Manila Terminal Co V CIR

Manila Terminal Co. V.
Cir and Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association

July 16, 1952
FACTS:
On September 1, 1945, the Manila Terminal Company, Inc. hereinafter to be referred as to the
petitioner, undertook the arrastre service in some of the piers in Manila's Port Area at the request and
under the control of the United States Army. The petitioner hired some thirty men as watchmen on
twelve-hour shifts at a compensation of P3 per day for the day shift and P6 per day for the night shift.
The watchmen of the petitioner continued in the service with a number of substitutions and additions,
their salaries having been raised during the month of February to P4 per day for the day shift and P6.25
per day for the nightshift. Hence, the private respondent, Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid
Association, sent a letter addressed to the DOLE for the investigation of the overtime pay.
Later on, the petitioner instituted the system of strict eight-hour shifts. On July 28, 1947, Manila
Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association filed an amended petition with the Court of Industrial
Relations praying, among others, that the petitioner be ordered to pay its watchmen or police force
overtime pay from the commencement of their employment.
On May 9, 1949, by virtue of Customs Administrative Order No. 81 and Executive Order No. 228 of the
President of the Philippines, the entire police force of the petitioner was consolidated with the Manila
Harvor Police of the Customs Patrol Service, a Government agency under the exclusive control of the
Commissioner of Customs and the Secretary of Finance The Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid
Association will hereafter be referred to as the Association.
CIR Ruling:
Judge Jimenez Yanson rendered a decision which ordered the petitioner to pay to its police force.
However, with regards to the pay for overtime service after the watchmen had been integrated into the
Manila Harbor Police, Judge Yanson ruled that the court has no jurisdiction because it affects the Bureau
of Customs, an instrumentality of the Government having no independent personality and which cannot
be sued without the consent of the State.
Hence, Judge Yanson et al. ruled that to pay the private respondents there:
a) overtime on regular days at the regular rate and in additional amount of 25 percent
b) overtime on Sunday and legal holidays at the regular rate only and;
c) watchmen are not entitled to night differentials pay for the past services.
ISSUE:
W/N the overtime pay should be granted to the watchmen
RULING:
YES, the petitioner’s watchmen should be entitled overtime pay with respect to the Eight Hour Law
which is the mandatory hours of work given to a worker. Hence, anything beyond 8-hour period should
be entitled an additional compensation.
It is stressed by the petitioner is that the contract between it and the Association upon the
commencement of the employment of its watchman was to the certain rates of pay, including overtime
compensation. Thus, it is untenable since, the petitioner has relied merely on the facts that its
watchmen had worked on twelve-hour shifts at specific wages per day.
In the said case, there was an agreement to work, wherein the watchmen found themselves required to
work for twelve hours a day in exchange for the thought that they would then have an income on which
to subsist. Thus, in times of acute unemployment, the people, urged by the instinct of self-preservation,
go from place to place and from office to office in search for any employment, regardless of its terms
and conditions, their main concern in the first place being admission to some work.
One of the petitioner’s contention is that the association had accept in the twelve-hour shifts for more
than 18 months. Hence, the watchmen already waived their rights for extra compensation. The Court
ruled in negative. Citing the similar case of Detective & Protective Bureau, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations and United Employees Welfare Association, it is true that, the watchmen did not claim for
overtime pay, however, it cannot be said that they waived the said overtime pay because the law gives
them the right to extra compensation. Hence, if they could not be held to have impliedly waived such
extra compensation, for the obvious reason that could not have expressly waived it.
Invocation of the principle of estoppel and the laches Petitioner:

The principle of estoppel and the laches cannot well be invoked against the Association. In the first
place, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Eight Hour Labor Law, under which has already seen, the
laborers cannot waive their right to extra compensation. In the second place, the law principally
obligates the employer to observe it, so much so that it punishes the employer for its violation and
leaves the employee or laborer free and blameless. In the third place, the employee or laborer is in such
a disadvantageous position as to be naturally reluctant or even apprehensive in asserting any claim
which may cause the employer to devise a way for exercising his right to terminate the employment.
Commonwealth Act No. 444 or “Eight-Hour Labor Law (prevailing law)

Under Sec. 6 of the same act, "any agreement or contract between the employer and the laborer or
employee contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be null avoid ab initio," Hence, any participation or
acquiescence of the employee or laborer that they must work more than 8 hours as required by the
law is indispensable, because the latter in view of his need and desire to live, cannot be considered as
being on the same level with the employer when it comes to the question of applying for and accepting
an employment.
Under sections 3 and 5 expressly provides for the payment of extra compensation in cases where
overtime services are required, with the result that the employees or laborers are entitled to collect
such extra compensation for past overtime work. Hence, failure of the employer to provide it to the
employee shall constitute to violation of the said act.
In conclusion, the public is interested in the strict enforcement of the Eight-Hour Labor Law. This was
designed not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the laborer or employee, but in a way to
minimize unemployment by forcing employers, in cases where more than 8-hour operation is
necessary, to utilize different shifts of laborers or employees working only for eight hours each.

Manila Terminal Co V CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manila Terminal Co V CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manila Terminal Co V CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manila Terminal Co. V.

Cir and Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association

Invocation of the principle of estoppel and the laches Petitioner:

Commonwealth Act No. 444 or “Eight-Hour Labor Law (prevailing law)

You might also like