ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 148947.February 6, 2002]
J.A.S. ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 06 FEB 2002.
G.R. No. 148947(J.A.S. Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
Before the Court is a petition under Rule 45, seeking the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 2000, and also the Resolution denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated July 3, 2001.
Petitioner J.A.S. Enterprises is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, masking and packaging of scotch tapes. Private respondent Francisco Lao was a designated. Supervisor in such company since 1994. For absenting himself without leave from work on December 30, 1996, the private respondent was suspended for a thirty (30) day period on January 1997. After serving the period of suspension, private respondent reported back to work but was informed that he could no longer work for the company. On March 21, 1997, he filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay and night shift differential, among others.
Petitioner opposed the private respondent's claims on two (2) major grounds:(1) that as a supervisor and member of the management staff, private respondent was exempt from the payment of overtime pay and night shift differential pay as provided under Sec. 82 of the Labor Code; [1] cralaw and (2) that private respondent could no longer demand payment for service incentive leave, as the company was already providing the employees with vacation leave benefits.
On June 16, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal for lack of merit, but nonetheless ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondent's money claims in the amount of One hundred nineteen thousand eight hundred thirty three pesos and 99/100 (P119,833.99). On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the decision was affirmed, 'but modified with respect to the computation of the premium on legal holiday pay.
The dispositive portion of the NLRC decision, dated June 30, 1999, reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the amount of premium pay for legal holiday awarded to appellee [2] cralaw is recomputed from P31,032.89 to P5,366.59. Accordingly, appellant is ordered to pay the appellee his money claims in the aggregate of Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven and 69/100 (P94,167.69). [3] cralaw
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which petition was dismissed for the lack of reversible error committed by the NLRC. [4] cralaw
The focal issue to this case is whether or not private respondent is a member of the managerial staff, so as not to be entitled to overtime pay, night shift differential pay, and service incentive leave. Petitioner asserts that private respondent is a supervisory employee, applying Article 2 12(m) of the Labor Code, which provides:
Managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for the purpose of this book. [5] cralaw (Italics Ours)
To bolster its position, petitioner points out the following factors as indicative of the private respondent's managerial position: 1) that private respondent's functions require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, and are not merely routinary or clerical in nature; 2) that private respondent is not required to report to the petitioner's office but is instead tasked with representing management in overseeing the operations of the factory, which is situated far from the office; 3) that private respondent is not required to render the regular number of working hours per day unlike regular employees, but instead works for twelve (12) hours per day on an alternating shift without strict monitoring by the employer, further magnifying the significance of his duties and responsibilities as a member of the managerial staff. Petitioner also argues that the award of money claims was made without substantial proof, and gave too much credit to the employee, thereby "exceeding the bounds of the constitutional provision on the protection of labor." [6] cralaw
In his Comment, private respondent claims that his function was limited to overseeing the work done in the factory-a function that is routinary considering the product of the petitioner's company which is the manufacturing and packaging of masking tapes and scotch tapes. He avers that he had no authority to effectively recommend managerial actions that required the use of independent judgment. Furthermore, the fact that an employee may recommend managerial actions does not necessarily make him a managerial employee.
As the determination of this case hinges on factual issues involving the nature of the petitioner's employment, we see no cogent reason to disturb the ruling of the appellate court. This Court has consistently upheld the requirement that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law. Thus, absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment by the appellate court, and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions be amply demonstrated, we shall not disturb their factual findings.
����������� We agree with the Court of Appeals in upholding the decision of the NLRC, finding that based on the nature of respondent's tasks, that he is not a managerial or supervisory employee as defined under the Labor Code. This Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the test of supervisory or managerial status is whether or not an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer, which authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires use of independent judgment. What governs the determination of employment is not the employee's title, but his job description. [7] cralaw
The NLRC was, therefore, correct when it stated:
Appellee [8] cralaw had no authority to effectively recommend managerial actions that requires (sic) the use of independent judgment. His function was limited to overseeing the work being done in the factory - a function that is routinary considering the product of appellant company which is packaging masking and scotch tapes. While appellee was given the privilege not to fill up a daily time record or punch in and out in the bundy clock such will not raise his position to the category of supervisory employee. The determining factor is the nature of the functions, that is to effectively recommend managerial actions like execution ad (sic) enforcement of company personnel policies using independent judgment.
Other officers or members of the managerial staff are among those excluded from the coverage Title I, Book III of the Labor Code and Section 2, Rule I, Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code. However, they are excluded, only if they perform all of the following duties and responsibilities:
1. The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer;
2. Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
3. (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed; or (ii) execute, under general supervision, work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience or knowledge or (iii) execute, under general supervision, special assignments, and tasks; and
4.Who do not devote more than 20 percent (20%) of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) thereof.
It is evident that appellee do not have all the foregoing duties and responsibilities. Since appellee was neither a supervisory employee or an officer or member of the managerial staff, he is therefore not among those excluded from the coverage of Title I of Book III of the Labor Code. Thus, he is entitled to overtime pay, premium pay for rest day, legal holiday and night shift differential pay. [9] cralaw
In the case of Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW, et al. vs. The Court of Appeals, [10] cralaw we held:
x x x The factual findings by quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their expertise in their respective fields. Judicial review of labor cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence on which the labor official's findings rest. It is not our function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the trial court (here, the DOLE secretary) and the appellate court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Art. 82. Coverage. The provisions of this title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.
As used herein, "managerial employees" refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.(Italics ours)
[2] cralaw Private respondent herein.
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 24.
[4] cralaw Id., at 29.
[5] cralaw P.D. 442, as amended.
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 14-19.
[7] cralaw Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Roldan-Confesor, 241 SCRA 294 (1995).
[8] cralaw Private respondent herein.
[9] cralaw Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[10] cralaw G.R. No. 143013-14, December 18, 2000.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
