1. Mercidar Fishing Corporation vs NLRC and Fermin Agao Jr. Gr No.

112574 October 8, 1998 Doctrine: - Field personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. o As explained in the case of Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) v. Vicar, the clause whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Hence in deciding whether or not an employees actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not such employees time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer. - In the case at bar, fishermen employed by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from petitioners business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessels patron or master. 2. Remington Industrial Sales Corporation vs Erlinda Castaneda Gr Nos. 169295-96 November 20, 2006 Doctrines: A. Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. Rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. B. The term house helper as used is synonymous to the term domestic servant shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about the employers home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employers family. It contemplates such house helper or domestic servant who is employed in the employers home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employers family. Such definition covers family drivers, domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, house boys and similar househelps. The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such houselper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended. C. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. it is a form of neglect of duty. For a valid abandonment, two factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to severe employer-employee relationship. The second as the more determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work. It is well-settled that the filing of an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of her desire to return to work, thus, negating the employers charge of abandonment. Section 4(d) of RA 10361 - Domestic Worker or Kasambahay refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to the following: general househelp, nursemaid or yaya, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.

Section 22 of RA 10361 - Assignment to Nonhousehold work No domestic worker shall be assigned to work in a commercial, industrial or agriculture enterprise at a wage rate lower than that provided for agricultural or nonagricultural workers. In such cases, the domestic worker shall be paid the applicable minimum wage.

Section 23 of RA 10361 - Extent of Duty The domestic worker and the employer may mutually agree for the former to temporarily perform a task that is outside the latters household for the benefit of another household. However, any liability that will be incurred by the domestic worker on account of such arrangement shall be borne by the original employer. In addition, such work performed outside the household shall entitle the domestic worker to an additional payment of not less than the existing minimum wage rate of a domestic worker. It shall be unlawful for the original employer to charge any amount from the said household where the service of the domestic worker was temporarily performed. 3. Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura vs NLRC and JC Tailor Shop and/or Johnny Co GR No. 111042 October 26, 1999 Doctrine: A. The petitioners were employees of private respondents although they were paid not on the basis of time spent on the job but according to the quantity and the quality of work produced by them. Two categories of employees paid by results: a.1 Those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer there is an element of control and supervision over the manner as to how the work is to be performed. (A piece rate worker belongs to this category especially if he performs his work in the company premises); and a.2 Those whose time and performance are unsupervised. The employers control is over the result of the work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this group. Both classes of workers are paid per unit accomplished.

B. The most important criterion is whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished. C. Although piece-rate workers, the petitioners were regular employees as much as: a.1 Within the contemplation of Art 280 of the Labor Code, their work as tailors was necessary or desirable in the usual business of private respondents, which is engaged in the tailoring business; b.1 Petitioners worked for private respondents throughout the year, their employment not being dependent on a specific project or season; and c.1 Petitioners worked for private respondents for more than one year. 4. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc vs Luzon Marine Department Union GR No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 Doctrines: A laborer need not leave the premises of the factory, shop or boat in order that his period of rest shall not be counted, it being enough that he ceased to work, may rest completely and leave or may leave at his will the spot where he actually stays while working, to go

somewhere else, whether within or outside the premises of said factory, shop or boat. If these requisites are complied with, the period of such rest shall not be counted. - 20 minutes recess should not be deducted in the computation of OT. 5. National Development Company vs CIR and National Textile Workers Union GR No. L-15422 November 30, 1962 Issue: The legal working day for any person employed by another shall be of not more than 8 hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working and can leave his working place and rest completely shall not be counted. (Section 1, CA No. 444, as amended). Work in the petitioners company was continuous and therefore the mealtime breaks should be counted as working time for the purposes of overtime compensation. 6. Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc vs NLRC and Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association GR No. 119205 April 15, 1998 Doctrine: Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it may devise means to attain that goal. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. Thus, management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of workers and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. Further, the management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working hours of its employees. So long as such prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold such exercise. While the constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every dispute will automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has right which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. 7. Teofilo Africa, et al vs NLRC GR No. 78210 Doctrine: The thirty (30) minute assembly time long practiced and institutionalized by mutual consent of the parties under Article IV, Section 3, of the CBA cannot be considered as waiting time within the purview of Section 5, Rule I, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. The 30 minutes assembly is deeply-rooted, routinary practice of the employees, and the proceedings attendant thereto are not infected with complexities as to deprive the workers the time to attend to other personal pursuits. They are not new employees as to require the company to deliver long briefings regarding their respective work assignments. Their houses are situated right on the area where the farms are located, such that after the roll call, which does not necessarily require the personal presence, they can go back to their houses to attend to some chores. In short, they are not subject to the absolute control of the company during this period, otherwise, their failure to report in the assembly time would justify the company to impose disciplinary measures. The CBA does not contain any provision to this effect; the record is also bare of any proof on this point. This, therefore, demonstrates the indubitable fact that the 30 minute assembly time was not primarily intended for February 28, 1989

