Labor Law Review Materials
Labor Law Review Materials
Sleeping time
Power Interruptions
On April 17 and 18, 1985, petitioners, all On May 8, 1988, petitioners filed an Urgent
seamen, entered into separate contracts of Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC’s
employment with the Golden Light Ocean Decision but the same was denied by the NLRC
Transport, Ltd., through its local agency, private for lack of merit in its Resolution dated
respondent ACE MARITIME AGENCIES, INC. with September 12, 1988. Hence, this appeal from
their respective ratings and monthly salary the decision and resolution of the respondent
rates. Petitioners were deployed on May 7, NLRC.
1985, and discharged on July 12, 1986.
Thereafter, petitioners collectively and/or Petitioners allege that respondent Commission,
individually filed complaints for non-payment of NLRC, gravely abused its discretion or erred in
overtime pay, vacation pay and terminal pay reversing and setting aside the POEA decision
against private respondent. In addition, they and correspondingly dismissing the appeal of
claimed that they were made to sign their petitioners, allegedly in contravention of law
contracts in blank; that although they agreed to and jurisprudence.
render services on board the vessel Rio
Colorado managed by Golden Light Ocean Private respondent maritime company disclaims
Transport, Ltd., the vessel they actually boarded the aforesaid allegations of petitioners. The
was MV “SOIC I” managed by Columbus Solicitor General, arguing for public respondent
Navigation; and more so, petitioners de Castro NLRC, contends that:
and de Jesus charged that although they were
employed as ordinary seamen, they actually The NLRC did not abuse its discretion in the
performed the work and duties of Able Seamen. rendition of subject decision because the
evidence presented by petitioners in support of
Private respondent was furnished with copies of their complaint is by itself sufficient to back up
petitioners’ complaints and summons, but it the decision. The issue of the disallowance of
failed to file its answer within the reglementary overtime pay stems from an interpretation of
period. Thus, on January 12, 1987, an Order was particular provisions of the employment
issued declaring that private respondent has contract.
waived its right to present evidence in its behalf
and that the cases are submitted for decision. ISSUE:
On August 5, 1987, the Philippine Overseas Whether or not respondent Commission NLRC
Employment Administration (POEA) rendered a gravely abused its discretion or erred in
Decision DISMISSING petitioners’ claim for REVERSING the decision of POEA (in granting
terminal pay but GRANTED their prayer for leave overtime pay to petitioners equivalent to 30% of
pay and overtime pay. their basic pay)
schedule. For the employer to give him
overtime
pay for the extra hours when he might be
HELD: No sleeping or attending to his personal chores or
even just lulling away his time would be
The NLRC cannot be faulted for disallowing the extremely unfair and unreasonable.
payment of overtime pay because it
merely straightened out the distorted Reiterated in the case of National Shipyards
interpretation asserted by petitioners and and Steel Corporation v. CIR (3 SCRA 890), the
defined the correct interpretation of the SC ruled:
provision on overtime pay embodied in the
contract conformably with settled doctrines on We cannot agree with the Court below that
the matter. Notably, the NLRC ruling on the respondent Malondras should be paid overtime
disallowance of overtime pay is ably supported compensation for every hour in excess of the
by the fact that petitioners never produced any regular working hours that he was on board his
proof of actual performance of overtime work. vessel or barge each day, irrespective of
whether or not he actually put in work during
Petitioners have conveniently adopted the view those hours. Seamen are required to stay on
that the “guaranteed or fixed overtime board their vessels by the very nature of their
pay of 30% of the basic salary per month” duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition
embodied in their employment contract to their regular compensation, they are given
should be awarded to them as part of a free living quarters and subsistence allowances
“package benefit.” They have theorized that when required to be on board. It could not have
even without sufficient evidence of actual been the purpose of our law to require their
rendition of overtime work, they would employers to pay them overtime even when
automatically be entitled to overtime pay. Their they are not actually working; otherwise, every
theory is erroneous for being illogical and sailor on board a vessel would be entitled to
unrealistic. Their thinking even runs counter to overtime for sixteen hours each day, even if he
the intention behind the provision. The contract spent all those hours resting or sleeping in his
provision means that the fixed overtime pay of bunk, after his regular tour of duty. The correct
30% would be the basis for computing the criterion in determining whether or not sailors
overtime pay if and when overtime work would are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore,
be rendered. Simply, stated, the rendition of whether they were on board and cannot leave
overtime work and the submission of sufficient ship beyond the regular eight working hours a
proof that said work was actually performed are day, but whether they actually rendered service
conditions to be satisfied before a seaman could in excess of said number of hours.
