EMPLOYERS ACT OF PAYING THE DAILY WAGE
EMPLOYEES FOR HOLIDAYS EVEN IF IT FALLS
ON REST DAY IS BINDING.
RFM Corporation-Flour Division vs. Kasapian ng
Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM (Kampi-Naflu-
KMU) G.R. No. 162324, February 4, 2009:
"An employer who agreed in the CBA that it would
pay its daily employees if December 31 is declared a
special holiday, among others, was presented before
the Supreme Court. December 31, 2000, fell on a
rest day of the employees. The company refused to
pay arguing that although it agreed to pay December
31 if declared as a special holiday it does not include
the time when it falls on a rest day.
The Supreme Court disagreed holding that if the term
of a CBA is clear and has no doubt upon the intention
of the contracting parties, the literal meaning thereof
shall prevail. That is settled. As such, the daily-paid
employees must be paid their regular salaries on the
holidays which are so declared by the national
government, regardless of whether they fall on the
rest day."
BURDEN OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF
OVERTIME WORK RESTS ON THE EMPLOYER.
Mantle Trading Services, Incorporated vs National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 166705, July
28, 2009, citing Villar vs NLRC, G.R. No. 130935,
May 11, 2000, 331, SCRA 686, 695:
"The Supreme Court held over the same issue that
as a general rule, one who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. Even where the employee must
allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the
burden rests on the employer to prove payment,
rather than on the employee to prove nonpayment.
The reason for the rule is that pertinent personnel
files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar
documents--which will show that overtime,
differentials, services incentive leave, and other
claims of workers have been paid--are not in the
possession of the employees but in the custody and
absolute control of the employer."
Gregorio S. Saberola vs Ronald Suarez, G.R. No.
151227, July 14, 2008, citing Villar vs NLRC, 387
Phil. 706, 716 (2000); National Semiconductor, (HK)
Distribution, Ltd. vs NLRC, 353 Phil. 551, 557 (1998);
Jimenez vs NLRC, 326 Phil. 89, 95 (1996):
"The employer has the burden of proving that the rate
of pay given to the employees is in accordance with
the minimum fixed by the law and that he paid
thirteen-month pay, service incentive leave pay, and
other monetary claims. It has been consistently held
that as a rule, one who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. Even when the plaintiff alleges
non-payment, still the general rule is that the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than
on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has
the burden of showing with legal certainty that the
obligation has been discharged by payment. When
the existence of a debt is fully established by the
evidence contained in the record, the burden of
proving that it has been extinguished by payment
devolves upon thye debtor who invokes such a
defense against the claim of the creditor. When the
debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the
burden of going forward with the evidence--as distinct
from the general burden of proof--shifts to the
creditor, who is then under a duty of producing some
evidence to show non-payment."
IN A VALID COMPRESSED WORKWEEK (CWW),
THERE IS NO OVERTIME PAY.
Meralco Workers Unions vs Manila Electric Co., G.R.
No. L-11876, May 29, 1959:
"The six-day workweek of the company may be
shortened to five only, or Monday-Friday but an extra
one (1)-hour and thirty-six (36) minutes of work per
day, assuming a 48-hour work is observed. The
parties may validly stipulate on such an arrangement
instead of a regular eight (8) hour per day work for
six (6) days in a week.
If it is so validly agreed upon, there is no need for the
employer to pay the overtime work for as long as the
requisites for valid CWW are complied with. Among
such requirements is the approval of the DOLE,
voluntary agreement of the employees, no diminution
in pay and benefits, etc."
IN GENERAL, RIGHT TO OVERTIME PAY IS NOT
SUBJECT TO A WAIVER.
"The employer has the power to establish contractual
terms. Most often, the drafting of the agreement is a
one-sided affair on the part of the company. In a
contract, it may even stipulate that the employee
shall not be paid for overtime work or that the latter
waives his right thereto."
Article 6, The New Civil Code; Pampanga Sugar
Development Co. Inc. vs Court of Industrial
Relations, G.R. No. L-39387. June 29, 1982:
"While rights may be waived, the same must not be
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs or prejudicial to the third person with a
right recognized by law."
Mercader vs Manila Polo Club, Inc., G.R. No. L-8373,
September 28, 1956; Cruz vs Yee Sing, G.R. No. L-
12046, October 1959; Manila Terminal Co., Inc. vs
CIR, G.R. No. L-9265, April 29, 1957:
"The right to claim overtime pay is not subject to a
waiver. Such right is governed by law and not merely
by the agreement of the parties.
The right to overtime pay is intended for the benefit of
laborers and employees. Any stipulation in the
contract that the laborer shall work beyond the
regular eight (8) hours without additional
compensation for the extra hours is contrary to law
and null and void, Thus, in a case where the
employee allegedly signed a quitclaim deed in favor
of the employer to the effect that he was renouncing
any and all kinds of claim against the employer, The
Supreme Court held that said quitclaim cannot
deprive the employee of his right to collect overtime
and legal holiday wages under the provisions of
Eight-Hour Labor Law.
Where the contract of employment requires work for
more than eight (8) hours at a specified wage per
day, without providing for a foxed hourly rate or that
the daily wages include overtime pay, said wages
cannot be considered as including overtime
compensation required under the law. The right of
the laborer to overtime compensation cannot be
waived expressly or impliedly.
The principles of estoppels and laches cannot be
invoked against employees or laborers in an action
for the recovery of compensation for past overtime
work."
Radio Communications of the Philippines, inc. vs
NLRC, G.R. No. 102958, June 25, 1993:
"Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier."
Jacob vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92159, July 1,
1993:
"It is such neglect or omission to assert a right taken
in conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party
as will operate as bar equity."
PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
(PESALA) vs NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 105963, August
22, 1996; Manila Terminal Co., Inc. vs CIR, supra;
Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs Luzon Marine
Department Union, G.R. No. L-9265, April 29, 1957:
"Laches cannot be charged against a worker when
he has not incurred undue delay in the assertion of
his rights because he filed his complaint within the
three (3) years reglementary period for the filling of
monetary claims. Under this situation, he cannot be
said to have slept on his rights for an unreasonable
length of time.
When an employee fails to assert his right
immediately upon violation thereof, such failure
cannot ipso facto be deemed as waiver of the
oppression. The worker and his employer are not
equally situated. When a worker keeps silent in spite
of flagrant violations of his rights, it may be because
he is seriously fearful of losing his job. The dire
consequences thereof on his family and his
dependents must have prevented him from
complaining. In short, his thoughts of sheer survival
weigh heavily against launching an attack upon his
more powerful employer."
BUT WAIVER IS VALID IF SHOWN TO BE MADE
IN CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN VALUABLE
PRIVILEGES.
Meralco Workers Unions vs Manila Electric Co., G.R.
No. L-11876, May 29, 1959:
"If the waiver is done in exchange for and in
consideration of certain valuable privileges, among
them that of being given tips when doing overtime
work, there is no proof that the value of said
privileges did not compensate for such work, such
waiver may be considered valid."
WHAT IS A MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE?
Homeowners Savings and Loan Association Inc. vs
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
97067, September 26, 1996:
“An owner of a business enterprise is given
considerable leeway in managing his business
because it is deemed important to society as a whole
that he should succeed. Our law, therefore,
recognizes certain rights as inherent in the
management of business enterprises. These rights
are collectively called management prerogative or
acts by which one directing a business is able to
control the variables thereof so as to enhance the
chances of making a profit.”
Norkis Trading Co. Inc. vs NLRC, G.R. No. 168159,
August 19, 2005:
“In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest,
management has the prerogative to transfer or
assign employees from one office or area of
operation to another—provided there is no demotion
in rank or diminution of salary, benefits, and other
privileges; and the action is not motivated by
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a
form of punishment or demotion without sufficient
cause. This privilege is inherent in the right of
employers to control and manage their enterprise
effectively. The right of employees to the security of
tenure does not give them vested rights to their
positions to the extent of depriving management of its
prerogative to change their assignments or to
transfer them.”
TRANSFER OF WORKER MUST BE DONE FOR
GENUINE BUSINESS NECESSITY ONLY.
While it is true that transferring an employee is part of
management prerogatives, it should be brought by
the demand of the employer’s business and not for
whatever underhanded purposes or any ill motive.
Yuco Chemical Industries Inc. vs Ministry of Labor
and Employment, G.R. No. L-75656, May 28, 1990:
“The Court respects the prerogative of management
of transfer an employee from one office to another
within the business establishment provided that there
is no demotion in rank or a diminution of his salary,
benefits, and other privileges.”
THE TRANSFER MUST NOT BE
UNREASONABLE, INCONVENIENT, OR
PREJUDICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE.
Employers who transfer their workers to make them
quit their job can be held liable for constructive
dismissal. For example, a vengeful officer wants his
subordinate in Tublay to resign because he just does
not like him. But when the worker refuses, he ordered under the circumstances because relationships of
his transfer to Mindanao where kidnapping is that nature might compromise the interests of the
rampant. This is an unreasonable transfer which is company. In laying down the assailed company
truly inconvenient and prejudicial to the employee. policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against
In fact, there is no genuine business necessity in this the possibility that a competitor company will gain
case as the officer is merely impelled by his personal access to its secrets and procedures.” What is critical
motive. in the adoption of this policy is to include in the
employment contract that the employee agrees to be
Yuco Chemical Industries Inc. vs Ministry of Labor transferred or to resign in the event of this conflict of
and Employment. G.R. No. L-75656, May 28, 1990: interest.
“Transferring working students away from where the
study may be illegal. When said working students
received the transfer memorandum directing their
relocation to Manila within seven days from notice,
classes had already started. The move from Tarlac to
Manila at such time would mean a disruption of their
studies.”

