G.R. No. 159577 May 3, 2006
Nature of Employment
Facts: Petitioner Charlito Peñaranda was hired as Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. In May 2001, Peñaranda filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against BPC and its general manager, Hudson Chua, before the NLRC. He alleges that his services were terminated without due process and valid grounds in accordance with law and that he was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials.
BPC, on the other hand, allege
that complainant’s separation from service was done pursuant to Art. 283 of the
Labor Code. He opted to severe employment when he insisted payment of his
separation benefits. Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not
entitled to overtime pay and if ever he rendered services beyond the normal
hours of work, there was no office order/or authorization for him to do so.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor
of BPC but found petitioner entitled to overtime pay, premium pay for working
on rest days, and attorney’s fees.
NLRC ruled that Penaranda was a
managerial employee and deleted the award of overtime pay and premium pay for
working on rest days.
CA denied Petitioner’s appeal.
Issue: Whether Penaranda
is entitled to the payment of OVERTIME PAY and OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS.
Held: No. The Court disagrees
with the NLRC’s finding that petitioner was a managerial employee. However,
petitioner 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."
Petitioner 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, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff.
Noteworthy, even petitioner
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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is
DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment