadio audicos andeli Arcia"a, upon the recommendation of ?penin" !nspector 9erafin 9uelo,Processin" !nspector 6eonardo Gele; and 6aureano C. 6im, ?penin" !nspector#(bid., p. 0&(.

!t 1ill be noted, ho1ever, that in the performance of their duties and functionsand in the eercise of their recommendator* po1ers, subect emplo*ees ma*

onl* recommend, as the ultimate po1er to hire, fire or suspend as the case ma*be, rests upon the plant personnel mana"er.

The test of :supervisor*: or :mana"erial status: depends on 1hether a personpossesses authorit* to act in the interest of his emplo*er in the matter specifiedin Article 0&0 #)( of the 6abor Code and 9ection & #m( of its !mplementin" Rulesand 1hether such authorit* is not merel* routinar* or clerical in nature, butre7uires the use of independent ud"ment. Thus, 1here such recommendator*po1ers as in the case at bar, are subect to evaluation, revie1 and final actionb* the department heads and other hi"her eecutives of the compan*, thesame, althou"h present, are not effective and not an eercise of independent

ud"ment as re7uired b* la1 #National 5arehousin" Corp. v. C!R, > 9CRA /30-

/3% // > 9CRA />


17/31

Chapter N-@/ v. N6RC, &&' 9CRA %3 9CRA '$$ .@$ per hour.

?n &/ April &&, petitioner received a memorandum issued b* privaterespondents proect mana"er, En"r. Nestor A. elantar informin" him of thetermination of his services effective on %3 April &&. Reproduced hereunder is

the abovementioned memorandum8

April &/, &&

MEM?RAN+M T?8

6E?NC!? G. 9A6AARProect En"ineerM?NTE E P!EA B6. PR?ECTKue;on Cit*

ue to the impendin" completion of the aforementioned proectand the lac) of up-comin" contracted 1or)s for our compan* in


18/31

the immediate future, volume of 1or) for our en"ineerin" andtechnical personnel has "reatl* been diminished.

!n vie1 of this, *ou are hereb* advised to 1ind up all technicalreports includin" accomplishments, chan"e orders, etc.

urther, *ou are advised that *our services are bein"terminated effective at the close of office hours on April %3,

&&.

This, ho1ever, has no preudice to *our re-emplo*ment in thiscompan* in its local and overseas proects should the need for*our services arises.

Than) *ou for *our invaluable services rendered to thiscompan*.

#9"d.( NE9T?RA. E6ANTARProect mana"er

Noted B*8

#9"d.( Mario B. CornistaGice President 1

?n &% 9eptember &&, petitioner filed a complaint a"ainst private respondentfor ille"al dismissal, unfair labor practice, ille"al deduction,non-pa*ment of 1a"es, overtime rendered, service incentive leave pa*,commission, allo1ances, profit-sharin" and separation pa* 1ith the N6RC-NCR

Arbitration Branch, Manila. 2

?n 0 anuar* &0, 6abor Arbiter Raul T. A7uino rendered a decision, thedispositive portion of 1hich reads, thus8

54ERE?RE, responsive to the fore"oin", the instant case ishereb* !9M!99E for lac) of merits.

9? ?RERE. 3

The 6abor Arbiter ruled that petitioner 1as a mana"erial emplo*ee andtherefore eempt from pa*ment of benefits such as overtime pa*, service

incentive leave pa* and premium pa* for holida*s and rest da*s. Petitioner,6abor Arbiter A7uino further declared, 1as also not entitled to separation pa*.

4e 1as hired as a proect emplo*ee and his services 1ere terminated due tothe completion of the proect. 4

The 6abor Arbiter, li)e1ise, denied petitioners claim for a share in the proectsprofits, reimbursement of le"al epenses and unpaid 1a"es for lac) of basis. >

?n &' April &0, petitioner appealed to the National 6abor RelationsCommission #N6RC(.

?n 0> November &0, the N6RC rendered the assailed decision, thedispositive portion of 1hich reads as follo1s8

54ERE?RE, premises considered, the appeal is hereb*ismissed and the assailed decision is Affirmed en toto.

9? ?RERE. 6

?n 0 anuar* &%, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 1hich theN6RC denied for lac) of merit on 00 ebruar* &%. =

4ence, the instant petition 1herein the follo1in" issues 1ere raised8

!. rantin" for the sa)e of ar"ument 1ithout concedin", thatcomplainant-petitioner herein 1as a mana"erial emplo*ee, 1ashis verbal contract to be paid his overtime services as stated inpara"raph 0#b( of this Petition invalid and the pa*ments ofsuch overtime services as evidenced b* Ehibits :B: to :B-0':#the "enuineness and authenticit* of 1hich are not disputed(are the* not evidentiar* and of corroborative value to the trueun1ritten a"reement bet1een the parties in this case

!!. !s there an* portion of the 6abor Code that prohibitscontracts bet1een emplo*er and emplo*ee "ivin" the latter thebenefit of bein" paid overtime services, as in this particularcase

