ATLAS TEXTILE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GREGORIO LIM, VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ATLAS-PTGWO, RESPONDENT-AP…

The respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa
Atlas-PTGWO, in behalf of its members who are employees of the petitioner Atlas
Textile Development Corporation brought suit against the latter and its general
manager, Gregorio Lim, in the Court of Industrial Relations upon two causes of
action, to wit:

“1. Underpayment and/or inadequate grant of night work differential
for periods December 1, 1964
to present;

“2. Non-payment of overtime pay during Sundays
and/or legal holidays for periods December 1, 1964 to present.”

After hearing duly had, the CIR absolved
the company on the first cause of action, but upheld the union on the second,
and consequently ordered the computation of overtime pay due to certain
employees of the petitioner company.  The
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the banc.

Only the petitioners Atlas Textile Development Corporation and
Gregorio Lim have appealed – on the sole issue of the correctness of the CIR’s order respecting the matter of overtime pay.  The respondent union did not appeal from the
CIR order rejecting its claim for night premium pay.

The facts pertinent to the lone issue presented are not
complicated.

1.     
By reason of the production
requirements of the petitioner company, its workers were organized into several
work shifts fitting into a twenty-four-hour workday for an entire seven-day
week.  The regular shift works from 8:00 o’clock in the morning to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, with an hour’s
lunch break at noon.  In addition to the regular shift are three
irregular work-shifts:  the first works
from 10:00 o’clock in the evening to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the
following day; the second immediately takes over and works up to 2:00 o’clock
in the afternoon; and the third commences work at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon
and continues on to 10:00 o’clock in the evening.  It is with respect to the first irregular
shift (from 10:00 o’clock in
the evening to 6:00 o’clock in the
morning of the following day) that the present controversy arose.

2.     
The records show – and this is
admitted by the petitioners – that when the first irregular shift commences
work at 10:00 o’clock in the evening of a Sunday or a holiday and continues on
to 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the following ordinary workday, the company
treats the entire period as a regular, non-overtime work period and
consequently compensates the same on the basis of the regular pay rate.  The fraction of two hours falling on a Sunday
or a holiday is not regarded as requiring a different computation based on
prevailing overtime pay rates.

3.     
Upon the other hand, when this
same first irregular shift works from 10:00 o’clock in the evening of a
Saturday or an ordinary day and winds up at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the
following Sunday or holiday, the company grants the members of that shift
overtime pay computed on the basis of eight hours instead of only
six.  Thus, the members of the first
irregular shift are paid non-demandable overtime remuneration for the two
hours’ work done on a Saturday or an ordinary calendar day.  This fact is supported by the testimony of
Manuel Agtarap cited in the order under review and
not denied by the respondent union. 
There is no indication in the pleadings that the collective bargaining
agreement between the two parties requires the company to treat the two-hour
period from 10:00 p.m.
Saturday to 12:00 midnight of the same day as an overtime pay period.

The issue thus posed is whether upon the facts above set forth,
the petitioner company has fully complied with the statutory mandate requiring
employers to pay their employees addi­tional overtime remuneration for work
rendered during Sundays and legal holidays.

Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 444, as amended, other­wise known
as the “Eight-Hour Labor Law,” specifically recites:

“No person, firm or corporation, business establishment or
place or center of labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during
Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an additional sum of at least
twenty-five per centum of his regular remuneration:  Provided, however, That this
prohibition shall not apply to public utilities performing some public service
such as supplying gas, electricity, power, water, or providing means of
transportation or communication.”

While there can be no question that the two-hour work done by the
members of the first irregular shift from 10:00 o’clock to 12:00 midnight of a
Sunday or a legal holiday would ordinarily warrant the payment of the proper
overtime remuneration, we cannot, upon the other hand, close our eyes to the
fact that the same members of that shift are paid by the petitioner
company – although the latter is clearly under no legal obligation to do so –
overtime pay for the two-hour work done by that shirt from 10:00 o’clock to
12:00 midnight of the proceeding Saturday or ordinary workday.  We therefore hold that in the final reckoning
the members of the first irregular shift have suffered no actual deprivation of
income pertaining to the two-hour work done by them from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00
midnight on a Sunday or a legal
holiday.  Although the re­cords do not so
reveal, it may very well be that the company adopted this payroll practice for
the purpose of simplifying bookkeeping. 
In the end, what is paramount under the environmental milieu is that the
workers here involved have, under applicable laws, been properly and fully
compensated for their labor, and that the petitioner company has substantially
complied with the requirements of law.

ACCORDINGLY, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations
appealed from is set aside, and the complaint of the petitioner union is hereby
dismissed.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did not take part.