Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > July 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31338 July 31, 1970 - ATLAS TEXTILE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ATLAS-PTGWO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-31338. July 31, 1970.]

ATLAS TEXTILE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and GREGORIO LIM, Vice-President and General Manager, Petitioners-Appellants, v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ATLAS-PTGWO, Respondent-Appellee.

Eriberto Ignacio for Petitioners-Appellants.

Bartolome Sim Palma for Respondent-Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


The respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Atlas-PTGWO, in behalf of its members who are employees of the petitioner Atlas Textile Development Corporation brought suit against the latter and its general manager, Gregorio Lim, in the Court of Industrial Relations upon two causes of action, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Underpayment and/or inadequate grant of nightwork differential for periods December 1, 1964 to present;

"2. Non-payment of overtime pay during Sundays and/or legal holidays for periods December 1, 1964 to present."cralaw virtua1aw library

After hearing duly had, the CIR absolved the company on the first cause of action, but upheld the union on the second, and consequently ordered the computation of overtime pay due to certain employees of the petitioner company. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the banc.

Only the petitioners Atlas Textile Development Corporation and Gregorio Lim have appealed — on the sole issue of the correctness of the CIR’s order respecting the matter of overtime pay. The respondent union did not appeal from the CIR order rejecting its claim for night premium pay.

The facts pertinent to the lone issue presented are not complicated.

1. By reason of the production requirements of the petitioner company, its workers were organized into several workshifts fitting into a twenty-four hour workday for an entire seven-day a week. The regular shift works from 8:00 o’clock in the morning to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, with an hour’s lunch break at noon. In addition to the regular shift are three irregular workshifts: the first works from 10:00 o’clock in the evening to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day; the second immediately takes over and works up to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon; and the third commences work at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon and continues on to 10:00 o’clock in the evening. It is with respect to the first irregular shift (from 10:00 o’clock in the evening to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day) that the present controversy arose:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

2. The records show — and this is admitted by the petitioners — that when the first irregular shift commences work at 10:00 o’clock in the evening of a Sunday or a holiday and continues on to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the following ordinary workday, the company treats the entire period as a regular, non-overtime work period and consequently compensates the same on the basis of the regular pay rate. The fraction of two hours falling on a Sunday or a holiday is not regarded as requiring a different computation based on prevailing overtime pay rates.

3. Upon the other hand, when this same first irregular shift works from 10:00 o’clock in the evening of a Saturday or an ordinary day and winds up at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the following Sunday or holiday, the company grants the members of that shift overtime pay computed on the basis of eight hours instead of only six. Thus, the members of the first irregular shift are paid non-demandable overtime remuneration for the two hours’ work done on a Saturday or an ordinary calendar day. This fact is supported by the testimony of Manuel Agtarap cited in the order under review and not denied by the respondent union. There is no indication in the pleadings that the collective bargaining agreement between the two parties requires the company to treat the two-hour period from 10:00 p.m. Saturday to 12:00 midnight of the same day as an overtime pay period.

The issue thus posed is whether upon the facts above set forth, the petitioner company has fully complied with the statutory mandate requiring employers to pay their employees additional overtime remuneration for work rendered during Sundays and legal holidays.

Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 444, as amended, otherwise known as the "Eight-Hour Labor Law," specifically cites:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No person, firm or corporation, business establishment or place or center of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular remuneration: Provided, however, That this prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performing some public service such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of transportation or communication."cralaw virtua1aw library

While there can be no question that the two-hour work done by the members of the first irregular shift from 10: 00 o’clock to 12:00 midnight of a Sunday or a legal holiday would ordinarily warrant the payment of the proper overtime remuneration, we cannot, upon the other hand, close our eyes to the fact that the same members of that shift are paid by the petitioner company — although the latter is clearly under no legal obligation to do so — overtime pay for the two-hour work done by that shift from 10:00 o’clock to 12:00 midnight of the preceding Saturday or ordinary workday. We therefore hold that in the final reckoning the members of the first irregular shift have suffered no actual deprivation of income pertaining to the two-hour work done by them from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight on a Sunday or a legal holiday. Although the records do not so reveal, it may very well be that the company adopted this payroll practice for the purpose of simplifying bookkeeping. In the end, what is paramount under the environmental milieu is that the workers hers involved have, under applicable laws, been properly and fully compensated for their labor, and that the petitioner company has substantially complied with the requirements of law.

ACCORDINGLY, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations appealed from is set aside, and the complaint of the petitioner union is hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





July-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28860 July 24, 1970 - IN RE: ALFREDO T. LUY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-28051 July 28, 1970 - IN RE: MA CHIK KIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26806 July 30, 1970 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26196 July 31, 1970 - GAN Y. GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26811 July 31, 1970 - GLOREN, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26875 July 31, 1970 - GUARDIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22497 July 31, 1970 - IN RE: QUE TEE TIAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23447 July 31, 1970 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24593 July 31, 1970 - FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. L-25543-44 July 31, 1970 - RE: CANCELLATION OF O.C.T.’S NOS. 1957 AND 1477

  • G.R. No. L-26697 July 31, 1970 - ENRIQUE DERECHO v. CARLOS ABIERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27703 July 31, 1970 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27746 July 31, 1970 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23878 July 31, 1970 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE CO. OF THE PHIL. v. EVERETT SIAM LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24016 July 31, 1970 - SPOUSES JESUS RUIZ, ET AL. v. SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 July 31, 1970 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. HON. JOSE MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31589 July 31, 1970 - LOURDES BARRERA v. LEON BARRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24703 July 31, 1970 - MAGIN VELEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26549 July 31, 1970 - EUGENIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-26795 July 31, 1970 - CARMEN QUIMIGUING, ET AL. v. FELIX ICAO

  • G.R. No. L-27249 July 31, 1970 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. NOEMI ALMEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27622 July 31, 1970 - IN RE: ONG CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. L-28571 and L-28644 July 31, 1970 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LIMPAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28942 July 31, 1970 - PEDRO CAPACIO, ET AL. v. DR. JOSE RIVERA

  • G.R. No. L-29033 July 31, 1970 - ARABAY INCORPORATED v. JOSE C. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-30650 July 31, 1970 - HON. NICOLAS C. ADOLFO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES

  • G.R. No. L-31338 July 31, 1970 - ATLAS TEXTILE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ATLAS-PTGWO

  • G.R. No. L-26175 July 31, 1970 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23544 July 31, 1970 - IN RE: ONG SIAO LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-24835 July 31, 1970 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. NORTHERN LINES INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26820 July 31, 1970 - FRANCISCO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-28507 July 31, 1970 - JOSEFINA ANG CHAY, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-28217 July 31, 1970 - REYNALDO PULIDO Y FOJAS v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29134 July 31, 1970 - LORENZO DE GUZMAN v. FLORENDO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30669 July 31, 1970 - IN RE: BETTY PO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-30820 July 31, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO ENGLATERA

  • G.R. No. L-26370 July 31, 1970 - PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MARIA CARMEN HARTIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27318 July 31, 1970 - EDUARDO CASTANDIELO v. LUCILA REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27524 July 31, 1970 - JOSE C. TECSON v. HON. RAFAEL SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27782 July 31, 1970 - OCTAVIO A. KALALO v. ALFREDO J. LUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20951 July 31, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE

  • G.R. No. L-27394 July 31, 1970 - ARMANDO V. AMPIL v. HON. JUDGE CORAZON JULIANO-AGRAVA, ET AL.