LABOR LAW I: Labor Standards

Atty. Paciano F. Fallar Jr.

Week 9

HOURS & DAYS OF WORK

A.HOURS

Implementing Rules ( Book II, Rule I)

Section 3. Hours worked.

/////////
Section 4. Principles in determining hours worked.

SECTION 5. Waiting time.

Cases:

Africa vs NLRC, GR No. 78210, 28 Feb 1989

Durabuilt Recapping Plant vs BLRC, L-76746, 27 July 1987

Section 6.Lectures, meetings, training programs.

Section 7 .Meal and Rest Periods.

Art. 88. Undertime not offset by overtime.Undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by
overtime work on any other day. Permission given to the employee to go on leave on some other day of the
week shall not exempt the employer from paying the additional compensation required in this Chapter.

Questions to ponder:

 What is under time? Does under time include both tardiness and early knock off?

 Why is offsetting not allowed?

Art. 89. Emergency overtime work.

Section 8. Overtime pay. — Any employee covered by this Rule who is permitted or required to work
beyond eight (8) hours on ordinary working daysshall be paid an additional compensation for the overtime
work in the amountequivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof.

Questions:

 Is it valid for a company to set a minimum number of minutes (e.g., 30 minutes) before any work in
excess of 8 hours is deemed compensable?
 Is it valid for a company to compute overtime work not per minute but per fraction of an hour (eg., by
15 minutes)?
 Is it valid for a company to require certain procedures (e.. g, prior written approval of direct
supervisor) before any overtime work is deemed compensable?
 Do you agree with the ruling in Salazar vs NLRC ( GR No. 109210, 17 April 1996) that an
employer can always unilaterally withdraw the privilege of overtime pay to employees not covered
by Art. 82 (in that case, supervisors)

Case:

Interphil Lab Employees Union vs Interphil Lab,GR No. 142824, 19 Dec 2001

1
 - CBA agreement on work schedule, modified by the company as allowed by the CBA and
implemented by the parties, and Union’s subsequent refusal to render overtime

Question:

 12-hour work day in security agencies is common. Is this legal, considering that it is basically an
company imposition and not agreement with a union

Art. 90. Computation of additional compensation. For purposes of computing overtime and other
additional remuneration as required by this Chapter, the "regular wage" of an employee shall include the
cash wage only, without deduction on account of facilities provided by the employer.

Questions::

 Is this consistent with the definition of “wages”? Why is “regular wage” equated with ”cash wage”?
 If an employee’s wage is only minimum and part of that wage is the reasonable value of facilities, is
the computation of overtime pay consistent with the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s
pay?

B.WORK DAYS

I. Rest days

Labor Code

Art. 91. Right to weekly rest day.

Art. 92. When employer may require work on a rest day
Art. 93. Compensation for rest day, Sunday or holiday work.

 Can the right to rest day be waived? Some security agencies operate on 12’hour/day, 7/day a week
schedule

Implementing Rules

SECTION 4. Preference of employee. — The preference of the employee as to his weekly day of
rest shall be respected by the employer if the same is based on religious grounds. The employee
shall make known his preference to the employer in writing at least seven (7) days before the
desired effectivity of the initial rest day so preferred.

Question:

 Does this “religious preference” refers only to instances when the religion forbids
work on certain days, and not because the employee prefers not to work on certain
days so he could attend a religious service?

SECTION 6. When work on rest day authorized. — An employer may require any of his employees to
work on his scheduled rest day for the duration of the following emergencies and exceptional conditions:

xxxx

e) Where the nature of the work is such that the employees have to work continuously for
seven (7) days in a week or more, as in the case of the crew members of a vessel to
complete a voyage and in other similar cases;

Question: Think of other examples where a 6-day work week may not be feasible, or
practical.

2
Specific DOLE regulations & Cases:

Dept Advisory 2 (S. 2009): Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement

Intec Cebu vs CA, GR No. 189851, 22 June 2016
Linton Commercial vs Herrera, GR No. 163147, 10 Oct 2010
La Rosa vs Ambassador Hotel, GR No. 770989, 13 March 2009

2. Holiday

Labor Code

Art. 94

Implementing Rules (Rule IV, Book II)

SECTION 2. Status of employees paid by the month. — Employees who are uniformly paid by the
month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the
statutory or established minimum wage shall be paid for all days in the month whether worked or
not.

