Case Summary (G.R. No. L-64967)
Employment Terms and Overtime Claim
Aspera's employment contract specified a six-day workweek with ten-hour working days and explicitly indicated a monthly salary of P750, which included provision for overtime pay for hours worked beyond ten in a day, as well as for work done on rest days and legal holidays. Aspera worked a total of ten hours each day for 335 working days, leading him to claim entitlement to overtime pay. He argued that he should be compensated for the additional two hours worked each day at a calculated rate, amounting to a total of $814.85 for overtime during his employment period.
Initial Decisions by Labor Authorities
The claim for overtime pay was initially upheld by the Director of Employment Services and the National Labor Relations Commission. They declared the clause in the contract that stipulated a ten-hour work day as void, citing Section 83 of the Labor Code, which limits the normal working hours to eight hours per day, and Section 87, which designates hours beyond this limit as overtime.
Petitioner's Defense and Positional Arguments
In response to the ruling, Engineering Equipment, Inc. contended that Aspera qualified as a managerial employee and thus was not entitled to overtime pay under Section 82 of the Labor Code. They further asserted that several employees signed similar contracts, which contained an inherent allowance for overtime within a structured payment method for the extended work hours. The petitioner emphasized the approval of said contracts by the Bureau of Employment Services’ Director, Jonathan M.R.A. de la Cruz, asserting that the presence of his approval indicated compliance with legal standards.
Judicial Ruling and Conclusion
The court concluded that the Labor Minister’s earlier ruling constituted a significant abuse of discretion, effectively
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-64967)
Case Citation
- 223 Phil. 198
- G.R. No. 64967
- Date of Decision: September 23, 1985
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Engineering Equipment, Inc.
- Respondents: Minister of Labor, Director of Employment Services, and Miguel V. Aspera
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around a claim for overtime pay filed by Miguel Aspera, a mechanical engineer employed by Engineering Equipment, Inc. in Saudi Arabia.
- Aspera's employment commenced on April 26, 1977, and concluded on April 16, 1978.
- His monthly salary was set at P750 (P860), and he worked a six-day week consisting of ten working hours each day.
Employment Contract Provisions
- Work Schedule:
- Aspera's contract specified a six-day work week with a daily work duration of ten hours.
- The contract allowed for overtime work beyond the stipulated ten hours and on rest days and legal holidays.
- Salary and Overtime:
- The employment contract explicitly stated that the monthly salary included provisions for overtime pay for work performed during rest days, holidays, or beyond the ten hours on regular working days.
Claim for Overtime Pay
- Aspera asserted that his monthly pay should reflect only an eight-hour workday, thus claiming entitlement to overtime pay for the additional two hours worked daily.
- He calculated that for 670 hours of additional work over 335