562 Phil. 670
[Respondents] were among the "Supervisory Security Guards" of the Beer Division of the San Miguel Corporation (p. 10, Rollo), a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with offices at No. 40 San Miguel Avenue, Mandaluyong City. They started working as guards with the petitioner San Miguel Corporation assigned to the Beer Division on different dates until such time that they were promoted as supervising security guards. The dates of their employment commenced as follows (Ibid., pp. 87-89):On 1 December 1994, respondents filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, and violation of the equal protection clause and due process of law in relation to paragraphs 6 and 8 of Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Respondents prayed for actual damages for two years (1993-1994), moral damages, exemplary damages, and overtime, holiday, and night premium pay.
As guards As supervising guards a. Aponesto, Carlos June 1970 February 1983 b. Baldugo, Paulino November 1978 May 1984 c. Barit, Quezon January 1969 May 1984 d. Botor, Bonifacio April 1980 January 1987 e. De Mesa, Juan November 1977 May 1984 f. Calina, Herminio February 1976 May 1984 g. Desembrana, Reynold November 1976 April 1983 h. Camingal, Danilo December 1975 December 1985 i. Deus, Bernardito July 1976 May 1983 j. Fillarta, Eduardo January 1979 May 1989 k. Francisco, Maximiano October 1977 May 1984 l. Layoc, Numeriano June 1974 January 1982 m. Marilim, Mario December 1977 June 1984 n. Mateo, Demetrio November 1976 March 1984 o. Mendoza, Filomena March 1980 May 1983 p. Palines, Francisco May 1979 May 1985 q. Nieva, Conrado January 1977 June 1987 r. Polintan, Felipe June 1972 May 1983 s. Satorre, Malcolm September 1970 May 1984 t. Torres, Alejandro January 1974 May 1984
As supervising security guards, the private respondents were performing the following functions (Ibid., pp. 202-204):
From the commencement of their employment, the private respondents were required to punch their time cards for purposes of determining the time they would come in and out of the company's work place. Corollary [sic], the private respondents were availing the benefits for overtime, holiday and night premium duty through time card punching (Rollo, p. 89). However, in the early 1990's, the San Miguel Corporation embarked on a Decentralization Program aimed at enabling the separate divisions of the San Miguel Corporation to pursue a more efficient and effective management of their respective operations (Ibid., p. 99).
- Supervises the facility security force under his shift;
- Inspects all company-owned firearms and ammunition and promptly submits report as regards to discrepancy and/or state of doubtful/suspected serviceability;
- Receives and transfers from outgoing to incoming supervising security guard all company property, all official papers, documents and/or cases investigated including pieces of evidence properly labeled and secured;
- Physically checks and accounts for all company property within his area of responsibility immediately upon assumption of duty;
- Updates compilation of local security rules, policies and regulations and ensures that all his guards are posted thereon;
- Conducts regular and irregular inspection to determine his guards' compliance with all guard force instructions, corporate security standards and procedures;
- Passes on all official communications, requests, applications of leaves, etc. and makes his comments and/or recommendations to his superior;
- Systematically and continuously screens the good performers from the marginal or poor among his guards; concentrates on teaching and guiding the latter; determines further what training and/or skills that should be learned and submits appropriate report to superior;
- Corrects, on the spot, all deficiencies noted and institutes corrective measures within his authority; recommends commendations for those guards who deserves [sic] recognition for good work;
- Conducts an investigation of all cases coming to his attention and promptly submits appropriate report to his superiors;
- Evaluates individual guard performance and renders efficiency reports in accordance with standing instructions;
- Ensures that all his guards are courteous, respectful and accommodating at all times;
- Ensures that even those who have been found violating the facility's policies, rules and procedures are professionally treated with courtesy and understanding to preclude embarrassment and humiliation;
- Ensures the maintenance of [a] logbook of all incidents, communications, personnel and materials' movements;
- Responds to all calls for assistance;
- Conducts continuing physical checks of the facility's critical and vulnerable areas;
- Obtains critical security information and passes it on to his superiors;
- Assesses the need for extra guard service requirements;
- Continuously monitors the personal needs and problems of his men to his superiors;
- Acts as Detachment Commander in the latter's absence;
- Responds to emergencies and activates the Corporate Security Alerting System as appropriate; and
- Performs such other duties as may be required by his Detachment Commander/Plant Security Officer.
As a result of the Decentralization Program, the Beer Division of the San Miguel Corporation implemented on January 1, 1993 a "no time card policy" whereby the Supervisory I and II composing of the supervising security guards of the Beer Division were no longer required to punch their time cards (Ibid., p. 100). Consequently, on January 16, 1993, without prior consultation with the private respondents, the time cards were ordered confiscated and the latter were no longer allowed to render overtime work (Ibid., p. 117).
However, in lieu of the overtime pay and the premium pay, the personnel of the Beer Division of the petitioner San Miguel Corporation affected by the "No Time Card Policy" were given a 10% across-the-board increase on their basic pay while the supervisors who were assigned in the night shift (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) were given night shift allowance ranging from P2,000.00 to P2,500.00 a month (Rollo, p. 12).
