489 SCRA 94 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Overtime Pay and Premium Pay of Managerial Employees
In June 1999, Peñaranda was hired by Baganga Plywood Corporation (owned by Hudson Chua) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. Peñaranda was employed as a Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer tasked to do the following tasks among others:
“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.
“5. To train new employees for effective and safety while working.
“7. To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion, or disciplinary action.
In 2001, BPC shut down due to some repairs and maintenance. BPC did not technically fire Peñaranda but due to the latter’s insistence, BPC gave him his separation benefits.
BPC subsequently reopened but Peñaranda did not reapply.
Peñaranda now claims that BPC still needed to pay him his overtime pays and premium pays.
The NLRC ruled that Peñaranda is a managerial employee and as such he is not entitled to overtime and premium pay as stated under the Labor Code. Peñaranda appealed. He said that he is not a managerial employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Peñaranda is entitled to overtime and premium pay.
HELD: No. Though there is an error made by the NLRC in finding Peñaranda as a managerial employee, the Supreme Court still ruled that Peñaranda is not entitled to overtime and premium pay.
Peñaranda is not a managerial employee. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, managerial employees are those that perform the following:
“(1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof;
“(2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein;
“(3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.”
Peñaranda does not meet the above requirements.
Peñaranda is instead considered as a managerial staff. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, managerial staffs are those that perform the following:
“(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.”
Peñaranda’s function as a shift engineer illustrates that he 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.
Peñaranda 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.
Further, Peñaranda in his position paper admitted that he was a supervisor for BPC. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff.Read full text