PEARANDA V BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORP.

PANGANIBAN; May 3, 2006

NATURE Petition for review assailing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) FACTS - Petitioners Claims > Petitioner Charlito Pearanda alleges that he was employed by respondent [Baganga] with a monthly salary of P5,000.00 as Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer > His services were terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds. > He was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials and finally claims for payment of damages and attorneys fees having been forced to litigate the present complaint. - Respondents Claims > Respondent [BPC] represented by its General Manager HUDSON CHUA, allege that complainants sepa ration from service was done pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code. > BPC was on temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance and it applied for clearance with the DOLE, Regional Office No. XI to shut down and to dismiss employees. > Pearanda was not terminated from employment much less illegally. He opted to severe employment when he insisted payment of his separation benefits. > Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not entitled to overtime pay and if ever he rendered services beyond the normal hours of work, there was no office order/or authorization for him to do so. - The labor arbiter ruled that there was no illegal dismissal and that petitioners complaint was premature because he was stil l employed by BPC. The temporary closure of BPCs plant did not terminate his employment. - Nevertheless, the labor arbiter found petitioner entitled to overtime pay, premium pay for working on rest days, and attorney s fees in the total amount of P21,257.98. - NLRC deleted the award of overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days for the petitioner was not entitled to these awards because he was a managerial employee. - CA dismissed Pearandas Petition for Certiorari and held that he failed to: 1) attach copies of the pleadings submitted before the labor arbiter and NLRC; and 2) explain why the filing and service of the Petition was not done by personal service. - In its later Resolution, CA denied reconsideration on the ground that petitioner still failed to submit the pleadings filed before the NLRC. ISSUE WON petitioner is entitled to overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days HELD NO - Article 82 of the Labor Code exempts managerial employees from the coverage of labor standards. Labor standards provide the working conditions of employees, including entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days. - Under this provision, managerial employees are those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision. - The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code state that managerial employees are those who meet the following conditions: (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof; (2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein; (3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. - The Court disagreed with the NLRCs finding that petitioner was a managerial employee. However, petitioner was a member of t he managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards. Like managerial employees, officers and members of the managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards. The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code define members of a managerial staff as those with the following duties and responsibilities: (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer; (2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment; (3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks; and (4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above. - Petitioners duties and responsibilities conform to the definition of a member of a managerial staff under the Implementing R ules. Petitioner supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff. - Noteworthy, even petitioner admitted that he was a supervisor. In his Position Paper, he stated that he was the foreman responsible for the operation of the boiler. The term foreman implies that he was the representative of management over the workers and the operation of the department. Petitioners evidence also showed that he was the supervisor of the steam plant. His classification as supervisor is further evident from the manner his salary was paid. He belonged to the 10% of respondents 354 employees who were paid on a monthly basis; the others were paid only on a daily basis. Disposition Petition was DENIED