Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > September 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. L-64967 September 23, 1985 - ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-64967. September 23, 1985.]

ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. MINISTER OF LABOR, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES and MIGUEL V. ASPERA, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a claim for overtime pay. Miguel Aspera, a mechanical engineer, worked for Engineering Equipment, Inc. in Saudi Arabia for nearly a year from April 26, 1977 to April 16, 1978 at a monthly salary of P750 (P860) with a six-day work week consisting of ten working hours. His written contract of employment provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Work Schedule/Assignment . . . Your work days shall be on a six-day work week basis, with a working day consisting of ten (10) working hours. You may be required to work overtime in excess of ten (10) hours each work day and to work on your restdays and on Saudi Arabian legal holidays.

"2. A monthly salary of P750.00 plus overtime pay for work rendered during restdays/holidays and or in excess of ten (10) hours during regular working days."cralaw virtua1aw library

Aspera worked ten hours daily for 335 working days. He claims that his monthly salary should correspond to eight hours of daily work and that for the additional two hours daily, he was entitled to overtime pay at $1.2162 per hour or to $814.85 for 670 hours during 335 working days.chanrobles law library : red

The Director of Employment Services and the National Labor Relations Commission sustained his claim and awarded him that amount as overtime pay. They declared void the stipulation for a ten-hour working day because it was contrary to section 33 of the Labor Code, formerly Eight-Hour Labor Law, which expressly provides that "the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day" and to section 87 of the same Code which provides that work performed "beyond eight (8) hours a day" is treated as overtime work.

Hence, this recourse by the petitioner. It contends that Aspera was a managerial employee exercising supervision and control over its rank-and-file employees with power to recommend disciplinary action or their dismissal. Section 82 of the Labor Code provides that managerial employees are not entitled to overtime pay.

It also asserts that Aspera was one of several employees who signed written contracts with a "built-in" overtime pay in the ten-hour working day and that their basic monthly pay was adjusted to reflect the higher amount covering the guaranteed two-hour extra time whether worked or unworked.

Moreover, it argues that the contracts were submitted to BES Director Jonathan M.R.A. de la Cruz, the same director who rendered the questioned decision. He approved the same. Without his approval, the petitioner would not have stipulated the ten-hour work schedule and would have provided for a lower basic salary for an eight-hour working day.

In addition to his salary, Aspera was given free board and lodging while in Saudi Arabia and free transportation in going to and returning from that country.

We hold that under the particular circumstances of this case the Acting Minister of Labor and Director De la Cruz committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in awarding overtime pay and in disregarding a contract that De la Cruz himself, who is supposed to know the Eight-Hour Labor Law, had previously sealed with his imprimatur. Because of that approval, the petitioner acted in good faith in enforcing the contract.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Furthermore, Aspera had not denied that he was a managerial employee within the meaning of section 82. As such, he was not entitled to overtime pay.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Acting Minister of Labor dated November 16, 1981 is reversed and set aside. Aspera’s complaint is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin, Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-36405-06 September 2, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO CALICDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49402 September 2, 1985 - EUSEBIO L. GABISAN v. MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-48895 September 4, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CONWI, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-29094 September 5, 1985 - BONCATO v. CIRILO G. SIASON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56355 September 5, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO O. NAZ

  • G.R. No. L-28870 September 6, 1985 - AMADO D. TOLENTINO v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38109 September 6, 1985 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BARTOLOME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52456 September 6, 1985 - ANITA LIM GOSIACO v. TIU PO

  • G.R. No. L-60470 September 9, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS MAHUSAY

  • G.R. No. L-45948 September 10, 1985 - MERCEDES GRUENBERG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64159 September 10, 1985 - CIRCLE S. DURAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48304 September 11, 1985 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. RAFAEL L. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69317 September 11, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO O. BADILLA

  • A.C. No. 1184 September 13, 1985 - IN RE: PER OLANDESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37168-69 September 13, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFINO BELTRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39778 September 13, 1985 - VIRGILIO SIY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42926 September 13, 1985 - PEDRO VASQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46674 September 16, 1985 - LAUREANO ARCILLA v. BASILISA ARCILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43752 September 19, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ARAGONA

  • G.R. No. L-31733 September 20, 1985 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45137 September 23, 1985 - FE J. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64802 September 23, 1985 - VENUSTO PANOTES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64967 September 23, 1985 - ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29185 September 24, 1985 - GAVINO T. VAGILIDAD v. MANUEL M. MAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28464 September 25, 1985 - MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-60126 September 25, 1985 - CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62038 September 25, 1985 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. FILEMON MENDOZA, ET AL.