be entitled to overtime pay which should be
computed on the basis of 30% of the basic Overtime Pay Rates:
monthly salary. In short, the contract provision
guarantees the right to overtime pay but the
entitlement to such benefit must first be
established. Realistically speaking, a seaman, by On an ordinary day, the overtime rate per hour
the very nature of his job, stays on board a ship is determined as follows:
or vessel beyond the regular eight-hour work
Let say the employee hourly rate is Php Under time not offset by Overtime
57.00/hour, then the overtime rate is Php 71.25
Php 71.56 = (Php 57.00 X 1.25%) Where a worker incurs under time hours during
his regular daily work, said under time hours
Basis of Computation should not be offset against the overtime hours
on the same day or on any other day.
Regular wage which includes the cash wage
only, without deduction on account of the Offsetting the overtime with under time and at
facilities provided by the employer (Labor Code the same time charging said under time to the
Art. 90) accrued leave is unfair and cannot be done.
(NAWASA vs. NWSA Consolidated Union.
Waiver of OT Pay
General Rule: The right to overtime pay cannot Emergency OT Work
be waived. The right is intended for the
benefit of the laborers and employees. Any General Rule: An employee may not be
stipulation in the contract that the laborer compelled to render OT work; OT work is
shall work beyond eight hours without voluntary.
additional compensation for the extra hours is
contrary to law and null and void. Exceptions:
1. When the country is at war or when any
The right cannot be waived, because while the other national or local emergency has
workers did not claim overtime compensation been declared by Congress or the
and they could not be held to have impliedly President;
waived such extra compensation for the obvious 2. When overtime work is necessary to
reason that they could not have expressly prevent loss of life or property, or in
waived it. case of imminent danger to public
safety due to actual or impending
Exceptions: emergency in the locality caused by
serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons,
1. When the alleged waiver of overtime earthquake, epidemic or other disaster
pay is in consideration of benefits and or calamities;
privileges which may be more than 3. When there is urgent work to be
what will accrue to them in overtime performed on machines, installations,
pay, the waiver may be permitted. or equipment, in order to avoid serious
2. Compressed Work Week loss or damage to the employer or
some other causes of similar nature;
Overtime Pay in a Compressed Workweek 4. When the work is necessary to prevent
Scheme loss or damage to perishable goods;
5. When the completion or continuation of
Any work performed beyond 12 hours a day or work started before the 8th hour is
48 hours a week shall be subject to OT Pay necessary to prevent serious
obstruction or prejudice to the business
or operations of the employer; or
6. When overtime work is necessary to Exceptions:
avail of favorable weather or
environmental conditions where • CBA;
performance or quality of work is
• Rules and regulations as the
dependent thereon.
Secretary of Labor and employment
NOTE: There should be payment of additional
compensation. Employee’s refusal to obey the
provides;
order of the employer constitutes • Preference of employee based on
insubordination for which he may be subjected religious grounds– employee shall
to disciplinary action. make known his preference in
writing at least 7 days before the
desired effectivity of the initial rest
LABOR LAW day so preferred.
MATERIAL 5: REST PERIOD,
PREMIUM PAY, HOLIDAY PAY Exception to the exception on number 3:
Scope: It shall apply to all employers Right of the employee to know the
whether operating for profit or not, schedule of their WRDs:
including public utilities operated by private
persons. The employer shall make known rest period
by means of:
Person who determines the Weekly rest
day:
• Written notice
• Posted conspicuously in the
General Rule: Employer shall determine and
workplace
schedule the weekly rest day of his
employee.
• At least 1 week before it becomes
effective Premium Pay
Retail Establishments
• They are engaged in the sale of goods to
end users for personal or household
Holiday Pay use. (e.g, Grocery)
Legal Holiday
• It is a day designated or set apart by the
legislature, for a purpose within the
meaning of the term “holiday” in order
to commemorate an important event.
Regular Holidays