CASE DIGEST
CAMBILA, JR., ET AL. V. SEABREN SECURITY AGENCY
[G.R. No. 261716, October 21, 2024]
THIRD DIVISION, INTING, J.
Overtime Pay; Security Guards; Burden of Proof; Daily Time Records (DTRs); Broken Period Scheme; Compensable Working Time.
Daily Time Records (DTRs) countersigned
by the client’s authorized representative may constitute prima facie proof of
the actual hours worked (including overtime), especially where the employer
fails to rebut their authenticity/accuracy. Moreover, a purported “break
period” remains compensable working time when the employee is effectively
required to remain at or near the workplace and the interval is too brief or
impractical to be used gainfully for the employee’s own benefit. Employers
cannot evade overtime pay obligations through artificial “broken period”
schemes.
Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad were employed as security guards by Seabren Security Agency and were assigned to Ecoland 4000 Residences in Davao City. They alleged that they regularly rendered 12-hour shifts from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., without corresponding overtime pay. They likewise claimed nonpayment of salary differentials and 13th-month pay.
Seabren denied liability and argued that the guards only worked eight hours daily under a “broken period” arrangement. Under this scheme, each guard allegedly had a four-hour break between work periods and was therefore not entitled to overtime compensation. However, Seabren admitted that, in practice, the guards usually remained within the premises during the supposed break period rather than leaving the workplace.
To support
their claims, petitioners presented Daily Time Records (DTRs) showing
continuous 12-hour duty schedules. The DTRs were signed by the petitioners and
countersigned by Evelyn Adtoon, the manager of Ecoland. The Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC found the DTRs credible and awarded overtime pay. On certiorari,
however, the Court of Appeals deleted the overtime pay award, reasoning that
the DTRs were not signed by any representative of Seabren and therefore lacked
probative value.
Whether the CA erred in deleting the award of overtime pay—specifically, whether DTRs countersigned by the client’s authorized representative may be used to prove petitioners’ overtime work.
YES. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the NLRC Decision awarding overtime pay to petitioners.
The Court held that in claims for overtime pay, the burden initially rests upon the employee to prove that he rendered work beyond the regular eight-hour workday. Petitioners successfully discharged this burden through the presentation of their DTRs, which reflected continuous work from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. without interruption.
The Court rejected the CA’s conclusion
that the DTRs lacked evidentiary value merely because they were not signed by a
Seabren representative. It emphasized that the DTRs were countersigned by
Evelyn Adtoon, the manager of Ecoland, the very establishment where petitioners
were assigned. Accordingly, the DTRs constituted competent and credible
evidence of the hours worked by petitioners.
The Court further ruled that the DTRs established a prima facie case that petitioners rendered overtime work. Significantly, respondents failed to present convincing evidence to rebut the entries therein. In fact, Seabren’s own Duty Detail Orders showed work schedules running from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., thereby corroborating the employees’ claim of 12-hour duty schedules.
The Court also rejected Seabren’s
reliance on the alleged four-hour break period. It noted that Seabren
admitted that the guards generally remained within the premises during the
supposed break. Applying Book III, Rule I, Section 4(d) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code, the Court held that periods of inactivity
remain compensable if the interruption is too brief or impractical to be
utilized effectively and gainfully for the employee’s own interest. Given
the nature of the work, the low wages of the guards, and the impracticality of
leaving the premises only to return a few hours later, the supposed break
period remained compensable working time.
The Court concluded that Seabren’s “broken
period” arrangement was merely a device to circumvent labor standards laws and
avoid paying overtime compensation. Thus, petitioners were entitled to
overtime pay and the corresponding monetary awards granted by the NLRC.
No comments:
Post a Comment