National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission Topic: Supervisors Facts: 1.

Petitioner, a corporation which is fully owned and controlled by the government, operates three refineries located at Bukidnon, Iloilo and Batangas. 2. Respondent union represents the former supervisors of the NASUREFCO Batangas sugar refinery. 3. In 1998, petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation program affecting all employees, from rank and file to department heads. 4. With the implementation of the Job Evaluation program, members of the respondent union were re-classified under levels S-5 to S8 which are considered managerial staff for purposes of compensation and benefits. 5. In May, 1990, petitioner recognized herein respondent union, which was organized pursuant to RA 6715 allowing supervisory employees to form their own unions, as the bargaining representative of all the supervisory employees at the petitioners plant in Batangas. 6. In June 1990, respondent union filed a complaint with the executive labor arbiter for non-payment of overtime, rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. 7. Labor arbiter directed to pay the wages complained of 8. NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter on the ground that members of the respondent union are not managerial employees, and, therefore they are entitled to overtime, rest day and holiday pay. They declared that these supervisory employees are merely exercising recommendatory powers subject to the evaluation, review and final action by their department heads. 9. Hence this appeal Issue: Whether supervisors are considered managerial employees and should no longer receive overtime, rest day and holiday pay Held: Yes, they are considered managers Ratio: 1. Article 82 of the Labor Code (Coverage) 2. As used herein, managerial employees refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. 3. In this case, though these supervisors are not managers, they are clearly officers or members of the managerial staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and hence, they are not entitled to overtime, rest day. 4. Promotion of its employees is one of the jurisprudentially-recognized exclusive prerogatives of management, provided it is done in good faith. In the case, private respondent union has miserably failed to convince this court that the petitioner acted implementing the JE program. There is no showing that the JE Program was intended to circumvent the law and deprive the members of respondent union of the benefits they used to receive.

Prangan vs. National Labor Relations Commission Topic: Hours worked: Evidence and Doubt Facts: 1. Respondent is a corporation engaged in providing security services to clients, hired petitioner on November 4, 1980 as one of its security guards. Thereafter, he was assigned to the Cat House Bar and Restaurant with a monthly salary of 2000php until its closure on August 31, 1993. 2. On May 4, 1994, Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for underpayment of wages, non-payment of salary from August 16-31, 1993, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day etc. from year 1990 to 1993. 3. Respondent rejected in its position paper alleging it merely acted as an agent of the latter in securing his employment at the Cat House Bar and Restaurant, thus, the liability for the claims of the petitioner should be charged to Cat House Bar and Restaurant and its owner, being his direct employer. 4. Labor arbiter brushed aside the respondents contention that it was merely an agent of the petitioner and ordered respondents to pay claims. 5. Petitioner appealed to NLRC and contested that Labor arbiter erred in its decision saying that he only worked for 4 hours a day and not 12. 6. NLRC dismissed for lack of merit 7. (Short summary) Ang hirap kase nang case..sorry! :P a. What happened in this case is that the petitioner was questioning the decision of the NLRC because his claims were computed only on the basis of working for 4 hours. However, he contends that he worked for 12 hours. During the trial, Respondent presented evidence that proved petitioner actually worked for only 4 hours. He submitted the daily time records to prove such claim. NLRC decided on this evidence then Petitioner went to the Supreme Court to question such. Normally, the Supreme Court would not entertain decisions like these however this case involves a possibility of a reversal or modification of evidence. Petitioner argues that these daily time records were falsified for the simple reason that he was not required to submit one. Issue: Whether the evidence presented is substantial Held: No Ratio: 1. We have defined substantial evidence as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Absent such evidence, the Court is not precluded from making its own independent evaluation of facts. 2. In this case, the employee alleges that his employer works less than the number of hours prescribed, the employer now bears the burden of proving his allegation with clear and satisfactory evidence. 3. NLRC relied solely on the supposed daily time records however the SC are of the opinion that these documents cannot be considered substantial evidence because of the worthy claim of the petitioner that a. Complainant never made nor submitted any daily time record with respondent company considering the fact that he was assigned to a single post and that the daily time records he allegedly submitted with respondent company are falsified and his signature appearing therein forged. 4. Respondent did not contend on petitioners claim. 5. No employment contract, payroll, notice of assignment or posting, cash voucher, or any other convincing evidence which may attest to the actual hours of work were presented. 6. In the daily time record, it showed that petitioner started work at 10pm and would end at 2am. (LAGI DAW GANUN ANG ORAS, sobrang impossible na lagi exactly 10 and 2 aalis.) 7. Petitioner then submitted his personnel data sheet of the petitioner duly signed by the formers operation manager, it shows on its face that the latters hours of work are from 7pm to 7am. 8. Attendance sheets also stressed such 12 hour work 9. Private respondents has not adequately proved the petitioner only worked for 4 hours. 10. If doubts exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be titled in favor of the employee.