FERMIN REOTAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal by the National Rice and Corn Corporation, hereafter referred
to as the NARIC, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in the above entitled three (3) cases, which were jointly tried,
sentencing the NARIC: (a) in Case No. 27483 (CA-G. R. No. 20151-R), to
pay to Fermin Reotan P5,806.61, with interest thereon at the rate of 6%
per annum from September 14, 1955, plus P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and
the costs; (b) in Case No. 27484 (CA-G. R. No. 20152-R), to pay to
Silvestre Reotan P3,647.03, with interest at the same rate and from the
same date, and P500 as attorney’s fees, as well as the costs; and (c)
in Case No. 27485 (CA-G. R. No. 20153-R), to pay to Praxedes Balane
P3,819,48, with the same rate of interest and from the same date, aside
from P500 as attorney’s fees, in addition to the costs.

Plaintiffs Fermin Reotan, Silvestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane were
guards-watchmen in the agencies or branches of the NARIC in Naga,
Camarines Sur, Tabaco, Albay, and Daet, Camarines Norte, respectively,
the first, from December 1, 1946 to March 31, 1954, the second, from
July 12, 1949 to February 12, 1954, and, the last, from September 12,
1949 to March 31, 1952. Inasmuch as these agencies had each only two
(2) guards-watchmen, the latter had been required by their immediate
superiors to work in two (2) shifts of 12 hours daily each, except when
they were on vacation or sick leave of absence. Having made demands of
payment of the corresponding overtime compensation which were not
heeded by the NARIC, on July 15, 1954, plaintiffs filed their
respective claims for overtime with the Wage Administration Service,
which, on February 16, 1955, rendered decision in their favor. Inasmuch
as, this notwithstanding, the NARIC persisted in its refusal to pay
said compensation, plaintiffs instituted the present separate actions,
which were jointly heard and disposed of in one decision, as above
stated.

That plaintiffs had rendered the overtime services aforementioned
has been fully established, not only by their testimony and that of the
corresponding officers-in-charge of the agencies of the NARIC in Naga,
Tabaco, and Daet, but, also, by their respective time-records, most of
which—duly certified and found correct as to the prescribed office
hours, and bearing the signatures of the officers-in-charge—were
introduced in evidence. It was, also, proven satisfactorily that, some
time-records had been destroyed by anay, and consequently, could not be
produced in court, and that said overtime services were rendered by
order of the aforementioned officers-in-charge, because it was
necessary to protect the properties of the NARIC therein and because
the request of said officers for authority to engage additional guards
had not been approved by the management.

Upon the other hand, the NARIC maintains: (1) that its
President-Manager had ordered that “except in special cases of overtime
work specifically approved by the management to be with pay, no payment
of overtime work will be approved”, for pursuant to Resolution No. 479
of its Board of Directors, “no overtime nor meal allowance shall be
allowed unless previously approved by the General Manager and only in
cases of absolute necessity”; (2) that this case should be dismissed
because, upon petition filed by the NARIC Workers’ Union in Case No.
746-V(8) of the Court of Industrial Relations, the same extended to the
NARIC workers in the provinces, the .benefits of a partial decision,
rendered in said case, on February 16, 1953, granting differential pay
to NARIC workers in Manila who had rendered night work, overtime and
work on Sundays and legal holidays, for which reason an examiner of the
Court of Industrial Relations reported thereto, inter alia,
that plaintiffs herein, namely, Fermin Reotan, Silvestre Reotan and
Praxedes Balane were entitled, for such work, during the period from
February 1945 to January 1953, to the sums of P5.82, P193.30 and
P151.23, respectively; (3) that the Eight Hour Labor Law is
inapplicable to the NARIC; and (4) that the period during which said
plaintiffs were on leave of absence should not have been included in
the computation of the amounts due them by way of overtime according to
the decision appealed from.

1. The authority of the officers-in-charge of the NARIC agencies in
Naga, Tabaco and Daet to require plaintiffs herein to render overtime
services is not questioned. What the NARIC contests is its obligation
to pay for the aforementioned services, its President-Manager having
specifically instructed said officers-in-charge, in pursuance of a
resolution of the Board of Directors that there would be no
compensation for said services “unless previously approved by the
General Manager and only in cases of absolute necessity”. The lower
court overruled this pretense upon the ground that:

“Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 444 specifically
provides that ‘any agreement or contract between the employer and the
laborer or employee contrary to the provision of this Act shall be null
and void ab initio‘. Even in cases of disaster or calamity,
to prevent loss of life and property, Section 3 of said Commonwealth
Act No. 414 provides that ‘in all such cases the laborers and employees
shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work
performed as the same rate as the regular wages or salary, plus at
least 25 per centum additional’. Section 4 of the same Act provides
that ‘no person, firm, or corporation * * * shall compel an employee or
laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays, unless he is paid an
additional sum of at least 25 per centum of his regular remuneration.”

We are fully in accord with this view, which is in line with our decision in Manila Railroad Co. vs. CIR, G. R. No. L-4616 (July 31, 1952) in which we held that:

“If the work performed was necessary, or that it
benefited the company or that the employee could not abandon his work
at the end of his eight hour work because there was no substitute ready
to take his place and he performed overtime services upon the order of
his immediate superior, notwithstanding the fact that there was a
standing circular to the effect that before overtime work may be
performed with pay, the approval of the corresponding department head
should be secured, such overtime services are compensable inspite of
the fact that said overtime services were rendered without the prior
approval of the Department Head.”