For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory
minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve.

Research:

 What are “monthly paid” employees?

 What are “daily paid” employees?

Section 6. Absences. — (a) All covered employees shall be entitled to the benefit provided herein when
they are on leave of absence with pay. Employees who are on leave of absence without pay on the day
immediately preceding a regular holiday may not be paid the required holiday pay if he has not worked on
such regular holiday.

Question: What is the purpose of this DOLE-imposed limitation?*

(b) Employees shall grant the same percentage of the holiday pay as the benefit granted by competent
authority in the form of employee's compensation or social security payment, whichever is higher, if they
are not reporting for work while on such benefits.

Comment: This seems to refer to employees on maternity leave and sick leave paid under
SSS/ECC.

Question: Are monthly paid employees entitled in this situation entitled to holiday pay?

Section 7. Temporary or periodic shutdown and temporary cessation of work. — (a) In cases of
temporary or periodic shutdown and temporary cessation of work of an establishment, as when a yearly
inventory or when the repair or cleaning of machineries and equipm ent is undertaken, the regular
holidays falling within the period shall be compensated in accordance with this Rule.

(b) The regular holiday during the cessation of operation of an enterprise due to business reverses as
authorized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment may not be paid by the employer.

See also: Dept Advisory 2 (S. 2009): Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement

Section 8. Holiday pay of certain employees. — (a) Private school teachers, including faculty members
of colleges and universities, may not be paid for the regular holidays during semestral vacations. They
shall, however, be paid for the regular holidays during Christmas vacation;

3
 Case: Jose Rizal College vs NLRC, GR No. L-65482, 01 Dec 1987

Questions: Do you agree with the SC’s ruling on : a) regular holiday ; b) special days. Should not the SC
instead predicate the payment on make up class? Special days are not supposed to be paid, unless the
employee works. Is this not a case of unjust enrichment?

(c) Seasonal workers may not be paid the required holiday pay during off-season when they are not at
work.
(d) Workers who have no regular working days shall be entitled to the benefits provided in this Rule.

Comment: I can’t seem to visualize the situation contemplated here.

Question: What about LGU holidays ( e.g. Araw ng Maynila)? Are they compensable if unworked?

3. Service Incentive Leave (SIL)

Labor Code

Art. 95. Concept & Coverage

Questions:
 What is its purpose?
 Must it be taken on consecutive days?
 Can the company determine which days the employee must take the SIL?

Implementing Rules

Section 2. Right to service incentive leave. — Every employee who has rendered at least one year of
service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.

Section 3. Definition of certain terms. — The term "at least one-year service" shall mean service or not
less than 12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started
working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the
establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contract is less than
12 months, in which case said period shall be considered as one year.

SECTION 5. Treatment of benefit. — The service incentive leave shall be commutable to its money
equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year.

Comment: This is not in the Labor Code. Is this a valid exercise of rule-making power. Question:
Does this not negate the purpose of the SIL, which is supposedly to afford employees the opportunity to
recharge?

Question: Can an employer set a policy disallowing monetization and instead requiring employees
to use up their SIL within the year (or within a certain time frame, or once they reach a certain number, or
similar conditions) , or else they are deemed forfeited?

Reference Case: Baltazar vs San Miguel Brewery, L-23076, 27 Feb 1969

Cases (both on prescription):

 Auto Bus Transport System vs Bautista, GR No. 56367, 16 May 2005

 Rodriguez vs Park N Ride, GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017

SECTION 6. Relation to agreements. — Nothing in the Rule shall justify an employer from withdrawing or
reducing any benefits, supplements or payments as provided in existing individual or collective
agreements or employer's practices or policies.[ but see case of Salazar vs NLRC ( GR No. 109210, 17
April 1996)re OT]

4
 Related concept: Non-diminution of benefits/vested rights theory (Art.110, LC), which may
not apply only in cases o error in good faith because the issue involves a difficult question of law and
rectified seasonably, or the grant is based on explicit condition, or a substitute benefit is given.

Vacation leave/Sick Leave: We will tackle this in relation to a separate lecture o leaves ( vacation, sick.
paternity, maternity, etc)

Burden of Proof in Monetary Claims

Heirs of Ridadvs Gregorio Araneta University, GR. No. 188659, 13 Feb 2013
Loon v Power Master, GR No. 189404, 11 Dec 2013

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

5
6