WHEREFORE, the [petitioners] are hereby ordered to restore to the [respondents] their right to earn for overtime services rendered as enjoyed by the other employees.On 26 May 1998, petitioners filed their notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The [petitioners] are further ordered to indemnify the [respondents] for lost earnings after their terms and conditions of employment have been unilaterally altered by the [petitioners], namely in the amount of P500,000.00 each as computed by the [respondents], and the [petitioners] failed to refute.
[Petitioners] are furthermore ordered to pay the [respondents] P100,000.00 each as moral and exemplary damages.
All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of evidence.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with slight modification deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages.Both petitioners and respondents filed their respective motions for reconsideration. Petitioners stated that the NLRC erred in sustaining the award of overtime pay despite its finding that respondents were managerial personnel. Furthermore, there was no evidence that respondents rendered overtime work and respondents admitted that they never or seldom rendered overtime work. The award of overtime pay was thus contrary to the principle of no work, no pay. For their part, respondents stated that the NLRC erred in deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages. The implementation of the "no time card policy," the discrimination against them vis-a-vis the supervising security officers in other divisions of SMC, and the execution of quitclaims and releases during the pendency of the case were all attended with bad faith, thus warranting the award of moral and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the November 27, 1998 Decision of this Commission is hereby REITERATED with a slight modification to the effect that the computation of the [respondents]' withdrawn benefits at P125,000.00 yearly from 1993 should terminate in 1996 or the date of each complainant's retirement, whichever came first.Petitioners then filed their petition for certiorari before the appellate court on 16 November 1999.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the instant petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and is GRANTED. The Decision issued in NLRC NCR CASE No. 00-12-08656-94 dated March 23, 1998, the Decision issued in NLRC CA No. 015710-98 dated November 27, 1998 and the Resolution dated August 31, 1999, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is hereby entered ordering the petitioners to pay as follows:Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling, petitioners filed a petition before this Court.
1) the private respondent Numeriano Layoc, Jr., the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand (P125,000.00) Pesos per year, representing overtime pay for overtime services that he could have rendered computed from the date of the implementation of the "no time card policy" or on January 1993 and up to the date of his retirement on June 30, 1997; and
2) the other private respondents, the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos each as nominal damages.
There are, of course, settled distinctions between a petition for review as a mode of appeal and a special civil action for certiorari, thus:Respondents' contention that the present petition should be denied for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court is, therefore, incorrect.
- In appeal by certiorari, the petition is based on questions of law which the appellant desires the appellate court to resolve. In certiorari as an original action, the petition raises the issue as to whether the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
- Certiorari, as a mode of appeal, involves the review of the judgment, award or final order on the merits. The original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment or where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
- Appeal by certiorari must be made within the reglementary period for appeal. An original action for certiorari may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed.
- Appeal by certiorari stays the judgment, award or order appealed from. An original action for certiorari, unless a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order shall have been issued, does not stay the challenged proceeding.
- In appeal by certiorari, the petitioner and respondent are the original parties to the action, and the lower court or quasi-judicial agency is not to be impleaded. In certiorari as an original action, the parties are the aggrieved party against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency and the prevailing parties, who thereby respectively become the petitioner and respondents.
- In certiorari for purposes of appeal, the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration is not required (Sec. 1, Rule 45); while in certiorari as an original action, a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent (Villa-Rey Transit vs. Bello, L-18957, April 23, 1963), subject to certain exceptions.
- In appeal by certiorari, the appellate court is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power of review for, while in certiorari as an original action, the higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. (Emphasis added)
Aside from their allegations, respondents were not able to present anything to prove that petitioners were obliged to permit respondents to render overtime work and give them the corresponding overtime pay. Even if petitioners did not institute a "no time card policy," respondents could not demand overtime pay from petitioners if respondents did not render overtime work. The requirement of rendering additional service differentiates overtime pay from benefits such as thirteenth month pay or yearly merit increase. These benefits do not require any additional service from their beneficiaries. Thus, overtime pay does not fall within the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Number of Hours
Received (in Pesos)
1974 - Appointment as guard No record No record 1975 No record No record 1976 No record No record 1977 No record No record 1978 1,424.00 5,214.88 1979 1,312.56 5,189.30 1980 1,357.50 5,155.71 1981 474.00 1,781.81 1982 - Appointment as supervising security guard No record No record 1983 947.50 6,304.33 1984 889.00 8,937.00 1985 898.00 12,337.47 1986 1,086.60 18,085.34 1987 1,039.50 32,109.85 1988 633.00 29,126.10 1989 723.50 39,594.55 1990 376.50 21,873.33 1991 149.50 12,694.97 1992 144.00 17,403.38 1993 0.50 47.69 1994 0.00 0.00 1995 0.00 0.00
x x x
Managerial employees, x x x
Officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform the following duties and responsibilities:
The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer;
Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
(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
Who do not devote more than 20% of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above.