G.R. No. L-24394. August 30, 1968
JUANITO CARLOS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, AS MAYOR, CITY OF MANILA AND/OR EULOGIO SAMIO, AS CHIEF, MANILA FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR MANUEL CUDIAMAT, AS TREASUR…
ANGELES, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila dismissing the petition for mandamus (Civil Case No. 53514)
seeking to order the respondents to cause the City of Manila to pay petitioner
and other members of the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire Department
(MFD) for overtime services rendered from January 1, 1962, up to the date when
the petition was filed January 4, 1963; to enforce immediately the 40-Hour a Week Law to petitioner and said
other members of the MFD; and to pay damages sustained by them as a consequence of the acts complained of.
The facts of the case are
set forth in the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties in the lower
court, to wit:
“1. Under Sec. 15
of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
(Rep. Act 409, as amended), ‘there shall be a chief of the Fire
Department, x x
x who shall have the management and control of all
matters relating to the administration of said department, and the
organization, government, discipline, and disposition of fire forces; x x x’ /Underscoring provided/
“2. Pursuant to
the foregoing provision, from September 16, 1957, to the present, the
petitioner and other members of the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire
Department have been required and ordered by the Chief of the Manila Fire Department,
upon approval of the City Mayor, the Commissioner of the Civil Service and the Office of the President, to be 24 hours
on duty and 24 hours off duty, alternately; that is, a member of the
MFD Uniformed Force Dviision reports to his station at 8:00 o’clock in the
morning and continues on duty until 8:00 o’clock of the following morning for
24 hours; he is then off duty for the
next 24 hours immediately thereafter; this schedule continuous
throughout the days of the week regardless of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays;
for an average of eighty-four (84) hours
a week the firemen stay at the station and while there, their duties are to
clean and maintain the station, fire engines or apparatuses and equipments, to
respond to fire and to perform other duties required by ordinances and laws; during the 24 hours’
stay in the station, unless they are out working to fight and
extinguish fires, the firemen are given time to rest from 12:00 o’clock noon to
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, and time to sleep from 9:00 o’clock in the
evening to 6:00 o’clock the
following morning.
“3. On July 10, 1957, the Chief of the Manila Fire
Department requested the Office of the President of the Philippines for
authority, in the interest of the service, for the members of the Uniformed Force Division and of the Fire Alarm
and Radio Division of the department to render service without overtime pay
beyond the 40-hour 5 day – a week requirement of the law.
“4. On December 9,
1962, a petition was addressed to the Mayor, City of Manila, through the Chief,
Fire Department, Manila, claiming payment for overtime services rendered
effective January 1, 1962 and demanding the enforcement of the 40 – hour a week
work law with respect to the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire Department, and the reply thereto was that services rendered beyond a regular period fixed
by R.A. No. 1880 will not entitle the employee to overtime pay
as a matter of legal right, citing Opinion No. 218, Series of 1957, of the Secretary of Justice.
“5. On
December 26, 1962, petitioner addressed a petition to His Excellency, the President of
the Philippines, petitioning also the latter to order the City of Manila to pay
petitioner and other members of the
MFD Uniformed Force Division for overtime services rendered during 1962 and caused to be enforced the
40-hour a week law and there was no favorable reply.
“6. The parties herein reserve the right to submit additional evidence
should a
necessity therefor
arise.”
No additional evidence
was submitted thereafter, and upon the foregoing stipulation of facts and the
law applicable thereon, the lower court dismissed the petition.
The issue for adjudication is whether the petitioner-appellant and
other firemen similarly situated
are entitled to collect overtime pay for overtime services rendered by them
since January 1, 1962.
The provisions of law that resolve the issue are neither those of
Republic Act 1880, otherwise,
known as the Forty-Hour Week
Work Law, nor Commonwealth Act 444, the
Eight-Hour Labor Law, as suggested by the petitioner-appellant, but the
following sections of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit:
“SEC. 566. Extension of hours and requirement of overtime
work. – When the interests of the
public service so require, the head of any Department, Bureau, or Office may extend the daily
hours of labor, in what manner so ever fixed, for any or all of the
employees under him, and may likewise require any or all of them to do overtime
work not only on work days but
also on holidays.”
