Photo from Pexels | Gonzalo Mendiola
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:
In the case of Cambila, Jr. and Samad v. Seabren Security Agency, G.R. No. 261716, October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court has held that security guards working under a broken period scheme must be paid overtime if their break is too short for personal use.
Respondent Seabren is a watchman agency which provides security services to its clients, with Respondent Dureza as its President. On the other hand, Ecoland is a non-stock non-profit association of condominium unit owners located at Eco-West Drive, Ecoland, Davao City.
Seabren hired Cambila and Samad as security guards and assigned them at Ecoland until they were allegedly terminated from work. The security guards alleged that during their assignment at Ecoland, Seabren obliged them to render a 12-hour duty with a four-hour break in between. According to them, Seabren did not pay them overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and 13th month pay.
The security guards complained to Seabren’s management and asked for an increase in their salary in accordance with the minimum wage set by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, but their requests were ignored. Instead, Seabren informed the security guards that they were relieved from their post at Ecoland, but they would be transferred to another post with the same pay.
Consequently, Cambila and Samad were constrained to resign. Seabren maintained that petitioners were not terminated. Instead, they resigned from work.
The security guards filed a labor complaint for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime pay. They submitted their Daily Time Records (DTR) signed by Ecoland’s manager, proving they worked 12 continuous hours. Seabren argued that the security guards were free to leave during breaks. However, it admitted that, in practice, its security guards stayed on-site between shifts.
The LA and the NLRC determined that the security guards were not wrongfully dismissed. However, they were entitled to overtime pay since they worked for 12 consecutive hours.
However, the CA reversed the decisions, saying that the DTRs were invalid because Seabren had not signed them.
The Supreme Court held that it is undisputed that the DTRs submitted were signed by the manager of Ecoland.
In determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims, jurisprudence dictated that the burden of proof shifts from the employer of the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought. For claims for payment of 13th-month pay, salary differentials, and holiday pay, among others, the burden of proof falls upon the employer considering that the records pertinent to such claims are usually in the employer’s control and custody. While in claims for overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rests days, the burden of proof falls upon the employee since these monetary claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. Thus, to be entitled to overtime pay, it is incumbent upon petitioners to first prove that they rendered service above the regular eight working hours a day.
The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is clear that the during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered working time if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest. It was simply impractical, inconvenient, and uneconomical for the security guards, who are minimum wage earners, to report to work, go home and/or leave Ecoland’s premises, only to report back within the same day.
Thus the Supreme Court ruled that the four-hour breaks between the security guards’ shift count as work hours because the guards could not use that time for themselves. It was impractical and costly for minimum wage security guards to leave work, go home, and then come back on the same day.
Related Articles:
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/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
