Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16275 February 23, 1961
PN MER!CN "ORL# !R"$S S$STEM %P&!L!PP!NES', petitioner,
vs.
PN MER!CN EMPLO$EES SSOC!T!ON, respondent.
Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner.
Jose Espinas for respondent.
RE$ES, (.).L., J.*
Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in Case No.
!""#$ dated %ctober !, &"&, and its resolution en banc denyin' the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner herein.
(he dispositive portion of the appealed decision reads) .
*+ERE,%RE, the Court orders the Chief of the E-aminin' .ivision or his
representative to compute the overtime compensation due the aforesaid fourteen /01
aircraft mechanic and the t2o employees from the Communication .epartment based
on the time sheet of said employees from ,ebruary 34 &"3 up to and includin' 5uly ",
&"6 and to submit his report 2ithin 4! days for further disposition by the Court7 and the
company shall sho2 to the Court E-aminer such time sheets an other documents that
may be necessary in the aforesaid computation7 and t2o /31 representatives for the
company and t2o /31 representatives for the union shall be chosen to help the Court
E-aminer in said computation.
(he company is also ordered to permanently adopt the strai'ht 6#hour shift inclusive of
meal period 2hich is mutually beneficial to the parties.
8% %R.ERE..
In this appeal, petitioner advances five proposition 2hich, briefly, are as follo2s) /1 the
Industrial Court has no 9urisdiction to order the payment of overtime compensation, it
bein' a mere monetary claim co'ni:able by re'ular courts7 /31 the findin' that the one#
hour meal period should be considered overtime 2or; /deductin' " minutes as time
allotted for eatin'1 is not supported by substantial evidence7 /41 the court belo2 had no
authority to dele'ate its 9udicial functions by orderin' the Chief of the E-aminin'
.ivision or his representative to compute the overtime pay7 /01 the findin' that there 2as
no a'reement to 2ithdra2 Case No. !""#$ in consideration of the 2a'e increases in
the Collective Bar'ainin' Contract /E-h. <A<1 is not supported by substantial evidence7
and /"1 the court belo2 had no authority to order the company to adopt a strai'ht 6#hour
shift inclusive of meal period.
%n the issue of 9urisdiction over claims for overtime pay, 2e have since definitely ruled
in a recent decisions that the Industrial Court may properly ta;e co'ni:ance of such
cases if, at the time of the petition, the complainants 2ere still in the service of the
employer, or, havin' been separated from such service, should as; for reinstatement7
other2ise, such claims should be brou'ht before the re'ular courts /NA88C% v. CIR, et
al., =#4666, April 3&, &>!7 ,RI8C% v. CIR, et al., =#46!>, May 34, &>!7 Board of
=i?uidators, et al. vs. CIR, et al., =#"06", May 34, &>!7 8ta. Cecilia, 8a2mills Co. vs.
CIR, =#03"0 @ =#03"", May 3A, &>!7 A9a- International Corp. v. 8e'uritan, =#>!46,
%ctober 3", &>!7 8ampa'uita Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. CIR, =#>0!0, %ctober 3",
&>!1. 8ince, in the instant case there is no ?uestion that the employees claimin'
overtime compensation 2ere still in the service of the company 2hen the case 2as filed,
the 9urisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations cannot be assailed. In fact, since it is
not pretended that, thereafter, the complainants 2ere dischar'ed or other2ise
terminated their relationship 2ith the company for any reason, all of said complainants
could still be 2ith the company up to the present.
Petitioner herein claims that the one#hour meal period should not be considered as
overtime 2or; /after deductin' " minutes1, because the evidence sho2ed that
complainants could rest completely, and 2ere not in any manner under the control of
the company durin' that period. (he court belo2 found, on the contrary, that durin' the
so called meal period, the mechanics 2ere re?uired to stand by for emer'ency 2or;7
that if they happened not to be available 2hen called, they 2ere reprimanded by the
leadman7 that as in fact it happened on many occasions, the mechanics had been
called from their meals or told to hurry Employees Association up eatin' to perform 2or;
durin' this period. ,ar from bein' unsupported by substantial evidence, the record
clearly confirms the above factual findin's of the Industrial Court.
8imilarly, this Court is satisfied 2ith the findin' that there 2as no a'reement to 2ithdra2
Case No. !""#$ in consideration of the 2a'e increases obtained by the, union and set
forth in the Collective Bar'ainin' A'reement E-hibit <A<. As reasoned out by the court
belo2, such alle'ed a'reement 2ould have been incorporated in the contract if it
e-isted. (he fact that the union filed a motion to dismiss 2ithout pre9udice, after the
Collective Bar'ainin' Contract had been si'ned, did not necessarily mean that it had
a'reed to 2ithdra2 the case in consideration of the 2a'e increases. (he motion itself
/Anne- <B<, Petition for Certiorari1 2as e-pressly based on an understandin' that the
1
company 2ould <formulate a schedule of 2or; 2hich shall be in consonance 2ith C. A.
000<. All in all, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findin' of the
court belo2 that no such a'reement 2as made.
It is ne-t contended that in orderin' the Chief of the E-aminin' .ivision or his
representative to compute the compensation due, the Industrial Court unduly dele'ated
its 9udicial functions and thereby rendered an incomplete decision. *e do not believe
so. Computation of the overtime pay involves a mechanical function, at most. And the
report 2ould still have to be submitted to the Industrial Court for its approval, by the very
terms of the order itself. (hat there 2as no specification of the amount of overtime pay
in the decision did not ma;e it incomplete, since this matter 2ould necessarily be made
clear enou'h in the implementation of the decision /see Malate (a-icab @ Bara'e, Inc.
vs. CIR, et al., =#6A6, May , &">1.
(he Industrial CourtCs order for permanent adoption of a strai'ht 6#hour shift includin'
the meal period 2as but a conse?uence of its findin' that the meal hour 2as not one of
complete rest, but 2as actually a 2or; hour, since for its duration, the laborers had to be
on ready call. %f course, if the Company practices in this re'ard should be modified to
afford the mechanics a real rest durin' that hour /f. e-., by installin' an entirely different
emer'ency cre2, or any similar arran'ement1, then the modification of this part of the
decision may be sou'ht from the Court belo2. As thin's no2 stand, 2e see no 2arrant
for alterin' the decision.
(he 9ud'ment appealed from is affirmed. Costs a'ainst appellant.
Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion , Barrera, Paredes and izon,
JJ., concur.
2