2. On August 3, 1954—when the petition of counsel for the NARIC
Workers’ Union for extension, to the NARIC employees in the provinces,
of the benefits of the partial decision in Case No. 746-V(8) of the
Court of Industrial Relations, dated February 16, 1953, granting
additional compensation or differential pay to NARIC employees in
Manila for overtime work and work rendered on Sundays and legal
holidays, was filed—plaintiffs herein were no longer
employees of the NARIC. Hence, insofar as they are concerned, said
petition involved no more than an ordinary claim for the recovery of a
sum of money, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union vs. Mindanao Bus Co., G. R. No. L-9795, December 28, 1957; Price Stabilization Corp. [PRISCO] vs. CIR, et al., 108 Phil. 134; Ajax International Corp. vs. Seguritan, et al., 109 Phil., 813; Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. CIR, et al., 109 Phil., 816; 60 Off. Gaz., [52] 8583; Pan American World Airways System [Philippines] vs. Pan American Employees Association, 111 Phil., 126; 59 Off. Gaz., [36] 6046; Philippine Wood Products, et al. vs. CIR, et al., 112 Phil., 640; 61 Off. Gaz.; [10] 1345; Manila Port Service, et al. vs. CIR, et al., 112 Phil., 672; 58 Off. Gaz., [43] 7042).

What is more, it appears from the affidavits of plaintiffs
herein—neither the admissibility nor the accuracy of which has been
impugned by the NARIC—that the attorney for the NARIC Workers’ Union
who filed said petition had not been authorized by said plaintiffs to
represent them in the aforementioned Case No. 746-V(8). Indeed, months
before the presentation of the abovementioned petition of counsel for
the NARIC Workers’ Union, or on July 15, 1954, plaintiffs herein had
filed with the Wage Administration Service of the Department of Labor
their respective claims for the overtime services involved in the cases
at bar.

Again, the same were filed on September 14, 1955, or ten (10) months before
the filing of the report of the examiner of the Court of Industrial
Relations, dated July 10, 1956, stating that the amounts due to
plaintiffs herein as differential pay were P5.82, P193.30 and P151.23,
respectively. In any event, the NARIC does not claim that this report
of the examiner has been approved by said court. Hence, the plea of res adjudicata is groundless and the lower court did not err in sustaining its jurisdiction to hear and decide these cases.

3. In support of the theory that the Eight Hour Labor Law is inapplicable thereto, the NARIC relies upon the case of Tabora vs.
Montelibano (52 Off. Gaz., 3058), in which we held that employees of
the NARIC may not be removed except in accordance with the provisions
of the Civil Service Law and regulations. Being concerned merely with
the fixitiy of the tenure of such employees, said case is not decisive
on the question under consideration.

The Civil Service Law was, also, invoked in Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Court of Industrial Relations, (102 Phil., 515; 54 Off. Gaz., [15] 4472) and Price Stabilization Corporation vs.
PRISCO Workers’ Union, G. R. No. L-9288 (December 29, 1958), to bolster
up the theory that the Eight Hour Labor Law was not applicable to the
petitioners in both cases. Yet, this contention was overruled, upon the
ground that “section 10, Executive Order No. 350, Series of 1951,
providing that officers and employees of the PRISCO are subject to the
Civil Service Law * * * refer to the fixed tenure of office
of its officers and employees who may be removed only for cause as
provided by law”, citing precisely the case, among others of Tabora vs. Montelibano, supra. Moreover, we then said explicitly that the PRISCO

“* * * is a government-owned corporation run and
operated like any ordinary corporation which may realize profits and
incur losses and the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations
in labor disputes involving government-owned corporations is
recognized. Moreover, it is a well-established doctrine that when the
Government engages in business, it abdicates part of its sovereign
prerogatives and descends to the level of a citizen, and thereby
subjects itself to the laws and regulations governing the relation of
labor and management. Additional compensation for overtime, Sundays and
legal holidays’ work, and for night time work, have been granted to
labor.”

The applicability of this ruling to the NARIC becomes more apparent
when we consider that the same, like the Price Stabilization
Corporation (PRISCO), has been created inter alia to
stabilize prices—with the only difference that the former is concerned
with those of rice and corn (Republic Act No. 663, Section I), whereas
the latter seeks to prevent “scarcity, monopolization, hoarding, speculation, manipulation and profiteering
affecting the supply, distribution and movement” (and hence to
stabilize the price) not only of rice and corn, but, also, of other
products—and that the Civil Service Law has been made applicable to the
NARIC by the same Executive Order No. 399, Series of 1951, which
extended its operation to the PRISCO.

4. It appearing that Fermin Reotan had been on leave of absence for
36 days and that Silvestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane had been absent
for one (1) day and four (4) days, respectively, and that these
absences had not been considered in computing the overtime compensation
due to said plaintiffs, it is clear that the corresponding deductions
should be made therefrom.

With this modification, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, and let these cases be
remanded to the lower court for determination of the amount of said
deductions, without special pronouncement as to the costs of this
instance. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.