THE TRANSFER MUST NOT INVOLVE A

DEMOTION IN RANK OR DIMINUTION OF
SALARY AND OTHER BENEFITS.

Transfers that result in lower rank, grade, or position

of the employee are illegal. Most especially if they
have a corresponding diminution of salary and other
benefits. Normally, transfer to a lower position entails
a diminution of salary and other benefits. If this
happens, the transfer may amount to constructive
dismissal which is a form of illegal dismissal. In such
a case, the employer may be held liable for the
payment of back wages and damages.

Tinio vs CA, G.R. No. 171764, June 8, 2007:

“It is a prerogative of management to transfer an

employee from one office to another with the
business establishment, provided there is no
demotion in rank or a diminution of salary, benefits,
and other privileges. As a rule, the Court will not
interfere with an employer’s prerogative to regulate
all aspects of employment which include among
others, work assignment, working methods and
place, and manner of work. Labor laws discourage
interference with an employer’s judgment in the
conduct of his business. When his transfer is not
unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to him,
and it does not involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salaries, benefits, and other
privileges, the employee may not complain that it
amounts to a constructive dismissal.”

THE EMPLOYER CAN ADOPT A POLICY TO

TRANSFER, OR EVEN DISMISS, A WORKER WHO
MARRIES A COMPETITOR'S EMPLOYEE.

It is an acceptable company policy to require an

employee to transfer or even resign if he marries an
employee of the competitor. What is at stake on the
part of the company is survival thus, making such
policy valid.

Duncan Association of Detailman-Ptgwo and Pedero

A. Tecson vs Glaxo Wellcome Philippines Inc. G.R.
No. 162994, September 17, 2004:

“The prohibition against personal or marital

relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable