Photo from Pexels | cottonbro studio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Under the Personal Comfort Doctrine, the course of employment is not considered broken by certain acts relating to the personal comfort of the employee, as such acts are helpful to the employer in that they aid in efficient performance by the employee.
In the case of Arguilles v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 254586, the Supreme Court held that the course of employment is not considered broken by certain acts relating to the personal comfort of the employee, as such acts are helpful to the employer in that they aid in efficient performance by the employee. On the other hand, acts which are found to be departures effecting a temporary abandonment of employment are not protected.
In the same case, the Supreme Court cited Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, where it held that such acts as are necessary to the life, comfort, and convenience of the servant while at work though strictly personal to himself, and not acts of service, are incidental to the service, and injury sustained in the performance thereof is deemed to have arisen out of the employment. A man must breathe and occasionally drink water while at work. In these and other conceivable instances he ministers unto himself, but in a remote sense these acts contribute to the furtherance of his work.
Verily, breaks which allow employees to administer to their personal comfort enable them to perform their jobs and are therefore considered to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. Although technically the employees are performing no services for their employer in the sense that their actions do not contribute directly to the employer’s profits, compensation is justified rationale that the employer receives indirect benefits in the form of better work from happy and rested employees, and on the theory that such minor deviations do not take the employees out of their employment.
Related Articles:
- Seafarers’ Entitlement to Overtime Pay
- Death Benefits for Seafarers: Who is entitled to receive them?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.