PENARANDA v.

BPC
FACTS:
In June 1999, Pearanda was hired by Baganga Plywood
Corporation (owned by Hudson Chua) to take charge of the operations and
maintenance of its steam plant boiler. Pearanda was employed as a
Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer tasked to do the following tasks
among others:
1. To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at
minimum cost.
2. To supervise, check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as
operation of boiler and accessories.
3. To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower.
xxx
5. To train new employees for effective and safety while working.
xxx
7. To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion, or disciplinary
action.
xxx
In 2001, BPC shut down due to some repairs and maintenance. BPC did
not technically fire Pearanda but due to the latters insistence, BPC gave
him his separation benefits.
BPC subsequently reopened but Pearanda did not reapply.
Pearanda now claims that BPC still needed to pay him his overtime pays
and premium pays.
The NLRC ruled that Pearanda is a managerial employee and as such he
is not entitled to overtime and premium pay as stated under the Labor
Code. Pearanda appealed. He said that he is not a managerial employee.

ISSUE: Whether or not Pearanda is entitled to overtime and premium pay.

HELD: No. Though there is an error made by the NLRC in finding
Pearanda as a managerial employee, the Supreme Court still ruled that
Pearanda is not entitled to overtime and premium pay.
Pearanda is not a managerial employee. Under the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the Labor Code, managerial employees are those that
perform the following:
(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.
Pearanda does not meet the above requirements.
Pearanda is instead considered as a managerial staff. Under the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, managerial staffs
are those that perform the following:
(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.
Pearandas function as a shift engineer illustrates that he was a member
of the managerial staff. His duties and responsibilities conform to the
definition of a member of a managerial staff under the Implementing Rules.
Pearanda 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.
Further, Pearanda in his position paper admitted that he was a supervisor
for BPC. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial
staff.

Association of Marine Officers and Seamen of Reyes and Lim Co. vs.
Laguesma, 239 SCRA 460
Facts: Petitioner union claims that the positions major patron, minor patron,
chief mate and chief engineer are not managerial employees but rank and
file, and hence these employees would be eligible to form part of the union
and take part in the certification election. Petitioner contends that the
marine officers in question must possess the power to lay down and
formulate management policies aside from just executing such policies.
Said marine officers do not have this power because they merely navigate
the bay and rivers of Pasig and Bataan hauling LPGs.
Public respondent opined in an evaluation of the afore-mentioned job
descriptions that these are managerial positions based on Article 212 (m) of
the Labor Code which defines managerial employees as one who is
vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
policies and/or to hire, transfer , suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees.
Issue: WON the positions of major patron, minor patron, chief mate and
chief engineer are managerial.
Held: Yes. The job description on record discloses that the major patrons
duties include taking complete charge and command of the ship and
performing responsibilities and duties of a ship captain; the minor patron
also commands the vessel, plying the limits of inland waterways, ports and
estuaries; the chief mate performs the functions of an executive officer next
in command to the captain; and the chief marine engineer takes over-all
charge of the operations of the ships mechanical and electrical equipment.
Thus the exercise of discretion and judgment in directing a ships course is
as much managerial in nature as decisions arrived at in the confines of the
more conventional board room or executive office.