The following are the related or relevant Labor Law Cases or Jurisprudence on the topic.
1) Covered and excluded employees
| Peñaranda v. Bagana Plywood Corporation |
| G.R. No. 159577, 03 May 2006 |
| [The complainant-employee] was a member of the managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards. Like managerial employees, officers and members of the managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards. The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code define members of a managerial staff as those with the following duties and responsibilities: |
| “(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.” |
| As shift engineer, petitioner’s duties and responsibilities were as follows: |
| “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. |
| “4. To follow-up supply of waste and other materials for fuel. |
| “5. To train new employees for effective and safety while working. |
| “6. Recommend parts and supplies purchases. |
| “7. To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion, or disciplinary action. |
| “8. To check water from the boiler, feedwater and softener, regenerate softener if beyond hardness limit. |
| “9. Implement Chemical Dosing. |
| “10. Perform other task as required by the superior from time to time.” |
| The foregoing enumeration, particularly items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 illustrates that [the employee] 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. |
| [The employee] 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. As supervisor, [the employee] is deemed a member of the managerial staff. |
| Noteworthy, even [the employee] admitted that he was a supervisor. In his Position Paper, he stated that he was the foreman responsible for the operation of the boiler. The term foreman implies that he was the representative of management over the workers and the operation of the department. Petitioner’s evidence also showed that he was the supervisor of the steam plant. His classification as supervisor is further evident from the manner his salary was paid. He belonged to the 10% of respondent’s 354 employees who were paid on a monthly basis; the others were paid only on a daily basis. |
| On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no justification to award overtime pay and premium pay for rest days to petitioner. |
2) Burden of proof
| Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc. |
| G.R. No. 207613, 31 January 2018 |
| Notably, in determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought. |
| In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This standard follows the basic rule that in all illegal dismissal cases the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. This likewise stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents – which will show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer. |
| On the other hand, for overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is shifted on the employee, as these monetary claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days. |
| In the instant case, the records show that Minsola was given a daily wage of Php 260.00, as shown by his employment contract dated December 16, 2008. It must be noted that this amount falls below the prevailing minimum wage of Php 382.00, mandated by Wage Order No. NCR-15, effective August 28, 2008 to June 30, 2010. Clearly, Minsola is entitled to salary differentials from December 16, 2008 until January 19, 2010, in the amount of Php 41,616.64. Likewise, Minsola is entitled to service incentive leave pay differentials in the amount of Php 310.00, as the amount of service incentive leave pay he received on December 19, 2009 was only Php 1,600.00, instead of Php 1,900. He is also entitled to a 13th month pay differential of Php 2,652.00. |
| Moreover, Minsola is entitled to a holiday pay of Php 5,340.00 for two unworked legal holidays in December 2008, 11 unworked legal holidays in 2009 and one legal holiday in January 2010, as New City failed to present the payrolls that would show that Minsola’s salary was inclusive of holiday pay. |
| On the other hand, Minsola’s claims for premium pay for holiday and rest day, as well as night shift differential pay are denied for lack of factual basis, as Minsola failed to specify the dates when he worked during special days, or rest days, or between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. |
| Sampaga v. Amethyst Security and Investigation, Inc. |
| G.R. No. 227668, 06 July 2020 |
| [The complainant-employee is a security guard. He filed a labor case to claim for payment of premium pay, among others.] |
| [RESOLUTION: The claim for premium pay was denied.] |
| Jurisprudence is settled that the employee has the burden of proving his/her entitlement to overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days since these are not incurred in the normal course of business. He/she must show that he/she actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he/she in fact worked on holidays and rest days. x x x |
| We concur with LA Carpio that Sampaga failed to prove that he worked during holidays and rest days. Hence, he is not entitled to premium pay for holidays and rest days. x x x |
References
⦁ Presidential Decree No. 442, a.k.a. Labor Code of the Philippines
⦁ Book IIII, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
⦁ 2022 DOLE-BWC Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits
⦁ Cited Labor Law Jurisprudence (a.k.a. Supreme Court Decisions)
Related
Additional Resources
⦁ Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
