47 NDC V CIR

G.R. No.
L-15422 November 30, 1962 Petitioner appealed to this Court, contending that the CIR has no
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, petitioner, jurisdiction over claims for overtime compensation and,
vs. secondary that the CIR did not make "a correct appraisal of the
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL facts, in the light of the evidence" in holding that mealtime periods
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, respondents (Justice Regala) should be included in overtime work because workers could not
leave their places of work and rest completely during those hours.
ISSUE: Whether or not, on the basis of the evidence, the

FACTS: mealtime breaks should be considered working time under the
following provision of the law (YES)
At the National Development Co., a GOCC, there were four shifts
of work. One shift was from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., while the three other RATIO:
shifts were from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m; then from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. and,
finally, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. In each shift, there was a one-hour The legal working day for any person employed by another shall
mealtime period, to wit: From (1) 11 a.m. to 12 noon for those be of not more than eight hours daily. When the work is not
working between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. and from (2) 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. continuous, the time during which the laborer is not working and
for those working between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be
counted.
The records disclose that although there was a one-hour
mealtime, petitioner nevertheless credited the workers with eight It will be noted that, under the law, the idle time that an employee
hours of work for each shift and paid them for the same number may spend for resting and during which he may leave the spot or
of hours. However, since 1953, whenever workers in one shift place of work though not the premises of his employer, is not
were required to continue working until the next shift, petitioner counted as working time only where the work is broken or is not
instead of crediting them with eight hours of overtime work, has continuous.
been paying them for six hours only. Petitioner reasoned that the
two hours corresponding to the mealtime periods should not be The determination as to whether work is continuous or not is
included in computing compensation. mainly one of fact. Indeed, it has been said that no general rule
can be laid down is to what constitutes compensable work, rather
On the other hand, respondent National Textile Workers Union the question is one of fact depending upon particular
whose members are employed at the NDC, maintained the circumstances, to be determined by the controverted in cases.
opposite view and asked the Court of Industrial Relations to order
the payment of additional overtime pay corresponding to the In this case, the CIR's finding that work in the petitioner company
mealtime periods. was continuous and did not permit employees and laborers to
rest completely is not without basis in evidence and following our
CIR: Mealtime should be counted in the determination of overtime earlier rulings, shall not disturb the same.
work and accordingly ordered petitioner to pay P101,407.96 by
way of overtime compensation. Thus, the CIR found:
While it may be correct to say that it is well-high impossible for an purposes of overtime compensation.
employee to work while he is eating, yet under Section 1 of Com.
Act No. 444 such a time for eating can be segregated or Petitioner gives an eight-hour credit to its employees who work a
deducted from his work, if the same is continuous and the single shift say from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. Why cannot it credit them
employee can leave his working place rest completely. The time sixteen hours should they work in two shifts?
cards show that the work was continuous and without
interruption. There is also the evidence adduced by the petitioner Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been dismissed for
that the pertinent employees can freely leave their working place its failure to serve a copy of the same on the union, there is no
nor rest completely. There is furthermore the aspect that during decision of the CIR en banc that petitioner can bring to this Court
the period covered the computation the work was on a 24-hour for review.
basis and previously stated divided into shifts.
WHEREFORE, the order of March 19, 1959 and the resolution of
From these facts, the CIR correctly concluded that work in April 27, 1959 are hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed,
petitioner company was continuous and therefore the without pronouncement as to costs.
mealtime breaks should be counted as working time for

47 NDC V CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

47 NDC V CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

47 NDC V CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

ISSUE: Whether or not, on the basis of the evidence, the

You might also like