the interests of the employer, but ultimately for the employees to indicate their availability or nonavailability for work during every working day.

8. University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs University of Pangasinan and NLRC GR No. L-63122 Doctrine: Section 4 (d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered as working time either if the imminence of the resumption of work requires the employees presence at the place of work or if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employees own interest. February 20, 1984

The semestral break scheduled is an interruption beyond the petitioners control and it cannot be used effectively nor gainfully in the employees interest. Thus, the semestral break may also be considered as hours worked. For this, the teachers are paid regular salaries and, for this, they should be entitled to ECOLA. Not only do the teachers continue to work during this short recess but much less do they cease to live for which the cost of living allowance is intended.

9. Durabuilt Recapping Plant & Company and Eduardo Lao vs NLRC GR No. 76746 Doctrine: Computation of back wages The petitioner is ordered to pay private respondent his back wages from the time he was terminated up to the time he was actually reinstated computed on the basis of the number of days when petitioners business was in actual operation. The number of days where no work was required and could be done by petitioners employees on account of shutdowns due to electrical power interruptions, machine repair, and lack of raw materials are not considered hours worked for purposes of computing the petitioners obligation to respondent employee. DOLE Policy Instruction No. 36 Brownouts running for more than 20 minutes may not be treated as hours worked provided that any of the following conditions are present: The employees can leave their work place or go elsewhere within or without the work premises; or The employees can use the time effectively for their own interest.

10. Philippine Airlines Inc vcs NLRC GR No. 132805 Doctrine: Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code states: February 2, 1999

Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods.Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee; (a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day; (c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods. Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time. Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on time. Private respondents act, therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.

11. Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC GR No. 156225 Doctrine: Assigned error involves the determination of whether or not a teachers overload pay should be considered in the computation of his or her 13th month pay. Opinion of the Bureau of Working Conditions of the DOLE dated December 9, 1991, February 28, 1992 and November 19, 1992 to the effect that if overload is performed within a teachers normal eight-hour work per day, the remuneration that the teacher will get from the additional teaching load will form part of the basic wage. Explanatory Bulletin on the Inclusion of Teachers Overload Pay in the 13th month pay Determination issued by the DOLE on December 3, 1993. PD 851 as amended provides that an employee shall be entitled to not less than 1/12 of the total basic salary earned within a calendar year The basic wage of an employee shall include all remunerations or earnings paid by his employer for services rendered but do not include allowances or monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary, such as the cash equivalent of unused vacation and sick leave credits, overtime, premium, night differential and holiday pay, and cost of living allowances. However, these salary-related benefits should be included as part of the basic salary in the computation of the 13th month pay if by individual or collective agreement, company practice or policy, the same are treated as part of the basic salary of the employees. Basic wage as defined by the Implementing Rules of RA 6727, means all remuneration or earnings paid by an employer to a worker for services rendered on normal working days and hours but does not include COLA, 13th month pay or other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the workers xxx. January 29, 2008

Normal hours as defined on Article 83 of the Labor Code which provides: the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed 8 hours a day. This means that the basic salary of an employee for the purpose of computing the 13th month pay shall include all remunerations paid by an employer for services rendered during normal working hours.

Overload on the other hand means the load in excess of the normal load of private school teachers. In short, additional work in excess of the regular teaching load is overload work. Regular teaching load and overload work, if any, may constitute a teachers working day. Where a teacher is required to perform such overload within the 8 hours normal working day, such overload compensation shall be considered part of the basic pay for the purpose of computing the teachers 13th month pay. Overload work and overtime work are not the same, as overtime work connotes to work rendered in excess of normal working hours of eight in a day. DOLE Legal Services Department in its opinion dated March 4, 1992 that remunerations for teaching in excess of the regular load shall be excluded in the computation of the 13 th month pay unless, by school policy, the same are considered as part of the basic salary of the qualified teachers. PD 851 any compensations or remunerations which are deemed not part of the basic pay is excluded as basis in the computation of the mandatory bonus. Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851 is even more emphatic in declaring that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of the 13th month pay. In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special holidays is considered as additional compensation apart and distinct from an employees regular wage or basic salary, an overload pay, owing to its very nature and definition, may not be considered as part of teachers regular or basic salary, because it is being paid for additional work performed in excess of the regular teaching load.

