Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15422 November 30, 1962
NATONAL !E"ELOPMENT COMPAN#, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O$ N!USTRAL RELATONS %&' NATONAL TE(TLE )OR*ERS UNON,
respondents.
Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Lorenzo R. Mosqueda for
petitioner.
Eulogio R. Lerum for respondent National Textile or!ers "nion.
Mariano #. Tuason for respondent Court of $ndustrial Relations.
REGALA, J.:
This is a case for review from the Court of ndustrial Relations. The pertinent facts are
the followin!"
At the National #evelopment Co., a !overnment$owned and controlled corporation,
there were four shifts of wor%. &ne shift was from ' a.m. to ( p.m., while the three other
shifts were from ) a.m. to * p.m+ then from * p.m. to ,- p.m. and, finall., from ,- p.m. to
) a.m. n each shift, there was a one$hour mealtime period, to wit" /rom 0,1 ,, a.m. to
,* noon for those wor%in! between ) a.m. and * p.m. and from 0*1 2 p.m. to ' p.m. for
those wor%in! between * p.m. and ,- p.m.
The records disclose that althou!h there was a one$hour mealtime, petitioner
nevertheless credited the wor%ers with ei!ht hours of wor% for each shift and paid them
for the same number of hours. 3owever, since ,456, whenever wor%ers in one shift
were re7uired to continue wor%in! until the ne8t shift, petitioner instead of creditin! them
with ei!ht hours of overtime wor%, has been pa.in! them for si8 hours onl., petitioner
that the two hours correspondin! to the mealtime periods should not be included in
computin! compensation. &n the other hand, respondent National Te8tile 9or%ers
:nion whose members are emplo.ed at the N#C, maintained the opposite view and
as%ed the Court of ndustrial Relations to order the pa.ment of additional overtime pa.
correspondin! to the mealtime periods.
After hearin!, ;ud!e Arsenio . Martine< of the CR issued an order dated March ,4,
,454, holdin! that mealtime should be counted in the determination of overtime wor%
and accordin!l. ordered petitioner to pa. P,-,,(-2.4) b. wa. of overtime
compensation. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was dismissed
b. the CR en %anc on the !round that petitioner failed to furnish the union a cop. of its
motion.
Thereafter, petitioner appealed to this Court, contendin!, first, that the CR has no
=urisdiction over claims for overtime compensation and, secondar. that the CR did not
ma%e >a correct appraisal of the facts, in the li!ht of the evidence> in holdin! that
mealtime periods should be included in overtime wor% because wor%ers could not leave
their places of wor% and rest completel. durin! those hours.
n support of its contention that the CR lost its =urisdiction over claims for overtime pa.
upon the enactment of the ndustrial Peace Act 0Republic Act No. '251, petitioner cites a
number of decisions of this Court. &n Ma. *6, ,4)-, however, 9e ruled in &rice
Sta%ilization Corp. v. Court of $ndustrial Relations' et al., ?.R. No. @$,6*-), that
Anal.<in! these cases, the underl.in! principle, it will be noted in all of them, thou!h not
stated in e8press terms, is that where the emplo.er$emplo.ee relationship is still
e8istin! or is sou!ht to be reestablished because of its wron!ful severance, 0as where
the emplo.ee see%s reinstatement1 the Court of ndustrial Relations has =urisdiction over
all claims arisin! out of, or in connection with the emplo.ment, such as those related to
the Minimum 9a!e @aw and the Ei!ht$3our @abor @aw. After the termination of their
relationship and no reinstatement is sou!ht, such claims become mere mone. claims,
and come within the =urisdiction of the re!ular courts,
9e are aware that in * cases, some statements impl.in! a different view have been
made, but we now hold and declare the principle set forth in the ne8t precedin!
para!raph as the one !overnin! all cases of this nature.
This has been the constant doctrine of this Court since Ma. *6, ,4)-.
,
A more recent definition of the =urisdiction of the CR is found in Campos' et al. v. Manila
Railroad Co.' et al., ?.R. No. @$,24-5, Ma. *5, ,4)*, in which 9e held that, for such
=urisdiction to come into pla., the followin! re7uisites must be complied with" 0a1 there
must e8ist between the parties an emplo.er$emplo.ee relationship or the claimant must
see% his reinstatement+ and 0b1 the controvers. must relate to a case certified b. the
President to the CR as one involvin! national interest, or must arise either under the
Ei!ht$3our @abor @aw, or under the Minimum 9a!e @aw. n default of an. of these
circumstances, the claim becomes a mere mone. claim that comes under the
=urisdiction of the re!ular courts. 3ere, petitioner does not den. the e8istence of an
emplo.er$emplo.ee relationship between it and the members of the union. Neither is
1
there an. 7uestion that the claim is based on the Ei!ht$3our @abor @aw 0Com. Act No.
(((, as amended1. 9e therefore rule in favor of the =urisdiction of the CR over the
present claim.
The other issue raised in the appeal is whether or not, on the basis of the evidence, the
mealtime brea%s should be considered wor%in! time under the followin! provision of the
law+
The le!al wor%in! da. for an. person emplo.ed b. another shall be of not more than
ei!ht hours dail.. (en t(e )or! is not continuous' t(e time during )(ic( t(e la%orer is
not )or!ing and can leave (is )or!ing place and can rest completel* s(all not %e
counted. 0Aec. ,, Com. Act No. (((, as amended. Emphasis ours.1
t will be noted that, under the law, the idle time that an emplo.ee ma. spend for restin!
and durin! which he ma. leave the spot or place of wor% thou!h not the premises
*
of his
emplo.er, is not counted as wor%in! time onl. where the wor% is bro%en or is not
continuous.
