Cambila, Jr. v. Seabren Security Agency (2024)

Cambila Jr. et al. v. Seabren Security Agency, et al., G.R. No. 261716, October 21, 2024, Per Inting, J.:

• [R]espondent Seabren Security Agency (Seabren) is a watchman agency which provides security services to its clients, with respondent Elizabeth S. Dureza (Dureza) as its President. On the other hand, Ecoland 4000 Residences (Ecoland) is a non-stock non-profit association of condominium unit owners located at Eco-West Drive, Ecoland, Davao City.

• The case stemmed from the consolidated complaints for constructive dismissal and money claims filed by petitioners and two other security guards (collectively, security guards) against Seabren, Dureza, and Ecoland.

• Seabren hired Cambila and Samad as security guards on April 8, 2008, and June 12, 2013, respectively, and assigned them at Ecoland on the following periods, 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 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without any rest day for a daily wage of PHP 300.37 (PHP 300.06 for Cambila). According to the security guards, Seabren did not pay them ove11ime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and 13th month pay. On top of that, Seabren deducted an amount ranging from PHP 200.00 to PHP 400.00 from their salary supposedly for their 13th month pay.

• Sometime in November 2017, 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 on January 31, 2018 and February 1, 2018, respectively.

• For their part, Seabren maintained that petitioners were not terminated. Instead, they resigned from work.

• Anent the claim for overtime pay, Seabren explained that the security guards worked on a broken period which took effect in July 2009 when the contract for security services with Ecoland began. Seabren, through its Operation Manager, Melvin B. Magsayo (Magsayo), issued a Memorandum to the security guards which indicated detailed instructions about their shift. In particular, the time schedule of the security guards are as follows: a) the duty of the first and second guard on day shift starts at 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and resumes at 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The four-hour period in between is their break time; b) the schedule of the third guard on day shift begins at 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and starts again at 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. The period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. is the break time; c) the fourth guard on night shift starts his post at 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and resumes duty at 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The period from 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. is the break time; and d) the duty of the fifth guard on night shift is at 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and resumes at 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.

• Seabren averred that based on the above Duty Detail Order (DDO), the security guards only rendered eight hours of work under a set-up of broken periods, and during their four-hour break, they may choose to go out of the establishment. Seabren however admitted that “it has been the long-time practice of the security guards that during the break time, they do not already go out of the establishment to take their break. They just wait until the resumption of their respective duty time schedule.”

2. SC Decision/Resolution

• [S]eabren, in its Position Paper, even admitted that the security guards do not leave the premises of Ecoland during the alleged four-hour work break. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is clear that “the time 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 Court agrees with the NLRC that the broken period scheme employed by Seabren was made to circumvent our labor laws and avoid paying petitioners their overtime pay.

• In Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, citing Damasco v. NLRC, an employer’s formal admission that its employees worked beyond eight hours should entitle the employee to overtime compensation – without need of further proof.