12. Caltex Regular Employees at Manila Office, Legazpi Bulk Depot and Marinduque Bulk-Depot (MACLU) vs Caltex (Philippines) Inc and NLRC GR No. 111359 Doctrines: Overtime work consists of hours worked on a given day in excess of the applicable work period, which here is 8 hours. It is not enough that the hours worked fall on disagreeable or inconvenient hours. In order that work may be considered as overtime work, the hours worked must be in excess of and in addition to the 8 hours worked during the prescribed daily work period, or the 40 hours worked during the regular work week Monday thru Friday. Hours worked on a Saturday do not by that fact alone necessarily constitute overtime work compensable at premium rates of pay. These are normal or regular work hours compensable at regular rates of pay. As provided under the CBA, Saturday is not a rest day or a "day off". It is only when an employee has been required on a Saturday to render work in excess of the 40 hours which constitute the regular work week that such employee may be considered as performing overtime work on that Saturday. We consider that the statutory prohibition against offsetting undertime one day with overtime another day has no application in the case at bar. August 15, 1995

13. Cristonico B. Legahi vs NLRC GR No. 122240 Doctrine: The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore, whether they were on board and can not leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. The contract provision on 30% overtime guarantees the right to overtime pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be established. Realistically speaking, a seaman, by the very nature of his job, stays on board a ship or vessel beyond regular 8 hours work schedule. For the employer to him overtime pay for the extra hours when he might be sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even just lulling away his time would be extremely unfair and unreasonable. November 18, 1999

14. Abdul Juahid R. Pigcaulan vs Security and Credit Investigation Inc and/or Rene Amby Reyes GR No. 173648 Doctrine: The hadwritten itemized computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime pay. Unsigned and unauthenticated as they are, there is no way of verifying the truth of the handwritten entires stated therein. Written only in pieces of paper and solelyy prepared by the petitioners, these representative daily time records, as termed by the Labor Arbiter, can hardly be considered as competent evidence to be used as basis to prove that the two were underpaid of their salaries. We find nothing in the records which could substantially support Pigcaulan's contention that he had rendered service beyond 8 hours to entitle him to overtime pay and during Sundays to entitle him to restday pay. Hence, in the absence of any concrete proof that additional service beyond the normal working hours and days had indeed been rendered, we cannot affirm the grant of overtime pay to Pigcaulan. January 16, 2012

15. Association of International Shipping Lines Inc vs United Harbor Pilots' Association of the Philippines Inc GR No. 172029 Doctrine: Members of respondent UHPAP are entitled to nighttime and overtime pay. Undoubtedly, pursuant to PPA AO No. 03-85, members of respondent UHPAP are legally entitled to nighttime and overtime pay. It bears pointing out that additional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy. Working at night is violative of the law of nature for it is the period for rest and sleep. An employee who works at night has less stamina and vigor. Thus, he can easily contract disease. The lack of sunlight tends to produce anemia and tuberculosis and predispose him to other ills. Night work brings increased liability to eyestrain and accident. Serious moral dangers also are likely to result from the necessity of travelling the street alone at night, and from the interference with normal home life. Hygienic, medical, moral, cultural and socio-biological reasons are in accord that night work has many inconveniences and when there is no alternative but to perform it, it is but just that the laborer should earn greater salary than ordinary work so as to compensate the laborer to some extent for the said inconvenience. August 6, 2008

Rationale: Why is a laborer or employee who works beyond the regular hours of work entitled to extra compensation called in this enlightened time, overtime pay? Verily, there can be no other reason than that he is made to work longer than what is commensurate with his agreed compensation for the statutorily fixed or voluntarily agreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When he thus spends additional time to his work, the effect upon him is multi-faceted: he puts in more effort, physical and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to his family to enjoy the comforts thereof; he might have no time for relaxation, amusement or sports; he might miss important pre-arranged engagements; etc., etc. It is thus the additional work, labor or service employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in his place of work that justify and is the real reason for the extra compensation that he called overtime pay. Overtime work is actually the lengthening of hours developed to the interests of the employer and the requirements of his enterprise. It follows that the wage or salary to be received must likewise be increased, and more than that, a special additional amount must be added to serve either as encouragement or inducement or to make up for the things he loses which we have already referred to. And on this score, it must always be borne in mind that wage is indisputably intended as payment for work done or services rendered.