!!!. 5here an emplo*ee 1as induced to accept a lo1 ordistorted salar* or 1a"e level, because of an incentive promiseto receive a bi""er compensation than that 1hich 1ould be histrue and correct 1a"e level as sho1n b* documents for thepa*ment of his distorted 1a"es and overtime services, is it notle"all* proper, in the alternative to claim pa*ment of thedifferential of his undistorted salar* or 1a"e level 1hen the


19/31

promised incentive compensation is denied b* his emplo*erafter the completion of the ob for 1hich he has emplo*ed

!G. !s the Certificate of emplo*ment issued to an emplo*ee b*his emplo*er, assailable b* mere affidavits of denials to theeffect that said Certificate 1as issued because of the insistenceof the emplo*ee that it be made to include a period he did not1or), but 1hich such fact of insistence or re7uest is also

denied b* the emplo*ee, because he reall* 1or)ed durin" theperiod included in said Certificate

G. !s the emplo*er liable for the pa*ment of the attorne*s pa*incurred b* his emplo*ee in a 1or) connected criminalprosecution a"ainst him for an act done b* another emplo*eeassi"ned b* same emplo*er to do the act 1hich 1as thesubect of the criminal prosecution 8

Petitioner pra*s that ud"ment be rendered, thus8

&. That the decision of the N6RC and its resolution den*in" the Motion for

Reconsideration be set aside on "rounds of "rave abuse of discretion and2

0. That private respondent be ordered to pa* petitioner the follo1in"8

a. the premium pa*s for his overtime services of %/@ hours onordinar* da*s at 0$I2 0>0 hours on 9aturda*s at %3I2 0>0hours on 9unda*s plus 0' hours on le"al holida*s at 033Icomputed at the rate of P0>.@$ per hour of undistorted 1a"elevel2

b. in the alternative, to pa* at least one #&( percent of '.$

million pesos profit share, or the sum total of the differential ofhis salaries, in the amount of P0,&@'.33 per month, since April&>, &3 to April %3, &&, his undistorted salar* bein"P/,/@'.33 per month2 and to pa* his unpaid salar* for &$ da*s- Ma* & to &$, &&, 1ith his undistorted salar* rate2

c. the amount of P%,333.33 reimbursement for 1hat he paid hisdefense counsel in that criminal action 1hich should haveinstead been a"ainst respondents "eneral mana"er2

d. 9eparation pa* of at least one month salar*, he havin" beenterminated unreasonabl* 1ithout cause, and three da*s service

incentive leave pa*2 and to pa* the costs2 9

Before proceedin" to the merits of the petition, 1e shall first resolve theprocedural obection raised. Private respondent pra*s for the outri"ht dismissalof the instant petition on "rounds of 1ron" mode of appeal, it bein" in the formof a petition for revie1 on certiorari #Rule '$ of the Revised Rules of Court( andnot a special civil action for certiorari#Rule /$ thereof( 1hich is the correctmode of appeal from decisions of the N6RC.

Althou"h 1e a"ree 1ith private respondent that appeals to the 9upreme Court

from decisions of the N6RC should be in the form of a special civil action forcertiorari under Rule /$ of the Revised Rules of Court, this rule is not infleible.!n a number of cases, 10this Court has resolved to treat as special civil actionsfor certiorari petitions erroneousl* captioned as petitions for revie1 on certiorari:in the interest of ustice.: !n +eople/s ,ecurity0 (nc. v. NRC, 111e elaborated,thus8

!ndeed, this Court has time and a"ain declared that the onl*1a* b* 1hich a labor case ma* reach the 9upreme Court isthrou"h a petition for certiorariunder Rule /$ of the Rules ofCourt alle"in" lac) or ecess of urisdiction or "rave abuse ofdiscretion #Pearl 9. Buc) oundation v. N6RC, &@0 9CRA ''/

0 9CRA &03 /=(. Conse&uently0 in the interest of

2ustice0 the instant petition for revie shall be treated as aspecial civil action on certiorari. #Emphasis ours.(

Movin" on to the merits, stated differentl*, the issues for our resolution are thefollo1in"8

&( 5hether or not petitioner is entitled to overtime pa*, premium pa* forservices rendered on rest da*s and holida*s and service incentive leave pa*,pursuant to Articles @>, %, ' and $ of the 6abor Code2

0( 5hether or not petitioner is entitled to a share in the profits of theconstruction proect2.


20/31

%( 5hether or not petitioner rendered services from & Ma* to &$ Ma* && andis, therefore, entitled to unpaid 1a"es2

'( 5hether or not private respondent is liable to reimburse petitioners le"alepenses and2

$( 5hether or not petitioner is entitled to separation pa*.

?n the first issue, the N6RC concurred 1ith the 6abor Arbiters rulin" thatpetitioner 1as a mana"erial emplo*ee and, th

Book3ACases

Documents

Transcript of Book3ACases