The determination as to whether wor% is continuous or not is mainl. one of fact which
9e shall not review as lon! as the same is supported b. evidence. 0Aec. ,5, Com. Act
No. ,-6, as amended, Philippine Newspaper ?uild v. Evenin! News, nc., ') Phil. 6-61.
That is wh. 9e brushed aside petitionerBs contention in one case that wor%ers who
wor%ed under a ) a.m. to ) p.m. schedule had enou!h >free time> and therefore should
not be credited with four hours of overtime and held that the findin! of the CR >that
claimants herein rendered services to the Compan. from )"-- a.m. to )"-- p.m.
includin! Aunda.s and holida.s, . . . implies either that the. were not allowed to leave
the spot of their wor%in! place, or that the. could not rest completel.> 0@u<on
Atevedorin! Co., nc. v. @u<on Marine #epartment :nion, et al., ?.R. No. @$4*)5, April
*4, ,4521.
ndeed, it has been said that no !eneral rule can be laid down is to what constitutes
compensable wor%, rather the 7uestion is one of fact dependin! upon particular
circumstances, to be determined b. the controverted in cases. 06, Am. ;urisdiction Aec.
)*) pp. '2'.1
n this case, the CRBs findin! that wor% in the petitioner compan. was continuous and
did not permit emplo.ees and laborers to rest completel. is not without basis in
evidence and followin! our earlier rulin!s, shall not disturb the same. Thus, the CR
found"
9hile it ma. be correct to sa. that it is well$hi!h impossible for an emplo.ee to wor%
while he is eatin!, .et under Aection , of Com. Act No. ((( such a time for eatin! can
be se!re!ated or deducted from his wor%, if the same is continuous and the emplo.ee
can leave his wor%in! place rest completel.. The time cards show that the wor% was
continuous and without interruption. There is also the evidence adduced b. the
petitioner that the pertinent emplo.ees can freel. leave their wor%in! place nor rest
completel.. There is furthermore the aspect that durin! the period covered the
computation the wor% was on a *($hour basis and previousl. stated divided into shifts.
/rom these facts, the CR correctl. concluded that wor% in petitioner compan. was
continuous and therefore the mealtime brea%s should be counted as wor%in! time for
purposes of overtime compensation.
Petitioner !ives an ei!ht$hour credit to its emplo.ees who wor% a sin!le shift sa. from )
a.m. to * p.m. 9h. cannot it credit them si8teen hours should the. wor% in two shiftsC
There is another reason wh. this appeal should dismissed and that is that there is no
decision b. the CR en %anc from which petitioner can appeal to this Court. As alread.
indicated above, the records show that petitionerBs motion for reconsideration of the
order of March ,4, ,454 was dismissed b. the CR en %anc because of petitionerBs
failure to serve a cop. of the same on the union.
Aection ,5 of the rules of the CR, in relation to Aection , of Commonwealth Act No.
,-6, states"
The movant shall file the motion 0for reconsideration1, in si8 copies within five 051 da.s
from the date on which he receives notice of the order or decision, ob=ect of the motion
for reconsideration, the same to be verified under oath with respect to the correctness of
the alle!ations of fact, and serving a cop* t(ereof personall* or %* registered mail' on
t(e adverse part*. The latter ma. file an answer, in si8 0)1 copies, dul. verified under
oath. 0Emphasis ours.1
n one case 0Bien, et al. v. Castillo, etc., et al., ?.R. No. @$2(*', Ma. *(, ,4551, 9e
sustained the dismissal of a motion for reconsideration filed outside of the period
provided in the rules of the CR. A motion for reconsideration, a cop. of which has not
been served on the adverse part. as re7uired b. the rules, stands on the same footin!.
/or >in the ver. nature of thin!s, a motion for reconsideration a!ainst a rulin! or
decision b. one ;ud!e is in effect an appeal to the Court of ndustrial Relations, en
%anc,> the purpose bein! >to substitute the decision or order of a colle!iate court for the
rulin! or decision of an. =ud!e.> The provision in Commonwealth Act No. ,-6
authori<in! the presentation of a motion for reconsideration of a decision or order of the
=ud!e to the CR, en %anc and not direct appeal therefore to this Court, is also in accord
with the principal of e8haustion of administrative remedies before resort can be made to
2
this Court. 0Broce, et al., v. The Court of ndustrial Relations, et al., ?.R. No. @$,*6)2,
&ctober *4, ,4541.
PetitionerBs motion for reconsideration havin! been dismissed for its failure to serve a
cop. of the same on the union, there is no decision of the CR en %anc that petitioner
can brin! to this Court for review.
93ERE/&RE, the order of March ,4, ,454 and the resolution of April *2, ,454 are
hereb. affirmed and the appeal is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.
&adilla' #autista +ngelo' La%rador' Concepcion' Re*es' ,.#.L.' #arrera' &aredes' -izon
and Ma!alintal concur.
#engzon' C.,.' too% no part.
3