16. Lazaro V. Dacut et al vs CA GR No. 169434 March 28, 2008 Doctrine: Apropos the monetary claims, there is insufficient evidence to prove petitioners entitlement thereto. As crew members, petitioners were required to stay on board the vessel by the very nature of their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the purpose of our law to require their employers to give them overtime pay or night shift differential, even when they are not actually working. Thus, the correct criterion in determining whether they are entitled to overtime pay or night shift differential is not whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. In this case, petitioners failed to submit sufficient proof that overtime and night shift work were actually performed to entitle them to the corresponding pay. 17. Asian Transmission Corporation vs CA GR No. 144664 March 15, 2004 Doctrine: Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. Its purpose it not merely to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, that is, his holiday pay. It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical cultural significance. As reflected, Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays falls on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. 18. Jose Rizal College vs NLRC GR No. L-65482 December 1, 1987

Doctrines: The implementing rule is not justified by the provisions of the law which after all is silent with respect to faculty members paid by the hour who because of their teaching contracts are obliged to work and consent to be paid only for work actually done (except when an emergency or a fortuitous event or a national need calls for the declaration of special holidays). Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days; certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts. It is clearly apparent that the declared purpose of the holiday pay which is the prevention of diminution of the monthly income of the employees on account of work interruptions is defeated when a regular class day is cancelled on account of a special public holiday and class hours are held on another working day to make up for the time lost in the school calendar. Otherwise stated, the faculty member, although forced to take a rest, does not earn what he should earn on that day. Be it noted that when a special public holiday is declared, the faculty member paid by the hour is deprived of expected income, and it does not matter that the school calendar is extended in view of days or hours lost, for their income that could be earned from other sources is lost during the extended days. Similarly, when classes are called off or shortened on account of typhoons, floods, rallies and the like, these faculty members must likewise be paid, whether or not extensions are ordered. 19. San Miguel Corporation vs CA GR No. 146775 January 30, 2002 Doctrine: There should be no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays. Assuming arguendo that the respondents position is correct, then by the same token, Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not entitled to holiday pays on Christian holidays, declared by law as regular holidays. We must remind the respondent-appellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the working man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and certainly not on the basis of the workers faith or religion. 20. Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation vs Cresenciano B. Trajano GR No. 114698 July 3, 1995 Doctrine: There is no provision of law requiring any employer to make such adjustments in the monthly salary rate set by him to take account of legal holidays falling on Sundays in a given year, or, contrary to the legal provisions bearing on the point, otherwise to reckon a year at more than 365 days. What the law requires of employers opting to pay by the month is to assure that the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve, and to pay that salary for all days in the month whether worked or not, and irrespective of the number of working days therein. A salary is due and payable regardless of the declaration of any special holiday in the entire country or a particular place therein, or any fortuitous cause precluding work on any particular day or days or cause not imputable to the worker. The legal provisions governing monthly compensation are evidently intended precisely to avoid re-computations and alterations in salary on account of the contingencies just mentioned, which, by the way, are routinely made between employer and employees when the wages are paid on daily basis. 21. Leiden Fernandez et al vs NLRC, Marguerite Lhuillier GR No. 105892 January 28, 1998 Doctrine: Service incentive leave is clearly demandable after one year of service whether continuous or broken or its equivalent period, and it is one of the benefits which would have accrued if an

employee was not otherwise illegally dismissed, it is fair and legal that its computation should be up to the date of reinstatement. (Computation from December 16, 1975 actual reinstatement) 22. Autobus Transport Systems Inc vs Antonio Bautista GR No. 156367 May 16, 2005 Doctrine: The grant of service incentive leave (SIL) has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. SIL shall not apply to employees classified as field personnel. The phrase other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which SIL shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Hence, employees engaged on task or contract basis or paid on purely commission basis are not automatically exempted from the grant of SIL, unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel. 23. JPL Marketing Promotions vs CA GR No. 151966 July 8, 2005 Doctrine: 24.