“SEC. 259. Inhibition
against payment of extra compensation.
– In the absence of special provision, persons regularly and permanently
appointed under the Civil Service Law or whose salary, wages or emoluments are
fixed by law or regulation shall not, for any service rendered or labor done by them on holidays or for other overtime
work, receive or be paid any additional compensation; nor, in the
absence of special provision, shall any officer or employee in any
branch of the Government service
receive additional compensation on
account of the discharge of duties pertaining to the position of another or for
the performance of any public service whatever, whether such service is
rendered voluntarily or exacted of him under authority of law.”
The petitioner-appellant
contends that the above-quoted portions of the Revised Administrative Code have
been repealed by the provisions of Commonwealth Act 444, in so far as the
provisions of the former are inconsistent with the latter. The contention is erroneous. This Court has explicitly declared[1] that the Eight-Hour Labor Law was not intended to apply to civil service employees who are still governed
by the above provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. As there appears
to be no debate over the employment of
petitioner-appellant and the other firemen similarly situated as falling under
the civil service, they being employees of the City of Manila, a municipal corporation, in its governmental capacity, We perceive no reason
to deviate from said ruling. And as We hold that the above sections of the Revised Administrative Code are
still legally in force, it necessarily follows that Rule XV, section 3 of the Civil Service Rules, a similar provision promulgated
pursuant to that of Section 16 (e) of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (Republic Act No. 2260) is likewise
applicable to petitioner-appellant.
Said provision reads:
“SEC. 3. When the nature of the duties to be performed or the
interest of the public service so requires, the head of any Department or
agency may extend the daily hours of
work specified for any or all the employees under him, and such extension
shall be without additional compensation unless otherwise provided by law. Officers and employees may be required by the
head of the Department or agency to work on Saturdays, Sundays and public
holidays also, without additional compensation, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by law.”
It needs no lengthy explanation that the nature of work of a
fireman requires him to be always on the alert to respond to fire
alarms which may occur at any time of the day, for the exigency of the service
necessitates a round-the-clock observance of his duties, which situation
excepts him from the applicability of Section 562 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as amended by Republic Act 1880, the
Forty-Hour a Week Work Law, which provides, in part:
“Such hours, except for schools, courts, hospitals and health
clinics or where the exigencies of service so require, shall be as prescribed in the Civil Service
Rules and as otherwise from time to time disposed in temporary executive
orders in the discretion of the President of the Philippines but shall be eight
(8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week or a total of forty (40) hours a
week, exclusive of the time for lunch.”/Underscoring supplied/
Parallel to the instant case are the circumstances obtaining in
Department of Public Services Labor Union vs. CIR, et al.,[2]
where this Court held that in view of the exigency of the service, garbage
collectors in Manila are not entitled to the benefits of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law.
In the light of the
foregoing, the conclusion is inevitable that the petitioner-appellant and other
firemen of his situation are not entitled to overtime pay and to the coverage
of the said Forty-Hour a Week Work Law.
Parenthetically, a side issue has come up in
this appeal during its pendency, and that is whether or not the City Fiscal of Manila should continue his appearance
for the respondents-appellees, despite the creation
of the office and subsequent
appointment of a City Legal Officer of Manila, pursuant to Republic Act 5185,
known as the Decentralization Act of 1957, to take charge of civil cases
concerning the City. We believe this is not the proper forum to first pass upon the question
since the motion for withdrawal of appearance filed by the City Fiscal and the opposition thereto put at issue the validity of an ordinance[3]
passed by the City Council of Manila which is alleged to be in conflict with
the said Decentralization Act. Anyway,
the said motion for withdrawal of appearance was filed only on May 19,
1968, long after August 18, 1965, when
the case had been rested for resolution and when there
was no more need for further representation in behalf of the parties.
IN VIEW
OF THE FOREGOING, the
decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. For
equitable considerations, no costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Namarco vs. Prisco
Workers Union, et al. vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-19945, Dec. 29, 1966, citing Nawasa vs. NWSA Consolidated Unions, et al., G.R.
No. L-18938, Aug. 31, 1964.
[2]
G.R. No. L-15458, January 28, 1961.
[3]
Ordinance No. 6485.