Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4337)
Facts:
Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations and United Employees Welfare Association, G.R. No. L-4337, December 29, 1951, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. (the Bureau); the respondents are the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) and the United Employees Welfare Association (the Association), an employee association whose members worked as security guards supplied by the Bureau to various establishments. The Bureau paid its guards monthly salaries drawn from the sums it collected from those establishments.
On petition properly submitted to the CIR, that tribunal investigated and found that members of the Association worked daily tours in excess of eight hours and also worked on Sundays and holidays without receiving extra compensation. An officer of the CIR’s Auditing Department examined the Bureau’s books, computed the overtime due, and prepared an itemized statement (Exhibit A) showing an aggregate arrearage of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Forty-five Pesos and Forty-eight Centavos (P8,545.48). The CIR ordered the Bureau to pay that sum as back overtime wages.
The Bureau defended below on several grounds: that it had been granting employees two paid days off each month and that those paid days off equated to compensation for overtime; that the employees had not previously claimed overtime; that CIR lacked jurisdiction to award a money judgment; and that overtime beyond three hours daily could not be recovered because no permit from the Secre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Industrial Relations have jurisdiction to award money (back overtime wages) to the employees?
- Could the employees recover overtime pay despite the absence of a permit from the Secretary of Labor for work beyond the three-hour daily period?
- Did the Bureau’s practice of giving employees two paid days off per month, or the employees’ prior failure to claim overtime, bar recovery or c...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)